but therein lies the stupid logic.  you have to assume that EVERY human spat right out of the womb is capable of hunting for their food.

The hunting-gathering tribes of the past (and in some remote locations where they still exist) worked simply because they were tribes. Nobody went hungry unless the entire tribe went hungry. Acting egotistically didn't increase anyone's chance of reproductive success. Letting the rest of the tribe starve simply to feed yourself wouldn't do you any good, as there would be a greater chance of finding food if you were among many strong individuals. There is a reason why people lived in tribes (and as stated, still do in some places) and that's because it worked, and still works wherever they can be found. Our totalitarian agriculture is destroying ecosystems and 75-200 species go extinct every day, and we might not be affected by this today but there may come one day when our ancestors will look back and ask themselves: "What were they thinking?"

Now as for me, I do not advocate primitivism as the ultimate way of living, let alone a lifestyle preferable to any other. I'm simply saying that if people wanna do that, then let them - they're certainly not destroying the Earth as much as any "civilized" person, but what we (people of our culture, East and West) have done is to assimilate/chase off/kill any people getting in the way of our business (for a rather recent example in history, read about native Americans during 15th/16th century.) I for one do not believe that ditching all we got right here is gonna do any good. The important change exists in the minds of the people. It's about time people step out of this cultural prison and start dealing with things that are not only subjectively useful (people find drugs useful, hence rich druglords) but stuff that really matters - if anything along those lines exists.

Anarcho-primitivists state that the hunter-gatherer society is better because a society based on agriculture promotes sharp class divisions. People are less equal in a society that incorporates agriculture because there is the possibility of spending time building a real society of a much higher standard.

Such a thing ignores the fact that agriculture leads to an improved life. Would you rather lead the life of a hunter-gatherer than the life you're living now? No? That means agriculture must have gotten us somewhere..

Just to carify: The issue with agriculture societies is not necessarily the division of roles because similar role distinctions exist in hunter-gatherer societies but the surplus time that is a result of an agricultural society creates  distinction between hunter-gatherers who spend most their time searching for food. It feels like it's a similar distinction that exists between the leisure (middle) class now and a typical hard-working lower class. There is great value in this leisure time and before you know it you need soceital super structures to control the increased population. so you've got all the roman politicians dancing in the pantheon while slaves pave streets.

Maybe the more interesting thing is what improved life really is? Having time to do nothing? In our society it seems like leisure time is at the expense of others' work. Whereas before in mythologized and fantasized times of hunting and gathering everyone was on the same page. Honestly neither are extraordinary for everyone. I think the biggest problem with agriculural societies is extremely large size that it tries to maintain regardless of differing ideaologies of its people. It is difficult to please all the people of a huge society because groups have conflicting needs&wants.

Also if anyone is really interested in all this civilized vs. uncivilized and justice vs. injustice you should check out Waiting for the Barbarians by J.M. Coetzee - really good.

well, despite this being an absolutely horrible post and you obviously having no clue how ns/evolution works

humans haven't been subject to natural selection since the very beginnings of civilization. we're social, we change through social selection. we're selected for and against by an entirely different set of rules. and unlike natural selection, mating isn't random. humans get to choose their mate, and to help with this we've even got this awesome little inborn indicator we call love. I can understand the fantasy though; people who are nutjobs, unintelligent, unattractive, etc are socially selected against in society. after WWIII, who will be left to socially compete with? just imagine if you were the only male left on the planet! sheeww

i do understand evolution, i was just putting it in animalistic (primitive) terms.  i understand what you mean by social selection, though.

maybe our population is getting dumber because nerds cant get laid.  then again, they often end up rich and find a golddigger, so it all works out.

No, you obviously don't, as your post (AND THIS POST) are so horrible terrible ack bad...

you post are bad!

edit:  Actually what I'm talking about is human beings' evolution in physical terms.  Since humans don't require physical strength and agility (though it is a plus socially) like they might have before, I imagine those attributes aren't as prominent as they once were.  Most people require dental work these days to keep their teeth from rotting out as well.  I understand fully that our evolution has taken a completely different direction since early civilization.

I understand evolution perfectly.  I really don't need to explain it to you.

I'm talking about physical might as opposed to the ability to use tools, intelligence, and most recently, self-awareness.  Instead of the biggest fastest fucking monkey in the pack surviving, he who can best manipulate his environment will survive.  Do you not see what I'm talking about?  Physical strength has been replaced with intelligence. 

hey catslacks, everyone really wants to see you tell evangel he "clearly doesn't understand evolution" over and over again.  please keep doing it.

hey catslacks, everyone really wants to see you tell evangel he "clearly doesn't understand evolution" over and over again.  please keep doing it.

yeah im getting some serious deja vu here. 

i hope you, catslacks, understand wtf im saying, because i'm not going to reword it again.

Ok, my bad, but you seem to be implying the evolution takes away certain characteristics that are not used and improves others which are used which isn't necessarily accurate.

It confuses my obviously inferior mind thay lacks the perfect understanding of the topic you have when you say things like, "but I think our species will be more refined with the next great disaster (World War 3?).  Maybe we won't have to brush our teeth after all that." Do you really believe we will evolve so that we won't have to brush our teeth after WW3 or that, provided there is anything left and we can sustain ourselves, there will be any prominent changes to humans? How long would you expect to wait before we see these changes?

millions of years.

if civilization crumbles and humans survive in a post-apocalyptic world, we will, in fact, evolve into a very foget-like creature.