Comments on: Civilization Vs. Rewilding

By: Urban Scout

Urban Scout — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:47:06 +0000

http://www.rewildportland.com/urbanscout-archive/noble-savage-vs-rewilding/

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:14:52 +0000

I agree with your definition of Civilization, but how does “Rewilding” differ from the myth of the noble savage?

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:18:50 +0000

Not only that, but the Maya civilization collapsed…as have all civilizations of the past. We can presume that the Aztec and Inca civilizations, had they not been invaded by Europeans, would eventually fall too. And we can presume that ours will fall just like any other. In fact it is falling right now. All of the indicators point to an ongoing process of collapse, when you consider the historical evidence.

By: Willem

Willem — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 20:44:27 +0000

Yes, I think once food starts traveling to distant central distribution points, you have officially abandoned “indigenousness” (by definition, “native to or occurring in a particular place”).

By: Urban Scout

Urban Scout — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 23:28:14 +0000

Yes, I agree that those were civilizations. Those examples support my definition too.

By: Peter D

Peter D — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:54:11 +0000

Hi Scout.

Interesting read. But I have one minor quibble.

Indigenous peoples did not live in a culture of civilization because they did not practice full-time agriculture, nor grow to live in such density that they required imported agriculturally produced grains from a distant country.

While this is true of most Indigenous peoples, there are notable exceptions – the Inca, Aztec, and Maya. All had extensive landmasses under their control which they conquered and used that land to produce food for the entire “empire.” They were also hierarchical. In all definitions of the word, these were civilizations (with minor exceptions, such as not forcing those they conquered to adopt their cultural practices – OK, maybe that’s not such a minor difference).

By: Willem

Willem — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:34:34 +0000

Johnny:

I agree with Scout and Roxanne – I respect your curiousity about this complex puzzle we call Civilization, and really encourage you to follow up with other resources.

Without understanding that Civilization merely represents one (unsustainable) expression of the countless (sustainable) tens of thousands of human cultures since the emergence of culture-bearing hominids, you may find yourself mired in the exact trap that Scout warns us about. Namely, conflating Humanity with Civilization, Culture with Agriculture, Collapse with Human Nature, and so on.

Myths, amongst every other culture that ever lived, support a sustainable and celebratory relationship between a people and their environment; Civilization stands alone in possessing Myths that encourage the enslavement of its peoples in service to the devouring of the World and every thing in it.

The Thirty Theses certainly lay this all out pretty clearly. Check ‘em out!

By: Urban Scout

Urban Scout — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:18:54 +0000

Hey Johnny, No offense taken. It seems you don’t understand what we’re talking about here; you seem to have an unclear understanding of what makes a civilization a civilization. No worries. Perhaps reading Jason Godesky’s 30 theses would help?

http://anthropik.com/thirty/

By: Jonny Be Good returns....

Jonny Be Good returns.... — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:10:39 +0000

i feel that maybe i should clarify the point that i was trying to make. within our society, and the teaching of this modern Civilization [and all the pious connotations attached] we are taught that the big C and culture go hand-in-hand. they are symbiotic. One group will make a form of art, or dance, or temples that feeds the need of their society and the growth or their civilization. even on a smaller scale such as a tribe or clan. these works of / or results of culture are in fact myths, stories, abstracts, and in fact are created to ease the burden of their existence.
maybe it is the fact that we are taught that they [culture and civilization] are synonymous with each other. this could be the heart of such confusion [myself included]. But i do think that for Urban Scout the big C is only defined as the big bad word that we are currently surrounded with. Not past Civilizations, aside from tribes. in fact, do you think that any sort of civilization that comes after the destruction of ours would be a good thing? [just as a general question, as i want to understand all sides of the discussion]
let me clarify another thing, i do not think that the work that Urban Scout is writing bull or any other such nonsense. in fact i support his principles. it was that from the feel of this specific writing that Civilization [whether myth or not] and culture are one and therefore evil. i just think that in some ways i am more pessimistic then Scout. i don’t think the big C is unnatural. in fact i think that humans love it because it surrounds them with a false security blanket. we are whores for comfort, and will always drive towards that. but when i see Scout’s definition of civilization, i realized that this viewpoint is very narrow. as some may consider mine to be.
admittedly i should read your Agriculture Vs. Rewilding as i do want clarification of exactly what you mean by “culture of civilization”
please do not take this as a personal attack. i just do see eye-to-eye with you on this specific subject. and Roxanne, i do feel that though Civilization isn’t the same as culture, it is intertwined. we were raised this way, millions and billions of us. scholars teach us that they rely on each other [not to bring up a dispute on the school system] humans do these create culture because they have a civilization to do it for. all im saying is that Scout sees our current Civilization as negative and concludes [or so it appears, i am assuming] that all civilizations are wrong and unnatural and so it the culture attached to it.
i say let this world fall the shit and give the humans a wake up call to pull their heads out of their asses. and perhaps create a wonderful civilization.

By: Christine

Christine — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:03:39 +0000

Awesome writing Scout!

Thank you for enlightening me and then some!

Keep on pumping,

Christine

By: roxanne

roxanne — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:50:56 +0000

Sorry for the additional comment, but I realized it would be good to say right away, to “Jonny be good” (since you are the first commentor to whom I am referring) that I don’t mean my comment personally. I’m just commenting on how __we all and each__, as members of this culture of civilization, are participants in the mythic definition of this culture of civilization. As such, to be able to define our participation (in other words to freely own our lives by defining who we are, what we doing, and what our purpose is, as Scout so painstakingly works to do here), we have to start to see how __we all and each__ are infected / impacted / held captive by this culture. So, my comment about the first comment is just astonishment about the difficulty of that task, whether one writes about it, and / or one reads about it, and / or one rewilds it….

By: roxanne

roxanne — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:38:40 +0000

Wow. My head is spinning, Scout—As I’ll bet yours was, to write this. I’m still reading it, and I’m enjoying that! I’m enjoying it because it so thoroughly deals with that experience so common to so many of us who try to talk to people about industrial / civilization (and its inherent unsustainability)–That common experience of people immediately reacting with their eyes glazing over, or people getting defensive (taking it personally), or people immediately disagreeing without truly understanding what civilization is… It’s maddening, and what you’re doing here peels a lot of that away, and is giving me ideas for how to address it… And so, while reading it, I took a break and scrolled down to read comments, and I saw that the very first comment does exactly what you’re trying to address!!!!!!!! (confuses culture with civilization!!!) Aaaargh!!! *holds shaking head in hands*

By: Urban Scout

Urban Scout — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:05:34 +0000

You've read me wrong. I never said "culture" is the problem. In fact, it's implied that it isn't since all I ever do is talk about how indigenous cultures lived sustainably. The culture of civilization is unsustainable and not humanity. Humanity has had culture for millions of years, and lived sustainably, so I'm not "against" culture at all and never said I was. I'm against the culture of civilization, which is only made possible through agriculture: see Agriculture Vs. Rewilding.

By: Jonny be good

Jonny be good — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:57:52 +0000

Civilization and the consequences of it shouldnâ€™t be kept separate. Yet there is an oversight here, Human like Civilization [with a capital C]. The big C equals comfort from nature and has given us to free time to create culture. I agree that our society, Civilization, is turning on itself, but that doesnâ€™t mean that culture itself is bad. Humans have a drive to tell their stories [myths] and to create [rituals]. A complete post-apocalyptic breakdown of Civilization could only temporarily halt that need. What you are auguring is semantics.
I do agree that â€œweâ€ need to change, desperately, but as a person who appreciates cultures, you interpretation falls short for me. But I do respect what you are saying.