International Rewilding Discussion Forum

My escape plan.  So far, so good.  Still on schedule.

We should all get together and meet up.

You're right, everything in life requires risk, and you never know until you try.

So go jump off a bridge.

C'mon ... oh, you don't know you're going to die until you try it!

Well isn't that just a cop out, though?

Risks are not all created equal.  Some risks are worth taking; others are sure to turn out badly.  Running off into "the wilderness" alone, or while civilization is still growing, is no more a "risk" than jumping off a bridge.  You will fail, just like the long, long, long line of people who tried it before you.

Does that make rewilding useless?  Of course not!  You can make yourself a little more feral every day without buying into the Romantic nonsense of running off into "the wilderness."  (And, as I said before, just using the term "the wilderness" should raise a huge red flag that whoever said it doesn't understand what they're talking about.)  Because if you're becoming more feral every day, and civilization is tipping a little more every day, then you're eventually going to reach the point where that risk tips, and then it's time to make a break for it.

So if you believe in rewilding, is it a cop out to pursue rewilding thoughtfully, effectively, in a way that will work, when you could make a suicidal break for it and get crushed?  No, I don't think it is.

Fenris, your plan sounds an awful lot like mine.  I guess you're copping out, too.   That approach is sensible, but following that won't have you running out into "the wilderness" any time soon.

Ando, you sound as if you think community is just a great thing to have.  That's a very civilized attitude to have, the kind of attitude that gets you killed if you try to wander off into "the wilderness."  Ask a native person, and they'll tell you the exact opposite: the community is all that matters.  Living in civilization to keep your community?  So what, at least you still have your community.  No native would ever think it a good idea to abandon their community for "the wilderness," no matter what kind of mess their community was in.

Of course, the lone outdoorsman striking out into the wilderness is the icon of Romantic mythology that stirs the Western imagination, so it's hardly surprising to hear it invoked and yearned for.  But pursuing that gets plenty of people killed, because it's a myth.  That's not how native people lived, and out there, all the civilized notions you never knew you had will get you killed.

Did you hear they're making a movie out of Into the Wild?  That makes it onto every primitivist reading list for good reason.

Why are you so hostile to people here who are considering going into the wilderness making a stand against the civilized world?

Forgive me if I am wrong but, I was under the impression that this is a primitivism website.

Quote from: jason on August 22, 2007, 02:09:56 PM

Probably not; they're probably just walking off to their deaths.  Why would I want to join in that?

Which could be true, but I feel the same way in Civilization, except in civilization you know what the main causes of death are, how they come about, and how modern medical practices attempt to 'save' people. Without it, currently we don't know, we can think, what might be our cause of death if we leave civilization? Eat something poisonous and die (into the wild)? Just get sick (who knows from what) and die (unable to sustain oneself)? Attacked by large predators (thrown at people all over the news)? Hunted by the government/police/ etc.? "Hunted" by man, i.e. shot at? Break a leg or other body part and be crippled and die to the elements?

What are some more ways that leaving civilization is like walking into death (Metaphorically speaking, to me, it is, but with death there is also birth).

We know these things, they are always thrown out at us in the media, in our fears, and show us how civilization is much safer..
However most of the deaths through these incidents seem only to happen if one were alone.. A broken bone can be healed, and with a supportive group one should not die because of it.. Sickness can be overcome.. With a group determining if something is safe or unsafe, there may contain more knowledge..

I'd have to say to me, Rewilding takes a four point plan. 1) Learning the skills and lore (plant and animal). 2) Developing thought, mind, and spirit (rewilding language, mind etc). 3) Forming a group, -family-, friends, to support, share, experience with, and learn from. 4) Creating a plan, a solid way, path, to break from civilization, and freely, and I mean freely, and becoming a new 'nation'.

The way I see it........... Civilization is a slow death of enslavement, humiliation and hypocrisy.

If I had a choice,  I would rather make my stand dying on my own two feet then on my knees in the service to someone else.

Probably not; they're probably just walking off to their deaths.  Why would I want to join in that?

Where Have All the Savages Gone?
Why walking off into "the wilderness" is probably suicidal right now, and for at least a few years to come.  (Also, anybody who talks about "the wilderness" obviously owes more of his experience to Romantic philosophy than any experience with the more-than-human world; see also, "Wilderness & Its Troubles.")

Probably not; they're probably just walking off to their deaths.  Why would I want to join in that?

Isn't that just a cop out though?  There is risks in everything that people do and the only way people will know anything for certain is by taking the risk of their goals.

I have read all the internet articles of the nay sayers who preach rewilding but still live in cities with the very things they oppose at the same time and frankly I don't understand a bit of it. 

Now if you have a family to attend like some members here that is the only thing I can fully understand but if you don't , what exactly is stopping you besides fear?

Yes, because, you know, I'd like to do that.

No, because my family & I aren't ready for it.

With a family that is understandable.

I am more wondering about the solitare members here.

If someone came to you and said that they plan to move into the wilderness the following day, would you be eager to join with them?

If not, why?

( Think of this thread as a analogical possibility.)

Quote from: rix

I think they can be as formal or informal as they evolve to be.  In cultures developed over millenia, I think the societies would lean more towards a higher formality.

Quote from: TheJoker

My description only pertains to isolated primitive cultures.

I think that once any culture acquires private property, agriculture and a centralized leadership it then becomes a civilization as those three things are the hallmarks of civility.

If by "informal existences" you meant to refer to a lack of complexity and hierarchy, then I understand what you mean.  Ownership, agriculture (as distinguished from horticulture) and centralized leadership definitely stand as the red flags of civilization.

Quote from: rix

More prone than what?  Than indigenous cultures?  Actually, I think civilization's creativity and intellectualism pale in comparison to indigenous example I have seen.

Quote from: TheJoker

I meant to say that civilization is more prone to creativity and intellectualism as we know it today conventionally.

I am not saying a tribe doesn't have these attributes but merely saying that such things hold more prominence in civilized cultures.

So you're saying civilization is more prone to produce civilized art and civilized intellectualism?  Yes, civilization is more prone to be civilized.  The air is also more prone to be airy, and water is more prone to be wet.

If you're saying that civilized creativity and intellectualism differ from the creativity and intellectualism of indigenous people, then I would agree.  But I can't agree with the idea that art an intellectualism hold more prominence in civilized cultures than in wild ones.  In fact, I would think the opposite holds true.  Art and creativity pervade even the most mundane artifacts in indigenous cultures, and the brains of wild people have not gone through the 10% attrition that our domesticated brains have endured.

They definitely use their creativity and intellectualism differently than we do.  We tend to use them for escape.  Our art takes us out of this life we hate, our thoughts and philosophies try to find a way to rationalize or explain the things we hate about our culture.  Indigenous art, on the other hand, upholds the relationships between man and the rest of the universe.

Quote from: rix

Sure.  But that doesn't make it any more self-fulfilling.  It still defeats itself in the end.

Quote from: TheJoker

Agreed.  I think somewhere in this conversation we got lost in translation  but essentially we are saying the same thing.

No, you started out the conversation saying something self-contradictory, and I showed you the contradiction.  In no way does that work out to indicate us saying the same thing.  Maybe you meant to say the things I said, but you definitely didn't.  In fact, you said the opposite.

If by "informal existences" you meant to refer to a lack of complexity and hierarchy, then I understand what you mean.  Ownership, agriculture (as distinguished from horticulture) and centralized leadership definitely stand as the red flags of civilization.

That's what I mean.

If you're saying that civilized creativity and intellectualism differ from the creativity and intellectualism of indigenous people, then I would agree.

That's also what I meant.

They definitely use their creativity and intellectualism differently than we do.  We tend to use them for escape.  Our art takes us out of this life we hate, our thoughts and philosophies try to find a way to rationalize or explain the things we hate about our culture.  Indigenous art, on the other hand, upholds the relationships between man and the rest of the universe.

I can agree with that.

No, you started out the conversation saying something self-contradictory, and I showed you the contradiction.  In no way does that work out to indicate us saying the same thing.  Maybe you meant to say the things I said, but you definitely didn't.  In fact, you said the opposite.

................... Sure.

Yes, but you constantly frame survival as a battle with nature, and you use your strength to win that battle.

This is wrong. A survivor cooperates with nature. It's not a battle, it's a dance.

Strength and courage are the highest manifestations of man eh? In other terms, physical prowess and risky behavior. Admirable under certain circumstances, I can agree to. But highest manifestation? I wouln't go that far. Most of history's "Strong men" were the one's who forged civilization out of wilderness. I think a case could be made that humanity is worse off for it.

Yes, but you constantly frame survival as a battle with nature, and you use your strength to win that battle.

What I am talking about is the strength of an individual that battles adversity by becoming a strong balanced part of nature. 

I have never spoke about battling nature.

Strength and courage are the highest manifestations of man eh? In other terms, physical prowess and risky behavior. Admirable under certain circumstances, I can agree to. But highest manifestation? I wouln't go that far. Most of history's "Strong men" were the one's who forged civilization out of wilderness. I think a case could be made that humanity is worse off for it.

The strength I am talking about is the battling of adversity within nature.

A lion utilizes its strength to battle adversity everyday and as a species does no harm to nature at all while at the same time being very ecological as a predatory species.