This is just untrue as an axiom. Humans are in a sense, beasts of burden. Meaning and purpose is found most often in the undertaking of responsibility. Needing to do that isn't worse than not needing to. Especially when such a need provides huge benefits, and not doing so tends to reap many harms
This is circular reasoning.
And I would say this need is more a result of higher intelligence and conscious individuation. To remove these benefits, you would have to revert humanities intelligence. Really, the same goes for morality, a sense of right and wrong comes with consciousness and individuation. In essence, seperation of our actions from nature. Again, reversion to pre-individuation total ignorance of the self would be required fmpov
I don't see why this has to be the case. Consider the fact that 100 years ago, the conception of the internet was unfathomable. Education required memorisation of facts. Nowadays, we have all the facts at our fingertips, and this has radically transformed education. Imagine where technology will be in 100 years, let alone 1000 -- it's incredibly hard to predict.
This just strikes me as having a bit of a "god" complex, wanting to tool around with things we arent even anywhere close to understanding fully
You may pathologise me if you wish, but re-engineering humanity would likely accelerate human progress. Sure, we *currently* haven't the sufficient understanding to implement radical changes, but it remains an expedient cause.
For example, the "nuclear family" developed over time as the best way to raise kids to optimize potential success in adulthood.
This is woefully incorrect, but I won't derail the thread with digression.
Recent cultural pushes to glorify single parenting and change that order has resulted in kids suffering very detrimental affects. The same goes for this "gender theory" stuff that's based off a study that amounts to child abuse by John Money, or "toxic masculinity". Well, now testerone levels are dropping across the board, males are getting less intelligent, and checking out on a mass scale(suicide rates, employment etc).
Currently, sure, we are not detached from nature. However, this thread is about future predictions.
All from an opinion that aggressive and dominant male tendencies are "toxic" and "unnecessary" as opposed to something to be embraced and constructively channeled for noble purposes. No instead lets just put em on meds and watch as they're fucked up later on in life. Certainly none of the aforementioned could have anything to do with that
Here's an interesting thought: if you could remove these male tendencies, like re-engineer males, would it not make society a better place? Is it desirable to have creatures hell-bent on competing with each other? Would not collaboration be preferable?