What does it mean for humanity to be on the wrong path?

[ItsaRandomUsername]

And Chaldea, in part 2, as opposed to part 1, is depicted in a somewhat antagonistic/gray light, insofar that they're explicitly denying the Lostbelts so as to defend and restore PHH. It's not like with the main Singularities where history is being relatively bloodlessly corrected once Chaldea resolves the incident. (deaths that occur in the Singularities will still happen in human history, but under different circumstances).

- - - Updated - - -

Whose assumptions, theirs or ours?

The assumptions of the antagonists.

They perceive humanity to be doomed, and they might even arguably be correct about it, but the story always depicts them as being in the wrong for robbing humanity of an open future.

[Red Dingo]

I'm only replying to the parts that merit response. The rest is strawmanning and moralistic ad hominem garbage.

And you're also conflating hierarchy with humanity- it may surprise you to learn that hierarchy is not a fundamental part of human nature and egilatarian/anarchist modes of organization prove that normalization is a bolted-on part of the human condition that can be discarded without losing the more important human traits.

Name one anarchistic society that's out performing a hierarchical one on a civilization scale.

Things like compassion, charity, selflessness, and all the other things that natural selection alone could never explain without our breaking free from it first.

There are plenty of reasons socially conducive traits like those prevail for a mammalian species. It's not that hard to see how natural selection explains them.

[InsertNameHere]

I'm only replying to the parts that merit response. The rest is moralistic ad hominem garbage.



Name one anarchistic society that's out performing a hierarchical one on a civilization scale.



There are plenty of reasons socially conducive traits like those prevail for a mammalian species.

The Zapatistas are the largest ones (and if you want to get historical there's Spain during its civil war) but unlike you I have no reason to believe that bigger must be better, especially given the fact that hierarchal societies tend to clamp down quickly on anarchistic ones. We build the new world in the shell of the old, not try and wait for it all to collapse before starting over.

And if you're not willing to engage in ad hominems, then stop letting your own bigotries get the better of you and accept that you're no better than the people you hate for discriminating against you. I was like you once...then I grew up and realized I was fighting the wrong enemies.

As for those socially conducive traits, how come they didn't get to where we were first if they're so prevalent? Why don't they ever extend those things outside their own species at that matter? Say what you will about our treatment of animals, at least we acknowledge them as something other than predators or prey.

P.S. I have here a link demonstrating quite thoroughly that the so called Roman steam engine would have never worked, so you'll need a new narrative to explain why it didn't take hard work and a slow accumulation of knowledge over the centuries to reach our current state. Should you have a source that can disprove it, show me that it's something beyond empty talk and bitterness.

https://medium.com/lessons-from-hist...e-5807214aa11b

[Dullahan]

I can't be bothered to make it so just imagine here that I posted a crop of the 1831 Schlesinger portrait of Hegel showing only the eyes, but it's deep fried and the eyes are glowing and there's a 100 emoji somewhere

[Byegod]

I think one question is if nasu is on immortality bad or immortality good mood, as its hard to reconcile the age of will with the narrative at points like 'death makes life worth living' that has been spouted a few times since fgo started which came after the concept of the age of will already.

Has the age of will been mentioned since CCC? since it feels like most of this came from the CCC time period.

There is also commentary to be made on the definition of progress doesn't seem to include trying to help the planet or at least save the things on it according to age of will narratives, which personally doesnt seem like a positive thing.

[InsertNameHere]

I think one question is if nasu is on immortality bad or immortality good mood, as its hard to reconcile the age of will with the narrative at points like 'death makes life worth living' that has been spouted a few times since fgo started which came after the concept of the age of will already.

Has the age of will been mentioned since CCC? since it feels like most of this came from the CCC time period.

There is also commentary to be made on the definition of progress doesn't seem to include trying to help the planet or at least save the things on it according to age of will narratives, which personally doesnt seem like a positive thing.

Garden of Avalon and CCC are the only two places I recall it ever being mentioned.

It might be worth the time to look up the concept of "Whig history", or taking the time to consider if progress is even a good thing. It's really more neutral than anything else, with the difference between it being good or bad depending entirely on how it affects you. His definition at least is not only selfish but also creates a false assumption that humans simply cannot coexist with the earth, which is absurd.

[Byegod]

Garden of Avalon and CCC are the only two places I recall it ever being mentioned.

It might be worth the time to look up the concept of "Whig history", or taking the time to consider if progress is even a good thing. It's really more neutral than anything else, with the difference between it being good or bad depending entirely on how it affects you. His definition at least is not only selfish but also creates a false assumption that humans simply cannot coexist with the earth, which is absurd.

Oh i get what you mean, but progress narrative wise is mostly defined as "good" in the story.

I cant help but think "How many timelines just fucking died or got culled vs ones that reach the age of will" among other dark things when it comes to nasu's definition of progress. I'm fine with transhumanism but nasu also places emphasis on the concept of being human as well as things like being mortal which has more recently come up then the age of will stuff.

So either nasu has some weird definitions of what immortal means that doesnt count extella or the age of will

[Ideofago]

Holy shit this just felt like a skirmish between Byegod and Gau on alt accounts, up there with one of the sides going too deep into pro-stagnation politics and the other bringing his neurodivergence into discussion in some out of nowhere offense

[InsertNameHere]

Holy shit this just felt like a skirmish between Byegod and Gau on alt accounts, up there with one of the sides going too deep into pro-stagnation politics and the other bringing his neurodivergence into discussion in some out of nowhere offense

I found it particularly offensive because as I mentioned, I'm also neurodivergent and found everything he said utterly vile. And for the record, I've never even heard of byegod or gau until I started this.

[Red Dingo]

To be fair, his response to everyone repeatedly stressing that the Age of Will is not necessarily inhuman can be summed up as "nuh uh" and it became a little frustrating.

The Zapatistas are the largest ones (and if you want to get historical there's Spain during its civil war) but unlike you I have no reason to believe that bigger must be better, especially given the fact that hierarchal societies tend to clamp down quickly on anarchistic ones. We build the new world in the shell of the old, not try and wait for it all to collapse before starting over.

If the Zapatistas manage to build a spacefaring civilization in a depleted and irradiated biosphere with their core principles in tact, you'll have a point. But right now? They are not in any position to determine the fate of humanity and life on earth. honestly, the fact that humans tend to create as many hierarchical structures that annihilate anarchic ones before they can prosper only proves my point about human nature.

And if you're not willing to engage in ad hominems

No. Between the two of us, I'm not the one dictating how the other should think or feel. Call the strawmen you made of me whatever you want, but you know nothing about me or what I've been through just because we're both divergent.

I'm not pretending that I am better, I just want to BE better. That does not mean turning a blind eye to everything people do to make the world suck for others just because of how they were born or how they identify. I don't care if in they know better in the past, it really doesn't change what their victims suffered.

As for those socially conducive traits, how come they didn't get to where we were first if they're so prevalent? Why don't they ever extend those things outside their own species at that matter? Say what you will about our treatment of animals, at least we acknowledge them as something other than predators or prey.

They do. Plenty of animals -mammals in particular- have demonstrated those qualities. Whales have gone out of their way to protect human divers from sharks. Elephants have carried cubs of lions to water in the midst of a drought. wolves have been known to care for their tired and their sick and injured. When you look at it, most other animals are just as capable of kindness and atrocity as humans. We just learned to codify it into law.

P.S. I have here a link demonstrating quite thoroughly that the so called Roman steam engine would have never worked, so you'll need a new narrative to explain why it didn't take hard work and a slow accumulation of knowledge over the centuries to reach our current state. Should you have a source that can disprove it, show me that it's something beyond empty talk and bitterness.

https://medium.com/lessons-from-hist...e-5807214aa11b

I'll concede on that "Roman Steam Engine" part. To be quite frank though, it really doesn't change my overall point about the precipice human nature has led us to.

[InsertNameHere]

To be fair, his response to everyone repeatedly stressing that the Age of Will is not necessarily inhuman can be summed up as "nuh uh" and it became a little frustrating.



If the Zapatistas manage to build a spacefaring civilization in a depleted and irradiated biosphere with their core principles in tact, you'll have a point. But right now? They are not in any position to determine the fate of humanity and life on earth. honestly, the fact that humans tend to create as many hierarchical structures that annihilate anarchic ones before they can prosper only proves my point about human nature.



No. Between the two of us, I'm not the one dictating how the other should think or feel. Call the strawmen you made of me whatever you want, but you know nothing about me or what I've been through just because we're both divergent.

I'm not pretending that I am better, I just want to BE better. That does not mean turning a blind eye to everything people do to make the world suck for others just because of how they were born or how they identify. I don't care if in they know better in the past, it really doesn't change what their victims suffered.



They do. Plenty of animals -mammals in particular- have demonstrated those qualities. Whales have gone out of their way to protect human divers from sharks. Elephants have carried cubs of lions to water in the midst of a drought. wolves have been known to care for their tired and their sick and injured. When you look at it, most other animals are just as capable of kindness and atrocity as humans. We just learned to codify it into law.



I'll concede on that "Roman Steam Engine" part. To be quite frank though, it really doesn't change my overall point about the precipice human nature has led us to.

First, I fail to understand how a being that is necessarily inhuman in form and nature wouldn't also be inhuman in mind too. Perhaps they might remember what it was like or have some kind of record of that experience, but it's not the same as actually experiencing it. See Nagel's "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" for further explanation.

Your point about the Zapatistas ignores first that the biosphere isn't actually an uninhabitable wasteland yet and second that the fact it can endure and thrive at all in spite of constant repression is a victory in its own right. A system that took centuries if not millennia to establish is not going to crumble or undergo a radical transformation without a long, hard fight. That does not make it invincible, nor does it mean that alternatives cannot succeed. Every crack formed in the system and every concession that it makes is a small but welcome victory that paves the way for something greater, and even the failures offer us a chance to learn what works and what doesn't.

Nothing any of us will do can change the past, but we can still see to it that the suffering of those who went before wasn't in vain and use the knowledge of the past to our advantage instead of rejecting it wholesale simply because specific parts of it were undesirable. I don't have a problem with you wanting to be better, but that should not translate to using present-day values in contexts where they make no sense. Historians call it presentism, and it's a mark of bad scholarship.

On animals: yes, they can be kind, but as you just mentioned they can be inventively cruel as well- does that mean cruelty isn't necessarily part of human nature either? You'd be surprised to learn how many reports there are of dolphins literally gang-raping other animals to death, or of lions killing the cubs of other lions just to force their mothers into mating with them, and I've even seen chimpanzees engaging in what could only be called war using crude spears. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that had they the capacity and ingenuity that we possess, they'd end up in a very similar situation to our own. Besides, how many animals do you know of that can contemplate the idea of travelling to the stars? How many of them have the capacity to dream of a better life at all? We can do far better than the baseline of mere survival.

Speaking of human nature, the only constant about human nature is that it is malleable. Put it in a context that exalts selfishness and greed that then adds a milieu of deprivation or the association of happiness with material goods (or both), and people will for the most part be selfish and greedy. In an environment that rewards altruism and has methods to ensure that nobody goes without the necessities of life as well as less emphasis on the value of material goods, they will similarly be far more inclined to altruism because that's what they've been taught to value. That goes for religion, ideology, prejudices, and more- they do not just emerge out of nowhere, but are actively created and cultivated by the world we happen to be born intom Even people like us who criticize our own birth cultures can never escape the fact that said cultures still left an indelible mark on us that shapes what we believe and feel. Environment may not be destiny any more than genes are, but you can't just say it's irrelevant.

Individuals will always vary in temperament of course, but most of what you think is intrinsic is oftentimes far better explained as a result of one's upbringing and native culture. If you replaced every mention you make of "human nature" with "capitalism" or "exploitative social systems", I would agree far more with you than I have here
Even so, I am nowhere near as fatalistic about our future as you- there is still time and opportunities to make things right, and even if the results will not be immediately visible it is exponentially better than just declaring most of our species to be scum without a second thought and giving up hope- it's telling that your views on human nature are exactly the same as the ones espoused by the people who pushed the world into its current state. There's nothing like assuming everyone else is inherently self-serving and greedy to justify one's own selfishness and greed, especially if it pushes opposition away from actions that might make them a threat and compels the masses to assume that they'd swiftly descend into depravity if they weren't constantly being dominated by their alleged betters.

Before you bring up the possibility that bad people will exist no matter what, I'll say that I know that. Those negative traits will never go away from us completely, but they can be contained and mitigated such that the harm they can do will be limited. You could try to remove them by purging those parts of our nature influenced by evolution to be inclined towards those drives, but they could just as easily backfire and leave us emotionally numb and detached- the mental processes that give rise to xenophobia are the same ones that let us bond with the people closest to us. I don't think that is a risk worth taking, especially if it turns out to be irreversible. You can't just decide "on second thought maybe having a body isn't that bad" after you've become a free-floating soul.

[Takashi]

Becoming gods would lead to them to become part of nature. That is part of earth. They would die along with the planet.
I think the wrong path at least in terms of nasu is becoming bound to the planet and dying with the planet.
For in terms of the verse, humanity is still in process of graduating from childhood.

[Nanaya]

Why would you give up your flesh to journey the cosmos when you can just be an awesome reincarnating vampire enjoying the fuck out of every moment until the end of humanity.

[Red Dingo]

First, I fail to understand how a being that is necessarily inhuman in form and nature wouldn't also be inhuman in mind too. Perhaps they might remember what it was like or have some kind of record of that experience, but it's not the same as actually experiencing it. See Nagel's "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" for further explanation.

That's not my problem, it's yours.

The rest is more strawmanning and redherrings that I don't have the energy to address.

[Takashi]

It's same as in terms of verse is being a kid .why grow up? When you can get everything in here without much effort?. You can't always be a child. You need to grow up one day and blah blah

[OnesFleetingGlory]

Sorry, just wanted to chime in.

First, I fail to understand how a being that is necessarily inhuman in form and nature wouldn't also be inhuman in mind too. Perhaps they might remember what it was like or have some kind of record of that experience, but it's not the same as actually experiencing it. See Nagel's "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" for further explanation.

As you said, people who underwent those changes, need to remember they're once humans. Humans, or hypothetical former humans, could also carry with themselves the legacies of their race, as a reminder what they were once and from where they came from. It might not be the same experience, but doesn't mean they should also abandon those very values of what makes them humans in positive light. That way, it serves as guideline for morals and values worth striving for and progressing through as one united species.

You can't just decide "on second thought maybe having a body isn't that bad" after you've become a free-floating soul.

Who knows? Technology in the future might be able to do just that the same way people managed to live as souls. There're always possibilities.

[InsertNameHere]

That's not my problem, it's yours.

The rest is more strawmanning and redherrings that I don't have the energy to address.

Just saying that it's strawmanning and red herrings doesn't make it so.

[Takashi]

Humans in the verse is define by having a body , soul and psyche. It stands to reason if one of them gets out of sync it would effects others too.
Like how void shiki described the importance of body in knk. Since it in turn effects the mind.

[Nanaya]

Does this shit count as a spoiler? It's basically OG

Roa is the goat really. He got around all this shit. He gets to utilize the human form, doesn't give a fuck if he gets wasted, has his will preserved and advancing his objectives until the end, and would probably outlive all of humanity if not for meeting DEATH.

[Red Dingo]

Just saying that it's strawmanning and red herrings doesn't make it so.

No, the fact that you repeatedly ignore the valid points that everyone else here has made, insisting that I'm saying something that you made up, and your best retort amounts to "I can't imagine that" is what makes it so.