No, no. Civilizations as a whole generally tend toward growth. Some agricultural civilizations seem to remain relatively stagnant over long (but historically short) time periods, but for the most part balance isn't really inherent in civilized life. In fact, the Pleistocene extinction event and other such things suggest that balance hasn't been a part of any human society.

Sorry, let me rephrase that; do you think that in terms of the individual experience, previous civilisations offered some improvement over our own? Although there have always been ascetics and those who value 'simple living', what do you think it is particularly about civilisation since the industrial revolution that seem to have given rise to the variety of anti-civilisation ideas on display?

So when it comes to human nature, some of us will just say, "well I like being human more than I like the cyborg alternatives, so much as I can tell at this time." And that's the end of it. Humanness is valuable in itself.

This seems fairly circular, but I accept your personal choice. But your mention of 'dysgenics' brings up what I personally find most troubling about anti-civilisation narratives generally. How do you perceive the ill and the disabled? Putting aside the general issue, how, for example, would you take to the presence of some sort of physical condition within your kinship group that could be alleviated, perhaps almost completely, with advanced medicine? Say, for example, that you or your spouse developed Grave's Disease or cataracts? Would your wildist philosophy see suffering, death and/or euthanasia as preferable to becoming beholden in some way to medical technology? There is obviously much to criticise about how medicine is practiced and the dominion that 'the clinic' claims over the body, but to me the meek acceptance of such rolls of the dice, with the knowledge that something can be done, seems the opposite of liberating. It also seems to me difficult to reconcile with the care of kin; I can think, in my own life, of how I have seen my mother's suffering from arthritis alleviated following a hip replacement. If kith and kin is the most important thing, why is it not natural to wish to avoid unnecessary and premature loss and pain?

I value the physicality of my human form. The blood, the pain, the comfortable feeling of a soft blanket, etc. All of this is pretty nice, you know?

The modification of form and mind doesn't necessarily preclude such things though; it's not an either/or situation. For example, in the present, many people I know have had surgical modifications to enhance or extend their physical sensations. Magnetic finger implants, tongue splitting, genital piercing, things of this nature; this is much more the direction I approach transhumanism from. At what point would you say the cyborg stops being human?