Originally Posted by
fumei
No, it is not the case that there cannot be a discussion or critique of it because "Nasu said so" (though I would argue that some people here desperately need to stop reading Nasu stories as a means of him forcing his personal believes on the reader, and more like actual stories). I argue it is the case that this critique of the plan is fundamentally wrong because of what the story says about people. The idea in the story is that humankind, as they exist now and presumably forevermore, cannot attain this path being sought. It requires a completely higher level of existence to do so, both physically and intellectually; a level which a normal, or even abnormal, person could never hope to attain. Thus, when you argue against it based on what you "perceive right now", it's of little consequence because you're trying to apply those same things to something akin to a proper god. But, for the sake of you not feeling like I'm clinging to "author fiat", I'll meet your arguments.
The Olympians are fundamentally tools created for the purpose of preserving and cultivating their own kind. Comparing their intelligence and wisdom to this case feels disingenuous, because theirs is one meant to be used in their position as tools. They were never made to transcend their own "mortal" limitations, nor break free of the accursed cycle of consciousness; they were just made to do what it is they sought to do (and in the end, even Zeus, who cared for mankind in his own way, stuck to that). Kirschtaria's plan is not equivalent to the creation of the Olympians.
And this is where I believe your arguments fall in their entirety. You are, fundamentally, arguing about societal structures and inherently human concepts and trying to apply those to a state of godhood, saying "see, this human concept isn't compatible with gods, thus it doesn't work". It is fallacious from the outset, because the whole entire point is that we transcend any such concepts. You say that "utopias" like these have already existed in some capacity throughout history, and imply that they would have continued to do so if we could just "identity the social systems that cause our problems, working to undermine and eventually eliminate them", but stop to think about why this has never, throughout the hundreds of thousands of years that humans have existed, ever even come close to happening, even in the most "utopian" collectives in ancient history. Could it be because there is inherently something about humans that create these issues and systems; something we cannot just "identify and eliminate" because it is so built into our very being that as long as we are "just human", it's a shackle we cannot escape from? In that case, the application of a godlike existence and intelligence very much seems a surefire way to at least begin to work towards the very thing you want, since it should logically be impossible without it.
Because—and here I'm tying it back to byegod's question about what I believe based on real life—I really do believe that mankind is at their very core flawed in a way that would never allow a world like you envision to exist, as long as we remain human. I don't know exactly what "political reforms" you have in mind, nor do I really care, but in a sense it does remind me of the advocates of anprim movements, in their case arguing that it's society or civilization which is the root cause of these issues and "systems", as you put it, not humans themselves. In anprim's case, the idea then is that we just go back far enough in time and live like they used to back then, and we achieve a true utopia. Just as I don't believe that your "radical political systems" would succeed, regardless of what they are, I believe the aforementioned ideas are inherently wrong. I don't believe these things are the root cause of negativity, I believe humans are, or more specifically, consciousness (which, in most aspects, is what really makes us "human"). I well and truly believe that "[humanity was] a breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily—by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being. Its weapons was like a sword without hilt or plate, a two-edged blade cleaving everything; but he who is to wield it must grasp the blade and turn one edge toward himself."
How then, can any reform achieve what you are arguing for, if it doesn't fundamentally—physically and spiritually—change the very definition of what humankind is? This is what's being posited here. Arguments about any human societal or cultural constructs are moot. This is why humans "never make the right choice". We are born into it, and we are shackled by our own nature. We need to supersede that nature in order to achieve the world Kirschtaria seeks, and thus a magical ascent to godhood is the only logical path. At least, this is the case as presented by the story. Whether it would actually work once it has occurred (or whether Nasu himself even believes this to be the "right way" as it were) I think is entirely irrelevant to discuss, because any way you could discuss it is through a lens of humanity and human consciousness, the very thing that needs to be shed to comprehend the path required. That is why I say that the arguments are moot, not because "Nasu says so", but because, like Raff said, how could you comprehend something so transcended in its entirety? Arguing that you can seems to me a coping mechanism of the consciousness, arguing for its insistent self-safekeeping.
And just to top it off with answering your second to last paragraph, about "forcing" this ascension on people and how it should be a "choice". Even if we completely ignore the whole aspect of consciousness mentioned above, you don't have to look much further than the last 3 years in the modern world. A great pandemic spanned the globe. If people could just work together and behave properly, it would result in minimal losses. But people chose not to. A massive climate crisis threatens to destroy the world as we know it. If people could just work together and behave properly, it could be counteracted. But people choose not to.
It is as Kirschtaria says: mankind never makes the right decision. The idea that they would choose the best path because it really is the best path is just flat out wrong, based solely on a optimistic view rooted in the fact that "humanity has persevered this far", but ignoring the fact that such a thing cannot proceed unhindered. It will come to an end, and all of man will answer for the choices the species as a whole made, wrongly.