Hmm, it seems I misunderstood your point, then. I completely agree that the ending of The Good Place - or, rather, the choices that the characters make - is pro

Hmm, it seems I misunderstood your point, then. I completely agree that the ending of The Good Place - or, rather, the choices that the characters make - is profoundly _wrong_. The assumption that "good things could become boring" is a consumerist one - assuming that we could simply "run out of good feelings", not recognizing that satisfaction can arise from creation, from socializing, from mental pursuits like mathematics or philosophy. So, yes, I'm totally in agreement with that article that the ending, while played touchingly, is philosophical nonsense. But that doesn't seem to be what you were, or are, saying. If you issue is specifically with "an epicurean theme park of enlightenment and joy to span the stars", and not with the dramatized reaction to (against) it, then...I must say I still don't understand what the problem is. An experience which is _definitionally_ pleasant, fulfilling, and non-harmful (to self or others) is....well, it's capital-g Good, no? > The real world is important. Real struggle against, and with, reality, nature and not just our fellow humans. What is it about the real world that is more important, inherently, than "the experiences that arise from living in it"? If a "better" (I'm hand-waving the complexity of comparison, because it's assumed as part of the discussion) set of experiences can arise - with perfect certainty, no trade-offs, no utilitarian cheats, just "everything is better for everyone" - then, as the other commenter said, it would be abhorrent to deny it 'because of some philosophical quibble about a difference between “simulation” vs “reality”'.