This is a very common miscommunication regarding idealistic goals. When somebody has an idealistic goal, they don't mean that they think the practical downsides

This is a very common miscommunication regarding idealistic goals. When somebody has an idealistic goal, they don't mean that they think the practical downsides are worth living with forever. The implication is that they want to overcome those downsides. E.g. getting rid of the poisons of nationalism without getting rid of the differences in culture, or getting rid of the restriction of movement based on national borders without getting rid of the ability to restrict movement during a viral outbreak. These types of goals sound almost impossible, at least until a far flung future, but that's why we say these are ideals. Colloquially, "idealism" implies "almost impossible". The misunderstanding comes when one person speaks under the assumption that these downsides are surmountable, and the other person speaks under the assumption that these downsides are insurmountable, when really they should be arguing more directly about how to achieve the goal or how achieving it is unrealistic, instead of Team Idealism just saying "think about this future, wouldn't it be great?", and Team Realism just saying "we haven't achieved it yet, so I think it's impossible".