A game for 4 year olds

[Lurina]

Like I've said before, I don't really agree with FFXIV's anti-hedonist outlook, mostly because it feels like it relies on strawmen in order to make its argument.

The fundamental pretext of "without conflict and strife, people will lose all meaning for living" relies on the idea that the artificial conflict and strife can't or won't be created for their own sake, but this is obviously wrong. We're experiencing this story in a video game, the primary purpose of which is to create artificial strife. Or even disregarding the interactive element, the fact that we're having a real, passionate disagreement about fake cultures in a fake universe is proof that you don't need genuine stakes to be psychologically stimulated.

Or to take Celertic's observation from the previous page, there's nothing to say that a culture that removed the need to eat (or rather, the threat of starvation) couldn't still engineer a means to taste and enjoy food. In the modern west, we already mostly eat for pleasure rather than necessity. The argument the writers are making, or seem to be making, relies on conflating seeking a very comfortable existence with seeking a boring one.

[dynus]

I honestly wasn't expecting them to double down on the "joy is meaningless when not tempered by sorrow" angle for the Nibirun, because the vibe I was getting was more that they didn't have anything left to be joyful about because a complete removal of strife entailed throwing away virtually everything that gave their lives meaning.

That philosophy is one I just fundamentally cannot agree with.

It strikes me as less an ivory tower philosophy and more a frank look at life philosophy. Because what is life without the good and the bad. Life, for me at least, has been hurtling from tragedy to another since adulthood. And by tragedy I don't always mean losing a loved one to cancer, but smaller ones; like a friendship ending because of a big fight, or not getting that promotion I wanted, my ex-boyfriend stealing six hundred dollars from me. My car getting stolen and wrecked by fourteen year old Kia Boys. Because those are setbacks, not big ones, but ones that hurt.

But good things came a long and helped me move on from those hurts. They don't last either though, most of the time, life is just life, no ups, no downs, a content line. Life can't really exist without both the highs and the lows and the contentment in-between. Should be there more highs than lows? absolutely. Is that always the case? No.

But those highs balance out the lows, and with no lows, I really don't think I would have appreciated how lucky I am in some respects. I would take them for granted.

The argument the writers are making, or seem to be making, relies on conflating seeking a very comfortable existence with seeking a boring one.

And if take those things for granted? Yeah, life will become boring.

I'm wondering, if there might be some culture clash here. I don't mean West vs East outlooks, but on the definition of happiness. Thinking back to AP English, I remember having a discussion about Aristotle's belief that you couldn't really judge a person's life to be happy or not until they were dead. Because to me, happy and content are very different things, but a lot people consider them the same thing.

[Alleo]

Or to take Celertic's observation from the previous page, there's nothing to say that a culture that removed the need to eat (or rather, the threat of starvation) couldn't still engineer a means to taste and enjoy food. In the modern west, we already mostly eat for pleasure rather than necessity. The argument the writers are making, or seem to be making, relies on conflating seeking a very comfortable existence with seeking a boring one.

Would a whole planet that does not need to eat anymore (which begs the questions if they still have the necessary organs to do so) be fine with some people still consuming meals? Who would create these meals? If they are not like the Ancients who could just snap them into existence than they would need plants and animals for that. Would the others be fine that animals are still suffering for something that is not necessary? Or that nature is destroyed so that more plants that they can consume are planted?

We on earth still need to eat. Yes even here in the modern west we cant go without. That we also enjoy it on top of that is true, we dont need all these different meals to satisfy our hunger. But that is imo not the same as someone doing it when its absolutely not necessary anymore. (Without the quesiton if they are still able to do so)

There is also the question if a comfortable existence wont lead into a boring one with time. Look at some of the rich people in our world. What they are doing with their money even though they could do so much more to help others. But some of them are just so bored that they need to do stupid things to make it less so. Now take this, make everyone rich, give everyone a eternal or very long life and take away anything that makes the people suffer. How long until the first are done with it?

(And all of that without the problem that comes with taking away your emotions)

[Brinne]

Would a whole planet that does not need to eat anymore (which begs the questions if they still have the necessary organs to do so) be fine with some people still consuming meals?

Who knows? It's another fundamentally impossible and unapplicable (from our current and foreseeable position) thought experiment. You could argue based on modern humanity that people will find any reason to discriminate over others' choices, but you could also argue that at present, people are generally fine with people who "do not need to eat anymore" in most immediate senses continuing to consume meals, too. I generally don't get judged to the point of social strife for going for an unnecessary second serving because I'm enjoying consumption of the food so much, but of course, YMMV.

Who would create these meals?

Presumably, people like the ones who already create meals who are not food insecure and are also largely not providing them for the sake of people who are food insecure, just like we have massive industries around providing services or entertainment or arts to people that they don't "need." No one "needs" video games by any stretch of the imagination. Who would create these video games? Who would create any piece of art? People who want to.

This speaks to an age old question about what happens to certain forms of industry or expression once technology has evolved past them. It's still argued about a lot, but my personal take would be that food would probably become seen as a form of art meant to stimulate the senses and the mind moreso than fulfill a biological need, much like other forms of art. And it may wax in and out of popularity and innovative focus, like all other mediums of art, like radio and theater. It's true that several interesting cuisines were developed out of necessity or food insecurity, but unique avenues of cuisine also continue to be developed by people and populations who generally do not deal with those urgent, life-on-the-line pressures, too.

If they are not like the Ancients who could just snap them into existence than they would need plants and animals for that. Would the others be fine that animals are still suffering for something that is not necessary? Or that nature is destroyed so that more plants that they can consume are planted?

Oh, we absolutely have the answers already for that, simply by looking at modern humanity. In general, as a consensus, modern humanity society is fine with animals continuing to suffer for something that is not necessary. Several large places have developed enough beyond strict necessity (generally, of course there are always exceptions and people with certain dietary restrictions) of meat or animal slaughter, and people still choose it because of pleasure or because they see meat consumption as overlapping with other values beyond simple nutrition or cessation of hunger. Some parts of the population also object to it, of course, whether on a personal level or protesting it on a societal level, but it's not seen as acceptable to resort to violence and destruction of other humans in the name of those causes. Ditto with nature and plants, with also are destroyed unnecessarily en masse every single day for various forms of continued arbitrary human pleasure.

We on earth still need to eat. Yes even here in the modern west we cant go without. That we also enjoy it on top of that is true, we dont need all these different meals to satisfy our hunger. But that is imo not the same as someone doing it when its absolutely not necessary anymore. (Without the quesiton if they are still able to do so)

The question of "what if we can't eat!" is so far flung off I see it as irrelevant and having no application, (and I'm speaking as someone with some heavy dietary restrictions, who 'can't eat' several types of food like most other people as a matter of life and death) and the question of "will we still innovate and develop for things we don't need?" has a clear answer. Yes, humans will still do that, easily and constantly.

There is also the question if a comfortable existence wont lead into a boring one with time. Look at some of the rich people in our world. What they are doing with their money even though they could do so much more to help others. But some of them are just so bored that they need to do stupid things to make it less so. Now take this, make everyone rich, give everyone a eternal or very long life and take away anything that makes the people suffer. How long until the first are done with it?

The question of the immorality of the actions of several of the rich as a class feels reductive to pare down to "oh, they're too comfortable and get bored." Perhaps it's a factor - it's a complicated question - but it dismisses other obvious potential factors like greed, dominance, lack of empathy, flexing for social competition with the other rich, etc. I would love to make everyone "rich" (or economically secure or raise their standard of living to a way that much of the population of the world would see as 'rich') and give them the benefit of long lifespans. I would love to spare everyone possible several forms of 'suffering' such as war and poverty and psychological trauma. I see that as an unambiguous good. I do not feel conflict and inconvenience is the same thing as 'suffering,' and I don't think 'suffering' or a 'biological need' like the threat of starvation is necessary for people to have conflicts (that can be resolved and hashed out without meaningful suffering - see these forums, see sports, see games, see fandoms) that are stimulating enough to be existentially motivating.

[Lurina]

There is also the question if a comfortable existence wont lead into a boring one with time. Look at some of the rich people in our world. What they are doing with their money even though they could do so much more to help others. But some of them are just so bored that they need to do stupid things to make it less so. Now take this, make everyone rich, give everyone a eternal or very long life and take away anything that makes the people suffer. How long until the first are done with it?

I'm going to be blunt here: This is, as the kids call it, a 'cope'.

The pervasive idea in culture that the very wealthy are terminally bored or unhappy is a fiction. It's baseless, and was probably invented because it sells so well to the poor. All actual statistical evidence that I'm aware of points to mean happiness increasing consistently (if not nessecerily radically) with net worth. The rich don't do weird and indulgent stuff because their lives are empty, they do it for the same reason that normal people often do weird and indulgent stuff, just at far smaller scales - they can afford it, so why not?

If one believes that the wealthy are uncontent because they're missing some X factor found in the strife of working and day-to-day hardship, it's easier to cope with living in on the butt-end of a fundamentally unfair, asymmetrical society. But it's a fairy tale.

One of the things that bothers me most about FFXIV is that - and this goes way beyond Endwalker specifically - it very often parrots traditional narratives about the inherent value in hard work in a hierarchical system uncritically. Some examples include where the Nanamo tries to secure reconstruction aid for Ala Mhigo, or the entire Eulmore plot thread in Shadowbringers. Yoshi-P has also talked about how this is something he personally believes in interviews.

I find it very annoying.

The Nibirun were an echo chamber of people who kept justifying their own terrible decisions: it's not exactly important if the notion of 'if a society didn't feel the need to eat they wouldn't find/make eating enjoyable' is universally true, the important part of this is that the Nibirun did make that decision, with eating and every single other thing, and they're only just now realizing that it might've been a mistake.

I'd agree with you, if not for the fact that the game's writing conflates the Nibirun's overcoming of hardship directly with their inability to find meaning. The framing isn't on their failure to find artificial means to excite their passions (an idea that's left out of the equation entirely, which is what I mean when I say they're strawmen) it's on their success in excising suffering, and what the game perceives as the direct consequence of that.