Type Moon General

[blast flame]

Imagine a world with Trump as the immortal god emperor. As Chaplain once said, the hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. A world without death would need just one bad actor to sieze power to ruin it forever. Just look at SIN - it's people are left ignorant and stupid while the immortal emperor lives it up in luxury. It's relatively fine in SIN because Qin Shi Huang has what he believes to be humanity's best interests at heart, but it's easy to imagine how things could go horrifically wrong if he wasn't so 'benevolent.'

Click to shrink...

Dictators have already found a way of making their oppression transcend death via handing their power down to their children - monarchy. And without death you also could not kill the revolutionaries. I don't think we can immediately conclude that immortal, eternal dictatorships would be the result of immortality. Or for that matter that avoiding immortality will prevent them; most of human history was under the control of oppressors of some strip or the other.

Instead, we should continue to be committed to defending the principle of liberal democracy. Modifying it as need be with term limits and such to accommodate the new realities.

 

[Ferian]

Imagine a world with Trump as the immortal god emperor. As Chaplain once said, the hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish. A world without death would need just one bad actor to sieze power to ruin it forever. Just look at SIN - it's people are left ignorant and stupid while the immortal emperor lives it up in luxury. It's relatively fine in SIN because Qin Shi Huang has what he believes to be humanity's best interests at heart, but it's easy to imagine how things could go horrifically wrong if he wasn't so 'benevolent.'

Click to shrink...

A tyrant only holds power as long as there are people who grant it to him. Only in fiction can an individual's power reach the heights necessary to personally hold absolute authority over entire nations or species. Maybe in the future, a system such as SIN will become possible - for a human to expand their consciousness sufficiently to monitor the entirety of the planet in real time or otherwise be functionally omnipresent. As things are, though, ruling requires delegation so I don't believe one bad actor would be sufficient to ruin everything forever.

I'd also like to point out that the world of SIN had only reached such a state because humans other than Qin were not immortal - previous ideas could be removed, and new ideas prevented from blossoming. In a world where everyone is immortal, where the opposition does not die when they are killed, a tyrant cannot secure his rule in such a manner, either. Ultimately, I think the only kind of absolute ruler that can survive forever in such a society is a Messianic archetype that is absolutely inoffensive and cannot do harm to anyone, ever. Anything less that that will cause the eventual accumulation of doubt and/or bad faith leading to their replacement. Either compromise (hopefully something better than democracy) or anarchy will be the more probable realities of such a world.


On the other hand, human stupidity truly is infinite. So, yeah, it's really easy to imagine things going horrifically wrong.

 

[Sightedjt]

I still think sustainability is the biggest issue for immortality, over social stuff. Because if you don't have the sustainability to last forever, you aren't going to make it and then you're immortal still but you've ran out of the resources you need to keep your society going.

And we are still nowhere near that point.

 

[blast flame]

I don't see why immortality would make, say, renewable energy research grind to a halt. If anything old people with power suddenly realising they'll be alive to experience the effects of global warming will make them care about it.

We're going to work out how to make sure civilisation survives in the future whether you've got the current set of people or a different set of people.

 

[GilliamYaeger]

Dictators have already found a way of making their oppression transcend death via handing their power down to their children - monarchy. And without death you also could not kill the revolutionaries. I don't think we can immediately conclude that immortal, eternal dictatorships would be the result of immortality. Or for that matter that avoiding immortality will prevent them; most of human history was under the control of oppressors of some strip or the other.

Instead, we should continue to be committed to defending the principle of liberal democracy. Modifying it as need be with term limits and such to accommodate the new realities.

Click to shrink...

Undying dictators and undying revolutionaries would simply lead to undying war. History is filled with dictatorships and oppression, but they were always temporary, in part due to how succession is inherently flawed - one's heir is never guaranteed to be as capable as their predecessor, and many dynasties have fallen based on the actions of a single weak ruler. And just as many dynasties have become greater after passing hands into the control of a more capable ruler. New viewpoints and new ideas are introduced with every generation, viewpoints and ideas that likely wouldn't ever be considered by the previous generation because humans have a tendency to stick with what they know works rather than what's optimal.

And even if you're right, what place do the young have within an immortal society? How would they fit into a world where all possible jobs are held by immortals who are vastly more experienced than they could ever be? How do you solve issues of overpopulation and resource depletion - even if people don't need to eat or drink due to magic immortality they still need electricity and other modern necessities, and we're struggling to sustain our current society as things stand. And these problems would only get worse, since with nobody dying or aging the population would explode as people never stop having kids. Kids who need places to live and power to burn. Our death rate as things stand is only half the birth rate. Just imagine what would happen if it was 0% the birth rate.

If we were capable of, say, colonizing other worlds, a lot of these issues would be solvable. But our current society would simply end up buckling under the strain, burning through our limited resources exponentially faster than we already are. We're just not ready for the practical realities of immortality. If we were reduced to robots who never fucked or fought like Amakusa wanted then maybe it would work out, but everyone has issues with that part of his plan.

 

[Queshire]

I can't help but feel that this is getting into derail territory.

 

[Sightedjt]

It's not just renewable energy, there's masses of non renewable resources that we need to figure out what to do with, and I would prefer that those issues are dealt with before any social change of immortality coming happens, because however long it takes for things to settle down post immortality switch, because there is absolutely going to be upheaval because of it, might be so long that we pass a tipping point regarding those resources.

Also Amakusa is an edgy git who is trying to mess with the thing anyway and is probly gonna screw humanity a bit and yes this is not the immortality ethics thread.

 

[FeigningGrey]

I am in favour of immortality because it means Arash doesn't die when he STELLAs.
I am not in favour of immortality because it means there is no way to kill Ozzy.
This is my dilemma.

 

[blast flame]

I can't help but feel that this is getting into derail territory.

Click to shrink...

Ok, I'll stop now after making a brief closing statement, I don't think either side is going to convince the other. Darn, I had half a response to the previous post written up too.

Closing statement: I'm not saying that immortality won't cause any problems we have to deal with but it isn't worth literally killing everyone to avoid those problems. I'm willing to take some problems to avoid the sheer horribleness that is everyone dying.

 

[GilliamYaeger]

Ok, I'll stop now after making a brief closing statement, I don't think either side is going to convince the other. Darn, I had half a response to the previous post written up too.

Closing statement: I'm not saying that immortality won't cause any problems we have to deal with but it isn't worth literally killing everyone to avoid those problems. I'm willing to take some problems to avoid the sheer horribleness that is everyone dying.

Click to shrink...

Well, one thing I think both sides can agree on are that Fate's own arguments against immortality are complete nonsense.

 

[Seihai-kun]

Well, to be fair, Amakusa and Goetia's immortality came packaged with "removal of human suffering". "Being unconformable enough with the present to want to change it" is also a form of suffering that would be removed alongside it.

 

[blast flame]

Well that depends how extreme you went with it I suppose. I might support a more limited version of ending suffering, like agony and clinical depression and such while leaving stuff like wanting to change the world, boredom, ennui, etc in tact.

So we'd have to have a firm idea of just how far he wants to go to know if I'd support him there. I'll give Amakusa the benefit of the doubt in FGO at least.

 

[Squirtodyle]

So we'd have to have a firm idea of just how far he wants to go to know if I'd support him there. I'll give Amakusa the benefit of the doubt in FGO at least.

Click to shrink...

Why? He outright says that he'll still try steal a Grail and achieve his goal because he flat out refuses to acknowledge he might be wrong, even though absent any moral issues, his plan would objectively be wrong and result in a culled timeline.

 

[blast flame]

Why? He outright says that he'll still try steal a Grail and achieve his goal because he flat out refuses to acknowledge he might be wrong, even though absent any moral issues, his plan would objectively be wrong and result in a culled timeline.

Click to shrink...

I'd be doing pretty much the same thing if I lived in a setting as shitty as the Nasuverse. It's not his fault Nasu wrote his setting.

 

[Madou Sutegobana]

I can't help but feel that this is getting into derail territory.

Click to shrink...

How is this a derail?

The subject is Nasu's philosophy as presented in his work, and this is a Type Moon general thread. This is a hell of a lot more relevant than most topics that have been brought up!

It looks like more messages have been posted since I started typIng.

Anyways, I find it really offensive as well as perplexing that Nasu alters Amakusa's and Mao's history such that the bloodthirsty tyrant that butchered Buddhists as well as Christians is a moe waifu, while the rebel that stood against him is a tyrannical oppresser. So I made my own versions of those "Heroic" Spirits, which I use in fics, and ignore his.

 

[Seihai-kun]

Well, one thing I think both sides can agree on are that Fate's own arguments against immortality are complete nonsense.

Click to shrink...

Speak for yourself, I agree with at least half of them. Humanity isn't ready for any form of immortality and won't be for at least the next hundred of years.

Well that depends how extreme you went with it I suppose. I might support a more limited version of ending suffering, like agony and clinical depression and such while leaving stuff like wanting to change the world, boredom, ennui, etc in tact.

So we'd have to have a firm idea of just how far he wants to go to know if I'd support him there. I'll give Amakusa the benefit of the doubt in FGO at least.

Click to shrink...

There's also the fact that leaving the job of doing that to someone that's not human, like Goetia, or is clearly crazy and talking bullshit, like Amakusa, will definitively lead to those extreme scenarios. That's why they should be stopped, even if you do agree with the general idea of their plans.

I'd be doing pretty much the same thing if I lived in a setting as shitty as the Nasuverse. It's not his fault Nasu wrote his setting.

Click to shrink...

You clearly are human (Or are you? *DUNDUNDUN*) and knows extremes are bad at least. I still would stop you, because it's still a stupid idea.

I mean, humans are stupid as fuck. Sooner or later we would find a way to fuck it all up.

 

[The Imperator]

Well that depends how extreme you went with it I suppose. I might support a more limited version of ending suffering, like agony and clinical depression and such while leaving stuff like wanting to change the world, boredom, ennui, etc in tact.

So we'd have to have a firm idea of just how far he wants to go to know if I'd support him there. I'll give Amakusa the benefit of the doubt in FGO at least.

Click to shrink...

I don't see why immortality would make, say, renewable energy research grind to a halt. If anything old people with power suddenly realising they'll be alive to experience the effects of global warming will make them care about it.

We're going to work out how to make sure civilisation survives in the future whether you've got the current set of people or a different set of people.

Click to shrink...

In the anime (english translation at least), Amakusa directly says survival instincts will dissipate. That basically removes most things in humans that drive them forward at all. In the subs, it just says "instincts", but that's pretty similar. Amakusa's plan is not a good one.

So while emotions will continue, there won't be survival instincts to guide them, at least in the English translation.

If this is completely different than the original Japanese of the anime, then I apologize for not speaking Japanese and only understanding it derivatively.

I'd be doing pretty much the same thing if I lived in a setting as shitty as the Nasuverse. It's not his fault Nasu wrote his setting.

Click to shrink...

While yes, the setting is a bit bleak, rather than forcing everyone to dance to your strings as Amakusa was, working to get humanity to all get to that point collectively would be the more correct solution.

How is this a derail?

The subject is Nasu's philosophy as presented in his work, and this is a Type Moon general thread. This is a hell of a lot more relevant than most topics that have been brought up!

It looks like more messages have been posted since I started typIng.

Anyways, I find it really offensive as well as perplexing that Nasu alters Amakusa's and Mao's history such that the bloodthirsty tyrant that butchered Buddhists as well as Christians is a moe waifu, while the rebel that stood against him is a tyrannical oppresser. So I made my own versions of those "Heroic" Spirits, which I use in fics, and ignore his.

Click to shrink...

Amakusa changed after being brought back for 70 more years, effectively living another life. He didn't start that way AFAIK.

 

[all fictions]

Mao's

Click to shrink...

Do you mean Nobunaga?

while the rebel that stood against him is a tyrannical oppresser

Click to shrink...

Amakusa is presented as extremely wrong, but I wouldn't say that makes him a tyrannical oppressor. It doesn't negate what he did in life either because that is presented positively IIRC, his design with the Grail came after his death.

Also, neither of those Servants are the result of Nasu "altering things" since he didn't create them.

 

[Squirtodyle]

I'd be doing pretty much the same thing if I lived in a setting as shitty as the Nasuverse. It's not his fault Nasu wrote his setting.

Click to shrink...

So you're willing to actively consign the entirety of humanity and in fact all life on the planet to complete cessation of existence because you don't like the setting?

I have to admit, I don't quite understand why you're okay with killing everything ever, but not with letting things be as they are. It's incredibly pessimistic.

 

[all fictions]

I'd be doing pretty much the same thing if I lived in a setting as shitty as the Nasuverse. It's not his fault Nasu wrote his setting.

Click to shrink...

I dunno, this is a setting where human progress, science overtaking magic, and going into space are presented very positively. There are good and bad things.

 

[GilliamYaeger]

Rather than using the Grail wish to give humanity immortality, it'd be better to use the wish to accelerate humanity's progress so we reach the conditions for safely obtaining immortality on our own as fast as possible. You'd get the same result, but with less damage and less chance of getting the timeline pruned.

 

[FeigningGrey]

Humanity in the Nasuverse kind of has a good deal cut out for it, if you don't count the Human Order Timeline Fucking System, which Amakusa's plan never really accounted for (on account of it not being a thing at the time but shhhhhhhhh) and would've gotten culled for all his trouble. Maybe.

Now, the real visionary that we should all be looking towards for the salvation of humanity is Mister Sir Lord Kirschtaria Fucking Wodime.

 

[blast flame]

In the anime (english translation at least), Amakusa directly says survival instincts will dissipate. That basically removes most things in humans that drive them forward at all. In the subs, it just says "instincts", but that's pretty similar. Amakusa's plan is not a good one.

Click to shrink...

Maybe he just means that rather than any kind of forced change to people's mental state the mere fact that they know they won't be killed by a stranger or starvation or accident (or even a failed rocket launch) will allow them to learn new behaviours over time that don't have to prioritise survival. Allowing us to be more trusting of strangers, to be more willing to undertake physically risky endeavours.

So you're willing to actively consign the entirety of humanity and in fact all life on the planet to complete cessation of existence because you don't like the setting?

I have to admit, I don't quite understand why you're okay with killing everything ever, but not with letting things be as they are. It's incredibly pessimistic.

Click to shrink...

I saw some stuff that said Nasu never actually confirmed Amakusa's plan would lead to pruning. I'd take that chance. Especially if I was in setting without a WoG narrator.

If you tell me it's wrong to fight against involuntary suffering and death to the absolute best of our abilities I can't agree with that. To accept these things seems far more inhuman to be than any changes fixing them would bring.

I mean, humans are stupid as fuck. Sooner or later we would find a way to fuck it all up.

Click to shrink...

Doesn't that also apply to our non-immortal world with lots of suffering? I'll improve things and see where the cards land, I think.

 

[The Imperator]

Maybe he just means that rather than any kind of forced change to people's mental state the mere fact that they know they won't be killed by a stranger or starvation or accident (or even a failed rocket launch) will allow them to learn new behaviours over time that don't have to prioritise survival. Allowing us to be more trusting of strangers, to be more willing to undertake physically risky endeavours.

Click to shrink...

His plan rests on the assumption that humans are inherently evil and can't ever do better. Gilles spells it out, and Amakusa doesn't deny it, when trying to get Jeanne to their side. They have to get rid of what makes humans human because Amakusa sees that as inherently evil. If Amakusa gave them any kind of choice, that would run contrary to his raison d'etre at that point in the story is that he wants to kill anyone that disagrees with his plan (showing he hates free will) and stop giving humans a choice (because he sees humans as evil and incapable of doing better on their own).

I saw some stuff that said Nasu never actually confirmed Amakusa's plan would lead to pruning. I'd take that chance. Especially if I was in setting without a WoG narrator.

If you tell me it's wrong to fight against involuntary suffering and death to the absolute best of our abilities I can't agree with that. To accept these things seems far more inhuman to be than any changes fixing them would bring.


Doesn't that also apply to our non-immortal world with lots of suffering? I'll improve things and see where the cards land, I think.

Click to shrink...

Fighting against it doesn't require killing anyone who doesn't like it and stopping humans from having any instincts. Use the Greater Grail (given it's not corrupted in this time line) to accelerate humanity's development rather than forcibly changing everyone. I know I would not take kindly to suddenly getting my instincts neutered and losing my body.

 

[Squirtodyle]

I saw some stuff that said Nasu never actually confirmed Amakusa's plan would lead to pruning. I'd take that chance. Especially if I was in setting without a WoG narrator.

If you tell me it's wrong to fight against involuntary suffering and death to the absolute best of our abilities I can't agree with that. To accept these things seems far more inhuman to be than any changes fixing them would bring.

Click to shrink...

Being willing to stake the entirety of existence on the off chance that your idea, which perfectly fits the criteria of culling, would result in a world that wouldn't be culled is pretty evil.

Like, not gonna lie, "deciding to do something that will almost certainly destroy the world so as to "help" humanity" sounds like the motivation of a JRPG villain.