What do you believe is Man's natural state?

Man, as a social creature, has evolved vastly since the birth of Time and our World, and has gone through many stages.

What do you believe is Man’s most natural state of being? One of ‘Urban-Capitalism’? Primitivism? Anarchism? Egalitarianism?

Ignorantism, Stupidism, Narrowmindism, Immaturism.

And that, my friend, is the essential Skeptic argument of the century, lmao.

Sounded more like a Nihilistic argument to me… I don’t think Skeptics are big on favoring a point in opposition.

Correction… Cynic, not Nihilist… I often equate the two. my mistake.

Narrowmindedness essentially comes from established society, Skepticism of the true reality behind the veil of Wal-Marts, FOX News proto-corporations and the process of long-term economic destruction are what help to keep us in check.

That’s what I saw from the reply above, but let’s get back to the topic at hand, lol.

Yes your right, it’s Cynicism, not Skepticism.

I too often confuse the two, however moronic that is, lol.

Great- another one. The world was perfect before Wally World and Fox News came along. :unamused:

man’s natural state?

the stars at night are big and bright…

deep in the heart of TEXAS…

-Imp

man’s natural state is in society. it was in community (when there were mere comunities and not large societies) and before that it was in group (when there were small groups and nor communities).

man has never lived alone. or it did so long ago. To draw conclusions about society by placing a primordial man outside it is a nonsense. Man created society and all the rules he made for it are a consequence of society being created and not of a natural state prior to that.

man’s natural state is unobservant, ignorant, and apathetic about it all.

I think the “natural” state of man is constantly changing and constantly adapting relative to his environment.

In my opinion, man’s mind is a work in progress, constantly monitoring, adapting and developing to best meet his survival and procreation needs at THAT time and in THAT place.

So I believe mans “natural” state depends on whether you are referring to primitive, homo sapien, a native man in a barren, warring environment, a native man in an isolated, bountiful society (where war isn’t needed) or modern man in the urban jungle where psychological (ego) survival is now as important as physical survival.

I don’t believe in the top-down model – i.e. we were once perfect angels who now only need to remove the layers of dirt (sin) to reveal our pure nature underneath. I wish I could believe that – I love stories that have clear purposes and happy endings – but MY natural state won’t let me.

All the evidence I have experienced to date points to the bottom-up model – a little man, still “under construction”

Humanity is naturally neutral. Humanity has high intelligence, cunning, and adaptability. Humanity can and often does work together as a team to overcome obstacles. Like all living things, we are in the hands of fate. Death can happen to us all, at any time, without warning.

Humanity is naturally organized into nomadic tribes. Tribes range over a territory that supplies food for them. Our omnivorous diet and high adaptability allowed humanity to spread across most of the globe. As food supplies diminish in an area populations decline. Populations and food supplies keep the overall system in balance. No population can grow in excess of its food supply.

All of that changed when some people tried to take their lives out of the hands of fate. They initiated the agricultural revolution that continues to this day. Humanity gained more influence over its food supply and used this to greatly increase their population. The method of totalitarian agriculture eventually spread until it was the primary method of gaining nourishment planet wide.

Excess production of people allowed for the excess production of all other manufactured goods. People were no longer limited to producing only what they needed at the moment.

Excess people and excess goods helped ownership and theft to develop into more complex forms. Excess goods required storage. Walls and fences developed to separate mine from yours. Eventually accounting and writing developed to account for all of these excess goods. Writing would be adapted to serve many functions because of its high utility.

In the early stages of the expansion for totalitarian agriculture some nomadic tribes became raiders, taking advantage of the high concentration of goods that agricultural people had. Agricultural people developed defensive buildings and armies to protect themselves. Defensive armies would eventually become offensive armies, because nobody wants too many trained killers hanging around the place with nothing to do.

Massive amounts of people required different kind of leadership structures than small groups so hierarchies developed into more complex forms.

Yet as much influence as we had gained over death we are still not beyond the reach of fate. Life is still uncertain, and death can take us at any time. Yet we fight it every step of the way.

Mans natural state is how man is
It’s quite simple, really. Everything that exists within nature is natural.

Hungry for food.

Hungry for cloths.

Hungry for shelter.

Hungry for sex.

Hungry for all the rest.

Our closest cousins are also social creatures (chimps, bonobos, gorillas). Most paleoanthropologists would agree that humans have been social/group organisms since they were human (the exact date of that dividing line still in debate, I like ~7.5m BP)

To go much farther with the original question, though, I’d need some clarification on what exactly is meant by ‘natural’.

I don’t believe in any essential or originary human being. I think that we animals that can do many things, we have capacities for extensive social interaction and we can invent many things.

Our natural state…?

Think rabbits.

Have sex as much as possible.
Reproduce.
Over-populate.
Destroy.

I don’t buy that. We aren’t benevolent caretakers of the planet, but niether are other anthropoids destroyers of their environment.

We’ve come up with some wonderful adaptations in the last 2m years (recent in evolutionary terms), and have done some horrible things, but I wouldn’t consider destruction our ‘natural state’.

Hell, if it is, we sure suck at it! It took us all this time just to get things this bad!

Well i did think that my sarcasm would have been clear… but i don’t agree that it has taken us a long time to destroy. Sure we may have been primitive for a long time, but look at what we’ve done in the last 100 years!