Not about the point I was making. You are saying that humans survive in a collective of some sort, instead of individually, much like animals, but I was speaking in terms of survival with Civilization around. Let's say ten people are living in a wilderness, living off what the land currently provides in that season, without trade (and therefore a move towards civilization) with other tribes . I'm talking about removing everything humanity has built over the past 10,000 years. This was the point I was making. Many people have no idea what is a natural act in this context, because they have never actually had to expend any effort in that direction. Have you hunted or gathered for you calories, across many years and seasons? No. Therefore, you are a Civilization centrist, buffered by the efforts and ingenuity of all the other people around you. This pseudo-nature, running in parallel with the natural world, looks analogous with nature, but its not.
I can't really argue with this.there are more females born when there is scarcity. there are more gay people in societies with larger population. i dont know the mechanism of this, but i hate those kind of assumptions that its somehow unnatural. u dont know how this happens. implicitly nothing is unnatural anyway, but people use that term as if to mean "good" or "necessary" and create self contradictory theories that dont factor in everything just to fir their bias and act like thats definietly truth, the only truth and the whole truth.
Yes. Lots can be improved. But to say the future is only for cockroaches is a paradigm that exists because of the nuclear option, not anything else. Even with all our disgusting pollution, we will not collapse the entire planetary system and leave Earth on a runaway train towards the same atmosphere as venus. These are memetic devices meant to shape and socially engineer human behaviour. Earth and life will go on, no matter what occurs. Its done it several times before. By the time the next Ice Age hits, (if there is one, maybe we put forth a unconscious, purposeful effort to avoid another one, having lived, as a species, through several others), all of the life we screwed up will have adapted.so does human intellect, and so is necessary for the development of a higher intellect. lets turn everything good into garbage so only cockroaches and parasites survive.
agroculture and civilization came after hunter-gathering, maybe due to scarcity. farmers in nature have less animal products and their bodies pay a price. often they are known for cannibalism. there have been some studies done on hunter-gatherer groups and they are what u would call lazy. agroculture has come with multitude modern diseases, contamination due to sedentary lifestyle and dense populations
Yes. Stands to reason. A bored human being, or a human being inheriting problems from ancestors, can become neurotic, wishing for a end to the problems, and the ego complex feeling so trapped, it ends the life of the organism. Terrible and tragic. I dont suggest eating magic mushrooms if your mind is inclined to this sort of pondering. The weight of it all might be to much to bare.there are less suicides if at all in hunter gatherer societies, and there have been suicides due to being forced into a civilized lifestyle.
u could argue those are different kinds of civilizations
I think the hippies tried this. However, you do realize who you are talking to, right? I lived off grid for a large portion of my 20s. I don't need to be lectured on the virtues of returning to the land. I did it already and its hard and it kind of sucks. But news flash, our brains evolved PRIOR civilization. What do you make of that?if u want to return to the jungle completely on ur own, which is different than hunter gatherer societies, u will return to monke and say goodbye to ur neo cortex because that life style cant support ur body and mind. there is nothing glorious or superior about that. this is regression and degradation.
Again, you have a habit of blowing past my point. I'm not arguing for a return to nature lifestyle. I'm simply saying having an opinion about social constructs vs natural instinct- imperatives, is lopsided and incomplete, given the extent of the personal lack of experience of the one's holding the opinion. I extend this critique to University types, or whoever lacks the ability to remain objective given their comfort within the Matrix itself.