This is a good healthy and lively discussion on western philosophy, but I would like to address some ethnographic assumptions being made in the original post.
I feel in that state of nature is where humans lived the best.
You need to understand the the separation between civilization and nature is a social construction -- it varies significantly, and represents a narrative within the very civilization in which we all participate. The very term "nature" is a socialized construction and does not posses a universal definition that crosses cultural boundaries.
I can recommend some reading on the subject,
Like the native americans instead of sitting there complaining about school and watching Jeresy Shore and Desperate housewives. They were out running after deer, worrying about getting food (not making loads of money),
the term "Native Americans" represent an extremely diverse collection of nations with incredibly variety in cultural expression and modes of production.
The idea of the accumulation of wealth is actually not a purely Western ideal. Various systems of centralized redistribution, bride wealth and dowry are functionally based on the accumulation of material goods and property rights.
Not all aboriginal inhabitants of North America were small corporate tribes and bands. There is a lot of variety in political organization and modes of production.
taking care of their tribe, spiritually taking care of nature. Yeah they may have fought with other tribes and died from diseases but that is no where as near as what we do today like bombing countries and other nonsense like that.
I would argue that it is fairly similar. It's about the avail of technology.
A Professor of early modern history once posed the question to me: If the technological roles of the Aztecs and Spanish were reversed, do you think the Aztecs would have taken a bite out of western Europe?
I think the answer is quite obvious.
Edited by Sam_Spade, 01 May 2012 - 05:19 PM.