Originally Posted by TMills27
In summary, it is stated that humans and animals lived a way of life that was harmonious for millions of years until the time of the fertile crescent. This many different ways of life before was not as much of a challenge for humans as it is purported by our modern culture, arguing that humans were the least likely creature to ever starve due to our level of adaptability to our environment.
What's his evidence for that? And how does he define harmonious? In fact we have really good evidence that mankind wiped out the Woolly Mammoth, if not the Saber Toothed cat. This is harmonious living?
The premise is flawed. The only point on this planet is evolution, so going 'right' is winning the evolution arms race. Which interestingly we did with our brains instead of our brawn. Beyond that we invent our own ideas about right and wrong, but those originate with us, and don't come from nature. If anybody wants to judge how mankind is doing it must be from that basis, and not some silly back to nature idea, because all nature cares about is succeeding through breeding.
If you study up on these 'back to nature' philosophies they've been around since the enlightenment. Why? Because pre-enlightenment life was so brutish nobody wanted to go back to nature, that's why they invented the enlightenment and industrial revolution. Now that we're well fed and warm we can imagine a time when it must
have been so much better, as we huddled, flea bitten, tick riddled and tape worm infested, in a cold, inhospitable and destructive world.