Discussing Adam Lanzas Radio Call

I think, it would be an interesting thing, to just take record of things, we notice at Adams Radio Call.
Reed Coleman made a transcription of the Call, but doesn't include the first minutes. I know that queenfaroq made a transcription of the first minutes,  but I unfortunately saved it at another place. You can post it, if you are faster than me, queenfaroq.


In lack of the transcription, I will start with something I noticed about Adams voice in the call.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As you can hear, Adams voice is very steady and calm most of the time. Zerzan himself even described it as kind of "robotic", although I think that might me a bit exaggerated. Maybe I cant entirely judge it, because I am not a native speaker.

Well, there is one point in his call, where Adams voice is really different from the rest. If you listen to the record at 2:19- 2:21, you can hear Adam saying "Why did you do that to me, mom?". Adam is talking about the foster-mother of Travis the Chimp, who- as Travis attacked her friend- stabbed him in the back with a knife.
"And she said that after she stabbed him, he looked at her as if to say 'Why did you do that to me, mom?'".
As Adams says this, his voice is shaking, shivering. To me, he almost sounds similar to when a person is trying to hide the fact, that he is about to cry while speaking. Its the only moment, where Adams voice reveals a noticeable emotion and it seems to be sadness.
If you now consider, that Adam killed his own mother before going on a rampage and reportedly had a difficult relationship with her and considered her as irrational, although she seemed to have been the person most close to him during his entire life, it is even more odd. I cant help but asking me, if Adam maybe had a similar question in his mind. Just imagine Adam asking Nancy exactly the same question and in exactly the same tone: "Why did you do that to me, mom?"

Radio call Transcription:
MUSIC

HOST: (talking)

12 seconds -
HOST - Oh Greg OK, how’s it going?

GREG:  Um hi good, um I’m a fan of your writing, um

HOST: Thank you

GREG:  I’m sorry to bring up such an old news story but I couldn’t find anything that you said about the topic and it seems relevant to your interest so I thought I’d bring up Travis the chimp do you remember him?

HOST: I don’t

GREG: Well um, he was a highly domesticated chimpanzee who lived in a suburban home in Stanford Connecticut.

Host 1: Oh yeah

Host 2: Oh

GREG: and he was raised just like a human child starting from the week he was born. By the time that he was 14 years old which would be somewhere around age20 in human years

Host: Aha

GREG: um he slept in a bed, he took his own baths he dressed himself, he brushed his teeth with an electric toothbrush

Host: Haha really, when was this?

GREG: Um, well.., this happened in early 2009

HOST 1 / 2: Oh / Oh Aha

GREG: Um he ate his meals at a table and enjoyed human foods like ice cream, and he used a remote control to watch television and liked baseball games, and he even used a computer to look at pictures on the internet.

HOST: Ha

GREG: And (laughs) it goes without saying that Travis was very overweight, he was 200 pounds when he should have been around the low hundreds

HOST: Mmm hmm

GREG: and he was actually taking Xanax

HOST 1 / 2: *laughs* Amazing

GREG: I couldn’t find any information about why he was taking it, but it just seems to say a lot that he was given it at all. And, basically I think Travis wasn’t really any different than a mentally handicapped human child.

HOST: Hm

GREG: But anyway one day in February 2009 he was acting very agitated and at some point grabbed the car… his owners car keys, went outside and started (leaping?) from car to car (eventually?) wanting to go for a car ride, and he was acting very aggressively. So his owner called her friend over to get her to help him to calm down and go back inside. And when she arrived he immediately attacked her and, his owner tried to stop him but couldn't and she even resorted to stabbing him with a knife but nothing worked. And she said that after she stabbed him he looked at her as if to say “Why’d you do that to me Mom?” Because apparently that was what the relationship was like, no different than between a human mother and a human child.

HOST: Hm

GREG: So after the stabbing she called the police who arrived 12 minutes after the attack. At which point her friend was pretty close to dead. And, once the cruiser came up Travis went over to it, tried to open the locked passenger door, he smashed off the side view mirror went over to the driver’s door, opened it and the cops shot him. He fled back into the house where he went to his playroom and bled to death.

HOST: Hm

This is up until the 2:53ish point in the above link.
The rest of the transcript was done by the guy who runs this blog, Reed Coleman:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Reed Coleman wrote:

LANZA: And…(chuckles) um, it might not seem very relevant, but I’m bringing it up because afterward, everyone was condemning his owner for, saying how irresponsible she was for raising a chimp like it was a child, and that she should have that something like this would happen, because chimps aren’t supposed to be living in civilization, they’re supposed to be living in the wild, among each other. But, their criticism stops there--

HOST: Mmm-hmm.

LANZA: –and the implication is that there’s no way that anything could have gone wrong in this life if he were living in this civilization as a human, rather than a chimp.

HOST: Ah, indeed.

LANZA: Because, uh, he brings up questions about this whole process of child-raising.

HOST: Yeah.

LANZA: Civilization isn’t something which just happens to gently exist without us having to do anything, because every newborn child — human child — is born in a chimp-like state, and civilization is only sustained by conditioning them for years on end, so that they’ll accept it for what it is, and since we’ve gone through this conditioning, we can observe a human family raising a human child –and I’m sure that even you have trouble intuitively seeing it as something unnatural– but when we see a chimp in that position, we immediately know that there’s something profoundly wrong with the situation. And it’s easy to say there’s something wrong with it simply because it’s a chimp, but what’s the real difference between us and our closest relatives?

Travis wasn’t an untamed monster at all. Um, he wasn’t just feigning  domestication, he was civilized. Um, he was able to integrate into society, he was a chimp actor when he was younger, and his owner drove him around the city frequently in association with her towing business, where he met many different people, and got along with everyone. If Travis had been some nasty monster all his life, it would have been widely reported. But, to the contrary, it seems like everyone who knew him said how shocked they were that Travis had been so savage, because they knew him as a sweet child, and… there were two isolated incidents early in his life where he acted aggressively, but… summarizing them would take too long, so basically I’ll just say that he didn’t really any differently than a human child would, and the people who would use that as an indictment against having chimps live as humans do wouldn’t apply the same thing to humans, so it’s just kind of irrelevant.

HOST: Uh-huh.

LANZA: But anyway, look what civilization did to him: it had the same exact effect on him as it has on humans. He was profoundly sick, in every sense of the term, and he had to resort to these surrogate activities like watching baseball, and looking at pictures on a computer screen, and taking Xanax. He was a complete mess.

HOST: Mmm-hmm.

LANZA: And his attack wasn’t simply because he was a senselessly violent, impulsive chimp. Uhm, which was how his behavior was universally portrayed. Um, immediately before the attack, he had desperately been wanting his owner to drive him somewhere, and the best reason I can think of for why he would want that, looking at his entire life, would be that… some little thing he experienced was the last straw, and he was overwhelmed at the life that he had, and he wanted to get out of it by changing his environment, and the best way that he knew how to deal with that was getting his owner to drive him somewhere else.

HOST: Yeah.

LANZA: And when his owner’s… owner’s friend, arrived, he knew that she was trying to coax him back into his place of domestication, and he couldn’t handle that, so he attacked her, and anyone else who approached them. And dismissing his attack as simply being the senseless violence and impulsiveness of a chimp, instead of a human, is wishful thinking at best.

HOST: Mmm-hmm.

LANZA: His attack can be seen entirely parallel to the attacks and random acts of violence that you bring up on your show every week, committed by humans, which the mainstream also has no explanation for-and-

HOST: No.

LANZA: –and, actual humans… I just- just don’t think it would be such a stretch to say that he very well could have been a teenage mall shooter or something like that.

Here is the post this was taken from:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
It's a very interesting read.

Thanks!

I wonder what Adam would have to say to this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"(CNN) -- A Connecticut woman mauled by a friend's chimpanzee in 2009 describes in a new video what it was like waking up in a hospital after the attack.
Unaware she had lost her vision, Charla Nash said she asked her brother Mike to turn on the lights.
"He said the lights are on," Nash remembers, and "little by little, it started to come together."
Nash was attacked while trying to help coax her friend's 14-year-old pet chimpanzee back into her house. Travis the chimp, which had appeared in television commercials for Coca-Cola and Old Navy, jumped on Nash, biting and mauling her.
Police later fatally shot Travis to stop the attack, which left Nash without hands, a nose, lips or eyelids.
"I remember laying in the room, and I remember sometimes I would try to scratch my leg, and then I wasn't feeling it," she said.
"It's a different world to not be able to see again or to use your hands and do things for yourself that you have to depend on other people for help now," Nash said.
The seven-minute video, released to Connecticut state legislators, features an interview with Nash and footage of her walking around the private medical facility where she lives and receives daily assistance for her injuries.
Representatives for Nash will present her case to the Connecticut State Judiciary Committee on Friday in hopes that legislators will allow her to proceed with a $150 million lawsuit against the state. By law, anyone seeking to sue the state of Connecticut must seek permission to do so.
Since the attack five years ago, Nash has had numerous surgeries, including a face transplant. She sued Sandra Herold, the owner of the chimp, and received $4 million for her injuries, but according to spokesman Shelly Sindland, that settlement doesn't even begin to cover the expenses for her treatment.
Part of the $150 million she's seeking would fund a hand transplant, which doctors unsuccessfully attempted at the time of her face transplant. Nash hopes they will be able to try again.
"I want ... to be able to do more on my own," Nash said.
Nash is still waiting for an opportunity to square off against the state for injuries she contends could've been prevented.
Sindland said authorities at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection ignored a memo sent in October 2008, four months before the attack, from Connecticut state biologist Elaine Hinsch that said Travis the chimp was "an accident waiting to happen."
The state, Sindland alleges, "knew that the chimp was a danger" but didn't do anything to remove it from the home.
Dennis Schain, director of communications for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told CNN he is aware of the memo, but he said all statements from the case must come from the state Attorney General's Office.
In a statement to CNN, Connecticut attorney general spokeswoman Jaclyn Falkowski said, "The legal question in this case is: Did the state owe a legal duty to protect Ms. Nash from attack by a privately owned chimp on private property? Under well-settled law, it did not."
"While we have the utmost sympathy for Charla Nash, we do not believe that the state is liable for Ms. Nash's injuries. To decide otherwise would set a very dangerous precedent, exposing the state and its taxpayers to unlimited liability and costly litigation."
In June, the Office of the Claims Commissioner denied Nash her request to sue the state for $150 million.
Friday's appeal is the last opportunity for her to get permission to move forward with a lawsuit, and even if it makes it through committee, it would then have to be voted through both the state's House and Senate before moving forward.
"I'm hoping the legislation will allow me to have my day in court," Nash said.
Face transplant patients: Where are they now?"

This is very true. I have examined the phone call several times, and it sounds as if he is on the verge of crying. The Lanzas seemed to be a very classy we'll educated family. Ryan lanza, and peter lanza are very successful people. I ponder though if Nancy pressured adam with his education. It was reported that adam was enrolled at a local college for high school credits. It was also reported that adam skipped class to play ddr, and to stay in the library. Adam didn't have to go to school at the point, he was old enough to make that decision. So I wonder if Nancy pushing his education has anything to do with the emotional disconnect between them.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find Adam’s voice in the interview to be very calm and soothing. I don’t know exactly why, but I like hearing him talk. Unfortunately it’s probably the only voice recording we’ll hear of him.

Carnifex879 wrote:

Maybe it’s just me, but I find Adam’s voice in the interview to be very calm and soothing. I don’t know exactly why, but I like hearing him talk. Unfortunately it’s probably the only voice recording we’ll hear of him.

I definitely agree and I don’t think his voice was as robotic as some people make it out to be even though it was virtually emotionless.

It's easily one of my favorite pieces of mass murder related media. In contrast with the crazed, angry, or simple monologues we get from most mass killers, he puts into words an explanation for why shootings occur that I can't really find any fault in. Obviously that doesn't justify what he or any others did, but it fascinates me endlessly. By that point, he definitely knew he was going on a rampage, and was dropping his final piece of the puzzle in place before he did it.

It's not only mystifying, It's extremely impressive. This is one of the most extraordinary transcripts to ever reach the public domain.

I did find a mirror that is still working as of today 07/15/21, pretty accessible though I'm embedding it for now.

Wow; he was highly intelligent and well-spoken.

He was correct regarding the problems of civilization; I would have liked to ask him what his suggested solutions would be.

Juniper wrote:

Wow; he was highly intelligent and well-spoken.  

He was correct regarding the problems of civilization; I would have liked to ask him what his suggested solutions would be.

Me as well.

Z_Splatter wrote:

I wonder what Adam would have to say to this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"(CNN) -- A Connecticut woman mauled by a friend's chimpanzee in 2009 describes in a new video what it was like waking up in a hospital after the attack.
Unaware she had lost her vision, Charla Nash said she asked her brother Mike to turn on the lights.
"He said the lights are on," Nash remembers, and "little by little, it started to come together."
Nash was attacked while trying to help coax her friend's 14-year-old pet chimpanzee back into her house. Travis the chimp, which had appeared in television commercials for Coca-Cola and Old Navy, jumped on Nash, biting and mauling her.
Police later fatally shot Travis to stop the attack, which left Nash without hands, a nose, lips or eyelids.
"I remember laying in the room, and I remember sometimes I would try to scratch my leg, and then I wasn't feeling it," she said.
"It's a different world to not be able to see again or to use your hands and do things for yourself that you have to depend on other people for help now," Nash said.
The seven-minute video, released to Connecticut state legislators, features an interview with Nash and footage of her walking around the private medical facility where she lives and receives daily assistance for her injuries.
Representatives for Nash will present her case to the Connecticut State Judiciary Committee on Friday in hopes that legislators will allow her to proceed with a $150 million lawsuit against the state. By law, anyone seeking to sue the state of Connecticut must seek permission to do so.
Since the attack five years ago, Nash has had numerous surgeries, including a face transplant. She sued Sandra Herold, the owner of the chimp, and received $4 million for her injuries, but according to spokesman Shelly Sindland, that settlement doesn't even begin to cover the expenses for her treatment.
Part of the $150 million she's seeking would fund a hand transplant, which doctors unsuccessfully attempted at the time of her face transplant. Nash hopes they will be able to try again.
"I want ... to be able to do more on my own," Nash said.
Nash is still waiting for an opportunity to square off against the state for injuries she contends could've been prevented.
Sindland said authorities at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection ignored a memo sent in October 2008, four months before the attack, from Connecticut state biologist Elaine Hinsch that said Travis the chimp was "an accident waiting to happen."
The state, Sindland alleges, "knew that the chimp was a danger" but didn't do anything to remove it from the home.
Dennis Schain, director of communications for the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told CNN he is aware of the memo, but he said all statements from the case must come from the state Attorney General's Office.
In a statement to CNN, Connecticut attorney general spokeswoman Jaclyn Falkowski said, "The legal question in this case is: Did the state owe a legal duty to protect Ms. Nash from attack by a privately owned chimp on private property? Under well-settled law, it did not."
"While we have the utmost sympathy for Charla Nash, we do not believe that the state is liable for Ms. Nash's injuries. To decide otherwise would set a very dangerous precedent, exposing the state and its taxpayers to unlimited liability and costly litigation."
In June, the Office of the Claims Commissioner denied Nash her request to sue the state for $150 million.
Friday's appeal is the last opportunity for her to get permission to move forward with a lawsuit, and even if it makes it through committee, it would then have to be voted through both the state's House and Senate before moving forward.
"I'm hoping the legislation will allow me to have my day in court," Nash said.
Face transplant patients: Where are they now?"

He probably would've said that the people who held him were too stupid. Which was actually right, because you don't take an animal from his natural habitat than which he is used to be in. Just same as the human. And that is why depression etc. is spreading amongst the homo sapiens.

It is just dumb. Don't interact with the nature, especially when it's against the nature.

gayforwilla wrote:

He probably would've said that the people who held him were too stupid. Which was actually right, because you don't take an animal from his natural habitat than which he is used to be in. Just same as the human. And that is why depression etc. is spreading amongst the homo sapiens.

It is just dumb. Don't interact with the nature, especially when it's against the nature.

I've decided to take a closer look at this case recently and I'm truly impressed by Charla Nash's will to live. Such a strong woman.
And Travis' former owner... if I'm not mistaken, she said she would have had a chimp as a pet again if had a choice, even after everything what had happened. Isn't it crazy? She even forced Travis to sleep in the same bed with her, that's beyond my understanding.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

-

Juniper wrote:

So, Adam's analysis of the chimp being comparable to people in civilization is spot on.  But did Adam ever realize his own idiosyncrasies and try to improve them?  Did he ever try to work on himself to overcome his being always locked in his room, playing video games, literally shutting out the sun, etc?  Did he realize he was messed up and write about it anywhere? If you can point me to one of his writings where he talks about this, I'd be interested.  

I think he just thought that it is right to do that, or that it is no problem. Ted Kaczynski as an example, thought it was right for him, to kill people by sending bombs to them.

It was his own delusional world, in which he was living because he thought that he otherwise had no real way to live, especially inside of the today's society. I think that's the reason why he was so deep into Chimps etc. because that was his real dream of a good surrounding to live. Just in the wild, free, with no limits etc.

Maboroshi wrote:

gayforwilla wrote:

He probably would've said that the people who held him were too stupid. Which was actually right, because you don't take an animal from his natural habitat than which he is used to be in. Just same as the human. And that is why depression etc. is spreading amongst the homo sapiens.

It is just dumb. Don't interact with the nature, especially when it's against the nature.

I've decided to take a closer look at this case recently and I'm truly impressed by Charla Nash's will to live. Such a strong woman.
And Travis' former owner... if I'm not mistaken, she said she would have had a chimp as a pet again if had a choice, even after everything what had happened. Isn't it crazy? She even forced Travis to sleep in the same bed with her, that's beyond my understanding.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It is crazy. I think, as I already said, that you shouldn't take an animal out of the nature, just like the modern human. And if you take a chimpanzee out of their nature, it will be similar to the human. They start to get violent, and in the worst case they will start to kill, because the animal's nature is suppressed. And you see that happening all the time, in the sort of mass murderers, serial killers and more. Violence is one characteristic of the human, just as it is for any other animal.

Everything else will get the animal depressed, anxious and other mental illnesses.

gayforwilla wrote:

It is crazy. I think, as I already said, that you shouldn't take an animal out of the nature, just like the modern human.

I would not make such a broad generalization. Most cats and dogs are perfectly happy living with their owners. Most don't lose their instincts, their ability to hunt etc.

gayforwilla wrote:

And if you take a chimpanzee out of their nature, it will be similar to the human. They start to get violent, and in the worst case they will start to kill, because the animal's nature is suppressed.

Chimpanzees are violent in their natural habitat. Chimp groups actively attack one another, killing and maiming. A war between chimps is as violent as war between humans. Chimps also hunt, kill and eat other primates.

We aren't that dissimilar from them. If anything, they appear to be a bit more violent than we are. We mastered the ability to live in huge groups - most of us live surrounded by thousands of other people and we go though our whole life without killing another member of our own species. Chimps never gained that ability.

I'm not trying to give a sweeping "civilization = good, nature = bad" argument. But I would advise against making a sweeping condemnation of civilization either.

Sabratha wrote:

gayforwilla wrote:

It is crazy. I think, as I already said, that you shouldn't take an animal out of the nature, just like the modern human.

I would not make such a broad generalization. Most cats and dogs are perfectly happy living with their owners. Most don't lose their instincts, their ability to hunt etc.

gayforwilla wrote:

And if you take a chimpanzee out of their nature, it will be similar to the human. They start to get violent, and in the worst case they will start to kill, because the animal's nature is suppressed.

Chimpanzees are violent in their natural habitat. Chimp groups actively attack one another, killing and maiming. A war between chimps is as violent as war between humans. Chimps also hunt, kill and eat other primates.

We aren't that dissimilar from them. If anything, they appear to be a bit more violent than we are. We mastered the ability to live in huge groups - most of us live surrounded by thousands of other people and we go though our whole life without killing another member of our own species. Chimps never gained that ability.

I'm not trying to give a sweeping "civilization = good, nature = bad" argument. But I would advise against making a sweeping condemnation of civilization either.

But is it better that "cat-dogs" civilization in today's society is better than it should be?
Just because cats or dogs insert better in our today's society and being socially, it isn't directly better. They are forced into it.

Usually, cats and dogs are used as animals that are used for farms etc. to protect them, to get rats, mice etc. away from our farms.
But nowadays, dogs and cats get violent and then put to sleep. But it shouldn't be like that. Dogs shouldn't be put to sleep.

The reason why we put them to sleep, is because we remove them from their natural habitat, we treat them completely wrong. And then they get violent.
Sure, that's completely natural. But the human thinks: "wow, he is handling everything way too violent, because we take him out of his nature, but that's not okay for us, so we put him to sleep"

We live in a society, and yes maybe some people are taking it as a meme, but we are living in a society where the human is been taking as a number. Doctors etc. take a bill for you, if you have an appointment, you are just a bill at the end. Why are you acting like there is no violence with us? There is a lot of violence.

There are serial killers, mass murderers, murderers on it's own. People torture others, kill others, and much more. Yes, maybe we mastered to live in bigger groups, but did it really do better for us? Or did it just do everything much worse?

Sabratha wrote:

gayforwilla wrote:

It is crazy. I think, as I already said, that you shouldn't take an animal out of the nature, just like the modern human.

I would not make such a broad generalization. Most cats and dogs are perfectly happy living with their owners. Most don't lose their instincts, their ability to hunt etc.

gayforwilla wrote:

And if you take a chimpanzee out of their nature, it will be similar to the human. They start to get violent, and in the worst case they will start to kill, because the animal's nature is suppressed.

Chimpanzees are violent in their natural habitat. Chimp groups actively attack one another, killing and maiming. A war between chimps is as violent as war between humans. Chimps also hunt, kill and eat other primates.

We aren't that dissimilar from them. If anything, they appear to be a bit more violent than we are. We mastered the ability to live in huge groups - most of us live surrounded by thousands of other people and we go though our whole life without killing another member of our own species. Chimps never gained that ability.

I'm not trying to give a sweeping "civilization = good, nature = bad" argument. But I would advise against making a sweeping condemnation of civilization either.

And isn't the homo sapiens himself violent in it's natural habitat? We always do war, we always did. We needed that area, where always that type of us lived. We always lived and fighted for the area where we were. We just defend our territory.

Just like chimpanzees do. They may look a bit more violent than we do at the first look, but they just do the same as we do. Think about it. We even are more violent. We make nuclear bombs, and even destroy whole cities. I bet we even would destroy whole countries, if it would be better for us in a war.

Do you think that nuclear war is less violent, than what chimpanzees do to theirselves?

gayforwilla wrote:

But is it better that "cat-dogs" civilization in today's society is better than it should be?
Just because cats or dogs insert better in our today's society and being socially, it isn't directly better. They are forced into it.

They are forced either way. The domestic cat that is born inside a house and lives her whole life as a pet is forced. But a feral cat that is born in the forest and lives her whole life there or in the streets - she's also forced into that. There's precious little choice out there for wild animals.

Also, you have many cats who live in detached houses and they just freely roam the countryside, but still come back to their owners for food, for shelter and for affection. Than can leave at any time, but never choose to do so.

Then there are what we call "semi-feral" cats: they live away from humans, but will still come to us for food or affection (I have such a semi-feral cat visit me at my summer cottage at times).

gayforwilla wrote:

Usually, cats and dogs are used as animals that are used for farms etc. to protect them, to get rats, mice etc. away from our farms. But nowadays, dogs and cats get violent and then put to sleep.

We did the same thing for ages, not just nowadays. Dogs that were too aggressive or just got too old to do their duties were often killed and replaced with a new dog. That sort of mentality is still around, if anything we pay more attention to animal rights than we ever did in the past.

I'm not saying we should vilify everything about the past, but we shouldn't glamorize it either. Life in the 1600s or the 800s was much tougher than it is now, both for man and his domesticated cats and dogs.

gayforwilla wrote:

The reason why we put them to sleep, is because we remove them from their natural habitat, we treat them completely wrong. And then they get violent.

Cats are violent in their natural habitat, so are dogs. They hunt and kill other animals to eat, they fight between themselves for territory, for food or for mating rights. They don't get more violent in a domesticated setting, if anything they get less violent because they no longer have to fight to fulfill their basic needs.

The idea that society creates violence is false. Violence was there before society ever existed, both in the animal realm and in early hominids.

gayforwilla wrote:

We live in a society, and yes maybe some people are taking it as a meme, but we are living in a society where the human is been taking as a number. Doctors etc. take a bill for you, if you have an appointment, you are just a bill at the end.

Yep, agreed. But at the same time, was it so different in the past? Now you may be just a number, but 300 years ago you were as likely to be "just a serf working the land" or "just some footsoldier, another pair of hands to fire a musket".

gayforwilla wrote:

Why are you acting like there is no violence with us? There is a lot of violence.

There are serial killers, mass murderers, murderers on it's own. People torture others, kill others, and much more. Yes, maybe we mastered to live in bigger groups, but did it really do better for us? Or did it just do everything much worse?

There is indeed violence, yes.

On average, living in large groups made it a bit better. The percentage of people killed in "industrialized war", even huge conflicts like ww1 is actually lower than the percentage of people who died violently in small nomadic cultures ike the Amazonian Yanomamo.

For a good anthropological source about war in small nomadic societies, I suggest the book " War Before Civilization" by Lawrence H. Keeley. It is currently available free at archive.org, link below:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]