Urban Scout, thanks for the clarification.
I think I was a bit confused about something.
My understanding of rewilding was that it was not a culture in itself, rather it was a catalyst for dismantling civilization.
The point I made about wilderness schools was that help teach people how to be in a group somewhat like a tribe, the intensity of which depends on the school.
But, you clarified by stating:
Wilderness awareness and Primitive skills do not lead to sustainability. The point being; even the first civilizations had primitive tools and wilderness awareness and permaculture and skin on frame boats. In order to teach sustainability, you have to teach the philosophy and science behind rewilding. That is what defines rewilding. That is why rewilding is different than primitive skills, different than wilderness survival, different than permaculture, different than wilderness awareness, different than "getting back to nature", etc. While those elements have to do with rewilding, rewilding refers to a rather large cultural context for using those skills. Without understanding the difference in context, you make the term rewilding just another buzz word for getting back to nature. It loses all meaning and continues to perpetuate civilized mythology.
These schools do not teach the history of civilization and how/why agriculture is destroying the planet, nor how indigenous horticulture/hunter/gatherers encouraged biodiversity and egalitarianism. This information is paramount to understanding rewilding and understanding stewardship. So what if you know what berries are edible? Do you know when and how to harvest them so there will be more growth the following year? So what if you know that information if civilization is going to bulldoze it all next year.
I find I am learning a great deal here.
So, would you say that rewilding can be called a battle or form of war?