Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lyth]

...

That really depends. If you believe that the elimination of strife is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a 'perfect society', then that would be correct. But then the question arises of what you would be willing to sacrifice to attain that ideal. Your individuality? Your personal freedom? If you're unwilling to part with these things either, then it's not a necessary and sufficient condition. And when you acknowledge that other people might also have their own personal set of requirements on what defines 'perfect', then it all starts to come unraveled.

Like I said earlier, none of the societies portrayed appeals to me personally as 'ideal', so I'd take issue with calling them 'perfect'. I would not wish to live in any of them, Amaurot included, simply because being part of a hivemind does not appeal to me. You might have a different viewpoint, but that's just your viewpoint.

The tangential discussion about societal progress is irrelevant. People will always seek to improve their lives in accordance with their own personal ideals. But to claim that those ideals are identical and uniform for all human beings is ignorant. That's why a 'utopia' is a contradiction in terms.

[CrownySuccubus]

That really depends. If you believe that the elimination of strife is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a 'perfect society', then that would be correct. But then the question arises of what you would be willing to sacrifice to attain that ideal. Your individuality? Your personal freedom? If you're unwilling to part with these things either, then it's not a necessary and sufficient condition. And when you acknowledge that other people might also have their own personal set of requirements on what defines 'perfect', then it all starts to come unraveled.

Which is exactly the problem with the Plenty; it's an argument of semantics. They "eliminated all sorrow and strife", but didn't notice that they also eliminated joy as well. The plot does not treat THIS as a form of "sorrow and strife" to work toward eliminating as well.

That's exactly the problem here. Any form of "perfection" or "all" does not exist in reality, and thus is semantically defined by whatever the writers choose. If you tell me that a society of wise, all-powerful aliens "got rid of all suffering and strife", but then began to suffer because they forgot they got rid of joy, too, I'd argue "So why didn't they just get rid of THAT, too"? If the response is, "because they realized it was impossible, then my second response is, "Then the premise doesn't work. They're killing themselves because they can't find any suffering or strife to create joy from, despite that being a form of suffering and strife".

[KariTheFox]

I never read the Plenty as people who were "suffering". They seemed quite content with thier static, unchanging existance. It was only when reintroduced to the concept of death by Meteion that they decided that they might as well peacefully and blissfully move on.

It's essentially the concept that the Ancients had of returning to the star when thier purpose in life was fufilled, applied to an entire society. Which is "always beautiful" according to the cultural values of the Ancients.

The way I saw the plenty was not Meteion trying to convince us that suffering is inescapable because these aliens in robes got bored, but that even a race that has achieved perfection and tranquility in life will end up choosing the sweet embrace of death, after all, isn't it always beautiful? Look at how content they are and how blissfully they embrace thier end, everyone deserves that gift.

[CrownySuccubus]

The Plenty is presented as a society that entered a catastrophic existential crisis after being questioned by an outside party. The level of horror and dissatisfaction they express, along with the profound relief they feel at being given an alternative in the form of oblivion, cannot be described in good faith as anything but "suffering".

Like, if you conclude that existence is so terrible that you can't wait for the sweet release of death, I think trying to use other words to describe it other than just "suffering" strikes me as hair-splitting.

[KariTheFox]

I don't recall the denizens of the Plenty ever expressing "horror" or having a existensial crisis. They seemed very calm and tranquil in thier existance and in thier decision to end it. The most negative thing they seemed to experience is simply "apathy".

It's important to remember that the Plenty, like all the races of Ultima Thule are being used as arguments by Meteion for why everyone should die. Meteion is the one saying that life is horrible, and the Plenty are being held up as an example of peacefully embracing death.

The challenging question is "why shouldn't they?". They have achieved everything they ever wanted to, and existed in a static, unchanging state of tranquility until Meteion offered them an alternative

Edit: To put it another way, are the ancients who decide to return to the Star after they have fufilled thier purpose in life "suffering" when they make that decision? That is the same thing as the Plenty to me but on a society-wide scale. (Incidentally that is also why I think the ancients would have struggled to dispute Meteion, in a lot of ways they actually agree with her.)

[CrownySuccubus]

I don't recall the denizens of the Plenty ever expressing "horror" or having a existensial crisis. They seemed very calm and tranquil in thier existance and in thier decision to end it. The most negative thing they seemed to experience is simply "apathy".

The notes in the area are filled with emotional tones about how terrible their lives are now and how beautiful the sweet release of death is. Some of the ones we see cry out lines equivalent to "Please, Ra-La release us from this torment!". When Ra-La kills them, they're universally ecstatic and crying out "At last!" or something to that effect. It's pretty clear that they viewed their lives as such a horror that they were literally begging for them to end.

It's important to remember that the Plenty, like all the races of Ultima Thule are being used as arguments by Meteion for why everyone should die. Meteion is the one saying that life is horrible, and the Plenty are being held up as an example of peacefully embracing death.

That's actually not true. Meteion is explicitly stated to be repeating the sentiments of the sentient beings she's encountered. It's they who saw life as suffering. This is especially the case for the Plenty -- Meteion never said to them that life was suffering. She just asked what they live for, and they were horrified to realize they had no answer.

The challenging question is "why shouldn't they?". They have achieved everything they ever wanted to, and existed in a static, unchanging state of tranquility until Meteion offered them an alternative

Edit: To put it another way, are the ancients who decide to return to the Star after they have fufilled thier purpose in life "suffering" when they make that decision? That is the same thing as the Plenty to me but on a society-wide scale. (Incidentally that is also why I think the ancients would have struggled to dispute Meteion, in a lot of ways they actually agree with her.)

The circumstances between the Ancients returning to the star and the Plenty only resemble each other in the sense that they're both "suicide". For the Ancients, returning to the star was a choice which wasn't particularly enforced, but merely normalized and celebrated. No one looked down upon Venat for choosing not to do it, for example, but she was constantly asked when she would. In the end, it was a very personal choice and up to the individual.

The Plenty, however, is filled with an entire species of people who are literally DESPERATE to die because they saw a life without suffering as one with no joy. We see no evidence of any dissenting or disagreeing opinion -- ALL of the "Deka-hepta" feel the same way.

[SentioftheHoukai]

That really depends. If you believe that the elimination of strife is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a 'perfect society', then that would be correct. But then the question arises of what you would be willing to sacrifice to attain that ideal. Your individuality? Your personal freedom? If you're unwilling to part with these things either, then it's not a necessary and sufficient condition. And when you acknowledge that other people might also have their own personal set of requirements on what defines 'perfect', then it all starts to come unraveled.

Like I said earlier, none of the societies portrayed appeals to me personally as 'ideal', so I'd take issue with calling them 'perfect'. I would not wish to live in any of them, Amaurot included, simply because being part of a hivemind does not appeal to me. You might have a different viewpoint, but that's just your viewpoint.

The tangential discussion about societal progress is irrelevant. People will always seek to improve their lives in accordance with their own personal ideals. But to claim that those ideals are identical and uniform for all human beings is ignorant. That's why a 'utopia' is a contradiction in terms.

Ancients =/= HIVEMIND?!

.........Where did you get this outlandish idea?

How am I supposed to engage with a community that with purpose, twists the facts of a narrative so egregiously?!