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

[InsertNameHere]

First off, I've been lurking for a while but this is my first time actually posting here. Now with introductions done, there's something bugging me.

A lot of characters have mentioned that humanity is on the "wrong path", like Kirschtaria and Angra (admittedly I can't find the actual scene in question where he says that- if someone could transcribe it for me I'd be grateful). But what does that actually mean? Is humanity simply doomed because it jumped off whatever rails it was supposed to go on, and is there even a "right path" for them? Given Nasu's normally pro-human stance, it doesn't make sense to me that he'd then say that humanity was doomed for some unexplained reason in its past and that there's no way to fix it.

Does this also mean that any attempt to preserve humanity (e.g. all of FGO) is futile and that humanity deserves to be wiped out for not following the proverbial plan?

[Red Dingo]

We're knee deep in wealth inequality, genocide, disease, and ecological suicide right now. Some people would, from their limited perspective, conclude that we're not on the path towards the Age of Will.

Kirsch and Amakusa believe that -not without merit- the problem lies in a glitch with human nature that inclines it to self destruction. It's not about what people deserve, it's about what works.

[InsertNameHere]

We're knee deep in wealth inequality, genocide, disease, and ecological suicide right now. Some people would, from their limited perspective, conclude that we're not on the path towards the Age of Will.

Kirsch and Amakusa believe that -not without merit- the problem lies in a glitch with human nature that inclines it to self destruction. It's not about what people deserve, it's about what works.

But does that actually mean we are in fact doomed to die out before the Age of Will happens, or are they just accentuating the negative beyond the point it can be justified? And if nobody can say for sure what being on that path would entail, how would they know we've departed from it?

The way they put it, we shouldn't even bother trying to fix any of those things because they'll all fail or only cause further suffering. And honestly, there might also be something about human nature that makes it that only that particular form is even able to reach the Age of Will. Something like the ability to know the difference between good and evil and choose freely between them, rather than everyone being good only because they never had an alternative in the matter.

[fumei]

As a hobby-misanthrope myself, I can tell you that quite a few notable thinkers in that field believe that no, there is in fact no sense in "trying to fix those things", as optimists would have it. The issue for these people isn't just that we happened to take a wrong turn and end up in this shitty situation, and that we can just fix it and be fine forever. The issue is more often rooted in humanity intrinsically being doomed to repeatedly do those things, because that's in our nature. Our nature, in this case, is specifically relating to consciousness. We broke free from the natural cycle of things, we believe we transcended above primal needs (survive, procreate, die), and yet we need to surround ourselves with distractions and mentally segregate malignant information because if we really thought about our mortal lifespan, our place in the universe, and everything in between, we'd go insane (this actually fits really nicely with Nasu's concept of Oblivion and Kiara's garbage hole, btw).

That's not to say that we couldn't "fix" these issues short-sightedly, but the idea is that we'll always come back to this, or something on the same level, because that's what we need to do. In that sense, Kirschtaria (and Amakusa kinda) was right in their assumption that we needed to move onto something greater. Kirschtaria's plan of elevating us literally has him explain that things might not work out immediately, but as we transcend beyond our human needs and wants, we'll also transcend above any possible solution we could have ever hoped to attain. It's not until we stop being human that we can truly remove ourselves from human issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Also worth pointing out that while Nasu is writing these characters and you COULD see them as his mouthpieces (like how some people just tend to see every single one of his characters as his mouthpiece all at the same time...), thematically, and narratively, really, you pretty much always have these people lose in the end. Of course, in cases like Kirschtaria we (as Gudao) never actually argued against him being wrong, we just beat him up, so there's less of a "no we're right and we'll prove it" there, but still. The narrative pushes a theme, and that theme is and has always been that humanity is just amazing and great and can do anything. Narratively, the doubters always lose, no matter how good their arguments are.

[Red Dingo]

I don't think we're supposed to know for certain if Proper Human History is ultimately a dead end or if the Pruning will successfully allow a timeline to prosper into the Age of Will. Kirsch joined Chaldea because he wanted to see humanity survive and prosper, but being blown up by Goetia and told that a Foreign God was going to wipe out Proper Human History may have lead him to conclude that the Counter Force had failed and now there was opportunity to create something better. Amakusa believed that Humanity would achieve the Age of Will on their own eventually but why not give them a shortcut with the Greater Grail and spare them a couple centuries of struggling? They both kind of have a point and you have to give them points for creativity but they are still singular humans trying to change the course of collective by their lone designs.

Just because human nature is self destructive doesn't mean we don't get things right every once in a while. There are brief shining moments where we build near utopian societies and change the purview of possibility through our pioneers of the stars. It's just that every society is usually built at someone else's expense and experiences decline and every advance brings as much potential for disaster as it does prosperity. Camelot was a beautiful ideal that worked for while, but there was a lot of pain that went into its creation and it ultimately collapsed. Before the Wright Bros, air travel was a fantasy but tragedies like 9/11 were not a reality. It's a coinflip where heads and tails are both bittersweet at best but there always a chance of the coin landing on its edge and opening the path to something better than the other two.

[HumanComplex]

This was a pretty good question that got me thinking. If you wish to use the in-universe explanation, humanity on the wrong path would be a path that is pruned, as they cannot develop any more branches. If you wish to use the modern world as an example, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything but escapism, indulgences and as Goetia put it, a bunch of worthless people that don’t use their potential to their fullest, settling for mediocrity. There’s also social, environmental, political, and whatever other crises you hear on the news. Right now, we’re as divided as ever, both within our species and our planet, problems that we caused ourselves. As much as I love Nasu’s theme of human potential (in which I have yet to find another series that properly encapsulate this. All others just have some genius individuals that somehow forced every humans into making a utopia, and calling that “human potential”), he really doesn’t have a definitive answer against Kirschtaria, but that is not to say Kirschtaria’s methods are right.

As how I see it, making all the humans immortal will destroy human nature, killing off the potential of human nature, for the transcendence of human problems. Thing is, it just evolves to immortal problems, which just sound worse to me. As for whether for not I believe humans can reach the age of will as we currently are, I honestly don’t think so. You have all the issues I talked about, and people just can’t seem to compromise. But this could just be my shortsightedness talking. In reality, the problems I said could be easily solved. It’s just that people make it difficult to do so. We can solve political issues mainly by compromising, yet people don’t. The only real thing I can’t see us solving is fixing the planet, we will always have to leave. As for whether or not we will commit the same mistakes, yah, most likely so. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, just like how there’s meaning in meaningless. It offers a human perspective on solving our issues, a cycle that destroys and create. We made a war, we destroy, we end the war, and we gained whatever the advancements were. Not saying war is a good thing, but there are good things that came out of it. There’s always some meaning, no matter how applicable it is to reality. We can only hope the gains we make will be enough.

[sentence]

I would never understand how Kirschtaria was "wrong" when he tried to achive something which is described by Nasu as humanity's future.

Narrator of Garden of Avalon (Nasu):

> “Oh, I do wonder… the age of Gods is long past, and with what is soon to unfold, so too will the age of the Fae end. It is age of Man – and that will also reach its eventual conclusion. The day will come when this star of ours ceases to rotate, after which we will establish ourselves in the heavens, beginning the age of the Will. Those incapable of volition without a frame of fresh and blood will be left behind in time. And yet… I wonder why I find myself so often mingled with humanity.”

And yet Olympus was considered "bad" when humanity has freedom to do everything but hurt others, without shackles of mortal body and diseases, and Kirschtaria's plan to elevate humans even further was "bad".

Extella also has humanity becoming digital life-form on the Moon Cell and living for an eternity with the protagonist becoming basically eternal god.

[Reign]

Guda tells Kirsch he's not necessarily wrong and under other circumstances Guda would probably be all for the plan.



I think the issue (or at least an​ issue) with it is, like Amakusa, Kirsch was trying to kickstart humanity's next evolution forcefully on his own instead of letting it happen collectively.

[InsertNameHere]

I would never understand how Kirschtaria was "wrong" when he tried to achive something which is described by Nasu as humanity's future.

Narrator of Garden of Avalon (Nasu):

> “Oh, I do wonder… the age of Gods is long past, and with what is soon to unfold, so too will the age of the Fae end. It is age of Man – and that will also reach its eventual conclusion. The day will come when this star of ours ceases to rotate, after which we will establish ourselves in the heavens, beginning the age of the Will. Those incapable of volition without a frame of fresh and blood will be left behind in time. And yet… I wonder why I find myself so often mingled with humanity.”

And yet Olympus was considered "bad" when humanity has freedom to do everything but hurt others, without shackles of mortal body and diseases, and Kirschtaria's plan to elevate humans even further was "bad".

Extella also has humanity becoming digital life-form on the Moon Cell and living for an eternity with the protagonist becoming basically eternal god.

Even if the way he did it wasn't inherently destructive and unnatural by nature and ultimately complicit with whatever it is that the Alien God is up to, no utopia can ever be brought into existence through coercion and force. I believe that the ends prefigure the means, and if he had to use a world-shattering Mystery to make people follow his ideals rather than letting them stand on their own then perhaps it is something that would have ultimately devolved into the same tyranny created by Zeus. The Olympians never had freedom, only the illusion of it (and even then that only applied so long as they remained obedient- we saw how Zeus saw humans as being little more than pets at best). If it must happen, it must be a truly free choice that respects the wishes of those who it will irreversibly change. Honestly, would you be fine with something altering the very fabric of your being on a fundamental level to the point you can no longer recognize yourself?

Plus the other elephant in the room- power corrupts, and longer life et al. do nothing to change the fundamental nature of the human psyche. It would just exaggerate what is already present, only now a whole bunch of people would be tempted to use their powers for selfish ends that they may have never even considered before. It makes about as much sense as giving everyone on earth a nuke and not expecting horrific destruction as a result.

@Reign
That's part of it. I see another argument- humanity in its current state just isn't ready for that leap. It must evolve spiritually before the rest follows. And Kirsch's ideals disregard the fact that good can't be defined without evil- by trying to make it pure good he would have simply made them all amoral instead. Every time men try to turn themselves into gods, they only become devils or monsters.

Now that I think about it, he ignores another problem: what about everyone who's happy the way they are and don't care about high-minded nonsense. What's left for the people who like their squishy meat bodies and want to go into the stars without sacrificing something they feel is inseparable from the rest of them? Are they simply destined to have posthumanity mock them as purist throwbacks unworthy of existing?

[sentence]

Now that I think about it, he ignores another problem: what about everyone who's happy the way they are and don't care about high-minded nonsense. What's left for the people who like their squishy meat bodies and want to go into the stars without sacrificing something they feel is inseparable from the rest of them? Are they simply destined to have posthumanity mock them as purist throwbacks unworthy of existing?

Word of God (Nasu) already said that they would be left behind (see the quote from Garden of Avalon). So that's how it's supposed to be.
What will happen to modern human who refuses to use phone, PC and internet? It's the same.

[InsertNameHere]

Word of God (Nasu) already said that they would be left behind (see the quote from Garden of Avalon). So that's how it's supposed to be.
What will happen to modern human who refuses to use phone, PC and internet? It's the same.

And he sees nothing wrong with arbitrarily declaring a probably considerable number of people who don't want any part of his transhuman nonsense to be dead men walking? Just because they want to progress on a path he doesn't personally approve of? How can he be sure we don't become a starfaring civilization without having to abandon a fundamental part of what makes them what they are? After all, the body affects the mind and I can hardly imagine becoming a disembodied soul is good for one's mental health. Nasu might have made his fiat, but I get the impression he's never truly thought about what it means.

It smacks of someone who feels like they alone know what's best for everyone and that any dissenter is either stupid, evil, or both. We might consider those modern humans who don't care for technology to be eccentric, but nobody to my knowledge is calling for them to either convert or die.

Actually, how do we even know the Age of the Will would even be a good thing at all? It could very well be something of a Faustian bargain, ensuring survival of the mind at the expense of the soul or forcing us to sacrifice everything positive about humanity to make the leap only to learn too late that we've made a terrible mistake.

[Red Dingo]

And he sees nothing wrong with arbitrarily declaring a probably considerable number of people who don't want any part of his transhuman nonsense to be dead men walking? Just because they want to progress on a path he doesn't personally approve of? How can he be sure we don't become a starfaring civilization without having to abandon a fundamental part of what makes them what they are? After all, the body affects the mind and I can hardly imagine becoming a disembodied soul is good for one's mental health. Nasu might have made his fiat, but I get the impression he's never truly thought about what it means.

I think 5,000 recorded history of us not accomplishing that and fucking the planet over is a fair argument.

[yokushi]

I think the issue (or at least an​ issue) with it is, like Amakusa, Kirsch was trying to kickstart humanity's next evolution forcefully on his own instead of letting it happen collectively.

The actual issue Guda has with Wodime's plan is that it makes impossible to recover PHH, and Guda can't accept that outcome. It's even said in that very scene.

[InsertNameHere]

I think 5,000 recorded history of us not accomplishing that and fucking the planet over is a fair argument.

Counterpoint: It takes time to go from banging rocks together to where we are now, and there are plenty of chances to accomplish it in the coming centuries, especially now that there's more and more signs of people as a whole cleaning up their act and unfucking the planet. Besides, the end result of the Age of Will is that we cease to be human and become something so profoundly alien that I'm not sure if becoming one would even be an improvement. We certainly won't get there or to a better outcome with that negative attitude though, that's for sure.

[OnesFleetingGlory]

I take Nasu's words more as "you do you, I'm not forcing you to undergo the change, so you could continue with your lives the way you like, we'll let you be."

[InsertNameHere]

I can't help but suspect that "left behind" means more like "left to rot" though. And seriously, why does going into space specifically require abandoning our bodies and our humanity with them? Author fiat again?

[Red Dingo]

Left to rot is generally what happens when you don't leave the planet when the next mass extinction event hits. And you are placing way too much ontological importance on the human body when it has always been the Will that commands it that creates value and meaning.

[InsertNameHere]

Left to rot is generally what happens when you don't leave the planet when the next mass extinction event hits. And you are placing way too much ontological importance on the human body when it has always been the Will that commands it that creates value and meaning.

Again, you presuppose that abandoning the body is the only way to go into space. And do you think the will is something that can just be separated from its vessel without consequences? The will might command the body, but it's still just software that only works with a very specific set of hardware and can't be uninstalled without destroying it.

[OnesFleetingGlory]

I can't help but suspect that "left behind" means more like "left to rot" though.

If everyone's forced to follow through with a change that drastic, including the unwilling ones, there will be a repeat like in Olympus; a group of dissenters or even resenters that will become rebels in the darker side of the brave new world. Someday, it'll blow up in their faces and conflicts will escalate again. It's important for anyone who seeks that kind of world to take those into account. Kirschtaria's flaws, as mentioned, naively believed that everyone would unanimously be onboard with his plans, which caused Beryl to kill him.

And seriously, why does going into space specifically require abandoning our bodies and our humanity with them? Author fiat again?

This is only my guess, but humans need a lot of factors to survive; foods, water, oxygen, temperature, etc. Earth is the one known place where the environment supports humanity's survival. Them leaving the planet means leaving that same environment. They can't even be certain if there's similar place out there that supports humanity the way Earth did. Hypothetically, if their technology is advanced enough, bordering science fiction, they might be able to sustain themselves, but it's unknown how long they need to stay in that hypothetical spaceship until they find suitable planet. Will they find resources to keep going? Will things be peaceful during the journey? Will floating about in the space not affect them mentally? Actually, their mental healths could also be considered for that kind of journey.

Instead of finding a suitable environment, they might have better chances by making themselves adaptive to new environment, therefore increasing their survivability. In this case I think Nasu's answer is that by not possessing a body eliminates most of human needs that affect their longevities.

It's all my guess, though.

[ItsaRandomUsername]

Humans also left our primate and proto-human ancestors behind, too, albeit that was over the natural course of evolution, passage of time, and appropriate factors that enabled said forward momentum.