Wait, you want us to return to a hunter-gatherer society and yet you also support the 'natural advancement' of our species? What?
I think everything should go to a certain extent.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Everything should go? You mean like technological advancements? Where would they 'go'? Would we bury them somewhere and promise not to dig them up again? Perhaps we could put up signs telling people not to go near them. But wait, isn't language sort of advanced? Whoops. How about a big painted skull? That will work.
The very fact that you're posting on the internet leads me to believe that you don't have the courage of your convictions. If I'd read a story about some wildman living in the foothills of South Dakota living off rats and small mammals he killed with his teeth, I'd think "There's a guy who's living the dream!". But when a guy on the internet says "We should all live in caves, mmkay." I tend to think, "You first".
[
I mean, do you really believe that everything in science is true? How long ago did we believe that the Earth was at the center of the universe? That the Earth was flat? I would think that this would humble some of the people claiming that it is impossible for science to be wrong.
I think you're forgetting an important aspect of science, or at least the ideal scientific process: all knowledge is inherently limited and provisional. An honest scientist will say that everything we say we know about, to pick something at random, gravity is based on evidence gathered over time. We draw conclusions based on evidence which is flawed and incomplete, and therefore our theories are similarly flawed and incomplete. And we hold to the theories of science with the knowledge that they could change tomorrow; we could very possibly find evidence today that gravity is sometimes repulsive, and we would have to integrate that new information into our understanding of science. That ability to change is science's greatest strength.
Nobody who actually understands science would say that it is impossible for science to be wrong. That's a straw-man position.
This is why I hate religion and science. To me, they both seem like futile attempts to explain things that we cannot grasp in the slightest. Why even try to explain it? Why even try to understand it? Lets say the ants spend years analyzing what exactly happened, creating different belief systems and scientific explanations because of it, and by some miracle they come to the conclusion that someone just spilled some water. What did they accomplish? How do you think they feel, knowing that what they've dedicated their lives to was just an accident? That what they've crafted their existence into is meaningless?
As a side note, I absolutely hate it when people are atheists because "Oh, I don't believe what I can't see." That logic is so flawed. Do you believe that there is a Nile river? Yes? Have you ever seen it? Oh, only pictures? Well, we all know pictures can be fabricated, so how do you know its really there? We all use faith, whether we like it or not.
So, let's see if I have this straight. You hate religion and science for the attributes of blind faith and logical inquiry.
But you hate atheists for being unwilling to use either faith or logical inquiry.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
To not critique you so harshly would go against the natural checks and balances system employed by this forum. :P
Starcross on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
First give us some evidence backing up anything you're saying like perhaps that hunter-gatherer societies are 'harmonious' instead of kill-or-be-killed bullshit.
[
I mean, do you really believe that everything in science is true? How long ago did we believe that the Earth was at the center of the universe? That the Earth was flat? I would think that this would humble some of the people claiming that it is impossible for science to be wrong.
I think you're forgetting an important aspect of science, or at least the ideal scientific process: all knowledge is inherently limited and provisional.
Obviously this isn't being practiced, considering how strongly people are responding to me voicing doubt over science in general.
Sure, it sounds great in theory, but if you don't agree with the prevailing theories of the time you are an idiot, no?
Wait, you want us to return to a hunter-gatherer society and yet you also support the 'natural advancement' of our species? What?
I think everything should go to a certain extent.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Everything should go? You mean like technological advancements? Where would they 'go'? Would we bury them somewhere and promise not to dig them up again? Perhaps we could put up signs telling people not to go near them. But wait, isn't language sort of advanced? Whoops. How about a big painted skull? That will work.
The very fact that you're posting on the internet leads me to believe that you don't have the courage of your convictions. If I'd read a story about some wildman living in the foothills of South Dakota living off rats and small mammals he killed with his teeth, I'd think "There's a guy who's living the dream!". But when a guy on the internet says "We should all live in caves, mmkay." I tend to think, "You first".
This guy reminds me of Christopher McCandless. He thought people were living contrived bullshit lives divorced from "reality"....so he discarded any trappings of science or survival and starved to death in a bus in Alaska, a few miles from the nearest major highway.
Not at all, what you do if you don't agree with the prevailing theories of the time is to form your own theory, test it, and come back with evidence your theory is truth and the existing theory forgot to check its work.
The great thing about science is the way we know it works is because anyone can try it. We do not call things laws just because 3/5 of the scientists supporting it won cage matches against the detractors.
Wait, you want us to return to a hunter-gatherer society and yet you also support the 'natural advancement' of our species? What?
I think everything should go to a certain extent.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Everything should go? You mean like technological advancements? Where would they 'go'? Would we bury them somewhere and promise not to dig them up again? Perhaps we could put up signs telling people not to go near them. But wait, isn't language sort of advanced? Whoops. How about a big painted skull? That will work.
The very fact that you're posting on the internet leads me to believe that you don't have the courage of your convictions. If I'd read a story about some wildman living in the foothills of South Dakota living off rats and small mammals he killed with his teeth, I'd think "There's a guy who's living the dream!". But when a guy on the internet says "We should all live in caves, mmkay." I tend to think, "You first".
This guy reminds me of Christopher McCandless. He thought people were living contrived bullshit lives divorced from "reality"....so he discarded any trappings of science or survival and starved to death in a bus in Alaska, a few miles from the nearest major highway.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
Or that douche that wanted to live 'in harmony' with bears and oops he got mauled and killed by one along with his girlfriend.
Wait, you want us to return to a hunter-gatherer society and yet you also support the 'natural advancement' of our species? What?
I think everything should go to a certain extent.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Everything should go? You mean like technological advancements? Where would they 'go'? Would we bury them somewhere and promise not to dig them up again? Perhaps we could put up signs telling people not to go near them. But wait, isn't language sort of advanced? Whoops. How about a big painted skull? That will work.
The very fact that you're posting on the internet leads me to believe that you don't have the courage of your convictions. If I'd read a story about some wildman living in the foothills of South Dakota living off rats and small mammals he killed with his teeth, I'd think "There's a guy who's living the dream!". But when a guy on the internet says "We should all live in caves, mmkay." I tend to think, "You first".
This guy reminds me of Christopher McCandless. He thought people were living contrived bullshit lives divorced from "reality"....so he discarded any trappings of science or survival and starved to death in a bus in Alaska, a few miles from the nearest major highway.
A bus? Technological sorcery!
It was broken down and vacant, to be fair. A bus to nowhere, if you will.
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
As that other user, let me introduce you to the viral prospective. Am I making more of myself? If yes fuck the host. (Earth)
If not killed it is natural for viruses to keep doing their thing until the kill the host, killing themselves in the process.
Since you're assigning an importance to what you think and feel, you do not see everything as relative. Merely as all being of equal irrelevance to yourself.
You cannot decry, utilizing the internet, anyone's activity to be 'raping the world' when you yourself, merely by viewing the internet, are supporting several industries which consume a great deal of natural resources.
And what do you mean, exactly, by, 'raping the world?'
Do you mean reducing it to a state incapable of supporting human life at its current scale? Of supporting any life at all? Or are you referring to the world in a more spiritual sense?
And really, what is unnatural about modern medicine? The drugs are all based on or consist of naturally occurring substances. Several species have ways of ridding themselves of ailments which modern medicine imitates. Hell, a large part of counteracting diseases with vaccines relies entirely on the body's defense mechanism against disease.
Science is a process. Ascribe anything else to it that you want, in the end, thats all it is. If you can manage to hate a process that emphasizes accurate measurement, logic, and building on previous knowledge, then you're rejecting rationality. If you want to just make everything up as you go along, feel free, but don't call criticism of your methods 'vicious attacks' when its far closer to gentle mockery.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Why are you all attacking me so viciously? I am merely using my free will and voicing some of my thoughts.
So are we.
Your thoughts are stupid. If you didn't want to open yourself to criticism, perhaps this is not the place for you.
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise, I assume you haven't lurked in this forum at all. Had you, you'd have noticed we have a particular rhetorical tone, A lot of your ideas have been addressed, rather than playing the victim and starting a meta-debate, which is just going to result in you being further lambasted, you'd be better served by commenting on some of those very real criticisms of and apparent flaws in your argument.
You aren't going to gain anything here being offended by people's tone.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Not to mention that, without some sort of catastrophic event, there'd be a natural winnowing of the human population through murder and cannibalism until the world arrived at a self-sustaining population.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
There is no living harmoniously with the Earth. The Earth wants to kill us. It kills us every day through disease, weather and a whole assortment of other things. If you mean by harmoniously whereby which we reduce ourselves to the basic forms society, to reduce all our transgressions against the Nature to a minimum then sure go for it.
The question is why would you? It's not a fabulous life, you know with no basic hygiene, medicine, no way to store meat or fruits beyond a few days. It's brutal, extremely brutal. Isn't there a middle ground whereby where we can use technology to our advantage and to reduce our destruction on the bio-sphere.
Also forming back to Hunter Gatherer society means nothing because we will inevitably form civilizations again, unless you have some sort of way of keeping us in that sort of society (like killer aliens and shit)
Baer on
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited June 2009
Lobotomies at birth!
Wait shit, you'd need to know science to perform them.
DarwinsFavoriteTortoise, I assume you haven't lurked in this forum at all. Had you, you'd have noticed we have a particular rhetorical tone, A lot of your ideas have been addressed, rather than playing the victim and starting a meta-debate, which is just going to result in you being further lambasted, you'd be better served by commenting on some of those very real criticisms of and apparent flaws in your argument.
You aren't going to gain anything here being offended by people's tone.
I made one comment about the tone of you guys, and that was just reinforce my point in the OP. Its not like I'm whining every post.
And look, its me vs. all of you. I'm trying to respond to everything I can, but for every post I make you guys make 10.
I think humans would be most harmonious with the Earth if we were to be a hunter-gatherer society.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
There is no living harmoniously with the Earth. The Earth wants to kill us. It kills us every day through disease, weather and a whole assortment of other things. If you mean by harmoniously whereby which we reduce ourselves to the basic forms society, to reduce all our transgressions against the Nature to a minimum then sure go for it.
The question is why would you? It's not a fabulous life, you know with no basic hygiene, medicine, no way to store meat or fruits beyond a few days. It's brutal, extremely brutal. Isn't there a middle ground whereby where we can use technology to our advantage and to reduce our destruction on the bio-sphere.
Also forming back to Hunter Gatherer society means nothing because we will inevitably form civilizations again, unless you have some sort of way of keeping us in that sort of society (like killer aliens and shit)
I would be in total support of, if and when humans become a spacefaring race, keeping alien species down.
Anytime they start progressing in technology, bam, orbital bombardment.
We know how bad humans can be. Why risk letting something else even potentially nastier become a possible threat?
Posts
Everything should go? You mean like technological advancements? Where would they 'go'? Would we bury them somewhere and promise not to dig them up again? Perhaps we could put up signs telling people not to go near them. But wait, isn't language sort of advanced? Whoops. How about a big painted skull? That will work.
The very fact that you're posting on the internet leads me to believe that you don't have the courage of your convictions. If I'd read a story about some wildman living in the foothills of South Dakota living off rats and small mammals he killed with his teeth, I'd think "There's a guy who's living the dream!". But when a guy on the internet says "We should all live in caves, mmkay." I tend to think, "You first".
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Yeah, because opening myself up to criticism is exactly the same as getting harassed.
If you haven't noticed, I'm responding to the people that are voicing their opinions kindly (or in a semi-kind way).
The way you want to critique me is barbaric and immature, to be honest.
I think you're forgetting an important aspect of science, or at least the ideal scientific process: all knowledge is inherently limited and provisional. An honest scientist will say that everything we say we know about, to pick something at random, gravity is based on evidence gathered over time. We draw conclusions based on evidence which is flawed and incomplete, and therefore our theories are similarly flawed and incomplete. And we hold to the theories of science with the knowledge that they could change tomorrow; we could very possibly find evidence today that gravity is sometimes repulsive, and we would have to integrate that new information into our understanding of science. That ability to change is science's greatest strength.
Nobody who actually understands science would say that it is impossible for science to be wrong. That's a straw-man position.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
If this thread was a disney movie, you'd be bambi's mom.
I'm just trying to look at us, and the universe, in a different way.
So, let's see if I have this straight. You hate religion and science for the attributes of blind faith and logical inquiry.
But you hate atheists for being unwilling to use either faith or logical inquiry.
Hmm.
To not critique you so harshly would go against the natural checks and balances system employed by this forum. :P
Oh wait you can't. That's the problem.
YOUR IDEAS HAVE NO BASIS IN REALITY.
Obviously this isn't being practiced, considering how strongly people are responding to me voicing doubt over science in general.
Sure, it sounds great in theory, but if you don't agree with the prevailing theories of the time you are an idiot, no?
As people have pointed out that way has massive gaping logical holes in it.
Would this be a bad time to point out that the ideal you wish to abide by is barbaric and immature?
I hear sheep bleed rainbows when you cut their throats.
This guy reminds me of Christopher McCandless. He thought people were living contrived bullshit lives divorced from "reality"....so he discarded any trappings of science or survival and starved to death in a bus in Alaska, a few miles from the nearest major highway.
The great thing about science is the way we know it works is because anyone can try it. We do not call things laws just because 3/5 of the scientists supporting it won cage matches against the detractors.
A bus? Technological sorcery!
Yeah but he documented a lot of his findings for science.
No, the ideal that I wish that we all would abide by allows the Earth to live and other species to co-exist harmoniously with us.
As another user has said, humans are like a virus, and thats a wonderful way of putting it. Sure, all of this advancement is great to you, but at what cost to the Earth?
It was broken down and vacant, to be fair. A bus to nowhere, if you will.
It's his girlfriend I felt sorry for. "Come with me on a camping trip. It'll be neat". "OK".
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
As that other user, let me introduce you to the viral prospective. Am I making more of myself? If yes fuck the host. (Earth)
If not killed it is natural for viruses to keep doing their thing until the kill the host, killing themselves in the process.
You cannot decry, utilizing the internet, anyone's activity to be 'raping the world' when you yourself, merely by viewing the internet, are supporting several industries which consume a great deal of natural resources.
And what do you mean, exactly, by, 'raping the world?'
Do you mean reducing it to a state incapable of supporting human life at its current scale? Of supporting any life at all? Or are you referring to the world in a more spiritual sense?
And really, what is unnatural about modern medicine? The drugs are all based on or consist of naturally occurring substances. Several species have ways of ridding themselves of ailments which modern medicine imitates. Hell, a large part of counteracting diseases with vaccines relies entirely on the body's defense mechanism against disease.
Science is a process. Ascribe anything else to it that you want, in the end, thats all it is. If you can manage to hate a process that emphasizes accurate measurement, logic, and building on previous knowledge, then you're rejecting rationality. If you want to just make everything up as you go along, feel free, but don't call criticism of your methods 'vicious attacks' when its far closer to gentle mockery.
Do you honestly, truly believe that you would survive in such a society? Nothing personal, because I don't know anything about you personally, but do you honestly believe that you could hunt and kill your own food, treat your own injuries, monitor your own health, fight for territory?
Have you ever broken a bone, let's say your ankle? If so, you're dead now. Ever had a significant infection? Dead. Did your mother have complications or unusual bleeding when you were born? If so, she's dead, and probably so are you. The planet supports a population of more than 6 billion which, yes, is too many people. IF we all went back to hunter-gatherer state...what, maybe 100 million? Do you think you'd be one of the few strong, tough, lucky individuals who survive that?
I know I'd be dead in a week if I had to find, kill or gather and prepare my own food.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Deep ecology is an interesting theory, but it kind of relies on a mixture of science and nature worship, both of which you apparently hate.
If humans were gone, the Earth might heal itself from the changes man has inflicted. But you have to realize the inherent irony in expecting a lack of anthropocentrism in the only species capable of understanding such a concept.
You wouldn't expect a lion to stop being a lion because it was hurting the planet. You're asking that from humans, though.
You aren't going to gain anything here being offended by people's tone.
Not to mention that, without some sort of catastrophic event, there'd be a natural winnowing of the human population through murder and cannibalism until the world arrived at a self-sustaining population.
Honestly, if I didn't survive, thats the way it is, and I don't see how thats relevant. If we went back and the global population was 100 million, how is this a bad thing? You assume more is better, when its not true. Theres always an optimal level for something...100 million might just be the optimal population of humans.
Why is more not better?
Actually, better question.
Why is less better?
Elves lived forever and treehouses provide unnatural shelter from the "harmony" of nature. He wants us to live in caves and die from the flu.
There is no living harmoniously with the Earth. The Earth wants to kill us. It kills us every day through disease, weather and a whole assortment of other things. If you mean by harmoniously whereby which we reduce ourselves to the basic forms society, to reduce all our transgressions against the Nature to a minimum then sure go for it.
The question is why would you? It's not a fabulous life, you know with no basic hygiene, medicine, no way to store meat or fruits beyond a few days. It's brutal, extremely brutal. Isn't there a middle ground whereby where we can use technology to our advantage and to reduce our destruction on the bio-sphere.
Also forming back to Hunter Gatherer society means nothing because we will inevitably form civilizations again, unless you have some sort of way of keeping us in that sort of society (like killer aliens and shit)
Wait shit, you'd need to know science to perform them.
I made one comment about the tone of you guys, and that was just reinforce my point in the OP. Its not like I'm whining every post.
And look, its me vs. all of you. I'm trying to respond to everything I can, but for every post I make you guys make 10.
You're ignoring the fact that it's the nature of humans to do what we've done. Unless you're making a fundamental change to the way human beings are constructed, it will always be our nature to try and understand the world around us, to use that understanding to create efficiencies, and to use those efficiencies to our advantage, whether individual or collective.
Trepanations?
I would be in total support of, if and when humans become a spacefaring race, keeping alien species down.
Anytime they start progressing in technology, bam, orbital bombardment.
We know how bad humans can be. Why risk letting something else even potentially nastier become a possible threat?