Oh boy long post incoming, apologies for taking up even more space here.
I think you're establishing a standard for decision making that would be ridiculous if applied evenly. If another species came to Earth, and warned us that they had ruined their world with nuclear weapons and explained that we shared many of the same warning signs, would you not agree that should engender drastic action even if we can't know for certain?
I don't say they're both equal, I said that based on the standard you established, with one person making decisions that affect the lives and wellbeing of billions in dramatic ways, pretty much every system of government on Earth fails to avoid that problem. If a nation has a head of state that makes decisions, it is effectively doing that same thing.
What do you want me to say then? I'm restating my position because I haven't been convinced otherwise and because it explains why I think what I think. You started this specific chain by saying my opinion is "messed up," which isn't exactly conducive to discussion in the first place is it?
I guess so.
Sure. I think equivocating my arguments to someone letting people die from horrific preventable diseases because of Tik Tok was not only a ridiculous comparison but downright insulting for one. I haven't done that to you, the most I've equivocated is either an explanation of my own arguments or the statement about anarchism, which I stressed in the statement itself was not meant to be dismissive or insulting.
Or they may have fled like Midgard, who is noted in the Ultima Thule quests as being mocked for his decision. But ok, so what of the Grebuloff as you mention? Their invasion of the world above the ocean was because they sought what they thought was paradise, only to find it wasn't.
Sure. The only conclusion one can have on those that were already gone is that they are dead.This world is not the boundless paradise we were promised. Our population quickly outstripped the habitable land, while seas we thought would shine forever blue ran dry, spoiled in forging the tools of conquest. Cramped homes turned to squalor, and then came the sickness.
But my objection is that Meteion had no reason not to cling to doubt in her conclusion if there were any to be found. The Meteia were desperate to find even one answer to give to Hermes, and I don't think it logical to conclude they wouldn't take what they could if they did indeed find something.
And I would say the quotes you use are a mix of statements by the Plenty themselves, or arguments made using different language that allows for nuance. The Plenty are in fact the only ones that use the word perfection to describe themselves, even Meteion in the quotes you include. The Scions are the closest to making that sort of statement, but even don't go as far as the denizens of the Plenty do, nor obviously do they believe the Plenty to be a true manifestation of the perfect society.
No, once again there's nuance here your stripping me of. There is a wide gulf between I thinking should good individual should act to preserve good even if that calls for standing in opposition to the majority, and "the answer to our problems is a benevolent dictatorship."
Before I jump into the argument itself I want to point out something I have an issue with. In the first part of this quote you do something I appreciate, you recognize that specific language is inflammatory to me and would get in the way of the discussion and thus offer an alternative. I think that's cool.
The problem is you immediately follow up by using that selfsame language having just explained that you know and expect me to have a bone to pick with it. Why? Its not necessary, and you obviously know I'm going to reject that argument and the baggage it came with. But ok enough whinging on to the argument.
Humans are infallible this is totally true, but one doesn't need to be dictator to make world altering decisions. Presidents do that all the time, and often go against the wishes of the people in doing so. Abraham Lincoln moved against the will of many during the Civil War, and yet he was right to do so. Even on a more individual level people stand in opposition to the world they live in and oftentimes by force make change happen. And it can be for the better! I don't have to make Venat dictator in order to believe she has the right of it here. One can hold that it is best to allow as much freedom of choice as possible while recognizing that the every desire of the majority is not always right and that it be best that they not be followed. If a celestial dragon came down from the heavens and said to the world "no more racism" (as ridiculous as that sounds I know), I don't believe I would have cause to fight against them. I could understand why others are wary for sure, but I honestly would support that at least.
And once again that isn't exclusive to these situations. The world could've ended in 1962 and only a handful of individuals would've had the power to make that decision.
And once again I don't believe that a dictatorship is alone in this problem. In the timeline where Venat tells the world of Meteion, who would ultimately get to decide what to do with that info in Amaurotine society?
And once again I can say the same thing of any sovereign, President, Queen, Prime Minister, etc. The benefit of a democracy is you do have the infrastructure to remove them from power non-violently, which is partly what makes democracy great in my eyes, but that doesn't change the fact that for a specified amount of time a person can make decisions for you that you hate. Tyranny is only for individuals, majorities can be tyrants as well.