> If you stick a tiger in a small cage it doesn’t breed — that is an objective observation rather than a moral critique. Huxleys argument is of the same nature — that society is becoming a cage to natural impulse and instinct.
That's a false analogy because it uses things that aren't related to each other in the same way. The society=>cage analogy isn't an objective observation, it is your opinion, and also an essentialism.
Furthermore, the objective functional effect of a cage on tiger breeding has no demonstrable comparison to human existence in society, except in your attempt to essentialize it that way.
the analogy is "an environmental condition that significantly modifies 'natural' behavior".
The only essentialist argument is that there was a 'natural' to begin with, which in this case ought to be obvious. Our 'natural' environment, i.e. the environment in which we evolved to prosper, is far different in which the environment that we live today.
If you fail to see the analogy, you are either being overly reductive or you have very little imagination.
The larger brain is an evolutionary adaptation for the purpose of dealing with unique new environments. Doing so is specifically what is natural for humans, and why they so thoroughly spread across the world. Of course, evolution is basically alway does a half-assed job of everything.
I think on average, we are better adjusted to this society then one thousands of years ago. Its hard to be adjusted to not having stable food or medical care or wwhatnot. But for some people, and in some ways, its worse. Thats a tradeoff and, since we have this awesome ability to change the environment, one we can work to understand and fix... not by working towards some ancient ideal, but creative forward thinking. The best environment hasn't existed yet.
I imagine it depends on your socioeconomic status. If you are working night shift 60 hours a week at a mindless sedentary factory job, you're probably more biologically suited to a hunter gatherer lifestyle. Although to be fair, agriculture is much older than 1,000 years. I actually think the vast majority of people are not able to live a life better-suited to them than that of hunter gatherers.
That person is still not dying of basic infections and disease, exposure, starvation, etc or suffering its effects nearly as often. So it seems clear they are better adapted to boring factory life in many ways.
What is overly reductive is reducing the entirety of the evolution of human society up to the current state to the metaphor of a cage, a metaphor chosen for the purpose of inducing fear and suspicion of others with whom you share society.
It's unclear to me that a techno-industrial society will not inevitably yield extreme alienation for a large proportion of the population -- who do not understand it's basic under pinnings.
Most kids can barely pass algebra. We here on hacker news have intuitions for how the algorithms that influence things work... the average person does not. When they hear about "fake news", "artificial lungs", "bioengineering", "drones" -- they don't see it the same way we do -- I see a cultural shift towards angst and fear of the power of technology.. that is warranted.
Even something as simple as birth control has profound influence on us as a species as well as our culture -- to which we are still adapting.
When one looks at other late-stage post-modern capitalist countries (e.g Japan) -- you see similar developments of asexuality as we are beginning to see here in the states.
That's a false analogy because it uses things that aren't related to each other in the same way. The society=>cage analogy isn't an objective observation, it is your opinion, and also an essentialism.
Furthermore, the objective functional effect of a cage on tiger breeding has no demonstrable comparison to human existence in society, except in your attempt to essentialize it that way.