Reposting below.
“Did my entire explanation not rest on the biological necessities that you emphasize are the reality of each individual’s present moment?”
You have yet again proved yourself unable to understand another’s point. Your mind is too closed off. It only seemed I implied thart because you aren’t thinking clearly. I never said that at all.
I don’t need you pity. Save your pity for the weak.
It is the nature of philosopher to be a healer and to try to respond the angst of another. But the need for attention can become an addiction in itself. And the need to heal can also become an addiction. Thus both healer and the ailer drown together. Additictions reach a stage were the only kindness is to be cruel. Leave the victem to work it out alone and let Nature do Her work. 
[
You are right Magnet… I should just leave it alone when someone seems currently hopeless. I just hope that something I might say, iincluding informing them that they need to seriously evaluate their own motives because it is effecting the quality of their observations, might somehow get through to the person… if not now, then maybe later on.
But some people are just too impudent, I suppose.
[b]Look I can’t understand you a 100% through internet word format alone.
That is the initial flaw of such internet conversations since statements can lead to differing interpretations.
You can either:
A: Help me understand you better
Or
B: Keep crying to the point where I tell you to shove off.
( Your Call.)[/b]
Go shove off! 
( I am done with you willy nilly humanism.)
Joker,
I have explained things to you over and over and over in attempt to help you better understand, and you have shown NO desire to learn.
There is a point where enough is enough. Why should I keep explaining things when I know you aren’t open to it?
That’s right, associatre everything I say with some childish idea of “humanism” you have so you don’t have to face the possiblity that you are wrong.
Now that is a voice of reason I can understand!
I can definately agree with your sentiments.
Would you agree with the sentiments, that the more complexity that arises the more vices are created in quantity?
Gaia,
very interesting post! I’ll have to think about what you said a bit before answering it.
Kriwest,
I’m glad you brought up the modern primitives! I’ve watched some shows of how they live on some National Geographic-type shows. Fascinating stuff (it actually inspired a novel I am currently working on)!
I plan to try to go over the positive and negative aspects of living that kind of existence.
Tentative,
Thanks for your input 
Nicely thought out. I think the idea that we’re currently the best we can be is an important consideration, and I’d like to more carefully go through your post and reply to it a little later on. Please stick around!
[/b]
sdwilson,
thanks for your reply! As a society grows there are always going to be some problems (or at least, some goals that have yet to be fulfilled), I agree that some problems need to be tackled with a greater urgnecy than others. I’d appreciate further discussion from you!
lol I am caught in the trap!
There is a signficant difference between pity and compassion. Nobody needs pity, not even the weak. We all need compassion.
The former assumes a superior positrion which is always false,
The latter empathizes with a position that we have all experienced in one way or another and know how it feels to be there. 
Clever magnet trying to disguise defamation and personal attacks as compassion. Nice try.
I judge a society on how unified they are socially myself.
Economics isn’t a concern to me.
Now you know why I glorify ancient primitive man in that they lacked any ideal of the future or what civic humanist dualists call progression and upward mobility.
Tell that to the hidden people of the Amazonian rain forest who make a attempt to stay away from outsiders.
More willy nilly unsubstantiated humanism. ( No surprise here.)
Everybody is so worried about dictators creating oppression and genocide that they overlook the systems of humanism that gives influence to such figures in the first place.
MattHatter,
Spoken like a true Christian.
Do I have hell and damnation in store for me in my wicked ways?
I agree with you a whole 100%
What people overlook is that primitive communities have far better forms of quality in living where they lack quantity.
Thanks, MM has yet to reply how I lambasted the modern primative. I do feel it is because of the choice of words, like drive, ambition. I was refering to our form of drive and ambition , not theirs. Of course the MP works hard. But, they will be humanity’s heirs. One prime example; Air conditioning and heating. This little thought of taken for granted comfort will kill so many civilized people when shit hits the fan. Acclimation to atmosphere will be a saving grace for MPs. Non acclimation will kill off many modern humans. We have weakened not just our bodies but our minds. We allow ourselves to be told what to think and how to think. What happens when the world kicks our butt? Crap! after Katrina the gov’t had to send folks down here to teach others how to cook over a fire. That was eye opening.
This is true to some extent, but then the social stresses are less severe. The exponenial pressures of human populations impacting on the enviroment forced hunter/gatherers to become farmers - and then farmers to become industrial craftsmen - and craftsmen to become scietific technologists. We had to take these evolutionary steps in order for existing regional enviroments to support more and more people.
I agree that life in a hunter/gatherer family group was and still is far more natural and harmonious than one in our present urban gettos. But what were we supposed to do to stop doubling our numbers? Nature made us multiply ourselves. Each Stone Age woman had a child every three years. So did Bronze Age women and Iron Age women, right up to recent times. Both my father and mother each had a dozen siblings. It was not poverty and ignorance that bore so many kids. Royalty also had large families. Now. 100,000 generations later, we are 6 billion and counting. Mankind did make this happpen. It happened to us. Since we and our present condition are the work of a 6 million year-long natural process of evolution and natural selection, how can anyone of us stand back and condemn ourselves for initiating and perpetuating it? Surely that is pseudo-intellectual arrogance!
So the world is crowded and filled with slums, poverty, slavery and starvation now and we are all freaking out it. What are we going to do about it?
The UN call for zero population growth is an abomination of natural intent. Nature has been working in the opposite direction. She has not finished with us yet. if She had, women would start to become barren naturally. The Un resolution on zero pupulation growth is a negative policy. It is having bizarre results where ever it is enforced and seriously destroying the original family values we all prize so much. The basic fact is that a happy family remains a large family to this day. My household proves that. I have eight kids of own and their interaction, learning to share anmd care as they mature within the bossom of the family group is making them good ethical socializers. One or two kid families don’t work so well. The divorce rate supports that. So if Nature still wants us to have large families, instead of being freaked out about over-crowding, surely we should look to the super-naturally large brain She has given us and rise to the exponential challenge? The amount of sunlight energy falling on this planet indicates that our world can support over a thousand billion humans - and we are quaking at six. Pesonally I believe that our evolutionary cycle will end long before that. In the meantime, instead of carping at outr fate, we should be thinking creatively on how to sustain growth while at the same time repair the damage we have done.
Your claim that we should return to a more primitive life-style makes no practical sense. The planet cannot support 6 billion hunter/gatherers. In that milieu, in order to sustain symbiosis, each family, depending on the ecology, needs from ten to hundred square miles to exist. We cannot turn back the clock. Even if we could, we cannot change our breeding habits. So we would end up back in this same position anyway.
So, facing these exigencies, I made the proposal for an ideal society that you see in my first post.
I believe that if we stop dumping kids in government schools and support families who wish to homeschool, we can re-instate our original family values and bring back a highly ethical society that values honor and the family name above money. We can carve out an egalitarian life on this planet by doing away with the artificial ideologies of national boundaries, private ownership and the profit motive. We can teach our kids to become responsible global stewrds instead of Mickey Mouse corporate execs. They can become highly creative custodians that turn this planet into a cukltivated Garden of Eden, and prove that Nature knew what She was doing right from the beginning when She made us the domminant species.
We can use modern technology to build vertical instead of horizontal cities and thereby give the wilderness back to its original inhabitants. We can use clean energy that no longer pollutes the home planet. We have the technology, the un-employed people and the natural resources to clean up past pollution and make the home planet pristene again.
So, what do you say?