...and if poverty does exist, it's called the default human condition. We are born on this planet with nothing except parents who raise us out their own voluntary goodwill.
And the law/society/government-- neglect is still illegal.
Over the past tens of thousands of years, 'poverty' has worked very well for the human species.
It is relative, just as being rich is. Here's where your analysis begins to break down.
We rose from our primitive shelters, spent hours chasing game to feed ourselves or decided to harvest nuts and berries on a whim.
Ah, idealized history. My favorite.
However, most of all we WERE happy with these basic lives.
Evidence, please.
We never felt entitled to anything more since we were born with the ability to sustain ourselves.
WE REQUIRE MORE
VESPINE GAS EVIDENCE
To those who argue an organism is obligated to more than what he is born with is only advocating slavery
Nice rhetoric.
to eventually rid of the organism's own ability to care for himself and make it beg to a supposed benefactor
Read up on social contractualism-- the only reason anybody helps anybody else, or is obliged to, is because everybody is expected to.
who he could not supposedly live without, even if said benefactor isn't even willing to serve his supposed beneficiary, only for all to be shot and left to rot in a ditch because neither met the whims of their masters.
It isn't your choice, just as many things aren't your choice. I'm always wondering why people are so hasty to demand that they have absolute autonomy over what they do, wherein they lack that for most choices--what makes this one special?
Life does not function like this.
Generalized idealized claims about nature that aren't substantiated? I'm so surprised.
Most organisms do not engage in forced parasitism[/qupte]
Forced parasitism is redundant.
but symbiotic and voluntary relationships that absolutely advocate freewill on all parts.
If by engaging in photosynthesis without any sentience, and by getting mauled by a wolf, you mean freewill, yeah, you're wrong. A large hunk of animals don't engage with other animals except to kill them.
Birds do not engage in flocks nor mating rituals under gun-enforced mandates nor do wolves hunt in packs under the threat of injury or death.
This presumes that they have sentience/free will, and given the contested state that it has in human beings, I don't think the underlying premise is provable.
They do so because it is in the nature and freewill -- and remain it shall.
Nature isn't some indestructible, immutable substance or concept. The definition of what is natural and thus good has changed over time. You use of the word makes it seem as if it is some transhistorical value that e'rebody and their gerbil has access to. This isn't the case-- it is a historically based, and sociologically influenced idea.
Btw, read up on free will debates before you go invoking it.
However, when it comes to us, Man has nearly reduced itself entirely to a ball and chain for its survival.
Why does everything else doing something necessitate us having to do it as well? Certain things are a necessity, but I'm wondering why we have to act just like the animals do. Presuming, for a second, that we have free will, and they do as well(which has been the only thing besides nature = good that you've argued) what in that argument necessitates us behaving like them?
Is this what we really want for our species? Do we really want to be the laughing stock of nature?
You're either misunderstanding Nietzsche, or misunderstanding the fact that nobody cares about what humanity is/becomes outside of ourselves, at least until we discover sentient life elsewhere.
A species that can only function under a constant ambiance of violence?
/Sigh, cause altruism doesn't exist.
I'm done here.
I noticed when the post ended.