Some of that is true, except disease.
Sure there are some diet related problems if you're retarded but aside from that we are way better off disease wise.

>>2081037
Not op, but arguably we arent *naturally* better off. If it werent for vaccination and hygiene, better medical understanding, urbanized areas would be cesspools of disease.

This is such a fucking stupid idea goddamn. Are you insinuating that all disease stems from anything not "natural"? What does " natural" even mean? Is the spear the primitive human in the OP pic unnatural? How can you make a meaningful distinction between natural and unnatural? Is it based on stuff we do? What is the base natural state? Would hunter gatherers who are starving because they can't catch any game still be in a better state than a well fed and healthy modern person? If I have cancer and decide to go live on the savanah will I get healthier? What about diseases in wild animals? Do they get those because they're acting unnaturally? Before humans were around were all forms of life in a perfect state?

>>2081347
Cont.

Is language considered natural? What about constructed languages? Is written language natural? Would a naked human in Africa 200,000 years ago be made less healthy by fashioning crude clothing or tools? If not, when is the cut off point for what is or is not natural?

>>2081062
If you're counting hygiene and medicine as unnatural than why are cities natural?

It comes off to me as categorising any technology that is harmful as unnatural and any that is helpful as natural.

If we're capable of recognising urban centres as natural what's to stop us from recognising soaps or antibiotics as natural? Because cities or at least housing is easier to create than effective drugs or computers?

>>2081062
Or are you suggesting that urban areas as cauldrons of disease is their natural state and that using "unnatural" stuff like medicine makes them better?

>>2081350
>>2081352
>>2081347

All me BTW. I think this idea has some grounding some of the time but to make such a broad statement as "most physical ailments can be fixed by returning to a natural state" seems ridiculous. Unless "natural stats" just means a state without physical ailments which again I think is dumb because animals get sick all the time and to suggest they only ever get sick because of us all the time is a real stretch.

If obesity is an unnatural state, is starvation an unnatural state as well? If I live in the wilderness and starve because I can't farm or use tools as they aren't naturally occuring am I still better off? Is starving a natural state? What about if I just suck at chasing down prey animals and am terrible at gathering berries and feel like shit because of it. Is that like, false low self esteem? Would I not feel bad if I was terrible at everything but never used any technology?

Depression and that stuff is something I agree on. But there are countries where life is more communal. There is also studies that knowing your neighbor makes you happier (it makes you feel more rooted). I feel that in the US people don't trust each other. Why do you think that is? Maybe your extra-competitive, each-for-their-own system creates that.

Anyway, I do not wish to return to being a hunter-gatherer. I like being shielded from elements when I want to. And my reading sofa.

go eat some ~natural~ bitter almonds and choke to death ecohippy

PS: jogging on the city pavement every day isn't "nature". it's not returning to a "natural state". And neither is shitposting on 4chan mr. muh blue light hurts my eyes.

>>2081023

I absolutely agree with you OP but the way you worded your post and the fact your thread has been hijacked be retards looking to start an argument means you probably won't get any interesting discussion. Sorry.

>>2081023
Interesting thread idea. Very intriguing. I have personally found that, by working out, I feel better mentally as well as physically.
People will nitpic anything and dissect syntax like crazy, but I see what OP is saying and agree for the most part.