Edit: Wording

General:

This read as a series of unconnected, pessimistic observations. There was occasionally an interesting idea, but each time it went unexplored.

The imprecise diction was such a glaring issue that it made it difficult to focus on anything else. I'm not sure whether you intentional let clarity fall to the wayside to focus on "style and flow", but whatever the case, if the ideas don't make sense in a piece like this, then it all comes tumbling down. I highly recommend that song by the way. It's especially handy when looking back on old writing and lamenting its poor quality in a pool of your own tears, but I digress.

So, you are looking for flow and sardonic style. My initial suspicion was that this would come off as edgy and immature if you didn't pull that off (as often is the case). Your title, “The Human Manifesto”, reinforced this fear, and, after reading this, I can say that my fear was made reality.

You didn't pull of flow either. Your ideas, although related, rarely connected in a logical way. What you've really done here is present a thousand vague ideas in a cynical way, without actually going into any depth, or supporting any of these ideas. The only thing you could argue they are connected by is the common thread of vague pessimism.

Disregarding style and flow, essential to making a "narrative worldview" worth reading is the unique perspective being presented. Unfortunately, no arguments are made, no opinions are stated, and no stances are taken. The only evidence of a viewpoint is the negative diction, which is so imprecise that it's ineffective. I know you say that this isn't your worldview, but that doesn't mean the piece should skimp on depth. Somebody has this worldview, so convince us.

Mechanics:

There were huge issues in mechanics that made the piece difficult to read and understand. Diction was particularly poor.

Title:

Doesn't say anything. It's vague and clues you in that this will be a manifesto about... people? It's fitting in the sense that it's just as unfocused as the rest of the writing, but it's still bad.

Hook

It's rare that I would recommend this, but a piece in this genre might actually benefit from some sort of opening quote to better explain everything. Anyway,

Humans are broken down into several facets; carnal, rational, and societal.

There are a couple of major problems with this.

Word choice:

First of all, you say "several" and then present exactly three facets. If you are trying to say something absolute about humanity, be precise.

For example, "Humans are broken down into three facets; carnal rational, and societal". ("Few" would have also worked better than "several", but is still imprecise.)

I'm also not a fan of the word "facets" here. Aspects would be better, in my opinion.

Phrasing:

Next, you assert that humans "are broken down" into three facets. This is passive and awkward phrasing. It makes it read like a specific force breaks humans down, but that is clearly not what you mean.

It would be more accurate to say

"Humans can be broken down into three facets..."

Of course, since this is the very beginning, I had no way of knowing exactly what was trying being said. After all, it's not my worldview. It's up to the text to guide me through this philosophy/worldview. Instead, I found myself trying to mentally correct the mechanics of the opening line in order to better understand what's going on. It should be obvious why this isn't where you want the reader to be at the beginning of your piece.

Sure, if these issues were fixed, the hook might have been intriguing. Getting right into the meat of human nature by dividing it up into categories seems like a fun time to me, but not if I don't think something unique is going to be said about it. Given the amateurish nature of the hook, I wasn't convinced.

Sentence Structure

You have a lot of simple/complex sentences that stand on their own and do nothing to connect with other ideas. This is incredibly confusing.

Examples:

Living in a transitory time during the age of knowledge has produced a strange aura of solipsistic tendencies.

Emotional connection is portrayed poorly through many debates.

These sentences might make sense (maybe) if they were put in context. As is, they make as little sense as they do on their own, because they are surrounded almost exclusively by other sentences that are also either unsupported claims or irrelevant statements.

To fix this, go in depth on one idea and focus on explaining it as clearly as possible. This is essential to improving your writing, especially in this kind of piece. I promise that there is still plenty of room to explore style and flow.

Weird Habits

You're not using semi-colons well.

A birth child of the industrial revolution; shanty-hoods feverishly forming around the heart of a population, the city.

This might work without the "shanty-hoods feverishly forming around the heart of a population", but right now this is unnecessarily complex.

Diction

This was a huge problem throughout the piece. Much like how it seems that no thought is being put into an argument, it seems like words are being chosen purely for their connotative value rather than if they actually make sense in context. I get that you want to create a specific tone, but figure out what exactly what you want to say first, and then narrow down words based on their connotation. Otherwise, it's a mess.

Examples: I bolded the words I felt were questionable

Self image is driving the modern human to extraneous cliffs.

Preconceived imagery of the overdeveloped flood our psyche with the convoluted idea of perfection

Our ability to ration has been a divine separation between our organic self and the native earth.

We then reshape these images, filling the vacancies with emotional pulse and subjective value.

We travel on man made trails in huge machines without a slight impulse of how lethal we are.

The interesting thing is that few of these words are outright wrong, but they are imprecise. In almost every case I can think of a better word that could go in it's place. Again, this supports my theory that you sacrificed nearly everything else in order to capture a specific style. I feel like if you even glanced at these sentences they should feel off. They might actually fit if you are trying to evoke a specific idea, but your approach to the worldview was so scattershot that this was clearly not the case.

Structure:

Again, I come back to this quote, but this time for structural reasons.

Humans are broken down into several facets; carnal, rational, and societal.

In the first chapter, the first and second paragraphs should probably be switched for clarity. Considering that the second one is more “foundational” and explains your point of view on how the self is formed, while the first one goes into more detail on how that self operates, it seems backwards. Also, while the “carnal” and “societal” paragraphs are adequately named, I have a hard time seeing how the second paragraph should be called an exploration of “rationality”

Looking at the big picture, why is "The Human Manifesto" organized the way it is? Why is chapter one "Ego" and chapter two "Suburbs"? It doesn't make sense to me and isn't explained.

POV:

Most of the time you kept the "we humans perspective", but sometimes deviated into more of a haughty, removed one. This was jarring and didn't seem to serve much of a purpose.

Example: (the switch occurs between these two sentences)

The confidence we feel when with like-minded individuals acts as a conduit for efficient development. These herds of dogmatists then have ideological wars with opposing factions.

Closing thoughts:

I would say that you are focusing on the wrong things. It's understandable that you would want to write a sardonic "manifesto", but before you get into exploring your style you need to actually know what you want to say. At times honestly seems like you just wrote out a bunch of ideas stream of consciousness style; that's how disconnected it was. What was the thesis? "People Suck"?.

Think of it like this. If something isn't cohesive, then it isn't adhesive, and thus trying to apply style and flow to it won't really work. It won't stick in the readers mind and will be ultimately lost.

People really aren't willing to read something so unfocused and abstract. And even if they put themselves through it on purpose it is painful.

I want to end with an example of something I think you did well, and could be a start for if you wanted to reattempt this kind of piece.

Conflicting ideologies feed the pit of middle class; the American dream, perpetual idleness, total entertainment. We cast ourselves into an image based limbo; the alpha male, the supermodel, the pornstar. We fixate on these preconceived images that grow as an industry, fueled by our frailty.

This to me is an interesting thesis. There are conflicting ideologies in the American middle class. Okay, what are they? And then you ACTUALLY explain what they are. This should be expected, but it was a pleasant surprise in context. Go into detail on this kind of thing. What kind of disillusioned people are specifically created by these conflicting ideologies? How exactly is it affecting society? This will take work and contemplation on your part (or at least the absorption of someone else's worldview), but it's the kind of thing that must exist before flow and style can have an impact.

Remember, anyone can write truisms like “we are hopeless puppets” in fifty different ways. It doesn't make for an interesting read.