Human Nature

If there was an overabundance, why the need to compete for it? For example, one trillion of the same, top-of-the-line computers are delivered for free after running a mile (best comparison I can think of off the top of my head). First, the price of computers will drop to the value of trash. Next, there wouldn't be much demand for computers. However, this most likely wasn't your statement. Again, I assume you mean a scarcity, not and overabundance. I do agree that depletion has been a main cause of the corruption of the modern human nature, however, rather than keeping a way of life of taking exactly what humans needed, they have overindulged on these resources (which could either be a positive or negative effect).

 

wow, you completely misunderstood my entire post

"survival, in a world with limited resources, meant that having an overabundance of food was necessary to deal with the uncertainty of the food supply."

i never stated there was an overabundance of resources on the earth, i stated that an overabundance of resources was needed for different groups because of the uncertainty of it.

moving on.

you keep on assuming that humans have at one point lived with nature perfectly, not exploiting it but working with it

i have to say that this is a very naive stance. the majority of these claims come from native stereotypes and hypothetical scenarios.

being native, i can say that we have always been as greedy as the rest of the world. we did not work with the land, that is a stereotype. we simply were not that technologically advanced to do so.

" rather than keeping a way of life of taking exactly what humans needed, they have overindulged on these resources"
it has always been this way.



ps.
i feel sorry for someone who can not separate the need for an overabundance and an actual overabundance.
i rly do hope that english is not ur first language, its the only legitimate excuse i can think of.

 

Your first point.

It can be spun both ways, someone who doesn't exist can't not want to exist.

The factual information obtained from such a premise is inconclusive. Therefore your premise cannot favor either side and therefore remains inconclusive.

Your implying that nothingness doesn't want anything done to it. That is not the case, I could say nothingness does want something done to it. The only possible conclusion you can take is an inconclusive one.


All your really doing is assuming without a scintilla of evidence, while accusing others of assuming with such evidence. Hypocritical of you.

Just remember, matter is neither created nor destroyed. All the matter that created you existed long before, it has just changed form.