I remember when I was a little kid I'd always sit close by on purpose because I wanted glasses so it was a very prolonged thing. I've thought this way of myself extensively. When my time comes I'll accept it.
You have a good point. I'm not saying that I'm not conflicted about this belief, because I am. But this view's empathy isn't toward humans, but rather the earth. It's more so that I empathize for the earth and how poorly we're treating it, overpopulation included.
I think that for a while we as humans have been viewing ourselves as separate from the Earth and that has led to a variety of actions and habits that are detrimental to Earth. I do believe that living in a hunter/gatherer manner results in little to no entropy. While I believe we are fascinating, I believe there are two flaws in viewing ourselves as the most fascinating. The first of these is that it lends itself to excluding fascination for everything else. I'd argue that trees, oceans, clouds, rain, lions, etc... are just as interesting as we are. The second flaw is that it puts us as the end result. Why do we believe evolution ended with us? If evolution can turn a single cell organism into what we are now, just imagine what we could become in a few billion years. That is assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves entirely by that point.
A hunter/gatherer society could never support a population of our size. So really, the only way for your ideas to be realistic or credible is to kill off a good chunk of Earth's population. Is this what you're proposing? Otherwise, what is the use in dwelling on past forms of society that only led us to where we are today? I would say we are more interesting than any of the things you mentioned simply because we have the capacity to discuss what is the most interesting. Evolution did not end with us by any means, it is ongoing. It would be pretty impressive if we as a species lasted a few billion years. All of the advancements that you are opposed to have only ever served to aid our advancement as a species, so if you find that so fascinating to imagine, why are you so against it?
I'm well aware of what living like that would mean to the world's population. It's not a past form of society. There are still some people who live like that today, and I do plan on joining them the first availability I get. But how do we know that trees don't communicate with one another? Or lions, grass?? We don't know these things so we shouldn't assume one way or another. I'm against these "advancements" because I view a lot of thing as resisting change and not letting natural selection/evolution follow its natural course. If a person is stupid and jumps off a roof and breaks their leg, we mend them up and they go off and have children of their own. In a natural world, this person would not be able to mate thus not passing on his genes of thinking jumping off a roof is a good idea.
How do you know that the advancements we have made are not a form of evolution? Take some microbe for example; lets say that some archaeon is doing well by itself or within its community when all the sudden it picks up the ability to ferment lactose (maybe through horizontal gene transfer (spreading of ideas...)). Should it not use its new found mechanisms for survival? The tools that humanity acquires to sustain itself should be used because it is just another gift of our intellect/ability to adapt to our environment
How would it ever naturally just pick up that ability all of a sudden. Mutations like that don't occur spontaneously and in the same manner I don't believe we were meant to change fundamental processes in ourselves so drastically except through evolution over time.
Question: Are you a creationist? I don't want to step on your beliefs so please let me know.
I believe that the big bang and evolution and everything of that nature was created by God, yes.
Who's to say though that we can judge what the best and most efficient change is?
Exactly. So why should we conclude we are they judges and mess with how we'd naturally progress?
What you're advocating is called Social Darwinism, really just another name for elitism, and would lead to nothing other than a world like the one described by Huxley in Brave New World. This is the type of thinking that leads to racism and eugenics. Scary. All of those things do communicate with each other. What's your point? Your beliefs are incredibly inconsistent and driven purely by emotion.
In what ways is it similar to Brave New World? And to be clear, I am in no way stating that any race is superior to another (I'm Hispanic and I've been discriminated against before). I know that there are inconsistencies and have said that I don't know how fully I believe myself when I say all of these things. They're just thoughts I've had and through this discussion I'm allowed to marinate on them more.