It's good to see that LW too can be really human sometimes

Because i have a visual memory, i can easily remember names if i associate them to a special detail of the appearence of the person.

We have a census that tells you the answer: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lhg/2014_survey_results/

In your opinion, what is the age and the average level of study of the users of LessWrong ?

What do you mean by "necessary"? They certainly grow organically.

Yeah sorry in fact i'm french and the expression to say that is "fait pour vivre" and i translated it literally

That not the issue.

I just wanted to ask if the humans are biolocally and mentally very able to live

Human very obviously live in a society like ours. We know that because we can observe that we live, that we are humans and that we are in our society. It's a quite easy logical deduction.

(Is "Are big societies optimal for human happiness/quality of life," a fair rephrasing of your question?)

I've been asking myself similar questions lately. As pointed out "made to live" implies things that never happened, in that humans weren't created, nor were the current societies/civilizations ever consciously designed or created. They just sort of happened.

Since both humans and societies got to where they are through mostly unthinking processes, it's easy to see how things didn't end up optimal.

Humans were hunter-gatherers for most of their existence. It's hard to intuitively grasp how long a time that is, but I find this quote helpful (source):

If the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day, from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p. m. we adopted agriculture.

Without wanting to get into bad evolutionary sciences, I think it's reasonably fair that even modern humans are mostly adapted for the hunter-gatherer life, with a couple of more modern modules thrown in. It's also reasonably fair that humans were mostly "made" to live in small tribes, hunting and gathering.

Agriculture (and later writing, the printing press, the Industrial Revolution, computers...) gave us reasons to not be hunter-gatherers any more and my naive assessment is that a good number of those reasons are good ones. It's just that our bodies and brains haven't caught up.

So where am I going with this? I'm not sure. What I'm trying to say is that I think it's better to say that (our) big societies weren't made for humans (at least, they're not optimal for humans), rather than saying that humans weren't made for big societies.

This might be the stupid questions thread but at the same time I don't think it belongs here. "Made to life" implies a designer with a purpose which is not a basic stable of LW.

To be a proper question, define exactly what you want to know instead of appealing to ill-defined concepts to make a point.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/05/a-cascade-of-dunbar-numbers/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number Those links may interest you

Depends on what you mean by "made to live". We certainly gravitate toward them.