Why is civilization considered an inherent good?

[TheLostMarxBrotherFucko]

Of course all of the benefits of civilization have their own downsides. But "civilization (in and of itself) is... le bad!" is an absurd response to these problems. Most of the problems you expressed are more of a result of the more modern Line Go Up/Globalism type cultures, instead of generalized 'civilization'.

Did more racially-based (or similar) cultures with a strong sense of nationalistic duty have these same problems we face today, in our modern globalist culture overly obsessed with continuous meteoric profit and needlessly advancing technology while ignoring cultural stability? No, or at least not nearly to he same extant. Obviously, these older cultural types had their own problems too, there's no denying that, but to say that the modern rot overtaking modern humanity is indicative of the problem of advanced civilization in general is a very reductive take.

I still understand what both you and OP are getting at (despite the general OP faggotry), modern globalistic civilization as a whole can easily be considered as too oversized and cumbersome for little benefit, but 'civilization' in and of itself, as in "tribes of tribes" is a benefit to its constituents just like a smaller 'tribe' is a benefit to its own constituents. The actual problem is the naïve extension of the globalist 'tribe of tribes' being understood as 'the entire planet, all of humanity', and similar naiveties like the obsession with "GDP", or other jewish nonsense.

I don't completely agree with OP. Medicine, Art, Science, ETC are in and of themselves are a good thing. However, industry has ruined these concepts over time. Industry is caused by Civilization. You can "blame the Jewz" all you want. Civilization gave birth to industry which has taken (again these concepts) and created problems. Take Fat Americans for example. Civilization created the supply and demand for unhealthy to down right toxic food. General convenience is not a good thing. It has created waste, pollution, and other products over time that will destroy itself.

TLDR; Civilization= industry = Decay

 

[draggs]

Why is civilization an inherent good? He asked through his machine made by civilization, before chugging his drink made by civilization, then stuffing his food made by civilization and warmed to a pleasing temperature by civilization into his craw, in the comfortable climate of his home, both made by civilization. Checkmate, he thought. Then, as his left arm felt numb and terrible pain lanced through his chest, he grabbed his phone made by civilization and called for help. Total strangers arrived within minutes - civilization - and used various machines and medicines made by civilization to save his life and transport him to the hospital made by civilization, where more total strangers - civilization - kept him alive and eventually sent him home. More total strangers - civilization - and medicines - civilization - helped his body recover over the coming months. The burning question remained: why is civilization an inherent good?

 

[The News Crews]

"I feel lonely and unfulfilled in this modern world, what could the possibilities be?"

1. "Maybe YOU just aren't cut out for IT? It's not a big deal, hermits and anchorites were a recognized reality for hundreds and thousands of years. Just learn to live with yourself and carve out own smaller community if it's so important to you."

Again, conveniently leaving out that people are lonelier now than ever. You can hardly call it a "you" problem if over half of Americans feel lonely. You also mention hermits and "carving out" a community as if it's that easy to do in today's interconnected world where everything and everyone is tied to the techno-industrial system whether they like it or not. Wanna go live in the woods and hunt your own food? Sorry buddy, but that's poaching you gotta go to jail or pay a fine now.

Medicine, advanced communication, religion, quality of life, general convenience, art and science

But why are any of those things important? Medicine sure, but even then contrary to popular belief, hunter-gatherers don't just get AIDS and die from a random scratch. Major disease outbreaks didn't happen in the same ways as they did in agricultural societies, people weren't as tightly packed and when they saw a sick person they would stay away. Not to mention that hunter-gatherers were generally were generally healthier than their peers, and thus had more robust immune systems. Not to mention the thousands of years of trial and error which made tribal medicines that weren't insignificant in their effects.

But "advanced communication" why would I need that in tribal life? Religion? why would I need organized religion in tribal life? Spirituality is just fine. Quality of life? Lol, lmao even, which is why the depression and loneliness rates are still x5 higher than before the industrial revolution. Convenience? What good is convenience if it trivializes life? If you had a button to instantly get whatever you wanted whenever you wanted you'd become miserable and bored in days. art and science? Literally who cares? Also, how is primitive art any less valuable than civilized art?

The way I see it, the internet is like a hammer. It can be equally useful and destructive. It is simply a communication tool. If corporations that existed before the internet are using it for a profit motive to the detriment of society, I suggest you don't use their products - easier said than done, though.

Even if I don't use it, it still effects the people around me and those I interact with. Humans don't exist in a bubble, and I have to unfortunately deal with the myriad of issues that the internet has had on society.

My point was that if the internet had never existed, there would be no socially acceptable mechanism to express disdain about your current situation

That is one benefit, however I do not consider this to outweigh the other issues that the internet has caused

The further back in time you go, the greater the likelihood of being considered a social outcast increases. Society as a whole is more tolerant and acceptingfor better or for worse of those different from them. People forgot how stringent hierarchies of the past were, with no opportunity for upward mobility.

I was more so talking about you are less likely to be lonely the further back in time you travel, this is a well-documented phenomena. Even in 2000 it was known that loneliness rates were rising (see bowling alone)

I'll let David Mitchell explain.

I'll bite
>lying in your own shit at 43 with rotten teeth
Quite literally all issues that happened because of agriculture. Waste management is only an issue in sedentary societies where waste builds up. In nomadic hunter-gatherer societies you just shit on the ground and be done with it. What happens to it? Not your problem, it will be gone by the time you come back anyways. It's a meme that hunter-gatherers die at 32, when it reality they usually live up to their mid 50's, there is just a lot of child mortality (which is just natural selection). Rotten teeth only started happening when we switched to a high-carb low-protein diet (pic related)

Because the alternative was being preyed on by big cats, having to constantly worry about where your next meal was coming from, and dying at 30 from an injury we can now easily treat.

All memes, big cats, like bears, and other large predators, only attacked humans when they were starving or other desperate situations. Hunting gazelles is much easier, they put up less of a fight, you are less likely to be killed by their friends (other humans), and give you more calories for the work you put in. Worrying about your next meal makes sense on paper but as it turns out Early agriculturalist were actually MORE starved. As for dying at 30 from a papercut, didn't happen nearly as often. Do you think pre-agricultural humans were just mouth-breathing retards? They understood the basics of wound-cleaning and natural medicine. Just because they didn't know how it worked doesn't mean it didn't work

The shift from pre-agricultural man to "civilization" allowed for greater productivity, but this was then hijacked by states.

But the state can only exist when there is a surplus of food, such as in agriculture, fishing villages, or some nomadic societies with livestock. Agriculture wasn't "hijacked" by the state, it's a by-product of it. I also don't see why "productivity" is inherently good either. Hunter-Gatherers already lived fulfilling lives satisfying their base biological and social needs, what good is more "productivity"?

Try living outside of it to get your answer.

Can you expand on this point? What is the system you’re referring to?

In modern industrial society, you have less independence than you would in primitive society. In modern industrial life, you wake up and drive to your job (which you are forced to have, and probably hate). The roads you drive on have extremely specific rules and regulations on how you navigate them. You then arrive to your Mcjob and wageslave for about 8 hours, doing whatever tasks your boss demands of you. You then drive to shartmart and buy groceries which you are forced to buy, you then arrive back to your apartment which you are forced to pay rent in. But there is a man in your apartment! Of course you don't shoot him though, that's against the law! So instead you wait outside because that's what the police say to do, and if you do shoot him he could take you to court and sue you.
>inb4 some faggot nitpicks
The point I am trying to make is that in modern-day society, you have thousands of different rules and regulations on what you can and cannot do, compared to hunter-gatherer societies, where the individual has much more freedom.

Why is civilization an inherent good? He asked through his machine made by civilization, before chugging his drink made by civilization, then stuffing his food made by civilization and warmed to a pleasing temperature by civilization into his craw, in the comfortable climate of his home, both made by civilization. Checkmate, he thought. Then, as his left arm felt numb and terrible pain lanced through his chest, he grabbed his phone made by civilization and called for help. Total strangers arrived within minutes - civilization - and used various machines and medicines made by civilization to save his life and transport him to the hospital made by civilization, where more total strangers - civilization - kept him alive and eventually sent him home. More total strangers - civilization - and medicines - civilization - helped his body recover over the coming months. The burning question remained: why is civilization an inherent good?

"You are criticizing civilization? Well buddy don't you know that you are in a civilization? Checkmate "

 

[Großmann]

In modern industrial life, you wake up and drive to your job (which you are forced to have, and probably hate) … You then arrive to your Mcjob and wageslave for about 8 hours, doing whatever tasks your boss demands of you.

In a primitive hunter-gatherer society, you’d be forced to hunt, prepare the meat for cooking, turn non-edibles into materials for clothing or tools, manage your shelter, and perform other tasks that the group’s leader directs you to perform. You’d have little down time for entertainment or art and you’d likely not enjoy most of your day.

The roads you drive on have extremely specific rules and regulations on how you navigate them.

Many nations around the world have very loose road laws and regulations, so this is not universal. Regardless, if people are flying around at high speed in multi-ton iron boxes, you probably want your society to agree on how to limit the danger inherent to driving.

You then drive to shartmart and buy groceries which you are forced to buy, you then arrive back to your apartment which you are forced to pay rent in.

Like stated earlier, you’d spend way more time in a primitive society on obtaining usable foodstuff. Going to a store is not that hard. On top of that, you would have a little shelter, if that, for yourself (more than likely, you’d be in a one-room hut with your parents since a solitary man having a space to himself would be unusual and inefficient in a primitive society).

But there is a man in your apartment! Of course you don't shoot him though, that's against the law! So instead you wait outside because that's what the police say to do, and if you do shoot him he could take you to court and sue you.

Like with driving laws, this is not universal. Even in this instance, laws that restrict use of force to particular circumstances are designed to stop malcontents from killing people in their house unjustly and playing it off as a break-in. Either way, less likely to happen to you in a first world society (even in a third world society) than an animal or rival social group sacking your little tribe in a primitive time.

The point I am trying to make is that in modern-day society, you have thousands of different rules and regulations on what you can and cannot do, compared to hunter-gatherer societies, where the individual has much more freedom.

Wrong. People rarely were solitary in the time of hunter-gatherers. People in those societies were extremely collectivist and socialized. You feel like you could go innawoods these days and do it by yourself (if it weren’t for those gosh-darn laws) because you take for granted that someone made your clothes, tools, food, weapons, and building materials. In the society you romanticize, you wouldn’t have anything but maybe a very crude weapon and some shitty clothes that may do you for the warmer months before winter killed you.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

It's not exactly an "inherent" good. It's a means to more easily acquire other goods.
It makes all survival essentials so trivial to obtain that it's nearly impossible to starve or dehydrate to death. Shelter from the elements is taken for granted among all but the very most destitute. Division of labor enables people to innovate within their selected field. Proximity to people allows for the fulfillment of social needs and desires.

There's absolutely a litany of drawbacks to living in a dense megalopolis, but just because too much of a good thing isn't so good doesn't mean the right balance isn't amazing.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

But the state can only exist when there is a surplus of food, such as in agriculture, fishing villages, or some nomadic societies with livestock. Agriculture wasn't "hijacked" by the state, it's a by-product of it.

Your thinking there is backwards.
The state is not a natural outgrowth of surplus, it is a parasitic institution that forms by conquest once productive people have created something worth looting.
The state is "the organization of political means" (cf. M. Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State), that is the institutionalized channel for stealing the products of the labor of others. It arises when bandits realize it's more profitable to let people live and produce, and then exact tribute, than to simply kill, rape, loot, and burn once. Agriculture and productivity are preconditions for parasitism, but that does not make the parasite a byproduct of productivity.

I also don't see why "productivity" is inherently good either. Hunter-Gatherers already lived fulfilling lives satisfying their base biological and social needs, what good is more "productivity"?

Productivity is the only way by which human beings can sustain life beyond subsistence. In reality, hunter-gatherers faced high infant mortality, constant risk of injury or famine, no anesthesia, and lifespans often under 40. The division of labor and property rights made possible by civilization are the only reason that you are able to sit around and ponder this.

 

[geckogoy]

Back when real men had to live in the real world they knew that was not something anyone should wish for. The fact that the current civilization turned into a dismal failure is purely a skill issue.

 

[The News Crews]

@Großmann if missing the point was an Olympic sport you'd win the gold metal.

In a primitive hunter-gatherer society, you’d be forced to hunt, prepare the meat for cooking, turn non-edibles into materials for clothing or tools, manage your shelter, and perform other tasks that the group’s leader directs you to perform. You’d have little down time for entertainment or art and you’d likely not enjoy most of your day.

I will admit sometimes I am a retard on phrasing my thoughts, but there is no way you missed the point this badly. In modern industrial life, you have a strict regiment and hours you must comply with, you MUST be at work at a certain time, and you MUST do these incredibly repetitive (and frankly demeaning) tasks in the specific way you are told to. In contrast, hunter gatherer's work has a great deal of independent freedom you can go out when you please, many of them have multiple ways of being solved, and the best part is that the results of the work is immediately apparent. Work is not the issue I'm getting at here, it's the inherent restrictive and demeaning nature of industrial (and to a lesser extent agricultural) work.

Also mien nigger, "leader". This shows you know absolutely nothing about basic anthropology and are just talking out your ass. All modern hunter-gatherer groups (and ancient groups evidentially as by accounts by European explorers) don't have leaders in the traditional sense. At best they have figureheads that give out advice that can be readily ignored. Strict division of labour and hierarchy only exists in civilization. You also assume that primitive work is just a mind-numbing and unenjoyable as modern work, when in reality almost all recorded primitive societies show a great deal of enjoyment in their work (especially in hunting).

Why did you even bother entering the thread if you don't understand the absolute basics

Many nations around the world have very loose road laws and regulations, so this is not universal. Regardless, if people are flying around at high speed in multi-ton iron boxes, you probably want your society to agree on how to limit the danger inherent to driving.

Missed the point again, the problem is that cars themselves restrict my freedom of movement. Before you could walk where you pleased at your own pace, but with the introduction of cars, came more strict traffic laws, and restriction of movement. The problem isn't that "I should be allowed to drive at 300 mph" the problem is that the roads and cars exist in the first place.

Like with driving laws, this is not universal. Even in this instance, laws that restrict use of force to particular circumstances are designed to stop malcontents from killing people in their house unjustly and playing it off as a break-in. Either way, less likely to happen to you in a first world society (even in a third world society) than an animal or rival social group sacking your little tribe in a primitive time.

Missed the point award. I completely understand why these laws exist, the point again, is that these are restrictions that didn't exist before. The point wasn't that violence existed either, I'm really not sure how you could read my post and think "this guy is complaining that violence exists"

Wrong. People rarely were solitary in the time of hunter-gatherers. People in those societies were extremely collectivist and socialized.

The individual still has more freedom in hunter-gatherer societies, he has the power to choose when he hunts, how he hunts, who he hunts with, has no central leadership or authority to answer to, and can leave his current hunting band to join another.

You feel like you could go innawoods these days and do it by yourself (if it weren’t for those gosh-darn laws) because you take for granted that someone made your clothes, tools, food, weapons, and building materials.

I never said I could do it, I still have a lot to learn about survival, the point I am making is that I believe it would be a more fulfilling life than our current life where the aspects of survival are trivialized.

In the society you romanticize, you wouldn’t have anything but maybe a very crude weapon and some shitty clothes that may do you for the warmer months before winter killed you.

Why do you assume that hunter-gatherers didn't have plans and precautions for the winter? Northern Europeans, Native Americans, and Siberians all wore thick animal pelts for winter, again, do you think our hunter-gatherer ancestors were just bumbling retards who only achieved sapiency through agriculture? Sure if I right now tried to survive the winters they did I would probably die, but that's because I have lived all of my life essentially domesticated in an artificial environment. To our hunter-gatherer ancestors, it was just another winter.


I will respond to the other posts later

 

[Großmann]

In modern industrial life, you have a strict regiment and hours you must comply with, you MUST be at work at a certain time, and you MUST do these incredibly repetitive (and frankly demeaning) tasks in the specific way you are told to. In contrast, hunter gatherer's work has a great deal of independent freedom you can go out when you please, many of them have multiple ways of being solved, and the best part is that the results of the work is immediately apparent. Work is not the issue I'm getting at here, it's the inherent restrictive and demeaning nature of industrial (and to a lesser extent agricultural) work.

Again, I disagree. You are trying to pick out a particular way of life to make your narrative work but the problem is that, like I said in my previous post, this is not universal. It depends on your lifestyle, your chosen line of work, and where you live. Not all jobs have a “clock-in, clock-out” regiment. Many jobs have unique problems to solve every day without a standardized procedure to follow. You’re just honing in on the specific 8-hour wagie shift for a low-skill job. Of course it’s going to suck because you don’t have shit to offer society to do more. If you did, you’d have created your own employment.

I chose to compare your vision of modern society with the realities of hunter-gatherer society because you seem to think it’d be much different when it’s the same with a different set of problems and challenges that someone who can’t do more than wage cuck would still hate.

Also mien nigger, "leader". This shows you know absolutely nothing about basic anthropology and are just talking out your ass. All modern hunter-gatherer groups (and ancient groups evidentially as by accounts by European explorers) don't have leaders in the traditional sense. At best they have figureheads that give out advice that can be readily ignored. Strict division of labour and hierarchy only exists in civilization. You also assume that primitive work is just a mind-numbing and unenjoyable as modern work, when in reality almost all recorded primitive societies show a great deal of enjoyment in their work (especially in hunting).

Every group has a leader. If human nature did not tend to have groups led by an individual or group of people, the anarchist wet dream would be a reality. I want you to give me some examples of these leaderless tribes of antiquity because I bet you can’t fine one.

As for work, I’m not disputing that people can find work enjoyable at times, but it’s called work at the end of the day for a reason. Hunting is largely grueling and filled with long stretches of not much happening and can often be fruitless due to prey escaping. Most of that time is not fun, but the rush of finally landing a kill to take back is certainly fun and makes for great bonding experiences, since the struggle is recontextualized as the labor of victory. This feeling never went away. Even a cashier can occasionally enjoy the job when he figures out a way to streamline the job, has a great interaction with a customer, or receives a raise from his boss.

Missed the point again, the problem is that cars themselves restrict my freedom of movement. Before you could walk where you pleased at your own pace, but with the introduction of cars, came more strict traffic laws, and restriction of movement. The problem isn't that "I should be allowed to drive at 300 mph" the problem is that the roads and cars exist in the first place.

Did you come from r/fuckcars? lol
I didn’t miss your point, friend, I rejected your point because you seem to think that people came up with rules for the road to fuck with you when it’s the opposite. You certainly still can walk where you want. No one is stopping you.

Missed the point award. I completely understand why these laws exist, the point again, is that these are restrictions that didn't exist before. The point wasn't that violence existed either, I'm really not sure how you could read my post and think "this guy is complaining that violence exists"

Restrictions on killing have existed for millennia because people have been violent towards one another since the beginning. What are you talking about?

The individual still has more freedom in hunter-gatherer societies, he has the power to choose when he hunts, how he hunts, who he hunts with, has no central leadership or authority to answer to, and can leave his current hunting band to join another.

This shit wasn’t monster hunter. People rarely hunted solitary. Hunting was and is a coordinated activity because of how easy it is to screw it up by yourself. Even modern hunter-gatherers don’t just do whatever they want. There’s regulation to it, whether through religious laws, an actual governing body, a leader, or group think. Sure, you could just leave the group, but like I said before, individuals weren’t going to survive long on their own.

I never said I could do it, I still have a lot to learn about survival, the point I am making is that I believe it would be a more fulfilling life than our current life where the aspects of survival are trivialized.

Why do you assume that hunter-gatherers didn't have plans and precautions for the winter?

I’m not saying that you can’t, but that you seem to take for granted just how difficult it is to survive solitary austere living. Camping and hunting is great because you get away from the bullshit distractions of life and can reset your brain on what really matters, but doing that as a lifestyle back in antiquity was not easy and took a group to make it livable.

Also my comment about dying in the winter is me refuting the idea that you could simply go it alone if you didn’t like your group in those times. Even just 400 years ago, English settlers in America were dying off in the winter because of lack of adequate preparation and food.

But it sounds like the bottom line is that you need to quit your job and do something different as well as figure out what you’re actually living for. Everything you’ve complained about is something that you don’t have to be bogged down by.

 

[skykiii]

I never understood this either. Sid Meier was a hack and pretty much any other strategy/simulation game from the time was better. Go with Koei's stuff instead.

 

[VIPPER?]

Civilization= industry = Decay

incorrect premise, kys yourself. civilization can exist without industry. not our civilization, but if you want to join some forager tribe go ahead and try.

there's strength in numbers, the ability to specialize, etc. even if you don't have globe-spanning megacorps delivering you temu junk. even having just more than one family band together means they aren't going to get btfo by the next family over.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The human animal was meant to live in small-scale, tightly-knit social groups with a high degree of independence

The basic premise is wrong. Both in religious ideas and evolutionary science men evolved to live in a civilization because it was infinitely better than the alternative.

The idea of independence is also retarded. Only the people in leadership roles had any say, and not obeying them means being routinely beaten.

 

[TheLostMarxBrotherFucko]

civilization can exist without industry

Apparently not retard. Every Civilization had some form of "industry" that eventually lead to their demise. A common example is Rome's need for War. Rome had their version of the military industrial complex. They made War for resources to keep citizens patriotic and happy. Over time the constant fighting wore down everything in the empire. That wasn't the ONLY reason but one of many "industries" that even the ancient civilizations produced.

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

Civilization is a good thing. But not all civilizations are equal, and ours may (currently) be somewhat pathological.

What is civilization? In the strictest sense, civilization is the condition of humans "living in cities". Not nomadic tribes. But we don't mean the strict definition of the word when we talk about this subject (not necessarily). There is also the sense that those people are no longer savages... though not all nomadic tribes were savage. Nor, as it turns out, were all city-bound peoples civilized.

Why is civilization good? Because when a people are no longer nomadic, when they have a home, they're not in constant fights for survival against others turning them bloodthirsty and vengeance-seeking. They can control their food supply with agriculture and not have to worry about famines constantly. They have time to become learned, wise, and maybe even come to appreciate hospitality. Savage nature all around us becomes a little more tame.

So what would make our civilization so bad, if (in general) they are a good thing? No need to rehash that, plenty of other answers here do a better job than I could. But I just wanted to say that I reject Teddy K's take. He was brilliant, and had he not been tortured by the CIA (this is documented, undisputed fact, I think), he might have grown up to become a brilliant mathematician. We would lose quite a bit if we were to abandon civilization itself, and we would gain nothing. Let's build a better civilization instead of discarding it.

 

[zzzten]

civilization is a trick invented by a small group of people to enslave the world

 

[The News Crews]

Late Reply, got busy.

Not all jobs have a “clock-in, clock-out” regiment. Many jobs have unique problems to solve every day without a standardized procedure to follow.

Except the overwhelming majority or jobs are clock in clock out mind-numbing busywork. From a purely utilitarian perspective, most people have to work shitty demeaning jobs for the economy to function. But let me guess, this is le good o algo.

I chose to compare your vision of modern society with the realities of hunter-gatherer society because you seem to think it’d be much different when it’s the same with a different set of problems and challenges that someone who can’t do more than wage cuck would still hate.

Please explain to me how Hunter-Gatherer society is "the same", without using factually wrong information such as "you still have a boss, you still have a strict regiment, you couldn't freely move between groups"

But maybe you are right, maybe Hunter Gatherer societies would suck compared to agricul - OH SHIT NIGGER IT'S BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

"When an Indian child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and makes one Indian ramble with them, there is no persuading him ever to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good opportunity of escaping again into the woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.”

Every group has a leader. If human nature did not tend to have groups led by an individual or group of people, the anarchist wet dream would be a reality.

Yes, the anarchists ARE right, civilization and hierarchies are the biggest spooks, the biggest scams, ever in human history.

I want you to give me some examples of these leaderless tribes of antiquity because I bet you can’t fine one.

Absolute baboon-tier nigger moment

The !Kung, the Hadza, The Pirahã, The Efé, The Batek, The San, The samang.
Wasn't hard to find btw, quiet literally took less than 2 minutes.

As for work, I’m not disputing that people can find work enjoyable at times, but it’s called work at the end of the day for a reason. Hunting is largely grueling and filled with long stretches of not much happening and can often be fruitless due to prey escaping. Most of that time is not fun, but the rush of finally landing a kill to take back is certainly fun and makes for great bonding experiences, since the struggle is recontextualized as the labor of victory. This feeling never went away. Even a cashier can occasionally enjoy the job when he figures out a way to streamline the job, has a great interaction with a customer, or receives a raise from his boss.

You have made the mistake of assuming that Hunter Gatherers view their work in the same way that civilized society views work, they do not. From every modern-day hunter-gatherer society studied, there is a common trend of them not viewing their work as toil, but as enjoyable social activities with a great deal of autonomy. In fact, most hunter-gatherer tribes do not have a singular word for "work" like in civilized society.

The difference between the cashier and the hunter-gatherer is that the cashier most likely actively hates his job, while the hunter-gatherer is indifferent to it at worst. The cashier's high points are momentary and fleeting and he will soon be back to hating his job and existence, while the hunter-gatherer enjoys a constant feeling of overall life satisfaction that is almost alien to modern man.

Did you come from r/fuckcars? lol

Just because someone is annoying about an issue doesn't mean they are wrong.

I didn’t miss your point, friend, I rejected your point because you seem to think that people came up with rules for the road to fuck with you when it’s the opposite.

I never said they did it to "fuck me" (missed the point award), I fully understand why laws and regulations have to be in place for cars, and I understand it's for my safety. Regardless, it's still an undeniable restriction of movement.

You certainly still can walk where you want. No one is stopping you.

>Walk to the corner of the street
>have to wait 30 seconds for cars
>cross the street
>rinse and repeat
This is an inherent restriction of movement that was caused by the invention of cars, I don't know what else to tell you. This is a simple concept to grasp.

Restrictions on killing have existed for millennia because people have been violent towards one another since the beginning. What are you talking about?

I'm not saying hunter-gatherers could just murder each other willy nilly without someone intervening. I am saying is there is now a much bigger restriction on violence in civilized society (and especially industrial society). A perfect example is Johnny Somali, in today's society you cannot punch him for being a nuisance without being punished. Purposefully annoy a hunter-gatherer like that you would be eating shit (or even killed) within minutes without anyone intervening. You can make the argument whether this is a good or bad thing but to claim that it's not different is frankly absurd.

This shit wasn’t monster hunter. People rarely hunted solitary. Hunting was and is a coordinated activity because of how easy it is to screw it up by yourself. Even modern hunter-gatherers don’t just do whatever they want. There’s regulation to it, whether through religious laws, an actual governing body (retard alert), a leader (retard alert) , or group think. Sure, you could just leave the group, but like I said before, individuals weren’t going to survive long on their own.

Except that's just flat out wrong. Hunter Gatherers can choose to participate in hunts or not, if they wish to hunt alone, or if they wish to join the already existing hunting party. If they don't do anything (with exception to being sick or injured) they just don't get any rations. Simple as.
Btw as stated previously governing body or leaders quite literally don't exist in the same ways in civilized society, again they have no real authority and just exist to just give advice/suggestions. You seem to make a bunch of presumptions about primitive life based off of your experience in Modern Industrial life. "We have leaders and hierarches, so they must to. We have strict regimented schedules so they must to. We dislike work so they must to." When based off of anthropological research all three points are just completely wrong.

I’m not saying that you can’t, but that you seem to take for granted just how difficult it is to survive solitary austere living. Camping and hunting is great because you get away from the bullshit distractions of life and can reset your brain on what really matters, but doing that as a lifestyle back in antiquity was not easy and took a group to make it livable.

I never said it was easy, I am saying that it is a way of life that; A) We are evolved most to endure, B) Inherently less restrictive than civilized society C) The work is more rewarding and gives one more life satisfaction.

Also my comment about dying in the winter is me refuting the idea that you could simply go it alone if you didn’t like your group in those times. Even just 400 years ago, English settlers in America were dying off in the winter because of lack of adequate preparation and food.

Again you are simply wrong about this, every anthropologist who has studied around hunter-gatherer tribes have noted a great deal of interchangeability amongst hunting parties, with people leaving other groups as they wish. Also English settlers? I didn't realize they were hunter-gatherers. Note that I am not saying that they just join other tribes, that they join different hunting parties within the same tribe

But it sounds like the bottom line is that you need to quit your job and do something different as well as figure out what you’re actually living for. Everything you’ve complained about is something that you don’t have to be bogged down by.

I already know what I am "living for", I'm saving up to buy land in Maine and just live off-grid. If this goal was out of reach I would have just offed myself instead of living in such a detestable environment (speaking of which, of all the years of studying modern hunter-gatherers, there has never been a single suicide amongst them, and they consider it a ludicrous idea. Interesting).
As for the job, I work EMS which is leagues better than most jobs but is still a job, with all the problems that having a job entails.
I completely disagree that it's somehow something I am not bogged down by, I am forced to have a Mcjob, forced to interact with others who have been lobotomized by constant internet addiction, I am still forced to live in a highly restrictive society. Even if I manage to go out and live in the woods, I am still ultimately at the mercy of the government if they feel like they just want to use my land for logging.

The basic premise is wrong. Both in religious ideas and evolutionary science men evolved to live in a civilization because it was infinitely better than the alternative.

>religious ideas
into the trash it goes
>evolutionary science
my nigger, I want to explain to me in detail how humanity "evolved" to live in civilization. 90k years as hunter gatherers, and 9k years of agriculture, there's a bit of a weight discrepancy here.

The idea of independence is also retarded. Only the people in leadership roles had any say, and not obeying them means being routinely beaten.

"Only people in leadership roles"
>leadership roles
>Hunter-gatherers
actually read the thread.

But I just wanted to say that I reject Teddy K's take. He was brilliant, and had he not been tortured by the CIA (this is documented, undisputed fact, I think), he might have grown up to become a brilliant mathematician. We would lose quite a bit if we were to abandon civilization itself, and we would gain nothing. Let's build a better civilization instead of discarding it.

I doubt you have actually read anything by Ted, you sound like you are just parroting common internet memes. Also the MK ultra shit is overblown. While he was involved with experiments, the premise was as follows:
>Invite student to debate
>belittle, mock, deride, and otherwise verbally abuse students to see if they would back down on their position
while it undeniably had an effect on Ted, he already had anarchist and anti-civ ideas beforehand.

EDIT: minor typos

 

[gagabobo1997]

hot take but technology and civilization and exploration is based and we should be trying to spread human civilization as far and wide as possible

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

"Only people in leadership roles"
>leadership roles
>Hunter-gatherers
actually read the thread.

I don't know what retarded idea you have about those societies, but look at the few examples of those found in modern time and it's full of rape and noncery.

 

[The News Crews]

I don't know what retarded idea you have about those societies, but look at the few examples of those found in modern time and it's full of rape and noncery.

Moved the goalpost, you said that humans were "evolved" for civilization despite it only existing for nine thousand years compared to ninety thousand years as hunter-gatherers.
I also never said violence, rape, arguments, etc never happened.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Moved the goalpost, you said that humans were "evolved" for civilization despite it only existing for nine thousand years compared to ninety thousand years as hunter-gatherers.
I also never said violence, rape, arguments, etc never happened.

Most human groups evolved to civilization, the ones that didn't are either dysfunctional or extinct.