A game for 4 year olds

[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.