Eugenics: Selective Breeding

[Draven]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

While the stated goal of most modern societies is some crazy and destructive ideology that somehow involves their perception of welfare. However, when ideology is peeled away, the ultimate purpose of all societies is survival and advancement of their members.

We are about to face very hard times, when survival and adaption to the new environment will have to stand over all other concerns, including personal freedom and welfare. Eugenics in one or another form will eventually have to become part of our life, lest we wish our species to join the dinosaurs.

But is eugenics nessecary?

As I pointed out in a pervious post recessive (aka junk genes) exist in both parents and that putting two parents together who have the same dominant genes could result in recessive genes or two recessive genes that control the same aspect of growth could result in mutations. But if mutation is part of natural selection eugenics would theoretically stop human evolution?

More so, in a eugenic world people would pared based on genetic qualities meaning attractiveness, love and even something as simple as intellect would be meaningless. Since to produce an avaerage healthy person (the best that eugenics can do) might require a genious to breed with a totally retarded person who doesn't even understand the idea of sex the way a child would. Now I know thats an extreme but there is an ethical question in that does the "betterment of the species" out wiegh free will.

More so from; Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome
"This brings up the very important point that genes are not written in stone. They are written in DNA. And DNA can change.

DNA is made up of four letters that spell out, in three letter words, the instructions found in a gene for making a protein. A mutation happens when something in that series of letters changes.

Either one or more letters go missing, an extra letter or more is added, or the letters are changed to a different letter. These changes alter the instructions giving a different version of the protein.

Where do these changes come from? DNA can change because of something in the food we eat or the air we breathe, from sunlight, or a host of other environmental factors.

Or our cells can change the DNA accidentally. This happens occasionally when our cells copy our DNA. The copying process is incredibly efficient but still our cells occasionally put in the wrong letter. All the cells that come from that cell will now have that mistake.

Incidentally, mistake may be the wrong word to use. These “mistakes” are the stuff of all of the wonderful variety we see around us. They are responsible for big things like evolution and for little things like red hair, blue eyes, or dark skin. Thank goodness genes are made of DNA and not stone!"

In fact since evolution is based on said infior genes and said genes are altered by our environment we must as is our society stowly killing our genetics? Also what coming change to our environment are talking about? Depression? Global warming? Alien invasion? What do you base this info about changing environment on?

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Wolfen

I agree, but I would take "welfare" a step further and call it "decadence." We are beyond worrying about survival in modern society because we are disconnected from reality, and we are trying to live the life in the fantasy world we've created. We are reaching for the station of gods in not just an idealistic culture, but a romanticized one.

Since comfort is a relative condition, hard times to us can be mollified to our children if we teach them to assimilate. If modern technology were to suddenly vanish, then anyone adjusted to technolgy would suffer. But if our children are raised outside, learning to appreciate and connect with the natural world, that change won't be so drastic to them. They will miss Spongebob, while the older, obstinate generations would cease to function without iPods and microwave-dinners.

I'll tell you what, though: losing technology would be a HUGE step toward relieving a lot of stress upon the natural world.

I fully agree with you, but removing yourself from technology isn't the answer removing yourself from a society based on technology and limited of artificial social controls. But that comes back the master-slave morality issue doesn't it. A master takes dominance of a situation and a slave allows society to dominate him. A master is guided by his personal morality and a slave is controlled by the morality of the herd.

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

I partly disagree to the loss of technology. It is necessary, but should be limited.

For example, I believe future humanity will have to dwell in huge arcology-like cities that are completely self-sustaining and expand vertically, not horizontally. There would be very little industry or population outside these cities, former human habitats being gradually replaced by wild nature.

Without commercial transport (the cities being connected by high-speed rail lines) and the use of nuclear, fusion, solar and other forms of environment-friendly power generation, pollution would be drastically reduced. Living in a compact arcology would remove any need for personal transportation, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the hazards of oil (or other fuel) production and transportation. For the inhabitants to avoid drowning in their own crap, advanced recycling systems would reprocess everything, leaving very little to no waste products, removing the need for landfills and incinerators. Since population would have to be limited and medicine would have removed most natural causes of death, strict birth control would have to be enacted.

Obviously, eugenics could and should be a part of such future society to prolong the effectiveness, longevity and health of the population.

Yeah, we're a very "have your cake and eat it too" society. If we take the concepts of artificial technology, no matter how "green" any of it is, and apply necessity, which is subjective, we can see that it is impossible to integrate artificial technology with the natural world cohesively.

Technology does not contribute to healing spirit. It actually diverts us with crutches and distractions; it is a perversion, actually, and we design our needs based upon those perversions.

A person with a disease will say that we "need" certain synthetic medicines, which are unnatural. A person with missing limbs or poor eyesight will say we "need" certain prosthetics or amendments. People will always have subjective needs based upon anything from comforts to luxuries to crutches--whether distractions or actual crutches--in order to deal with living in an artificial world.

There is always waste in the manufacture of things, no matter how "green," once again. Nothing is free, but some things are part of real cycles. A television does not directly pollute the environment until it is thrown out, but while it's used, it certainly contributes to hampering the senses. We become conditioned by the artificial stimulus, and our responses, thus, become conditioned, as well. In the course of living in an artificial world, we have disconnected ourselves from reality, and our society claims dominion over the natural world that it no longer even understands beyond scientific labeling. This is bad form.

I don't know what an "arcology" is, but, regardless, we have to consider that there would still be stresses of people compacted into any compartmentalized living. Unless the people are of a concurring lifestyle, there will be conflict. Then there will be segregations. And it will all start over again with one small sector battling another. Replacing one form of unnatural circumstances with another form of unnatural circumstances does not make a sound resolution.

Just look at international travel, speaking of transportation. The old ships that were used to travel to this continent from Europe didn't pollute the air with fossil-fuels, but they certainly did transport tons of non-native diseases and blights that have eliminated much of our native species. As long as we remain disconnected, we cannot live in any kind of sustainable, balanced way with the real world. It's not possible, and it's been proven repeadetly. Every time we try to "fix" something in nature--particularly for our own "progressive benefit," we create more problems.


The groundwork was already laid out for us only a few hundred years ago, and for thousands of years prior when--gee, somehow--we didn't need artificial technology. The limits of technology were simply changing the shape of natural material. In other words, a tree that was going to die anyway, was cut and worked into a bow. It was still a tree, and it was readily re-integrated into nature when is was done being a bow. (In fact, it might serve several other functions before being fuel for the fire.)

The problem with artificial technology is that is harms our source of welfare at its inception and by virtue of its existence. It also compromises our spiritual connections with each other and reality. So even if technolgoy could somehow become 100% "green," then we would accomplish disconnecting ourselves further. Therefore, the fears we've developed and the luxuries we've created would not vanish. And population control could happen, but then we're back to arguing a moot issue with pseudo-ethics.

No. First we need to stop the sickness. Then we need to heal the sickness. And that can only be accomplished by everyone seeing the common thread of truth and reality that binds us all.

[McDOOM]

A lot of people have been mentioning/hinting on the removal of modern technology being beneficial to society. To continue with Wolfens point, I will agree that the artificial technology (unneeded technology like televisions/ipods) that we have developed should be ridden of. BUT their is still the rest of the technology developed that helps us to continue surviving and reproducing. Depending on the future of the society, the method of teaching your child karate and such so that he can fend for himself in a world of the anarchist guided society, would/could be rendered (nearly/totally) useless by a group of so say 5 individuals that would like to propel themselves, and do so by means of joining together. If you look at this in terms of world history, no single man has risen to become great on his own. So if we look at humans as time has continued, we can see that technology has become more and more beneficiary/intricate. The dependence has also become great, but with the lack of everyone having to be able to make everything their using, people can specialize in unique aspects of life for the benefit of society. For example, a few knights with guns are going to kill many Indians with spears. The basis of which this idea comes under has many "loopholes" in terms of the "only the strongest survive" philosophy of advancing humans(eg the role money plays in society renders the basis of natural characteristics useless because with money, enough can be changed to modify the natural self). So to improve the population of these large cities, the loopholes would need to be reduced/minimized, but with doing away with one problem, another is often created(lets look at many of the attempted tries at communism). But the point that I am trying to bring across is that many people seem to be missing the role that physical superiority is/will play.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by McDOOM

A lot of people have been mentioning/hinting on the removal of modern technology being beneficial to society. To continue with Wolfens point, I will agree that the artificial technology (unneeded technology like televisions/ipods) that we have developed should be ridden of. BUT their is still the rest of the technology developed that helps us to continue surviving and reproducing. Depending on the future of the society, the method of teaching your child karate and such so that he can fend for himself in a world of the anarchist guided society, would/could be rendered (nearly/totally) useless by a group of so say 5 individuals that would like to propel themselves, and do so by means of joining together. If you look at this in terms of world history, no single man has risen to become great on his own.

Adversity and competition breed strength, a man becomes great when he elevates himself above the herd or pack. In nature we call this the alpha-male, this alpha male becomes the stronger of the individuals and he drives the herb/pack toward his vision more he inspires his vision to become the herd/packs vision as well...

Becoming Great ?
"The word for leader and the concept of leadership comes from a Greek word pros-tithemi which means to stand before. So the word for leadership implies standing out in front of. The word lead implies a destination hence the definition: being a catalyst for the achievement of the potential of people and organizations. The potential of your followers is the fulfillment of their abilities, talents and gifts. The potential of your organization is described in it's VISION."

Originally Posted by McDOOM

So if we look at humans as time has continued, we can see that technology has become more and more beneficiary/intricate. The dependence has also become great, but with the lack of everyone having to be able to make everything their using, people can specialize in unique aspects of life for the benefit of society.

How is technology beneficial? Some of the greatest advanced in medical history and the most cutting edge medicial technologies are limited to those who can aford them, so since the poor (who may be genetically superior to the rich) can not afford these medical services it fails to benefit society as a whole but a select few in society.

Originally Posted by McDOOM

For example, a few knights with guns are going to kill many Indians with spears. The basis of which this idea comes under has many "loopholes" in terms of the "only the strongest survive" philosophy of advancing humans(eg the role money plays in society renders the basis of natural characteristics useless because with money, enough can be changed to modify the natural self). So to improve the population of these large cities, the loopholes would need to be reduced/minimized, but with doing away with one problem, another is often created(lets look at many of the attempted tries at communism).

Native Americans
Actually no, if you look at history the indians would win. The western tribes who fought the white settlers did so viciously and were successful. Even on the east coast many tribes where wiped out with smallpox not bullets and Gerronimo surrendered only because the US Army which out numbered him ten to one and had been losing attacked woman and children with cannon fire.

Now I actually being part native American support the actions take in that case; but only so as a soldier. A society as the duty to maintain social order by any means necessary.

Originally Posted by McDOOM

But the point that I am trying to bring across is that many people seem to be missing the role that physical superiority is/will play.

Try this since everyone has gone to great lengths to not discuss hard facts; define physical superiority? As you have stated we have medical technology and the instance of wealth remove the need for competition? More so, as I quoted from; (Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

a) "This brings up the very important point that genes are not written in stone. They are written in DNA. And DNA can change. "

So if eugenics limits the production change (mutations in genes and DNA) and mutation is the source of evolution does eugenics not stop evolution?

b) "Where do these changes come from? DNA can change because of something in the food we eat or the air we breathe, from sunlight, or a host of other environmental factors. "

If our environment helps to determine changes in our DNA does having a comfortable living condition not change our normal DNA pattern? Does reprogramming our genes to function in a less survival based environment help or harm us?

c) "Incidentally, mistake may be the wrong word to use. These “mistakes” are the stuff of all of the wonderful variety we see around us. They are responsible for big things like evolution and for little things like red hair, blue eyes, or dark skin. "

Since our evolution is based on mutation and eugenics is intended to limit mutation does eugenics limit evolution? Or better yet, since our environment is programming our genes would eugenics stop or atleast slow the degradation or progress thatcellular degredation? Bear in eugenics could do both..?

[Wolfen]

Yes, do tell. How is technology beneficial?

Technology allows us to be frivolous. If you go to any souvenir shop, for example, you'll find an array of useless items that cost materials, cause pollution to be made, and have no useful purpose in survival, but only exist so someone can make a buck.

Technology allows us to let our sense atrophy. Television sucks your attention in so completely that you need a rather abrupt stimulation to divert your attention from a captivating program.

Technology allows us to not have to hunt and forage, therefore, we don't need to invest our spirits in making our own tools and weapons anymore. We can buy what we need by using theoretical money, and we remain disonnected from the kill, from the essence of the trade of life and death and appreciation of what we are given.

Our sense of smell is waning. Our sense of hearing is being blown away with all of the excessive noises in this obnoxious society, from loud music to jets to horns . . .

Our bodies are mutating to fit our artificial surroundings. We are becoming wholly unnatural.

We use technology to rape nature and cause more problems than we can resolve. We use technology to fight death, contributing to overpopulation and environmental depletion and stresses.

We depend upon technology to compensate for our sicknesses and genetic deficiencies so that we can breed weakness in our species.

Technology allows us to become selfish and lazy, as there are machines and businesses that do our survival work for us.

Technology allows us to indulge in perversions that we seek to mitigate our starving and depraved spirits.

Technology makes us able to kill those who disagree with us. It allows our government to run a fascist, tyranny, and to chalk-up mass killings as collateral damage or unfortunate casualties for the sake of progress.

Technolgy allows us to connect with others in a rather impersonal manner.

Technology makes us dependent upon it. It's an addiction, an acquired desire, a conditioned luxury. We don't need it. People believe they need it because "that's the way it is," but it's not true, and that mode of thinking is a display of a lack of self awareness and fear of separating from the false security of the fabricated world.

Don't let yourself get sucked in. That's exactly what drives this monster of a society. They tell you what you should feel and what you should do, and you end up resisting but still contributing because you've already become addicted.

[McDOOM]

So your saying we should live the life of stone age men for the rest of eternities? What exactly would that accomplish? Even if we move forward in time from hunters and gatherers, we will get to the age of farming. Once farming started coming into play, the use of money was put into system to "help" everyone so instead of people all having farms, blacksmiths etc. you could just trade for what you needed. So being stuck in the stone age doesn't sound like a pleasing lifestyle to me. Living forever and accomplishing nothing doesn't sound appealing to me, but that is where we differ.
So to sum up my points: I'd rather live fast and die young in the current age then live forever as a caveman without technology. The use of a community enables people to have more "luxuries", worthwhile or not. If we look at the case of people in school, how many people would honestly rather do their school work then go to a party?

(I'm not too good with the quote things, so I'll just do this for now)
Draven:It seemed that you were thinking that I was suggesting anarchy within the people. I think that any form of government that suited them and would allow them to develop would be best, be it the "alpha male" or any other device. I feel like I already summed up the use of technology to promote luxury, and to look at the case of guns vs spears: their are always going to be exceptions, but I think the point still holds that a gun will beat a spear MOST days.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by McDOOM

So your saying we should live the life of stone age men for the rest of eternities? What exactly would that accomplish? Even if we move forward in time from hunters and gatherers, we will get to the age of farming. Once farming started coming into play, the use of money was put into system to "help" everyone so instead of people all having farms, blacksmiths etc. you could just trade for what you needed. So being stuck in the stone age doesn't sound like a pleasing lifestyle to me. Living forever and accomplishing nothing doesn't sound appealing to me, but that is where we differ.

What are we accomplishing now? Humans are the only animal that is concerned with accomplishments... why is that? What about the knowledge that every ambition is doomed to frustration at the hands of a skeleton? Our habits are not only selfish, but destructive and for what exactly? Material gain, Longevity, and ego satisfaction? Hunter-gatherers were indeed the "original affluent society".

For it me it comes down to occupying a "fundamental niche" in the environment. A niche means living in co-existence with that on which a species depends. Our current trends (I say "current" because, again, if you condensed the whole of human's time on earth into 70 years, the first 69 were hunter-gatherer and the last few months have been "civilized") engender a kind of "co-extinction", which, if were not exceedingly careful, we'll join. It may just be a characteristic of any hyper-intelligent species (like humans) to eventually cause their own extinction -- there's actually a decent amount evidence for this; poor breeding practices, environmental disdain, and over-consumption to name a few – translate these things into wildlife history and it spells e-x-t-i-n-c-t-i-o-n… but only time will tell.

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by McDOOM

So your saying we should live the life of stone age men for the rest of eternities? What exactly would that accomplish?

It would accomplish ending global suffering due to our selfishness. It would accomplish global unification if all people lived for preservation of the real, natural world for our progeny rather than living for their own greed in spite of future generations. It would accomplish facilitating peace via reconnecting with the environment in a vital way, so that we become contributors to the cycles, part of them, rather than parasites on the outsides. This, in turn, would allow us to realize our true place and purpose once again.

Originally Posted by MCDOOM

Even if we move forward in time from hunters and gatherers, we will get to the age of farming. Once farming started coming into play, the use of money was put into system to "help" everyone so instead of people all having farms, blacksmiths etc. you could just trade for what you needed.

Actually, for tens of thousands, if not millions of years, people lived without the feeling that they needed to exceed the processes of life. Their laws in their lives were the laws of nature. They lived for the maintenance of their people and place, not to overpower and conquer for desires to reach some godlike status. Money is a theory. It can only corrupt those who let themselves be corrupted. In other words, a sick spirit is what makes people drift from and lose respect for their foundations. Money and materialism led to greed, depravity, selfishness, desire for power, and economic drive, which was the fertilizer of society, which evolved an abcess of crime. Regardless, we can't blame money and technology for our sickness; they are only tools. The accountability rests with the passing down of sound ethics, morals, and justice by the older generations who remain rooted in truth.

Originally Posted by MCDOOM

So being stuck in the stone age doesn't sound like a pleasing lifestyle to me. Living forever and accomplishing nothing doesn't sound appealing to me, but that is where we differ.

Well of course it doesn't. That's what I said. Nobody is expecting you to suddenly have the fortitude to drop the ways you've been taught. But accountability is up to you when it comes to teaching the next generations. They won't see comfort and luxury the same as you if they are taught truth and respect from the beginning. Modern humans are pussies. There's no way most people could switch from nice, cushy shit-tickets and televisions to leaves and a fire without feeling miserable. But that's due to conditioning and not understanding our true selves.

This concept of needing to accomplish something sounds very much like the modern-man mentality of always being in control, conquering, developing, progression of artificial ideas and creations. What living purely accomplishes is freedom from that prison. It lets you live the way you're supposed to, without being connected to clocks and subjective laws and regulations. The real accomplishment becomes discovering who you really are.

Originally Posted by MCDOOM

So to sum up my points: I'd rather live fast and die young in the current age then live forever as a caveman without technology. The use of a community enables people to have more "luxuries", worthwhile or not. If we look at the case of people in school, how many people would honestly rather do their school work then go to a party?

Right now you are defined by the parameters of society. You exist by the conditioned mindset, the memes and trends, the status and class of the ranking system, and you feel the need to indulge in the luxuries and distractions available in order to feel connected to others, to fulfill a rush, to feel like you have place and purpose, to complete goals and tasks that only exist in the fabricated world. All degrees, jobs, charities, and financial endeavors are only valid in the fabricated world. In the natural world, they don't exist. You can choose to do this, or you can choose not to. What anyone would rather do is based upon how much they want to know their true purpose and place versus how much they would like to indulge in distractions and diversions.

Personally, I would rather go hunting and fishing with my sons and brothers. But we do this in a reverent way. I would rather see my place in the real world and work for my family rather than for the material greed of someone else. I would rather live in the natural world than be bound by the clock and laws of the manmade world. I resent that my birthrights are stripped at birth, and I don't want to seek distractions because of the duress my spirit feels for being forced to live in this heartless, disconnected society.

I found that if I defined myself by society's standards, I was living a lie. I wasn't even a real person. How can you be real if you define yourself by artificial parameters? So I abandoned that concept in order to seek my real worth in the real world. Then I realized that I wasn't an expendable individual that society conditioned me to believe after all. I began to see that the more I tried to live up to our society's expectations, and the more I participated in the "rut" of the system, then the more I contributed to the sickness of our spiritually starving culture. I bolstered economics, which means I supported the rape and destruction of the natural world that I was to leave to my grandchildren. I was living the life of a murderer and rapist, even if I didn't get my hands dirty, I was still an accomplice.

That's just not a life I am willing to live.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by McDOOM

So your saying we should live the life of stone age men for the rest of eternities? What exactly would that accomplish? Even if we move forward in time from hunters and gatherers, we will get to the age of farming. Once farming started coming into play, the use of money was put into system to "help" everyone so instead of people all having farms, blacksmiths etc. you could just trade for what you needed. So being stuck in the stone age doesn't sound like a pleasing lifestyle to me. Living forever and accomplishing nothing doesn't sound appealing to me, but that is where we differ.
So to sum up my points: I'd rather live fast and die young in the current age then live forever as a caveman without technology. The use of a community enables people to have more "luxuries", worthwhile or not. If we look at the case of people in school, how many people would honestly rather do their school work then go to a party?

No one said return to the stone but to not become so entranced by technology, humans are devolving do to lack of competition and need for survival. Those luxuries give is time to what? Find more ways to get more free time? It is one thing to have luxuries and it is another to engross yourself so completely in that luxury it becomes what dictates your life. Quite simply put you always place your wants above your needs; until your needs are no longer taken care of.

Originally Posted by McDOOM

(I'm not too good with the quote things, so I'll just do this for now)
Draven:It seemed that you were thinking that I was suggesting anarchy within the people. I think that any form of government that suited them and would allow them to develop would be best, be it the "alpha male" or any other device. I feel like I already summed up the use of technology to promote luxury, and to look at the case of guns vs spears: their are always going to be exceptions, but I think the point still holds that a gun will beat a spear MOST days.

A gun is a tool and a spear is a tool, neither mean anything without the skill of its wielder. Technology doesn't imporove us if we depend on it to live, how would use nail to boards toegther without a hammer or screw two boards together without a screw driver? Sure the answer is the same for both; you beat the nail/screw in with a rock or another piece of wood. How would eat if the stores quit stocking shelves? How would you treat an injured person without EMS or a ready hospital?

We have massive amounts of knowledge at our finger tips, yet we (modern culture as whole) spends more time watching sports, porn and playing video games. We depend on the government to protect us but in truth we do to keep from facing the responsibility of taking care of ourselves as a society.

The issue isn't technology but the influence technology has on us, if it makes things easier thats fine. But like an tool it breaks down or it can be taken from us. The average person is oblivious to the world around them, they are dependant on society and the tools of society for life.

Creating Passionate Users: Are our tools making us dumber?
Americans getting dumber - Google Video (video)

My point is that with luxury often comes laziness and without change, without competition and the need to survive we become weak. If all we know is luxury then how can we deal with hardship. Before we worry about eugenic breeding projects to weed out weaker genetics, we need to address environment conditions which degrade that genetic code. Technology isn't to blame but how we address technology is, when luxury become decadence and entertainment becomes more important then survival needs you can only degrade society such as the Roman Empire.

Fall of Rome - Why Did the Roman Empire Decline and Fall?
"Why did Rome Fall?

There are adherents to single factors, but more people think Rome fell because of a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, lead, monetary trouble, and military problems. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in the 15th Century. "

Not the three out of five reasons; Christianity (change in religion/social structure?), decadence (none competition for survival/lacking basic survival skills), lead (polution), monetary trouble (econcomy/depression) and military problems (fighting too many enemies & spreading themselves too thin). This mirrors modern 1st world countries in comparision and both social orders could find the same fate. Again technology becomes our enemy when it is removed from our ability use it. Anything you see as a strength can be used against by limiting or removing its function; 100 indians with spears can easily kill 1,000 knights with guns if they can limit the effectiveness of those guns or steal the guns themselves (even if they don't know how to use them).

Wolfen,

While I agree with you on most points, technology is not bad but the way modern culture addresses it is. I think entertainment id fine but should have an educational base and that reliance on technology should not by incouraged in the media or the government.

[Wolfen]

Originally Posted by Draven

No one said return to the stone but to not become so entranced by technology, humans are devolving do to lack of competition and need for survival.

Originally Posted by Draven

Wolfen,

While I agree with you on most points, technology is not bad but the way modern culture addresses it is. I think entertainment id fine but should have an educational base and that reliance on technology should not by incouraged in the media or the government.

What's interesting is that I usually have trouble understanding what you write, so I try to avoid too much interaction to prevent unwarranted conflict based upon misunderstanding. But since you're addressing me specifically here, I have to say that I tend to agree with what I believe you're saying for the most part, as well.

Except for the technology being harmless thing.

Technology--artificial technology--isn't real. Things like cars and lamps and proton accelerators may be tangible, but tangible isn't always synonymous with real. What we create by synthesising parts of nature is a bastardization of reality, one which we don't actually need at all. Again, this has been proven for thousands of years or more.

A plastic cup seems relatively innocuous, but when we consider what it takes just to manufacture that cup, and then how much environmentally-unfriendly pollution comes from cups being tossed away, it's obvious that the means and the end don't work in the natural cycles.

So while I agree that "it's not the gun that does the killing; it's the person behind the gun," we can't ignore that technology has no place in the real world, and that it is also detrimental to the real world simply by virtue of its being created and disposed, let alone the ramifications of what you've pretty thoroughly posted above.

I think that a shift of spirit and perspective means letting go of our dependence on artificial existence (which you seem to be saying) which, in turn, should eliminate the need to keep manufacturing artificial things.

Lots of technology is based upon wants (iPods), while much is taking advantage of what we are conditioned to "need," (toilets and electricity). We don't need any of it at all, and moving toward a more self-sufficient lifestyle, where hunting, for example, means actually developing skill and prowess rather than taking shots from three hundred feet with high-powered and scoped rifles at a bait station from a tree stand, then we will integrate the natural cycles again, which will automatically implement natural selection and get us back into balance.

I don't know where everyone keeps coming up with this notion that living without technology is "uncomfortable." I can only figure that nobody has actually tried it yet. I mean, I can see that making the shift from what we've been raised to believe and from the comforts we're used to can be intimidating and a shock, but it's all relative. I think the connotation of "living wildly" conjures an image of a dirty, flea-ridden, unkempt person with black teeth who is so obviously stupid and inferior that they don't know what they're missing and would rather sleep in a nice warm house with all the amenities than in a hut by a fire if they only "knew better."

That's about a disrespectful load of crap, and it's all based upon a ton of disinformation from our overly industrialized and disconnected culture. Don't you believe it.

[McDOOM]

I think a lot of people are getting a different point then the one I was trying to bring across. I am looking at the factor of technology we use as somewhat of a spectrum. At one end, we have the "cavemen" with the technology that is self created and, for the most part, simple. At the other end would be the societies laden with technology so complex, that no one person knows the workings of all of it. Now I would dislike living in either of the lifestyles on either end of the spectrum when given the option of a "happy medium". The happy medium in my mind would be much less of a technology-oriented society then we have now, but slightly more so then the age the "cavemen". You could also argue that at the caveman end of the spectrum, selfishness is removed (and the opposite of that for the other side of the spectrum). I could partially agree to that in theory, but like the other technology spectrum, their are both flaws. So to explain more about the medium I was talking about (so to make the point that I'm NOT oriented with the society we have now) I guess I could give you a little bit of my background. My fathers side of the family has been working with the National Park Service for 3 generations, so I have a great appreciation for nature. During the summer, my family will go up to a cabin for most of my time off. At the house, we have a well from which we get water, and a decently sized farm from which we get food. But their is also a nice farm down the street from which we can get meat from by means of our grown food and a little courtesy. While living a completely isolated lifestyle while their, we don't feel the need for electricity or many of the other "artificial luxuries". This I feel could very well be the happy medium. While there, we are VERY slowly running down the earths resources( or you could say we are running them down at a similar, but slightly higher rate then the "cavemen"). The basis of which technology is used in this situation is rather minor compared to the current lifestyles of many, so it would be at the point where its developed enough so that you might need another man to create a well for your water, but its still basic enough (in my opinion). So to relate this, I could see eugenics as a type of technology. In extreme moderation, I think that it would be beneficial, but only to the point of the "happy medium".

Also on note: Someone stated that if we continue down the road that we are currently on, we will go extinct. I agree with this, but we are eventually going to become extinct, whether its our fault or not. If we play the scenario of everyone living the "caveman" lifestyle, the downfall will come not from nuclear holocaust or global warming so say, but maybe an asteroid crashing, a disease passing through, or eventually the sun burning out and humans having no other means of getting what we once needed from the sun. That is why I believe a lifestyle of the live fast and die young(in appropriate moderation) would be better then trying to live forever.
And then to bring back up the point that the "satisfaction" I'm looking for is some useless plague brought on by modern day society. I'll agree that a lot of the "push" I have to be wanting to do something is from what I've been taught. That is something that is only beneficial in our (corrupt if you care to say) society. BUT, their still reason to be the least bit self centered. The reason people enjoy what they enjoy, is because of the way that the human body was made. (I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic, so correct me if I'm wrong) Endorphins I understand are to be released whenever we do something we enjoy, be it by means of "artificial technology" or by eating a deer that you recently killed. So endorphins are a Natural part of the human body. By mentioning the live fast/die young method of life, I'm putting as the only option opposed to the "cave man" life. With my happy medium, I believe that I will be the happiest while still in a natural (as opposed to artificial) state.