REJECTING CIVILIZATION
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow the earth from our children" ~Native American Proverb
"The earth does not belong to humans; humans belong to the earth"
A common theme to most in our culture is that the earth was put here for human beings (or at least those among the civilized); that humans are the peak of evolution. Most in this culture tend to believe that humans have somehow evolved beyond the limits of what we so often call "Nature". They believe that humans are separate from all other animals, and in fact often fall into this belief that we are not animals -when nothing could be further from the truth. Humans are made of flesh, of bones and of blood. We eat and we drink; and we piss and we shit. We are organic material that comes from the dirt and returns to the dirt. In the words of Tyler Durden, "we are all part of the same compost heap
Yet, the average bloke in our culture tends to believe that although we are made of such organic materials; we are still separate from that. The "weak flesh" of the body -that which decays- is often shrugged off as a mere temporary vessel for a spirit or ego that is some how separate from that flesh and that we are only our minds and our thoughts. The belief goes that we are superior to both "Nature" itself and the many plants and animals around us because of our "intelligence", or because of our "language". It is believed that only humans can communicate with one another and that we are the sole possessors of this so-called "intelligence"
So what is this "intelligence" then that makes humans so great and special. I suppose one might expect the answer lies in our neat little innovations and technologies; our ways to manipulate and use the natural landbases to our sole advantage. For example we may hear that agriculture saved humans from some dark and grueling existence in a wild and untamed world; a world where one had to live in caves and carry a spear; an environment that was cruel and where one never knew where danger was lurking; a horrible existence of having to spend all day searching for food. And so one day some brilliant young hunter-gatherer realized that if we tilled the soil and we planted seeds we could grow our own food and not depend upon the food that nature provided. And with this they discovered, too, that if you captured animals and bred them you would never have to hunt again....
Intelligent indeed then, it would seem. But how intelligent was such a shift in finding sustenance? Was the hunter-gather life really so cruel in the first place? The answer to both these questions can be found in the answer we commonly know as "no". According to a large percent of anthropologists -those who study human beings and their ancestors through time and space and in relation to physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture- most hunter-gatherer cultures "worked" as little as 2-4 hours per day satisfying the needs of themselves and their community while the average agriculturist would most often from "sun up to sun down
One could also question whether such a thing as "work" even existed in these hunter-gatherer cultures. The act of hunting was looked at as a ritual and was done not in vain, but spiritually –the same way they experienced all parts of their life. How many people that go to work today look at their job as being a spiritual experience? In agricultural society, one had to do what could literally be called "back-breaking work". One would have to spend most of their day in the field tending to their crops. They would need to till the soils, and irrigate their fields. They would become very much dependent on the crops to grow. And so, the tending was very important to be kept up with daily
Hunter-gatherers certainly were depending on the growth of food as well. And they were dependent on the animals of the forest to be abundant. Certainly times would come when they would have to move to a new area when food became scarce. But one must ask whether this is a hardship or a convenience. Indeed if we think about this -it is a convenience. The hardship lies in the reliance of one single area. In other words nomadic tribes had a freedom that the sedentary cultures did not. For the nomadic hunter-gather, one must only pack up their limited possessions and move on to the another landbase with the knowledge and way of living that allowed them to simply hunt and gather wild foods. For if the agriculturist's -a sedentary culture- crops did not produce then the community could not simply pick up and go and would go through much hardship. A lack of ability to survive in the wild held them from being able to hunt and gather for their food, and moving was more difficult because one needs more possessions in order to farm and many kept domesticated animals that would need to be herded with the "tribe"
Maybe you are thinking that although it may have been tougher, it made way for great new technologies! A sign of civilized humans true superiority over the rest of the natural world including these savage primitives! I suppose if we are talking about the ability to grow and expand and essentially to conquer... then yes, superior indeed but, what of intelligence?
So the question then becomes, "was it smart to create these great new technologies; to inhibit the growth of cities via agriculture; to expand and conquer?" Let's look at what's come from such things:
New technologies that grew out of agricultural societies were meant for agriculture. Their purpose was to make agriculture more efficient, and in some cases easier, but still wound up just as time consuming because you were now trying to be more productive and grow more food; and you are still very much dependent upon the success of each crop. These technologies essentially created an ability to grow ever so much more food and in turn gave societies the green light to make some extra babies. (Part of being settled down means you can have as many babies as you can feed and not have to worry about traveling long distances with them)
With people settling down and populations increasing -cities would form. As well, with more surplus foods being available certain kinds of rule had to be established to protect that food and find ways of distributing it. Systems had to be created and controlled. In come kingships or hierarchies. With kingships you were able to have a few people benefiting from the now established systems while the rest would have to work all day to keep that system together and working
This new population growth and establishment of cities is something akin to a cancerous growth upon the land. The more people living in one area over extended periods of time -and growing no less- means a need to expand and to use that land for the needs of the city dwellers. This wreaks serious havoc upon the landbase. The need for additional agriculture means the need to till more soil. Since that soil often lies upon the forest floor; there is then the need for deforestation -the cruel destruction of the natural world
Another aspect of the growth of cities is warfare. Warfare comes most commonly when the one city or empire feels it must expand its territory -and it must. The reason it must is because cities in and of themselves are not sustainable in the long term. Cities require the use of the land outside it's own borders in order to build, grow or simply sustain. As a cancer is to the skin, a city is to the landbase. It spreads its tentacles and destroys what it touches, forever needing to span further outwards. And so this often will mean coming into contact with other cities which also must expand. So the war is really a battle for "resources". And it's not just other cities that war is made upon but, the many indigenous tribes that stand in the way of such expansion. And that is to say nothing of the fact that the real war is being made upon the very earth herself
This is where other new technologies came into play; the need for weaponry. And so the growth of technologies was meant for either raping the land more efficiently or waging war upon your fellow humans more efficiently. Smart? Intelligent? Humans being are part of nature and depend upon her existence. What intelligent creature would wage war upon that which it depended on most? Ask yourself this: "would a beaver cut down every tree in the forest? Would a bear kill every salmon in the river until there was none left? What intelligent animal destroys its own land and food in which they are dependent upon? Would that creature not lack intelligence if it was to destroy all which it needs in order for the survival of not only itself, but of its children?"
This is not at all to say that humans in general are dumb. Certainly they are not. Humans are a beautiful and intelligent creature capable of wondrous things. The humans I speak of here are those of the civilized. Those who have followed a path that is much like that of jumping off a cliff and believing you are flying. The ground is coming fast and yet you continue to believe that you are flying; refusing to look below you at your impending doom. And those that do see the ground believe that the very same thing that led them to think they could fly in the first place will be what will save them. In other words the belief that: although technology has brought humans (and the earth) to this point, it is technology that is going to get us out of this mess –pure insanity
Many of those living in modern civilization easily detest such notions of hunter-gathers being better equipped at living on the earth. They will detest any positive outlook of tribal societies as mere romanticizing -despite large amounts of evidence showing how efficient and effective their economies and societies actually were. People look upon anyone who suggests taking into consideration these facts as wanting to "go back". This statement that "we can not go back" comes largely from the arrogant concept of progress. Our culture has been led to believe that civilization is progress; that we are moving forward towards something. Today that common belief in progress stems from the idea that civilized humans will soon be living in some sort of, as Jerry Mander author of, "In the Absence of the Sacred" has called it, "technotopia"; a world in which trees will be made in test tubes and our genes will be manipulated or machines will be made that allow us to live longer or forever; a world where robots do all of our labor intensive activities; and a world were people live on mars and the moon. The civilized idea of progress is abstract from ourselves and the living world around us. Instead of considering progress as how well the society works and how happy the members of that society are -instead of considering the effect this particular way of life has on the land as well as future inhabitants of that land -human and nonhuman- progress is measured by how efficiently we are able to clear cut a forest, or vacuum the oceans of her fish, or "develop"- read destroy- the land. Progress is measured by the growth of cities and populations. Progress is measured by the technologies created by that society. In the eyes of the civilized: personal computers –which separate us from a real and natural environment- are progress; cars and SUV's –which require massive destruction of the environment that once gave us birth and now gives us life- are progress; iPods ™ -which keep us shut out from a reality we no longer enjoy; or block out the sounds of the other machines; or even of other humans we no longer wish to enter into relationships with; and block out -when in "Nature"- the language of birds and bees and other musical creatures- are progress; televisions –which display false realities and again separate us from the real and natural world; which help us to cope with a reality in which we no longer enjoy; which is an opiate for the working masses; that displays mass propaganda from the corporate and governmental machines telling you to consume your life away while not questioning authority- are seen as progress. None of which truly enhances our lives; and certainly does not enhance the life of the natural world in which we are dependent upon
It's not unexpected that people who live among this culture have a problem with rejecting the very concept of civilization. We've been raised since our very birth to believe and accept that this is the One True Way to live. That other ways of living are simply not right, or inferior. As Daniel Quinn, author of "Ishmael", has stated, "there is no one right way to live." The concept of this being the One True Way was taught to us by our parents, pounded into us throughout school and of course via TV. And by the time we make it out into the so-called "real–world" we have no other choice but to accept it if we wish to survive. In other words we have no choice but to "grow up" and "get a job"… that is if we wish to put a roof over our heads, food on our tables, and clothes on our back. We are dependent on this way of life in order to survive, but survival is sold to us at the cost of our lives
So how then does one break such bonds and beliefs? How can we change the way we think and live when we've been conditioned to believe in the One True Way –civilization. For starters we must begin to question every piece of information we receive. We must question all the basic assumptions and memes that have been ingrained into our psyches. We must look into our hearts for the answers to all our questions. We must follow our hearts closely and search out new ways of living. We must reject civilization and move beyond it and teach others the same. We must start acting to protect what bits of the natural world are still alive and work towards bringing life back into the areas that civilization has infected and destroyed with its machines, concretes, and asphalt. On a planet that is reaching a tipping point ecologically we must do this as unwaveringly as possible and by whatever means necessary. We must listen to not only our own hearts, but to the many voices of the land that are speaking constantly around us
This of course is not an easy task. You may be ridiculed for not "going with the flow." This is to be expected, like Derrick Jensen, author of "Endgame: the Problem Civilization", has said "the culture and most of its members are insane" –quite literally. The path you are taking will be a "radical" one; one that will not be understood by all. Nevertheless there is a growing understanding among many that a radical change is necessary if we are to save our planet from its impending doom -forced upon her by civilization. Many are still in their beginning stages -only now beginning to wake up and see the destruction and the realistic and very sad possibilities of ecological collapse
Does this mean we should just find a forest and run away? No. It means we must make a stand. We must fight. We must unlearn our civilized ways. We must bring these realities to the table everywhere we go. We must work towards change. As creatures of the earth and as members of a species guilty of such atrocities –we must take responsibility; we must relearn and reestablish a relationship to the earth and act as though we are a part of her –which we very much are. We must learn to respect the entire community of life from the greatest whale to the smallest insect… It's been said "the meek shall inherit the earth"; but how can that be true without those are not willing to have such patience as to just sit by and watch the earth being raped; without those who are not easily imposed upon and submissive; without those who will stand and fight on the side of the earth, the giver of life. For if the meek are to borrow the earth from their children -for if there is even an earth to "borrow", then more than ever is there a need for those willing to fight to protect her..
composed by fellow thought criminal:
KOYAANISQATSI - ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living. 
