ITT:

ITT:

I argue (at university level) that "primitive" natural state humans like the Yanomami and Aboriginals are actually more advanced than us.

Taking the most crutial key to evolution into account: the needs for shelter, food, water and reproduction.


Key point
>These societies have survived for thousands of years without technological advancement - but cultural advancement, leading to heightened spiritual beliefs, connectivity to others and sustainability for the planet.
>If there is a world shattering event these tribes will live on, untouched and unfaltered.
>More evolved? If these people have a shorter lifespan, then that means more generations has concequently passed. Does that mean more potential for evolutionary strengthening?

>higher evolution
>huff gas

BTW that picture looks exactly like every hobo "tent" city in the world

Yes, and?
These people are surviving off what is availible in the immediate area, and to what their means afford. What is wrong with that?

science doesn't acknowledge the spiritual aspect of humanity. so no.

but to build on this, people should generally be able to live outside indefinitely, and have the ability to survivde on food and water from the natural given enviorment, and raise healthy offspring. not only that people should be able to do this in any part of the world, on the 6 continents, and the arctic north.

don't count Antarctica, because its an ice barrier.

the fact that this is not the case basically means everyone is absolute garbage.

but fuck you anyway, I'm a creationist.

in some cases people actually prefer to live in traditional architecture than introduced western housing idologies

They are just more adapted to their unchanging environment

>not taking in to account resilience to catastrophic environmental change.
>not taking into account potential total earth biome destruction events

Technology and human ability to modify and control environmental factors to suit our survival needs makes us the most advanced biological entity on the planet. We have the means and abilities to colonized extra terrestrial environments and avoid species death in the event of an earth destroying event. No other earth bound lifeforms that we know of has this ability.

There is nothing noble about the savage.

by "in some cases" you mean "poorfags, drunks, junkies, and runaways"

so are hobos in cities

Great point, however there would be no need to do any of those things if technology didnt increase avg human lifespan, leading to more people, more food needs to be produced etc etc... This logic of technology never existing can be applied to many arguments and is hard to fault.

(with current technology +/- 50 years - A meteor strike event would be one of the only cases in which humans ability to craft technology would come into effect - even then, a significant portion of the population would die instantly.
(((NOT DISAGREEING - TRYING TO ARGUE A POINT)))

no no no - im talking about Aboriginals specifically here

In my country homelessness is a choice

The error is that intelligent humans shared life extending technology with savages incapable of replicating the technology on their own at no cost. A race / culture that can extend life through technology also has the foresight to reduce breeding and focus on higher quality offspring to perpetuate and advance the state of technology. A primitive people (Africa as example) have no such foresight and, when no constraints are places upon them, stress a system of extended and high quality technologically assisted life to its breaking point through over breeding and a lack of ability to contribute to or maintain the technology required to produce them. If we freed ourselves from (((humanist ideologies))) that insist that a savage is equaivilant to a technologically capable east Asian or European genetic stock then the problems of overpopulation could be solved very easily. Population controls via chemical sterilization after a calculated number of offspring and/or isolation of groups that cannot sustain themselves until a die off to sustainable levels would very quickly bring down the population of useless savages that stress technologically sound cultures.

So much for university level.

Look into r/K selection theory if you are still here

Good point.

I wonder what would happen if we intoduced a paid voluntary sterilisation program, so much money or something so ludacrous that they couldnt refuse.

Thanks for the parle

>Yanomami and Aboriginals are actually more advanced than us
Neanderthal were bigger, smarter, and stronger than us and thrived in Ice age... but the small, scrawny, mentally slower, nearly hairless fuck monkeys are still here and the Neanderthal are no more (but good for us our horny ancestors gave us some of their genes).

The ability and desire to spread out and change has always triumphed over "primitive" cultures which stay as they are and do not innovate very much.

True that - also im fairly sure that a prominant theory to the fall of the Neanderthals was that they didnt move around and depleted their resources?

I think the typical counterargument to this is, "evolution and heredity are very complex, eugenic principles do not work on human population, hopefully if we let everyone breed as much as possible they will produce geniuses at a faster rate than if we limit breeding to smart individuals".

That is a retarded argument unless you plan on culling all humans below an IQ threshold there is no selection pressure for intelligence. Genius doesn't spring out of the ether nor does it increase in frequency when baseline sub 90 IQ apes breed en masse. Mutation is random within set parameters that can be quantified. Without selective pressures (killing defective or detrimental mutations before they reproduce) there is equal pressure for detrimental developments as there are for beneficial ones. Yes we should allow a certain amount of variability to human genetics to allow for unforseen useful gene expressions but this does not preclude the removal of directly detrimental gene expressions.

Saying something is complex therefore -assumption without evidence- is pretty god damn stupid as a counterargument and betrays a lack of information on the topic.

Is that Sharkira?

>Is that Sharkira?

She must carry a lot of the ancient Neanderthal genes... you can thank our ancient fuck monkey ancestors

/underrated interesting view user

Why not traditional living augmented by modern technology?

yep you're correct. civilization is like a form of cancer except instead of involving cells in an organism, it involved social behavior of organisms turning into uncontrolled growth of a type never originally selected for by evolution.

what do they say our intelligence was selected for anyway? impressing mates and coordinating hunting? it definitely wasn't for doing philosophy. and then the ice age shock put us through another stage of weird selection that was very abnormal, kind of like getting zapped by some radiation, and then the cancer started growing out of control.

that's why I'm skeptical of any traditionalists who appeal to nature. not that I think it's bad to appeal to nature if it were possible, but any level of civilization, maybe even the primitive levels in the tribes you talk about, is unnatural, civilization is the exact opposite of nature.

that's still unnatural. "traditional" horrific shit like the black plague was just like the ills of technology we have today. It was an ill of technological civilization at the level they had it then. You'd have to go way before even written language.

Are you a misanthrope?