I can't seem to get past how our civilization has removed the knowledge that its existence wasn't an inevitable development. That our current state of human affairs could've evolved from a different paradigm. The Fertile Crescent is known as the cradle of human civilization because it provided a platform for humans to potentially live with more leisure. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle was full of nature, balance, unity, and physical and mental health, however it was also something else, which is not commonly spoken about; it was exhausting. In down times they enjoyed life, but migrating and cultivating different areas was downright tiring and often led to unsavory conflicts with other tribes.
The human-centric moniker "Fertile Crescent" didn't exist until our ancestors migrated there. It was simply a temperate region lush with resources, flora and fauna. It was like paradise in the sense that humans didn't have to hunt-and-gather to survive its conditions. It had food, clean water, and a relatively warm climate. Imagine being one of these people: One day you're wandering for food and resources, and the next you find a land that provides an abundance of these resources. Why move around if the resources are as competitively abundant over there as they are over here? The moniker "Fertile Crescent" is human-centric because it highlights the specific area conducive to human colonization, production, and subsistence. Look at any map of the Fertile Crescent and you'll see the lines marking the boundaries. Innocuous, right? Well, nature didn't end on the outskirts of the Crescent, it simply became less bearable for human subsistence. Thus, our history wasn't written just by those who had great ideas and innovations, but by those who made a conscious decision to live more bearably. If they hadn't chosen this, than the civilization as we know it would look wildly different, or may not even exist as all.
Our civilization was developed upon the precept that a sedentary lifestyle provided more leisure time than a hunter-gatherer agrarian. However, the hunter-gatherers, due to their limited entailments, had a great amount of leisure time--when they weren't migrating--throughout the day to dance, communicate, hone weapons, and have sex. Their naturalism didn't clog their affairs up in busy work. In modern day, our highly civilized social paradigm is almost infinitely entailed, with the participants operating the social machinery both compulsorily and via peer pressure, drunken by belief that these activities affirm our uniqueness, entitlement, and significance. The choice to civilize precluded the very leisure that the our ancestors chose to civilize for in the first place, but that knowledge was eagerly erased when the reward of human-centricity and significance was dangled in front of our eyes.
The civilizers chose the sedentary lifestyle because it seemed more bearable than the hunter-gatherer lifestyle because it promised a life of less exhaustion, and more fulfillment. Yet, due to the many external work and production-based activities civilization has produced, I have to conclude that man did not succeed in his initial goal. The real collateral damage is that since he gave up immersion and knowledge of nature, civilized man can't know leisure on the level as our hunter-gatherer ancestors because he no longer experiences their level of sacrifice and exhaustion. He believes he's special and too good for suffering at the hands of nature. Civilization has deadened him.
It serves to note that not every tribe migrating out of Africa chose to civilize. Many chose to maintain their agrarian lifestyle and kept on moving east. They are referred to as primitive savages, and I'm pretty sure that's a pejorative because civilization isn't very tolerant of uncivilized lifestyles. The Primitivists survive happily and unchanged until civilized man moves in and claims their land and resources. Sadly, civilized man feels most alive when he infiltrates nature, and destroys primitive cultures, because it affirms his belief that he really is that significant.
It's convenient and popular--therefore bullshit--to make cosmopolitan "arguments" of whether man is at war with himself, or whether man is at war with nature. I really just think most of man's struggles are due to the mental gymnastics he performs to avoid admitting how destructive our chosen civilization really is.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new essays.