Are you saying that you have knowledge in that if we keep going in the future like the present that we will live in abundance?
News to me. 
Can you share this secret with me?
Man the enviromentalists,biologists,horticulturalists and preservationists must be all wrong. 
( Dam radical extremists. )
I make radicalism look and feel good. 
( I’m luvin it.)
[b]Oh dear, how shall I ever address this below? 
Let me see… 
[/b]
Lazy is a socially constructed metaphor. WTF does lazy mean?
If lazy describes a person who refuses to be under a yoke of another human being I should like to take that as a compliment.
Could it be that such a entity has grown too destructive and is spiraling out of control? No , it couldn’t be that. 
Nonsense!, Nonsense!, Nonsense! They chant holding hands together. 
Need more information. Too vague.
More information is needed. I do dislike these vague sermons.
Your nihilism and pessimism displeases me. I have recently turned the corner and am getting away from that.
No, I did not say anything about abundance. But trying to go back to this idealized existence is a longing for death.
We have continaully found ways to transform our environment, find new ways to use rescources, and become more efficient. I don’t see a reason to give up now.
If we should face scarcity of resources, then a lot of people are going to have to die just as they would die if we tried to go back to anarcho-primitivism.
It is probably the case that few would get off the planet if we advanced so far.
Egalitarianism is not a good when it leads to the ultimate death of all.
Lazy describes people who refuse to work to secure their own existence. The populace wants the government or someone else to provide everything for them.
Well people always say that my biggest highlights is displeasment, disappointment,regret, and every other negative attraction.
Good thing that I am used to it.
How?
What is efficiency to you?
I can see reasons why human beings refuse to give it up.
Ego and narcissism is just two thoughts that generally come into my mind.
Look at what I can do? I am special in the scene of things or in comparison to other species in what is known as creation.
This is my specially constructed induced right and entitlement.
Necessary loss for the survival of the planet.
Foolish dreams of Star Trek that none of us alive will ever see and personally I don’t care about any future generation that isn’t related to me.
Explain that one.
But a poor ultimate goal is the cause of the greatest folly, is it not?
If the last man is the goal of humanity, then we may indeed speak of “humanity”, and ask what ails it.
The Straussian Francis Fukuyama, in his essay “The End of History?”, writes:
“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”
It is no wonder that the book in which he expanded on his essay is titled “The End of History and the Last Man”.
How Nietzsche’s last man follows from the “end of history” is implied in Nietzsche’s essay “The Greek State”:
“If I [therefore] designate as a dangerous and characteristic sign of the present political situation the application of revolutionary thought in the service of a selfish State-less money-aristocracy, if at the same time I conceive of the enormous dissemination of liberal optimism as the result of modern financial affairs fallen into strange hands, and if I imagine all evils of social conditions together with the necessary decay of the arts to have either germinated from that root or grown together with it, one will have to pardon my occasionally chanting a Paean on war.”
The reason why I did not reply, at first, and only with a quote, at second, Impious, is that I didn’t really understand your answer: faith in the last man? Should I see the word “faith” in the light of the phrase “liberal optimism” above? Don’t you rather mean the will to the last man?
“[F]rom dread the opposite type was willed, bred, and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal, the sick human animal—the Christian…”
[Nietzsche, AC 3.]
But some notes in Nietzsche’s Nachlass indicate that the last man and the Overman should live side by side (though separated as much as possible), and that the same conditions that stimulate the development of the herd animal stimulate the development of the leader animal. That is, liberal democracy will necessarily breed Overmen, even though inadvertently - men who, like Fukuyama, will deplore the “end of history” and its consequent “evils of social conditions” and “necessary decay of the arts”:
“Fukuyama is no liberal optimist: instead he is a pessimist influenced by Nietzsche (especially Nietzsche as interpreted by Leo Strauss) who sees the end of history as being ultimately a sad and emotionally unsatisfying era, as reflected in Nietzsche’s concept of the Last Man.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of … e_Last_Man
After reading that little tid bit I now want to read this Francis Fukuyama.
Can you give me some suggestions of what books to read by him?
Just start with the book mentioned.
Wheter or not liberal democracies are the inevitable and perpetual wave of the future, as Fukuyama at one time at least seemed to believe, is it true that liberal democracies are the perfect domain for the last man.
Certainly, the pursuit of comfort for comfort’s sake, and the war against all suffering are the hallmakrs of most mature, socialized democracies, and even America is heading toward that end. Science itself is in the main directed towards that end.
But even if liberal democracy are the home of the last man, for the domain of the last man to be mankind’s greatest ailment, it would have to be the case that the decadence of such hedonism and self-contentment to be self-perpetuating.
That which decays rots, and that which rots, certainly will not last.
Even if hedonism could lead to a state of perfect contentment, which Schopenhauer gave good that it could not, there is something about regarding life itself as an amusement that bodes poorly for such a system to be self-sustaining.
It would be fair comment to understand that the idea that “All is but a fair” is itself a very disturbing idea, and contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
A related question is then, is the world of the ‘last man’ mankind’s greatest ailment, because it is self-perpetuating, or is it only western civilization’s greatest ailment, because it is not?
I read the entire book last night.
It seemed so boring and I couldn’t get anything out of it.
Ok, well, I wouldn’t know, I’ve never read it.
It’s a real bore.
It’s like reading Oswald Spengler all over again.
Maybe you should count the words and look up the middle one(s). This usually contains the essence of any Straussian book.
I’ll revise my previous statement and say that humanity’s greatest ailment is love of the Last Man,
“O my brethren! With whom lieth the greatest danger to the whole human future? Is it not with the good and just?—
As those who say and feel in their hearts: “We already know what is good and just, we possess it also; woe to those who still seek thereafter!””
[Zarathustra, Of Old and New Tables, 26.]
Ok, one of humanity’s greatest ailments, then. 
aww, I like scott baio.
Sauwelios, I think you’re right. Hamanity’s will to the Last Man is the problem (this is what I meant, in fact). Second to the problem of the Good and the Just, that is (at this point in history).
Note that Nietzsche doesn’t explicitly state that the Good and the Just are inexterminable, like he does with the Last Man. That may be significant - for even if the Good and the Just are eliminated (or at the very least stripped of their power, as my song prohesises), the will to the Last Man will remain. Thus the will to the Last Man is a significantly more eternal ailment than the Good and the Just.