Tales from the Dawn

[SentioftheHoukai]

The only special aspects of the Ancients was they were ageless (but not immortal, they could still die, just not from old age), and had the power of creation magic which, really, was simply due to having enormous natural reserves of aether in their bodies. That was the sum of their 'special' nature. They however still had a tendency to all too mortal human failings of pettiness, jealousy, depression and anger.

Also, their civilization was already showing the first cracks of turning into staid decadence even before Hermes had his emotional breakdown and created the Metia to send his cursed question to the cosmos - many of the researchers in Elpis lamented at a general waning of creativity in both the concepts they were testing and even their own ideas for things like concept names - leading to people just copying each other's ideas and passing it off as 'new' with little change, shown with the 'fad' for shark concepts that Hythlodaeus mentioned (even though it was done for a quick joke, it actually hinted at something far more rotten in Ancient society that led back to the core of the expansion's theme). And even Hermes himself stated outright that they were frustratingly reaching the limit of what could be achieved with aether manipulation and Creation Magic - which is why he studied Dynamis in the first place.

And there were hints that ancient Etheriys wasn't actually the paradise it was made out to be, that things like war and disease did exist, it was just shoved under the rug with the use of Creation Magic relied on to solve such problems. All Venat did was take mankind's blinders off, in the most harshest way, but I digress.

Ah, so when mankind or any society really gets too big for it's britches it should be violently ended. Every man, woman and child put to the crystal sword and made to learn their folly. I'll have to remember that next time one of the forum posters here strikes it rich, or gets a nice house, or marries a new wife or husband and is blessed with a beautiful baby boy or girl. I'll be sure to call Mother, and be assured she's bringing the Sundering with her.

..... It's laughable how none of you realize just how ludicrous, immoral, and dangerous the ideals and/or societal values you claim to champion are.

Endwalker encourages and/or enables the worst sort of people, I swear. Yoshida should have known better, but then I suspect he was in on it. shrugs

Alright fine let’s have this convo. To you, believing that you can be justified in reducing the well-being of those around today, in order to protect the potential for any life of any kind to continue on, is equivalent to forcing a mother to die in childbirth rather than have abortion. Let me just offer two of the reasons I disagree.

First, let’s just point out the obvious distinction between the sustaining the potential for life and sustaining all potential life. One of these is about possibility, and valuing the existence of life on a general level. The other is enforcing a categorical duty in all circumstances regardless of the particulars of the situation. One can hold the latter of these and not the former.

Second, the idea that, even if it’s unavoidable, forcing others to bear a cost for the future is always equivalent to forcing a pregnancy, kind of falls apart when applied to just about any major moral dilemma facing humanity. A climate activist doesn’t haven’t to be pro-life in order to believe that taking drastic action against climate change is justified, despite the fact that such actions would have a demonstrable impact on industries and economic activities relied upon by numerous communities worldwide. Just look at former mining and industrial towns that rot away along with those left there, leading to substance abuse, mental health problems, worse health outcomes, and yes death. And for whose benefit? The next generation and those further on. Look at developing nations who often resort to cheaper and more environmentally damaging practices in order to try to improve living standards. Do you have to be pro life to think it may be necessary to adopt policies that lead to higher costs and less opportunity for those who want nothing more than a better life?

We can go even further. What about conscription? Forcing someone to put their life on the line for the safety and protection of others sounds like a good comparison to make no? What if you faced a genocidal enemy that desires the brutal and complete destruction of all life? Do I have to be pro life on abortion to think it necessary to institute that policy? I’m curious if you think those who hold those beliefs are inconsistent.

Doesn't this sound familiar? Oh, right it's Venat. It's Emet-Selch and the Ascians Three of course as well, but let's not do us all an intellectual disservice and count her out. I don't even honestly see why this line of inquiry is even relevant, personally. You're just proving his point by entertaining it, when you openly support someone who's ended as many lives however virtual as she has. You've openly stated if she was real you'd help her kill them all.

shrugs