Survival In Civilization?

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance
#1

Many people of academics humorously speak about survival and natural selection in civilized society…

Well, Where exactly is civilized survival located at?

Domestication and consumerism is the hallmarks of civilization with humans being in a constant state of dependent consumption.

( Dependent consumption doesn’t equal survivalism.)

Survival is the act of withstanding on one’s own individual will with a firm self actualization. It is the art of finding sustenance for one’s own self.

Again,

Where is survivalism and natural selection located at within society or civilization?

#2

If that’s the case, then there was never survival or natural selection anywhere in humanity’s history; we’ve always been social animals, living in tribes. Wild humans consider someone trying to live all by themselves crazy, and probably more than a little suicidal.

#3

If you attempt to be an individual sovereign, you will be crushed. Either by people, the world, or your own self (loneliness etc).

#4

Have fun!

#5

[quote=“TheJoker, post:1, topic:334”]Survival is the act of withstanding on one’s own individual will with a firm self actualization. It is the art of finding sustenance for one’s own self.

Again,

Where is survivalism and natural selection located at within society or civilization?[/quote]

I would define survival as the art of getting by–you know, surviving–overcoming something that would otherwise keep you down. We use the word in a very broad spectrum in English, so I assume you mean to say something like “where is [the act of staving off death and keeping yourself alive by your own physical abilities] … within society?” In society that happens as part of a collective machine. I use my skills of typing on a computer and thinking through work-flow problems in order to accumulate energy units (money). I work as a cog in a global machine that requires me to play my cog role one way or another. I still use skill, I still use my creative brain, but I don’t directly reap the benefit of my skills by having a dead animal at my feet. By the Rube Goldberg principle, I stand as far removed from the death of the animal I eat as Pee-wee Herman’s breakfast table stands from the candle that set it in motion.

As for natural selection. That requires a selector: death. More precisely: death before reproduction. Civies don’t believe in death and do everything in their power to defeat it–or at least stave it off for as long as possible.

#6

[quote=“WildeRix, post:5, topic:334”][quote author=TheJoker link=topic=355.msg3498#msg3498 date=1186938638]
Survival is the act of withstanding on one’s own individual will with a firm self actualization. It is the art of finding sustenance for one’s own self.

Again,

Where is survivalism and natural selection located at within society or civilization?
[/quote]

I would define survival as the art of getting by–you know, surviving–overcoming something that would otherwise keep you down. We use the word in a very broad spectrum in English, so I assume you mean to say something like “where is [the act of staving off death and keeping yourself alive by your own physical abilities] … within society?” In society that happens as part of a collective machine. I use my skills of typing on a computer and thinking through work-flow problems in order to accumulate energy units (money). I work as a cog in a global machine that requires me to play my cog role one way or another. I still use skill, I still use my creative brain, but I don’t directly reap the benefit of my skills by having a dead animal at my feet. By the Rube Goldberg principle, I stand as far removed from the death of the animal I eat as Pee-wee Herman’s breakfast table stands from the candle that set it in motion.

As for natural selection. That requires a selector: death. More precisely: death before reproduction. Civies don’t believe in death and do everything in their power to defeat it–or at least stave it off for as long as possible.[/quote]

All I am saying is that civilization is an elaborate labyrinth of consumerism which installs millions of dependencies. There doesn’t seem to be any survival but instead there is a form of living that is identical to parasitism.

Consumers are in a constant cycle of parasitic consumption where there is no survival and with such people far removed from that of nature in no way does natural selection exist in societal enforced confines.

#7

Unfortunately true.

#8

It has existed before the times of private property and agriculture historically speaking.

#9

No, before agriculture and private property, people still lived together. In fact, then everything happened inside of a social context. The whole goal of the market economy is to remove that social context.

#10

The social context was completely different than that which we are familiar with historically. ( That is all I am saying.)

You will find it was more momentary, animalistic and instinctual.

It was also more independent, self sufficient, and individually self satisfying.

The whole goal of the market economy is to remove that social context.

Agreed.

#11

And at the same time more communal and social. You seemed to be stressing the independence, as if humans “in the state of nature” were the solitary creatures of Rousseau’s fantasies.

#12
There doesn't seem to be any survival but instead there is a form of living that is identical to parasitism.

So parasites don’t “survive”?

#13

I differ from Rousseau’s asocial idealizations in that I view ancient humanity to be located in small social groups but these communes were informal in leadership where all members of the party were entirely independent and self sufficient in all their living endeavors.

#14

[quote=“WildeRix, post:12, topic:334”][quote=TheJoker]There doesn’t seem to be any survival but instead there is a form of living that is identical to parasitism.
[/quote]

So parasites don’t “survive”?[/quote]

Parasites attach themselves to somthing and consume everything in location giving nothing back to the world while bears or all other organisms survive.

#15

Whoever said anything about hierarchy? Not all groups are hierarchical. But I wouldn’t call them “entirely independent and self sufficient in all their living endeavors.” They were extremely communal, and saw the tribe as the very foundation of life. Independent, self-sufficient life–like, breaking off and living all by themselves–was almost unthinkable.

Parasites attach themselves to somthing and consume everything in location giving nothing back to the world while bears or all other organisms survive.

Harsh. You don’t see anything of value that a tick gives back to the world? Or a tapeworm?

#16
breaking off and living all by themselves--was almost unthinkable.

I know that.

They were extremely communal, and saw the tribe as the very foundation of life.

Essentially I am saying the communes were informal in leadership rather loosely and the group itself was a self reliant, self sufficient or independent.

Even the individuals themselves that comprised the commune had some breathing room to manifest their own destinies accordingly.

Harsh. You don't see anything of value that a tick gives back to the world? Or a tapeworm?

As breeders of death, constant irritation and destruction perhaps.

#17

Absolutely. Actually, I read a book by Paul Radin called Primitive Man as Philosopher, and he did a great job of illustrating that our usual notions of indvidual vs. communal simply don’t make sense in a tribal context. The tribe, communal life, was the very ground that made individuality possible. So they could be fanatically individualistic and fanatically communal, simultaneously.

But I’m not sure what independence and self-sufficiency has to do with leadership and hierarchy. They weren’t self-sufficient at all; they deeply needed their community. It was an egalitarian community, but I don’t see what that has to do with how much they needed it, i.e., how independent or self-sufficient they are.

#18

[quote=“jason, post:17, topic:334”]Absolutely. Actually, I read a book by Paul Radin called Primitive Man as Philosopher, and he did a great job of illustrating that our usual notions of indvidual vs. communal simply don’t make sense in a tribal context. The tribe, communal life, was the very ground that made individuality possible. So they could be fanatically individualistic and fanatically communal, simultaneously.

But I’m not sure what independence and self-sufficiency has to do with leadership and hierarchy. They weren’t self-sufficient at all; they deeply needed their community. It was an egalitarian community, but I don’t see what that has to do with how much they needed it, i.e., how independent or self-sufficient they are.[/quote]

Absolutely. Actually, I read a book by Paul Radin called [i]Primitive Man as Philosopher[/i], and he did a great job of illustrating that our usual notions of indvidual vs. communal simply don't make sense in a tribal context. The tribe, communal life, was the very ground that made individuality possible. So they could be fanatically individualistic and fanatically communal, simultaneously.

Now I want to check out that book…

[b]( Is located at the library presently.)

( The library is for poor people without computers.)[/b]

But I'm not sure what independence and self-sufficiency has to do with leadership and hierarchy.

One of the things I like about tribal culture is that the leaders were required to help everyone that comprised their tribe for maximum efficiency for not just themselves but for the whole tribe.

Also, If a leader went mad he could be challenged by anybody strong enough who comprised the tribe.


( Another thing I like which you won’t find in contemporary times.)

They weren't self-sufficient at all; they deeply needed their community.

I am saying that while everyone needed each other their survival dependended on the act of helping others be self sufficient for themselves at the same time.

( That form of behavior simply doesn’t exist anymore as it is profitable to make people require services for everything that comprises their lives.)

I believe the reason for this difference is that in a primitive tribe everything is revolved around survival where in civilization people don’t worry about survival so much as they are worried more about pleasure or entertainment.