How to accept the unnaturalness of modern civilization?
This fall I begin an engineering Bachelor's degree, which would be all fine and dandy, if it wasn't for the fact that I loathe modern society and everything it entails. If you would give me the offer right now to erase my modern day knowledge and return to the times of hunter-gatherers, I'd take it. Anyways, now I find myself in the peculiar situation of having to accept it to thrive in it. I love math and live in a developed European country where engineers are in high demand (i.e. pays well), hence engineering.
I really don't see any other choice; the only thing more unnatural than modern society is a life void of community and tribe, a life of seclusion and desolation, so becoming a hermit out in the woods is out of the question. Put plainly: I am deathly afraid of ending up alone, but can’t shake the sense that I'm selling out my beliefs/principals/ideals.
Anyone think I’m wrong about modern society (or agree)? I’m all ears. Any tips for books/pamphlets that argue (convincingly) for the good of modern civilization are also highly appreciated. It was Rousseau that started me on the "loathe society, it's unnatural" path, if it makes any difference.
I really don't see any other choice; the only thing more unnatural than modern society is a life void of community and tribe, a life of seclusion and desolation, so becoming a hermit out in the woods is out of the question. Put plainly: I am deathly afraid of ending up alone, but can’t shake the sense that I'm selling out my beliefs/principals/ideals.
Anyone think I’m wrong about modern society (or agree)? I’m all ears. Any tips for books/pamphlets that argue (convincingly) for the good of modern civilization are also highly appreciated. It was Rousseau that started me on the "loathe society, it's unnatural" path, if it makes any difference.
Comments (62)
Loathing anything in the world is not productive, at least except as a starting point. One needs to understand and accept the world for what it is.
Well what exactly do you loathe about it? Is there anything you like about it? (Medicine is pretty swell).
The modern world is about minutia-mongering. How much minutia can you plumb the depths of? The most respected and necessary forms of output are those that are creative only in the precise ways that engineering, scientific, and technology fields allow. It creates the conundrum, you become the drone who must "mine" the minutia of technology, but this very technology frees us to think of other things as well. You must embrace the minutia of technology to get the benefits of it.
Technology, minutia-mongering is unavoidable. It is also part of the problem. Nowhere to go, and nothing to do. Become the drone and hope for some creative flow states at some points in your life, or hack it out in the wilderness, shit in a hole, and die of possible physical ailments.
You could embrace philosophical pessimism. The world was never going to provide the perfect balance your crave anyways. Your needs and wants will never be satisfied. Communal pessimism would go a step further and ask you find a community to find consolation and support in this understanding. Become the drone. Embrace the drone. Be the best engineer you can be by concentrating your hatred of the minutia in all the endeavors of minutia-mongering in your field. Write that programming language [yawn], crank out those numbers [yawn], write those tech specs [yawn], do that data testing, be the minutia, be the minutia, be the minutia...
It seems to me that everything that actually gives us, say tranquility, are hampered by the modern era's way of life - socially if nothing else. Take community as an example: we have all been taught to include and in general be inclusive, which sounds perfectly humane and natural. After all, we are herd animals, and herd animals are meant to live in the herd. Yet people are lonelier than ever. In a very paradoxical way, everything becomes nothing.
I am aware that it sounds kind of ridiculous, given that there certainly are plenty of people having the time of their life living with close friends and everything (in modern society). I understand that. But surely there is a widespread alienation and loneliness that would not be in the state of nature? Just think about what we are doing right here, on this forum! I would rather have these discussions with real faces, wouldn’t you?
As far as medicine is concerned I often land in similarly themed conclusions, which I sometimes feel ashamed of. The thinking goes like this: modern medicine has severely inhibited natural selection, and consequently more and more of us will live tormented lives plagued by diseases and defects. The whole thing is really a veritable nightmare. As a human being able to empathize, I don't want anyone to die prematurely, but it's hard to deny that humanity is degenerating.
I found that quite thought provoking. Why is loathing not productive, except at least a starting point?
I probably would have picked an argument other than "medicine". What's the point in living longer in a world you loathe?
---
Advice from someone who has felt the same way;
Think hard about why you are scared of being alone. Think hard about why you want to get paid well. Think hard about what is unnatural.
When you're done with that... tell me how you feel, since I'm still mulling it over.
Good point.
If it is considered that the loathing is likely to be long-term, as opposed to a starting point for understanding and ultimately acceptance, then it is sensible to distance oneself from that which one loathes and instead look for, and hopefully find, something that one loves.
As a real world example, how do you think the apartheid would have played out with that mentality?
That is not a real world example. Apartheid had nothing to do with loathing.
It's ironic I suppose. Back then in a time you admire your chances of making it through the year or often even the day were a complete toss up. Now in an age you claim to abhor your chances of making it to old age are quite likely. Not guaranteed sure. But likely.
"The only paradise is paradise lost."
- Marcel Proust
Remember that, friend.
Ha, ha, yea, that's kind of a problem! Great opening line for a post though.
This may help? I just learned that the Yukon, a Canadian province east of Alaska, is bigger than California geographically and contains only about 35,000 people. Almost all these people are in one small town near the southern border of the province.
Bigger than California, only 35,000 people. Wow! It just makes me feel good all over to know such places still exist.
Lots and lots (and lots and lots and lots!) of elbow room for anyone who wished to return to nature. So, you don't actually have to accept modern society after all.
About a year back I watched a documentary about a young guy who moved way out in the bush of Alaska by himself and learned how to survive there. He had his dogs, his cabin, and so on. People have been doing such things for thousands of years, and apparently there's still space left within which to do it.
At the least you might enjoy exploring such stories and places virtually, and maybe find a way to put yourself in the story.
Sounds like you are twenty something, a time of life when friends are everything. Been there, done that, had some fun. Now I'm 68 going on 14, and am finding alone time more and more appealing, particularly if it involves being outdoors in the north Florida woods.
Here's a little trick which may come in handy sometime.
As humans we do need to bond to something. We need to somehow transcend the illusion of isolation which is generated by thought. However, we don't necessarily need to bond to other humans. We can bond to anything. The "secret" so to speak is that it's not the target which matters, but rather one's relationship with the target. And that relationship exists within our own mind, and thus is to some degree within our control.
So, for example, how does one bond with one's favorite place in nature? The very same way we bond with another human.
1) Invest a lot of time.
2) Open ourselves up emotionally to the experience.
If you are afraid of being alone, it could be because you just haven't learned how yet. And if you are twenty something, that seems completely normal.
It appears I'm all mouth today, so we're a good match.
Your problem is probably that you're intelligent. Somebody should have warned you about that. :-)
Perhaps your intelligence has, without your permission, pulled back the curtain on the emptiness of the status quo, and given you a vision of the madness which is hidden within. And now you can't lose the vision. If so, you have just met the price tag for intelligence.
I don't think you're wrong, as it's super easy to document the insanity of the human condition. Now that you've perhaps seen through the illusion of human sanity, the rational question is, what will your relationship with it be? That would seem to be something you have a reasonable chance of controlling.
You might choose to run from the madness and become a hermit in the Yukon. You might also choose to run towards the fire and engage whatever forms of human madness you are inspired to confront. It's unlikely you will solve the problems you engage, but you might save yourself in the effort.
At your age it feels like your life will last 400 years, and that's a big burden to carry. But the reality is that you'll look in the mirror one day about 6 weeks from now and discover to your surprise that you're the one who is now 68. Whooosh..... It all goes by so much faster than you realize.
So, take it seriously, but carry it lightly.
Do your best, and forget the rest.
You seem to romanticize primitive tribalism. Modern cultures are not "unnatural", but merely different. They are evolutionary developments of human nature. And they are different, not because of human evil intentions, but because Cultural evolution changes much faster than Natural evolution. So, like the Red Queen, of Alice in Wonderland fame, said " It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place".
Just as Agriculturalism was different from hunter-gatherer Tribalism, modern multi-cultural civilization is different from ancient city-states. Romanticism pines for ideal states that were never true, and never will be. So your best solution is to adapt to incessant change like the rest of us. Rousseau's Noble Savages had to deal with their own evils & frustrations. After you go out and work in the Real World, some of your Idealism and Romanticism and Cynicism will have been diluted by pragmatic considerations. But don't give-up all of your innocent naivete. It's necessary to keep Progress from trampling on human sentiment in its evolution to a post-human world. :cool:
Romanticism : Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
[ Medieval age was characterized by knights & lords & ladies doing romantic things like dueling on horseback. But it was also the time of landed Lords in castles, and serfs working the land like slaves. Was that a better life than modern wage slaves in air-conditioned offices? ]
Noble Savage : A noble savage is a literary stock character who embodies the concept of the indigene, outsider, wild human, an "other" who has not been "corrupted" by civilization, and therefore symbolizes humanity's innate goodness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
For a more realistic and optimistic view of past & present :
The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc
Better Angels of Our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature
Lucifer Principle : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucifer_Principle
Monk, the obsessive-compulsive New York detective on American TV 20 years ago, once said : "I have nothing against Nature, as long as I don't get any on me". :joke:
W. Edwards Deming, engineer : It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
Each of us is unique. There is no arguing that. Hence, each idea we have is also unique. The way we observe and think about the world is unique. There are very similar thoughts but never two thoughts are completely the same, not even in the same head. So, each of us, inherently, has something we can contribute to the world we live in (regardless its apparent usefulness). After understanding the extend of our uniqueness (which is not easy because it is so intrinsic that we give it for granted), I believe the next step is to look for that in us that makes us unique (that which I can call mine and only mine) and find a way to apply it to the world we live in. This takes time, lots of it.... lots of it. But I believe that if you live life with this idea in mind, it becomes easier since it gives you purpose, and the same idea makes society less unnatural since it helps you understand that society is the way it is because many of us have not realized that we have something unique to offer (not the only reason, maybe). A bit off topic, but I think it might help you. Cheers.
Who’s stopping you?
I think you are not wrong in your analysis, there doesn't seem to be a good solution to that dilemma.
Either you opt out entirely and ostracize the social part of yourself which makes for a poor life indeed, or you go with it and deny some of your other ideals in doing so, which will possibly lead you to burn out somewhere along the road. Going against your core values does come with a price.
What's left then is finding ways to deal with it.
Philosophy maybe can help a bit to form a better understanding of why things are the way they are, which can lead to some acceptance of the inevitable and re-evaluation of values. If your values are only attuned to a world that doesn't exist, then chances are they need some tuning.
Meditation and exercise could probably help in keeping you mentally and physically sane.
Another way of dealing with the disconnect is finding ways of to express yourself in some creative endeavor i.e. music, writing etc...
Oh yeah, and finding some people you can relate to probably goes a long way.
Yes. Humans evolved to thrive in small tribes where everybody knew each other. But now we know our Facebook "friends" as images on a cell phone. Facebook was a technological solution to a problem caused in part by technology. We live apart nowadays because we can; because tech made independent living possible. As hunter gatherers, most of our ancestors wouldn't survive for long in the wilderness in isolation from the tribe.
Psychologists. for years, have observed the same thing you are feeling : an epidemic of alienation and loneliness. Previous generations of young Americans turned to Hippie Communes, New Age groups, Christian cults, and Eastern (intuitive) Religions in rebellion from the emptiness of materialistic secular society and other-worldly religious institutions. Early 20th century critics, probably Romantics, spilled a lot of ink decrying the fragmentation and isolation of modern civilization. But today, in America at least, almost everyone has an automobile, so they can get away from it all --- i.e. other people. But now, even the wilderness (e.g. national parks) is crowded. So, where do we go from here?
I suppose you are a practicing Secularist. Few religious people would suffer from alienation and isolation, because they have a tribe of their own. Almost 20 years ago, a local medical student started a meeting group intended to serve the needs of secularists, ranging from independent Theists to Deists, Agnostics, and Atheists. As the Universist Movement grew, we met both face to face, and online in several countries. But Secularism appeals to the intellect, not so much to the emotions. So as time went by, the lack of a unifying belief system, with a feeling focus, allowed the movement to stagnate and fall apart. Nevertheless, there are many other small groups, on campuses and elsewhere that offer some consolation for isolation. Just try not to become entrapped in an eccentric cult with a charismatic leader. :yum:
Alienation in a linked-up age : https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evil-deeds/201402/lets-talk-about-loneliness-alienation-in-linked-age
Seriously - there is not much to say: The young are far out on the gaussian curve of voters - society is not yours, and will never be until you do not care anymore.
Do something practical - maybe, as student/junior/whatever, you can work at an engeneering company somewhere. Thoughts do not matter. As long as you do not prove your fitness to survive (which might mean earning money) - in practice - you are unable to reproduce yourself and to survive.
Natural as can be: You just know you are scum. :grin:
Well, I’ve thought about it. Actually I thought about it so long that I forgot my login information and had to create a new account! To any moderator seeing this: it won't happen again.
Anyways. I’m scared of being alone … because I’m scared of being alone. How anticlimactic is that?! Some scientist could probably explain why I’ve evolved to be scared of being alone, and it would probably have to do with it not being good for the survival of the genes I’m carrying in my genome.
I want to get paid well so that I can attract and provide for some girl I’ll fall in love with, as well as to be able to provide for the kids I would want us to have. In other words, I want to make money as to not be lonely. I suppose my sense of loneliness manifests in an urge for romantic love.
I’m afraid that the question "what is really natural?" is beyond the scope of my intellectual capabilities, so I won’t even try it. That’s why I asked for books that could convince me to think differently. At the moment I’m just seeing the world through the values I figure to be right, what to me feels instinctively true, and through that lens the modern way of life isn’t natural; multiculturalism isn’t natural, (excessive) individualism isn’t natural, genderless society isn’t natural, our sedentary lifestyles aren’t natural and so on.
A recurring thought is that maybe I'm just projecting, perhaps I’m just scapegoating in an effort to cope with my inability to feel at home with my own being. I guess it’s not always easy to know what causes what.
How about you?
I’ve also thought about that, but its insignificance became apparent after I realized that I’m actively considering hanging myself.
It’s not so much that anyone is stopping me, it just happens to be impossible. But who knows; as an engineering student maybe I’ll try inventing a time machine and one of those memory-erasing gadgets from Men in Black.
Well, yeah. That’s what I meant by “now I find myself in the peculiar situation of having to accept it to thrive in it”, because “I am deathly afraid of ending up alone”.
No, not really. It sounds interesting though, but also far away given my current situation. If I ever where to become religious it would probably be protestantism.
What I was trying to tell you is that those thoughts may be symptomatic for the situation of being estranged from the means of your own reproduction. This is not cured by "thinking positive".
What I may add to this is that "being alone" only matters so long (as it does matter). It might well be you not only do end up alone but that you really will not care about it then. The social needs are an invention of culture or at least lose their weight with time. The thing you may then ask in this forum are if it is a bad thing that you do not care and basically care a sh*t about everything as long as you get your steak on sundays as that really is something existential.
Freud made up for the theories how culture benefits from internalized aggression. So to critique your excerpts of despair: It is really to abstract to be destructive and - thus - satisfying. Too many relativations, too few direct attacks. "Hunter-gatherers"... I'd suggest you google for "Trolling for Beginners" and put things to the test. Think, no, DO Nieztsche:
What stays on top is right, good and the truth.
Do you have any recommendations? I live in Scandinavia.
This is why hytte are big business. Unfortunately solace as a consumption choice is part of the grand madness.
I wish I had suggestions for what to do to be less of a lonely atom, but that's something I'm struggling with too.
I haven't read this thread, just jumping in with something I know about this, which is that Freud had this same concern. Wild and crazy passionate erotic animalistic humans trying to get through life sitting at desks and wearing suits and being polite to one another. Some of this arrangement seems to be fraying at the seams lately if you read the papers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=anarcho-primitivism&ref=nb_sb_noss
If you feel drawn to those ideas I can recommend John Zerzan as an erudite and eloquent anarcho-prinitivist author.
Perhaps by having children you would be continuing the chain of suffering and causing others to deal with the same existential problems. The best way to prevent suffering is to simply not have people that can experience it.
The idea that what humans do is unnatural stems from the antiquated notion that humans are special, or separate from nature.
I guess I do... I'm not saying my perception of it is objective, though. This is what I wrote to another person:
Quoting MadWorld1
Although, if I may, I think your definition of what's natural - at least as stated here - runs into some serious issues. You seem to be implying that anything and everything humanity do is natural. Is mass-suicide by gassing natural? It could be that we are talking about different things and merely using the same word.
I fully disagree with the former, but suspect you're fully right on the latter. You're right.
Quoting Heiko
Yeah. I don't know man, I just feel so damn nihilistic. It's like Nietzsche said:
I want to stand on firm ground.
There is no firm ground; at best you can drop an anchor.
That's the thing; I don't necessarily think that suffering is bad, it's not the suffering that gets to me. I feel like suffering can even be good in that sense, in a tragic sense, as something that cleanses your soul. It's really the alienation and loneliness. It's lifeless suffering, that's what it is. It's something cold, metallic, and static. I don't believe that everyone is doomed to feel in that way, it's not part of the human experience. I feel like we're going post-human.
But that's part of the suffering too...
Going post-human?
Well put.
Quoting fishfry
You can say that again.
That sounds very interesting, I'll definitely look into it. I've been kind of ambivalent when it comes to anarchism; I like some of what I hear but the almost principal stance against hierarki and stratification of any kind seems unnatural to me - as well as a pipe dream. Granted I know little of anarchistic views.
That's an interesting thought. But what would the end-goal be in such a world? To become all-powerful? I don't want to mimic nature, I want to be enclosed by it and a part of it. I want to live the human experience. I'm aware that it sounds vague, but I really like the to put it like that; it emphasizes that, at least for me, we're not really human in this modern world - we're alien.
If this is true then hunter gatherer societies were anarchistic, self-regulating, just as other social animal groups are.
If you ask me, the end goal is an utopia or heaven if you're the religious type. I haven't done research into it but I have a feeling carnivory is declining in the animal world and I take that as nature's way of trying to achieve its own brand of Eden. Look at the fossil records - big, terrifying, flesh-eating monsters. Where are they now? Also, don't forget humans are the apex predators whose dominion is the entire globe and I don't think it's a coincidence that we alone have evolved a sense of right and wrong.
True. We could be talking about different things. You seem to be implying that mass-suicide by gassing is unnatural, as if because humans do something that other animals don't do that makes it unnatural.
Again, you would be singling out humans for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species.
Our complex and diverse behaviors are a product of our evolutionary past and natural selection. Opposable thumbs and large brains had an exponential effect on the number of possible behavioral strategies that opened up to homo sapiens, and each culture and religion is it's own example of one type of strategy.
Let me clarify: I'm saying that, in my view, what's natural can't be anything and everything humanity do.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm singling out humans because I am human. But yes, I definitely believe - I find it proven beyond reasonable doubt using science and normal categorization - that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. One example would be that we're the only animal doing philosophy on the internet.
This is my worry with your statement that modern society is natural: it seems non-falsifiable. You're not actually describing the world, you're simply describing relationships between words. You're making, using Kantian terminology, an analytical statement. I'm trying to describe the world.
Quoting Janus
Interesting. I agree with the gist of what you're saying. I like the thinking that it lacked "imposed" hierarchical structure, because of course there's also innate hierarchies that are perfectly natural. We as most other mammals have them. I mean, could I child really set the brought home game ablaze every time and not be punished? When the tribe where to take an important decision of where to go next, did the children get a say as influential as the tribes chief? As long as anarchists oppose imposed, unnatural hierarchy and not the natural kind, then I'm all for it. I also fully agree that obvious or excessive selfish behavior would be shunned, which is kinda funny given that most of us in modern society are taught to be like that.
Then what is natural cant be anything and everything any other animal does.
Quoting MadWorld1
What scientific theory states that philosophy and mass-suicide are unnatural?
Other animals don't have unique behaviors that define them as a species? Are all of these behaviors unnatural?
https://www.science101.com/bizarre-animal-behaviors-prove-nature-metal/
Quoting MadWorld1
How is the statement that modern civilization is unnatural falsifiable? It seems to me that we are simply categorizing the world. It's just that your categorization isn't consistent because it is subjective, and it is subjective because you think humans are special because you're human.
Sure, I've never claimed to objectively know what's natural - quite on the contrary. I thought that was your position?
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't know, and I never said that. I'm saying that humans have unique behaviors that define us as a species. You seemed to be doubting that. In my view the behaviors listed are natural in a way that sharply contrasts to, say, using a rocket to go to space. If chimpanzees started doing that I would feel the same way.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, seriously, you're not saying anything about the world. You said exactly that "Modern civilization is natural given that humans themselves are natural outcomes of natural processes.". Go through it step by step; you've defined humans as natural outcomes of natural processes, and then stated that very relationship.
If you actually think you're saying something objective about the real world, then give me a hypothetical, an actual change in the world whereas you're sentence would be falsified without redefining your terms.
Don't shoot the messenger, man.
Quoting MadWorld1
"Natural" and "unnatural" are just words, but words need to refer to consistent and non-contradictory things and relationships for them to mean anything or to be useful. We could use any terms that you like, as long as the terms are applied consistently. That is my point - that your application of the term "unnatural" is inconsistent with observations made of other animals. What is the relationship between humans and the world - natural or unnatural?
Quoting MadWorld1
No. That was my argument - that humans have unique behaviors, but then I also showed that other animals do to, and that was a link that I tried to show in that humans really aren't different than other animals in that each species has unique behaviors that define it as a species. Chimps building rockets to space would be unnatural in that their biology doesn't allow for those types of behaviors. So "unnatural" would actually mean "impossible" or "imaginary".
Quoting MadWorld1
So saying that humans and other animals possess unique behaviors that define them as a species isn't saying anything about the world? If the processes that created humans and all other animals is natural, and the things that animals do is natural, and humans are animals, then what use is the word, "unnatural"?
If we discovered aliens that also have large brains and opposable thumbs and they also had instances of mass-suicide and practiced philosophy, would you then agree that those things are natural - as in natural behaviors given our biology?
Lemmings have been known to jump off cliffs to their deaths in mass migration. Is a mass-suicide not similar in that the people are trying to mass-migrate to the after-life, but are ignorant of the fact that their destination is real and safe?
Why the fallacies?
1.Quoting Harry Hindu
That wasn't the argument you made, that's a blatant ad hoc modification. You said:
Quoting Harry Hindu
I responded by saying that yes, I do believe that humans have unique behaviors that define it as a species. If one reads your quote they see that you said "... for no good reason other than you believe that humans are somehow different from other species in having unique behaviors that define it as a species.". Common man.
2. Quoting Harry Hindu
I never said that. I clearly stated which of your statements I was talking about. Why the straw man?
3. Quoting Harry Hindu
Where? Quote me being inconsistent with my view on nature as applied to animals. I've never even talked about what I believe makes other animals natural or unnatural outside of our discussion. If you can find any animals that go to space in rockets or mass-suicide with gas (obviously poisons gas), then I'll reconsider.
Let's discuss in good faith.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I agree with you that words need (or at least ought) to be used consistently and in an non-contradictory fashion, and I'm not saying that your analytical statement is an invalid one. It's valid just as the statement "all parents have children" is, but it still doesn't say anything descriptive about the world - the validity of the statement stems from the definitions entailing each other. It's really somewhat of a tautology. Your issue is that your statement doesn't refer to things other than what defines the words and their relationship. That's what makes your statement analytical.
You can read more about it here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/analytic-proposition
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes! That's exactly it. Given that your analytical statement dosen't say anything about the world, there is no possible world where you can be wrong. That's what I meant by your analytical statement being non-falsifiable, and that I want to describe the world. I've never claimed that I'm describing the world in a objective, perfectly true way. I'd leave that to the gigants.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is exactly what I claim will happen when we look to the consequences of your non-falsifiable, analytical statement - that's all I've been saying.
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is where you've misunderstood me. I would think that they're unnatural as well! For example: if humanity went extinct and some population of chimpanzees evolved to be similarly intelligent to us now in, say 20 million years, and they started doing what were doing - mass destroying forest, forcing themselves to be sedentary even though they feel bad from it etc. - i'd be there calling them unnatural. I've been consistent on this, I've been consistent on my subjective understanding of naturalness lol
Yes, exactly, a common mistake is thinking that anarchism necessarily rejects all hierarchy. Rather it rejects all hierarchy imposed from above, that is it rejects institutionalized hierarchies.
Yes, it's widely tolerated if not even glorified. Look at the Trump phenomenon for a classic example. One of the tragic aspects of modern life, and another manifestation of this absurd phenomenon, is that the people apparently cannot muster the intelligence and will to unite in effectively opposing and ejecting the financial elites that are screwing us so royally.
"Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years."
So OP is probably around 18, so it's basically a coin toss as to whether he'd actually be alive in a hunter-gatherer society and be able to physically express his support of this type of society. I don't mean to start an argument with OP but this is just a point I found kind of funny.
Then you misinterpreted my first statement. It was my assertion all along that humans are not special or different from other species in having unique behaviors that define them as a species. All species possess certain unique characteristics that make the a separate species. If other animals have unique behaviors, and they are products of their physiology and labeled "natural", then why do humans deserve a different term to for their unique behaviors that are the result of their physiology?
Quoting MadWorld1
You're equating human activity to a natural disaster. Think about the environmental consequences of an asteroid impact, yet it is understood to be a natural disaster. Other species modify their environments, just not on the scale that humans, but this is because of the physiological differences between humans and other animals (large brains and opposable thumbs).
Quoting MadWorld1Then you need to come up with a consistent use for "unnnatural". I told you that we could use any term that you want, so I'm not saying anything that is unfalsifiable. What I am trying to get you to refer to is the relationship between humans and the world. What term would you use to describe that relationship, and is it the same type of relationship that every other species has with the world?