So humans are wrong for creating civilization, and nature is wrong for having civilization as an inevitability, so youre the one whos right? I think the issue you may be having is that youre arguing that civilization has to be good or bad, and not a tool, the convo just seems to be going like this:
"Hammers kill people"
"Well they also build houses"
"Yeah but they kill people"
"Yeah but they make houses
Etc.
A tool is amoral, and civilization is a tool at the end of the day
So humans are wrong for creating civilization, and nature is wrong for having civilization as an inevitability, so youre the one whos right? I think the issue you may be having is that youre arguing that civilization has to be good or bad, and not a tool, the convo just seems to be going like this:
My problem is that civilization is clearly not what humans evolved for. Ants and other social insects had millions of years to evolve to those conditions. And I don't think civilization is merely a tool in the same respects as a hammer. A hammer is a just a hammer, meanwhile civilization requires a hundreds of interconnected systems, special delegations of labor, and inherent restrictions of freedom, etc.
My problem is that civilization is clearly not what humans evolved for. Ants and other social insects had millions of years to evolve to those conditions. And I don't think civilization is merely a tool in the same respects as a hammer. A hammer is a just a hammer, meanwhile civilization requires a hundreds of interconnected systems, special delegations of labor, and inherent restrictions of freedom, etc.
But you said it was inevitable, are you saying we just created a society too soon? Because ants and bees arent as perfect as the "Eusocial" name would imply, the more we research these natural societies, the more we see that there are lazy members, exploitative members, and outright rebellion against the queen/leaders.
As for the tool metaphor, a computer is an incredibly complicated machine that requires hundreds of connected systems and carefully planned idea...but i can still do good or bad with it, despite the complexity the same idea applies.
Much of the mortality (according to data from hunter gatherer peoples that exist today) is because of lack of treatment for diseases ''civilization" deals with better.
55 is still hardcore, lol, and even after reaching adulthood many die from diseases, and in some cases war or accidents.
Civility, as opposed to barbarism, is the rejection of cruelty and suffering, which is the rejection of incompetence.
Cruelty and suffering stem from incompetence:
- the cruelty and suffering of tooth loss because there wasn't a competent dentist
- the cruelty and suffering of a defective child because there wasn't a competent doctor nor regulations nor agriculture nor nutrition
- the cruelty and suffering of loneliness and anxiety because there was insufficient social competence
- the cruelty and suffering of losing your spouse or sanity because there wasn't a competent guru
- the cruelty and suffering of violence because there wasn't a competent encultrating civic fabric
- the cruelty and suffering of boredom, regret, and banality because there wasn't a competent investment of time
- the cruelty and suffering of succumbing to invasion, plague, and inferiority because you and your ancestors weren't competent enough to seek superior economic and social energy
- the cruelty and suffering of your own incompetence because you lacked an upstanding upbringing that lacked proper education and edification that would have sharpened your mind, strengthened your body, and individuated your soul
The more superior the civilisation, the more superior its ability at purging incompetence holistically, such that it becomes less cruel to its in-group who suffer less by intra-and-inter group incompetence. If it is also competent in collaboration and competition, it expands its inter-group cooperation and assimilation into a larger meta-civilisation
There isn't yet a perfect civilisation, as evidenced by lingering incompetences within our civilisations that inflict unnecessary and avoidable cruelty and suffering. However, civilisations and civics intertwine theirselves, one can find improvement and satiation within a seam.
Even when you have friends they are mostly just entertainment for each other and not true deep friendships. And we are so heavily tied to the system that’s it’s impossible to have true independence.
Maturity despite being a global rising tide, doesn't distribute evenly, and pockets of despair of immaturity ought be conquered. Your musings are the limp idlings of many teenagers and others in civil squalor; they're philosophical trite that titans have already dispelled and solved thousands of years ago.
Once you stop being a loser, once you open up and embrace the beauty of life and the humanities, the beauty of life embraces you.
Civilisation is what our species evolved for and continues to physically and psychically adapt around, examples include: divergences in penis size, adaptations regarding rape,well adjusted midgets, refining sexual adaptions. But specifically, civilisation is the defining adaption of our species in every way that we differ physically and psychically to our ape ancestors, who are evolutionarily unfit for it.
Evolution isn't stationary, it is in constant mutual feedback, the organism adapts to the environment, the environment adapts to the organism, the organism adapts to the changed environment.
Like any social animal, we have the ability to evolve not just physically through genes, but also psychically through memes (memetically), or rather genes and memes can both propagate and select through us. If we aren't adapted physically for something, we can adapt psychically instead. For instance, our bodies atrophy in sedentary jobs, so we go to gyms. This is adaption and evolution. Just because there may be perceived evolutionary lag, doesn't mean it is or will ever be afflicted by evolutionary drift, and if the environment regresses that perceived lag may still be advantageous, keeping us anti-fragile.
Your arguments for why you feel humans aren't adapted for the present are anecdotal and shallow, they seem to misunderstand what evolution is and how it operates.
Here's a worthwhile resource for upgrading your understanding on evolution:
How? Are you referring to a lack of genetic diversity? You don't need to do this to everyone. You really only need a critical mass of geniuses anyways, you can subject like 25% of the north european population to such a program. If they die from unforeseen issues, well the 75% is still there.
And general intelligence is what allows one to acquire knowledge and an understanding of the subject. It can enable greater manipulation of your environment and emerge awesome stuff from it. Social and character dispositions matter, so Scandinavians are probably the best candidates to make geniuses out of.
I have gotten into it with creationists countless times yet I actually have a lot of empathy for their feelings. Most of them, the actual creationist human beings I have interacted with in person, just really despise the brutality and amorality of nature. To me it's very dumb to eschew well supported science because it doesn't uphold goodness and morality, but I do truly feel as they do in my own way. Nature is as brutal and cruel as it is beautiful and awesome. Terrific nature.
I'm glad there's toilets, ibuprofen, and laws.
Civilization is inherently good because it's responsible for everything humanity has ever achieved, beyond squatting in the parasite-infested wastelands and shitting in the designated tribal sinkhole. Basically pick whatever moral framework from supermorality to utilitarianism and civilization, measured through its lens, is superior to niggerliving by any metric other than how miserable its incels feel.
Is there an acceptable maxium ant hill size for ants? Humans thrive more in a civilizations (number wise). However, we just haven't figured out what system is most optimal for creating a civilization that doesn't conflict too much with individual needs. Every system/logistical networks needs a balance to be stable, and we just haven't found it yet.
Attacking the concept of a civilizations and agriculture itself is a little backward I think.
