We evolved or were designed for a certain kind of environment; a hunter gatherer lifestyle, and for sake of argument, I say that is how we ought to be as it means to be more "human", "one with nature". (not going to try back that up, just an idea) — ehnicma

The way we play this game, you can't just make a claim and then say you are not going to back it up.

Ok, so we evolved into hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers are modern humans. The hunter-gatherers are the ones who developed the new technology of agriculture, city-building (Jericho, for example), domestication of animals, and so on. They are us. We are as one with nature as they were--which is to say, they, like us, operated ON nature, and operated WITHIN nature.

it's a sort of process which alters society fundamentally and allows for progress; technological or otherwise. — ehnicma

Very true. The kinds of machinery, methods, power, and all that technology which a society has (or doesn't have) determines not only how people will live, but it determines to a large degree what kind of culture they will have.

ought we to have knowledge or ought we to be ignorant as to be more "human", primal, and so on. — ehnicma

Ignorance is not more 'human' than knowledge. It has been a very very long time since we (homo sapiens) were at a point in our evolution that we could choose between the innocence of ignorance and the fallen state of having knowledge. We chose knowledge, and it is very fortunate that we did.

Innocence and ignorance is an over-rated state.

The history of our evolution as a species, and the history of our species as it very slowly accumulated technology, knowledge, culture, language, art, and all that, might be the story you want to read. We became "modern people" many thousands of years ago, and it took us a long time to work our way up to agriculture, domestication of traction animals like horses, wheeled vehicles (like the chariot), writing, building techniques, and so on and so forth.

There are a lot of very good books about all this.

For instance, Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond explains how geography benefitted some people more than others, and led to some groups (like Europeans) having more advanced technology than Aztecs, for instance. There is a PBS program on the book, too.

There are good books about hunter-gatherers. Look under ANTHROPOLOGY

There are good books about early civilization, Greek civilization, Chinese/Roman/Amerindian/European/African... Look under HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION.

There are interesting books about the history of technology.

I can't give you a nice list of books because I have been reading about this stuff for 50 years, now and there isn't any 2 or 3 books into which all of this is condensed. You will just have to do what other people do (it's really quite pleasant) read and study history.

The way we play this game, you can't just make a claim and then say you are not going to back it up.[/quote]

It's just an assumption and a starting point, I'm not claiming that it's how it should be. I'm not sure how to say what I'm trying to say, this is just an attempt at that. (I'm not even sure of what I'm trying to say)

Ok, so we evolved into hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers are modern humans. The hunter-gatherers are the ones who developed the new technology of agriculture, city-building (Jericho, for example), domestication of animals, and so on. They are us. We are as one with nature as they were--which is to say, they, like us, operated ON nature, and operated WITHIN nature. — Bitter Crank

I guess I mean that we evolved for a certain kind of environment which is that of how it was before complex civilization, that specifically, we didn't evolve to sit on chairs, to live in houses with lockable doors, and so on. The rate that we evolve biologically, is exceeded by the rate of change in our environment.

Ignorance is not more 'human' than knowledge. It has been a very very long time since we (homo sapiens) were at a point in our evolution that we could choose between the innocence of ignorance and the fallen state of having knowledge. We chose knowledge, and it is very fortunate that we did. — Bitter Crank

While we as a species may have made that choice and while it may have had benefited our species, there should be a distinction between what we know and ought to know as a species , and what we know and ought to know as individuals. Certainly there are many people who are quite ignorant in modern society; many of whom wish to be.

Thanks for the recommendations, looking into anthropology might help me in my endeavors though I'd say I'm focused more on the psychological side at the moment.

I'm not sure how to precisely articulate my thought about this, but I will try.
I will start with an assumption: We evolved or were designed for a certain kind of environment; a hunter gatherer lifestyle, and for sake of argument, I say that is how we ought to be as it means to be more "human", "one with nature". (not going to try back that up, just an idea) — ehnicma

I think there is something wrong with this premise. You are describing "human" as something evolved. But then you are suggesting that there is definable state "being human", which is the state that we ought to be in. This implies that you think evolution ought to end at this state. It appears like you think that what you define as "human" ought to be the end of evolution. Why would you believe this? Do you think that the human being is the best possible being?