A real buzzkill (seriously; the environment dudes)

[wufwugy]

also do you guys think people reproducing excessively (or even at all) are only hurting us in the end?

Excessive reproduction is one of the most destructive things any society can ever do. It is impossible to sustain, and there will be a correcting period. Personally, I'm not a fan of human reproduction at all anymore. I think we've strayed way too far from who we really are, and the problems that have arisen are too intense

We don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life, yet how unprepared we are for modern life. We take horrible, chronic conditions like depression for granted, but reality is that we did not evolve for these things. Just because we're capable of surviving doesn't mean we should

[Roid_Rage]

Excessive reproduction is one of the most destructive things any society can ever do. It is impossible to sustain, and there will be a correcting period. Personally, I'm not a fan of human reproduction at all anymore. I think we've strayed way too far from who we really are, and the problems that have arisen are too intense

We don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life, yet how unprepared we are for modern life. We take horrible, chronic conditions like depression for granted, but reality is that we did not evolve for these things. Just because we're capable of surviving doesn't mean we should

Care explaining this a bit more? What do you mean we don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life but unprepared for modern?

[wufwugy]

Care explaining this a bit more? What do you mean we don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life but unprepared for modern?

Okay, this is going to be a long post, but I also think it will be interesting. Cliffs at bottom

The first thing we need to do is understand what humans are, and that understanding comes primarily through examining what evolution is on a fundamental level. So I'll try to explain that

We're not here for any reason other than the fact that we happened to have survived. We happen to have survived because we have conformed to our environment for the purpose of survival exclusively. It's not so much survival of the fittest, but more like survival of whatever isn't less fit than the competition. That fitness is not a moral or a good fitness, but simply the ability to exploit the environment just enough to continually reproduce. We're not here for intelligence or happiness or morals, we're here because we're the last things that haven't died

What this means is that everything we are is based on the environments which molded our evolution. There is always overlaps and vestigial products of that evolution, but we are mainly suited for whatever environment we have evolved for.

We evolved for tribal societies VERY well. We have not evolved for modern civilization much at all. Agriculture raised ecological carrying capacity soooooo much that it is no longer survival of the fittest, but survival of all. And it changed everything. We're not evolved to handle abstractions well, but modern life is a virtual abstraction. We're not evolved to handle things like jobs or large societies or crime or just about everything "modern". The vast, vast majority of our problems can be explained due to modernness.

This is so hard to explain because we take everything for granted. We don't even realize that things like mental illness, pursuit of happiness, crime, education and work are simply not things that exist in tribal societies.

Our biology has evolved to only meet a small handful of potential mates over a lifetime, for nearly every person we know to be family, and to have pretty much no choice of what to do with your life. We are meant to copy mom and dad, protect our tribe/family, and work together for things that we naturally want and have little choice about.

Now what happens when we expand everything like modern society has? We get sexual repression and adultery and divorce like crazy simply because we don't know how to handle the overload of potential mates. We get crime and prisons and hateful emotions because we're no longer a unit that relies on itself for sustenance. We get depression, self-loathing, confusion, etc because we have to do a job that doesn't come that naturally

In tribal societies, I guarantee that humans are miserable only momentarily and the mainstay is an unquestioned sense of happiness and purpose. In modern society, it's the opposite. Lots of people will say it's not, but they're kidding themselves. We all know we all walk around secretly thinking poorly of ourselves. This type of thing is not even chronically possible in tribal societies because it would effectively make the society unfit to survive.

Modern life is a virtual prison that we take for granted. This is nearly impossible to understand due to that grantedness, but also due to the strongest instinct we have: survival. Biologically, we are not that capable of thinking that survival itself isn't a fundamental good, regardless of whether that existence is one of suffering.




Cliffs: Tribal societies struggle to survive, and that struggle determines that chronic problems cannot exist. Modern society is so powerful it survives without even trying, and all the possible bads hidden inside humans and inside the world come to fruition simply because they can. People in prison are not bad people, they're people trying to live the way they're supposed to, but get screwed by modernism. Pedophiles aren't even bad people. Everything we know about pedophilia strongly suggests that its a product of modernism and that it couldn't survive in tribalism

When a species doesn't struggle to survive, they begin opening up the door for bad things that wouldn't exist otherwise. And it's not the same way about opening up for good things since good things are mainly just things we're adapted for in the first place

[Micro2Macro]

Excessive reproduction is one of the most destructive things any society can ever do. It is impossible to sustain, and there will be a correcting period. Personally, I'm not a fan of human reproduction at all anymore. I think we've strayed way too far from who we really are, and the problems that have arisen are too intense

We don't realize how prepared we are for tribal life, yet how unprepared we are for modern life. We take horrible, chronic conditions like depression for granted, but reality is that we did not evolve for these things. Just because we're capable of surviving doesn't mean we should

+1

I'm going to do my part for our world and not have children, and also refrain from purchasing an automobile (unless absolutely necessary).

[wufwugy]

+1

I'm going to do my part for our world and not have children, and also refrain from purchasing an automobile (unless absolutely necessary).

The thing is that it doesn't matter on the micro scale. If you go green that just means there's more left for somebody else at a cheaper price.

Kids are a tough thing. I'm not sure if I could ever figure it out even if I had them. In a way, kids are a fucked if you do, fucked if you don't thing

[Penneywize]

Man... it seems every thread that is even remotely political on this forum inevitably turns in to be a wufwugy indoctrination thread. There's a lot I disagree with in his last few posts. I don't see any value in discussing this evolutionary psychology bs; I actually see very little reason to give credence to the "science" as a whole. Anyhow, that's another point entirely.

Wufwugy isn't, for once, echoing the opinions of a broad range of intellectual authorities when he talks about how "agriculture fucked humanity" or how "we weren't biologically meant for modern life" etc. I really am beginning to think that he just approaches this topic - and from what I've read over the past few years, many, many others - with the preset foregone conclusion that the world is going to shit, humanity is evil, and we should pay for even having the audacity to progress beyond our meager beginnings.

Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong about that; maybe he has approached each topic in a partial, balanced manner with no predispositions, and through unbiased analysis and discourse, reached similar conclusions every time. Maybe.

But I'll tell you what. It seems a hell of a fucking lot like cherry-picking to me.

I was going to launch into a tirade about agriculture and how shitty life was before its development etc but it seems I'd be wasting my time. No matter how convincing my argument is, it won't do anything to sway the opinion of someone who laments the fact that human civilizations ever even came to be; pining for the days when our species lived short, unenlightened and ultimately unfulfilling lives...

I dont know. Don't take this as a hate-on, wuf. I actually do have a lot of respect for you. I just wish you weren't so contrarian. It's like you're so cynical, you're not even a cynic anymore; you're something else. It's distressing, mainly because you write eloquently and your arguments are usually very convincing.

At any rate. I don't agree with you, not on this, not on what you believe to be the inevitable course of humanity. I don't agree with your moral evaluation of human progress. I also don't agree with the implications of any of these things. Call it a cop-out, but I just don't want to argue about it; it seems to me to be an exercise in futility. I'm not a big fan of Sisyphus.

[Penneywize]

I will, however, quickly get a point in on reproduction / overpopulation, etc:

Point form, because it took me 30 mins to write that last post:

- Those of us living in highly industrialized societies face an impending, possibly unavoidable problem in the next 30-40 years: an aging population.

- Overpopulation is a problem in underdeveloped / developing nations primarily. All credible population models show that as economies modernize, birth rates slow down and eventually decrease. This suggests that economic development should be the focus of any efforts to curb overpopulation (this says nothing of the other quality-of-life improvements that would come along with it).

- If those of us living in 1st world nations decided to "do their part" to "stop the overpopulation of earth" by not having children of our own, we'd only be exacerbating the issue our own countries face, and ultimately do nothing to help the world as a whole. We need to have more children. We can't help developing nations if our own countries have populations with median ages of 50+ (going to happen by 2050 in Canada, maybe a little later in the United States, probably earlier in many European countreis) and over 1/3rd over the retirement age. We'd be incredibly unproductive and face the enormous social security costs / taxes that would be necessary to care for our elderly.

In other words, we'd be fucked, and have no means to extend a helping hand to the countries that need it most.

[wufwugy]

I will, however, quickly get a point in on reproduction / overpopulation, etc:

Point form, because it took me 30 mins to write that last post:

- Those of us living in highly industrialized societies face an impending, possibly unavoidable problem in the next 30-40 years: an aging population.

- Overpopulation is a problem in underdeveloped / developing nations primarily. All credible population models show that as economies modernize, birth rates slow down and eventually decrease. This suggests that economic development should be the focus of any efforts to curb overpopulation (this says nothing of the other quality-of-life improvements that would come along with it).

- If those of us living in 1st world nations decided to "do their part" to "stop the overpopulation of earth" by not having children of our own, we'd only be exacerbating the issue our own countries face, and ultimately do nothing to help the world as a whole. We need to have more children. We can't help developing nations if our own countries have populations with median ages of 50+ (going to happen by 2050 in Canada, maybe a little later in the United States, probably earlier in many European countreis) and over 1/3rd over the retirement age. We'd be incredibly unproductive and face the enormous social security costs / taxes that would be necessary to care for our elderly.

In other words, we'd be fucked, and have no means to extend a helping hand to the countries that need it most.

While you're right about economies have enormous internal problems due to aging demographics, I'm not sure if this isn't simply the "lesser of two evils" (even though I hate that phrase)

I think the kinds and levels of corrections we will experience are unpredictable, and that you're basically right. But that doesn't mean that corrections won't come and undo a lot of it. If I were the man in charge, I think my approach would be your approach, regardless

[Monty3038]

- If those of us living in 1st world nations decided to "do their part" to "stop the overpopulation of earth" by not having children of our own, we'd only be exacerbating the issue our own countries face, and ultimately do nothing to help the world as a whole. We need to have more children. We can't help developing nations if our own countries have populations with median ages of 50+ (going to happen by 2050 in Canada, maybe a little later in the United States, probably earlier in many European countreis) and over 1/3rd over the retirement age. We'd be incredibly unproductive and face the enormous social security costs / taxes that would be necessary to care for our elderly.

So this prompts the question... is social security something that should be eliminated, as it continues to cause those who pose less productive value to society to 'hang around'?

I wrote a whole lot more to this, as a follow up, but it made me sound pretty callous and cold, especially towards my own kin.

[wufwugy]

Man... it seems every thread that is even remotely political on this forum inevitably turns in to be a wufwugy indoctrination thread. There's a lot I disagree with in his last few posts. I don't see any value in discussing this evolutionary psychology bs; I actually see very little reason to give credence to the "science" as a whole. Anyhow, that's another point entirely.

Depends on what you mean, but any problem with this approach would be in getting things wrong, not in examining evolutionary effects.

Wufwugy isn't, for once, echoing the opinions of a broad range of intellectual authorities when he talks about how "agriculture fucked humanity" or how "we weren't biologically meant for modern life" etc.

That is generally correct because there aren't that many jobs that actually pay for research into this. It does get some play, but not much. Consensus isn't really something to come by on this kind of topic anyways. Kinda like how Jared Diamond's theory on technological/geographical/social inequality isn't consensus, but it's still the best we have and makes the most sense

I really am beginning to think that he just approaches this topic - and from what I've read over the past few years, many, many others - with the preset foregone conclusion that the world is going to shit, humanity is evil, and we should pay for even having the audacity to progress beyond our meager beginnings.

I believe whatever Dystopian ideas I have came after.

I was going to launch into a tirade about agriculture and how shitty life was before its development

I'd like to hear that

I dont know. Don't take this as a hate-on, wuf. I actually do have a lot of respect for you. I just wish you weren't so contrarian. It's like you're so cynical, you're not even a cynic anymore; you're something else. It's distressing, mainly because you write eloquently and your arguments are usually very convincing.

It's hard to say what I am. But when it comes to things of the intellect, I have always tried, often learn, and usually admit when wrong. I wonder if I should dig up an old post of mine from back in like 2004 on a different board where I adamantly defending homeopathy, only to shortly after admit to doing more research and being wrong. On the interwebs, nonetheless. That was also somewhat of a turning point for me intellectually, which may be why I remember it

At any rate. I don't agree with you, not on this, not on what you believe to be the inevitable course of humanity. I don't agree with your moral evaluation of human progress. I also don't agree with the implications of any of these things. Call it a cop-out, but I just don't want to argue about it; it seems to me to be an exercise in futility. I'm not a big fan of Sisyphus.

I do not believe the suffering of one person is worth the joy of a billion. I am honestly not a fan of emotionally conscious life for this reason. I'm not a sociopath or something so I have no desire to take matters into my own hands, but on an abstract moral level...

But that's not what you were referring to. My response to that is that the level of suffering experience under tribal societies is nothing even remotely close to that which we have in modern society. Take Josef Fritzl for example. The level of suffering his kids endured is pretty much impossible in a hunter/gatherer society.

My opinion is that suffering is not justified, and my expression of fact is that modernism brings more suffering than tribalism. I really would like to hear what you have to say about how things were in hunter/gatherer days, though. Ultimately, I'd rather learn things than feel like I was right from the beginning