>tfw the world could've been a whole different place

It is because of Jews

As much as I feel you're pain, your exposition is over simplifying the problem. It's not "our ancestors"' fault, not anymore than it is ours to be born in a precise economic system, with a cultural superstructure that serves as the subtle turtlehead in our defences to adapt us to this kind of lifestyle.

Both of them were born and created millennia ago, and they evolved alongside us. We can't blame our ancestors, honestly, unless we keep hitting ourselves in the face for the "sin" of being born in this system and perpetuating it - even when we don't desire to.

Shit's much more complicated, especially if you consider the paradigm shift of the last hundred years of so - we went from the anthropocene to the "technocene", switching from a focus on the human to a focus on Techne, on the machine, which is, sadly, only natural and obvious for us to do.

Learn about anarcho-primitivism.

Civilization was a mistake.

>>36276710
>Where men and women are taught that they should pick a rich good looking partner
You mean like every other sexual animal to ever walk the earth?
Thats just natural selection bud

>>36277060
>implying animals use money
>implying animals rate males/female they're attracted to on a scale of 1-10

>>36277060
If you equal richness and good looks to trascendental characters assuring reproductive effectiveness throughout the entire history of humanity, you're comparison holds.

Otherwise, you could have spared a lot of characters and shame by just writing
>You mean, like every other sexual animal on Earth tries to identify and preserve behavioural/physical patterns that are understood (culturally, in the case of mankind) to be beneficial to the species?

>>36277279
Your comparison*, sorry about that.

>>36277279
Money=capabilty of securing resources
"Looks" are essentially a simplified analysis of a partners health/fertility
This is simple shit guys, even if the situation were different, these key concepts will still generally determine whether or not you (consentually)reproduce

Nah. Humanity was always been nothing but shit. Primitive peoples were savages, headhunters, cannibals, practiced human sacrifice, routinely killed their own babies as population control and were constantly at war with neighbouring tribes so that you couldn't even visit the neighboring village without getting killed, unless you paid them tribute or some shit. Look up Herxheim to see what primitive cultures were like, or just look at more recent shit from places like New Guinea or the Americas. It's not even about human nature, it's just that violent, stratified cultures are always destined to win over anyone stupid enough to try being peaceful. Our ancestors weren't stupid, they were just dicks. The Moriori were able to build a near utopia because of isolation, but as soon as that isolation was broken they all got eaten by Maoris. Premodern civilizations were hardly any better and could easily be far worse. Modern civilization, awful as it is, is the best we've ever had it.

>>36276710
There's a bunch of problems with your ideology. The whole "follow your dreams" thing doesn't work. Someone has to do the dirty work and the masses will revolt if they're highly educated and they can see through the bullshit that they've been taught

File: 1430423800858.jpg (168KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 500x482px

>>36276830
you will fucking delet this IMMEDIATELY

>>36277206
Money serves as a proxy for social dominance within a society, and that is exactly the same in 99% of social animals. There is no environment in which /r9k/ dwelling autists would be getting laid on the regular.

File: 1481182454606.jpg (95KB, 680x932px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 680x932px

>>36277854
Apparently utopias did exist among Southern African hunter-gatherers. The area was fertile af and although there were predators, they rarely would try to attack them. Plus, if you killed on Monday you pretty much had the rest of the week off.

With the advent of electricty we could have kept a simpler life and had a 3 day work week. We traded that for this hell.

>>36278269
No, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is actually even more destructive of the environment than what we have now. The world can only support around 100 million hunter gatherers.

>>36278617
There weren't 100 million gatherers though. Before colonisation they had a relatively stress-free life of plenty.

>>36278702
Because we started civilization. Duh. If we hadn't started civilization and continued on our path of destruction we would have destroyed the ecosystem and extincted ourselves