I got that as well but my point was lack of wonders like pyramid and some media doesn’t even count as a drawback if we can abolish slavery, which still exist in a different form and name. They simply aren’t on the same balance.
I don’t really follow what “on the same balance” means; I guess it’s simply that the benefit far, far outweighs the negative? Or, that the negative should never be mentioned because it implies benefits behind something horrible?
I can marginally understand the latter. It’s a bit like trying to praise a piece of artwork on its own (because it’s a really amazing piece, and it could even inspire other people) while trying to set aside that its artist was a terrible person who deserves no recognition.
Part of the reason I bring it up is, I’d like to hear more vocalizations on whether these things should exist. Under a certain forward-thinking mindset, it could be that neither GTA 6 or Elder Scrolls 6 ever comes out - or they cost $100 and take 10 years, to adequately pay the developers and give them healthy time off. The math is never straightforward, of course, but it’s something of a thought experiment to get people to think about what they care about most.
Former actually, as you said pretty much every good thing had some negatives, it’s all a trade off on one way or another. But if it was between art and slavery, one outweigh the other heavily. And I feel the same for games as well, I don’t mind waiting and paying a higher price if I have to.
I completely agree with that, which is why the first thing I said is I prefer a world where we don’t have those.
I can still admit the pyramids are nice to look at - but if I’m reminded of the kind of human cost put into creating them, I’d rather not have them.
I got that as well but my point was lack of wonders like pyramid and some media doesn’t even count as a drawback if we can abolish slavery, which still exist in a different form and name. They simply aren’t on the same balance.
I don’t really follow what “on the same balance” means; I guess it’s simply that the benefit far, far outweighs the negative? Or, that the negative should never be mentioned because it implies benefits behind something horrible?
I can marginally understand the latter. It’s a bit like trying to praise a piece of artwork on its own (because it’s a really amazing piece, and it could even inspire other people) while trying to set aside that its artist was a terrible person who deserves no recognition.
Part of the reason I bring it up is, I’d like to hear more vocalizations on whether these things should exist. Under a certain forward-thinking mindset, it could be that neither GTA 6 or Elder Scrolls 6 ever comes out - or they cost $100 and take 10 years, to adequately pay the developers and give them healthy time off. The math is never straightforward, of course, but it’s something of a thought experiment to get people to think about what they care about most.
Former actually, as you said pretty much every good thing had some negatives, it’s all a trade off on one way or another. But if it was between art and slavery, one outweigh the other heavily. And I feel the same for games as well, I don’t mind waiting and paying a higher price if I have to.