How to argue with person w/ Civ worldview

(wasn’t sure which category to post this in, but it sort of fits with grief I think)

Recently I got into some friendly debate, and I found myself without actual facts to back up my argument.

So what would you say if someone made the claim that “The whole world runs on money, sex, war, even non civilized cultures objectified women, everyone gets involved in war at some point, and that in those wars nobody is perfect.” I realize he was trying to point out that nobody is perfect, but I do know that a lot of things people believe about indigenous cultures have been told to them who would want them to dislike these cultures, and to actually believe this. I know there are some in history who started wars, but then I wonder if that was their original culture, if they didn’t just become that way because they were corrupted by civilized people trying to manipulate them. I just don’t buy that there is no culture out there or in history that doesn’t base itself on money, sex, or war. Now, sex makes sense, but it would not be the ways that people in this culture assume (prostitution, pornography, etc). I know that some of you guys on the forum have had some highly informed conversations on matters of what non-civilized cultures are really like. I would like to read more books on the issue, but as of now I don’t have the time to do my own research.

Also I know there may be the answer that I shouldn’t waste my time arguing with people of civilized mindset, since they’re already insane, but I really want stick up for what I know is right.

So if you were in a conversation with someone and this came up, what would you say to defend indigenous cultures from this terrible generalization of people?

Hey Liana,

I know how you feel. Right now I’m working on a blog called “Debate vs. Rewilding”. Lol. It’s basically about how I hate debating, and honestly I think if you’re debating, you’re not really changing anyone’s mind. For me it’s not about arguing facts. As soon as someone wants “facts” I will stop talking to them.

I think the point is not that things like murder and rape never happen in indigenous cultures, but that they do not foster that kind of behavior. While violence exists within hunter-gatherer cultures, it’s not a culture of violence. Civilization is a culture of violence. murder, rape and genocide are not rarities, they are the order of the day. You don’t need “facts” to prove that, simple observation from intelligent people works fine. Ironically, people who argue they need facts are more likely unable to see it even if they have all of the facts laid before them. This is why I could care less about “proving” things to people who can’t see it when it is explained, but demand more. They don’t want to believe or change their perspectives, with the facts of without.

Lol, I hate debate too for this reason. I usually just give up when people demand facts. What you’ve said reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about this earlier today, and he helped me come to the conclusion that 1) this person is basically saying “this IS this way” which from my experience is a terrible way of looking at the world. I think I really just wanted to challenge his assertion with “well, no it isn’t always like that, and it doesn’t necessarily have to be either” and 2) since he says something IS this way, or otherwise it’s a fact, that means he’s closed himself off to other possibilities, and isn’t going to be open to someone saying “but what if this”. Which pretty much goes with what you’ve said, if the person doesn’t get it already, proof and explanation won’t convince them any further.

The debate really came up when we were in a group of four people, two guys were talking about sex in an objectifying way, me and another guy were getting sick of it, so when they asked what was on our minds, I basically told them I’m fine with sex talk but not when there’s objectification. Basically they defended it saying “oh well it’s not like we’re actually going out and doing these things”, and eventually tried to say basically “this is just how the world is”. Ugh. I get frustrated when I meet friends and then learn that they view the world that way. And go figure, these guys love to debate.

I had a very interesting conversation with Sarah the other night, about the art of conversation. The main point, in school etc. we learn all about how to debate, argue, and prove points, but do we really learn how to hold a conversation in a safe way?

How can we create a space where people of a civilised mindset (myself included), can come together and relearn this ancient art of conversing, story telling, mediation, etc?

we learn all about how to debate, argue, and prove points, but do we really learn how to hold a conversation in a safe way?

That’s a great question, and from this experience in particular, I don’t really feel like it was a fair or safe conversation, in the sense that I felt like this person was trying to overpower me with their facts. Ugh, those annoying facts. But like Scout said already, people who demand facts are probably not going to see it, and it seems to me that demand for facts is just an excuse they make for being really stubborn in their viewpoint. I don’t really like debate or arguing that much because it just feels like I have to try too hard to present something that I think people should be able to see right around them, and it’s not going to do any more good to present facts if they can’t see it themselves. (LOL I realize I just ended up paraphrasing what Scout already said)

In the end I’ve decided it’s not really worth it to have great argument skills, I’d rather have skills that will count towards bringing down civ or living after civ. Besides, I’m just not the kind of person who wants to force an idea on someone, all I can do is give them my own experiences or guide them if they are interested. Forcing ideas is basically what arguing feels like to me.

This really got me thinking. I have a two part response to this.
The argument that rewilding is worthless because the ancient cultures did bad things too is such a shill argument. It’s like saying that because your parents were not always perfect you should put them on death row. There is so much to learn from the past, lessons that we should use even now. Rewilding to me is all about connection. Connection to the land, connection to the animals, connection to my food, connection to my community. The major evil in civilization had been to the undoing of that connection. I’m even okay with buying my food as long as I understand that connection. I know that a cow died so I could get that steak. I give thanks for that connection.
The point of this is that someone making that kind of attack against rewilding is really trying to do harm and not actually have a decent conversation.
That leads me to part two.
I feel that debate gets a far worse rap than it deserves. I define debate as two people with differing views voicing their opinions to each other. They aren’t doing this to change each other but to understand each other’s opinion. If either side changes their opinion then great, if not then that’s fine as well. If too much emotion gets infused into this debate without the respect that comes with being connected with each other, then it turns into an argument or a fight. Then we begin to dig trenches, and what could have been a debate that enlightened both sides turns into World War I. (With mustard gas and all.)
So how do we develop these skills to have these kinds of discussions?
Why not start on this board? Start trying to have those discussions here. There might be something I’ve written here that you disagree with. If there is, I request you to put up your disagreement with me. Tell me why you disagree with me. (I promise not to attack back, though I may ask some clarifying questions, and I may clarify my opinion more if I felt you missed the point.)

A problem i often encounter is that in discussion we attack the way ideas are presented instead of exploring ideas themselves.

this seems somehow inherent to written language where fluid ideas become rigid, authorative, statements that will never match a fluid perceived reality, once written down.

What is it that makes some people so certain and closed off in their worldview, and others so open to change it? I’ve observed 2 basic mindsets:

  1. Often it’s a just a matter of being told the same story again and again from the day of birth by a family or culture, until the story continues to retell itself in the mind of the listener, hardening itself into a comforting feedback loop. This type of thinking is like a sort of slavery, but I think sometimes it’s still penetrable by things like intellect, curiosity, or innate values. Since the subject didn’t get to choose the worldview they were given, they might able to discard it, if given enough freedom from the constraints of their culture or condition.

  2. The other mindset is in people who were raised into or have chosen a culture or worldview that is compatible with their innate values. These people may have even tested other views and yet still returned to the worldview they find most satisfying or comforting. In this mindset, opinions on certain issues can be tailored slightly in response to the outside culture, but the prevailing values remain solidified and not open to challenge.

    So I guess for me it really boils down to values. Debate with people in the 1st mindset might be fruitful because their values might already be in your camp. You might be able to reshape the worldview surrounding their values to more closely match your own.

Introduction of new paradigms to people in the 2nd group is always going to be a tougher sell. It might be possible for you to briefly give them a glimpse into your worldview, but unless their core values change, they’re probably not going to care for long.

Should we use our time and effort to challenge those people whose values won’t let them see our perspective? I guess it’s not a problem, as long as it’s harmless intellectual exercise. You do run the danger of calcifying each others worldviews by imbibing the debate with negative emotion. This could strengthen the barrier to their core values even further.

Of course, values can change too, and I'd guess mostly through experience.  I'd say people's perspective flexibility responds better to positive experiences than negative arguments.  The experience of something new and real and exciting can help push a perspective change more than any argument.  (This is probably why civilization is so hypnotic with it's new toys constantly produced).  

There’s probably more power in showing other people how happy you are with your own perspective rather than trying to reach inwards and change theirs. I’ve learned that it’s better to keep the focus of your negative energy on the prevailing culture as a whole and sing, write, film, act, blog, twitter, protest, and build something new which will lead, rather than force, others to your perspective.

Urban Scout gave advice similar to this 2 years ago on this thread, reply #27: http://www.rewild.info/conversations/index.php?topic=1257.msg13590#msg13590

Intellectually, I understood what he was saying then, but it took me having my own transformative experiences to really “get it”, and more practice and experience to have the courage to live positively for what I believe in. Now I see that here are an infinite number of ways to lead other people to value life instead of “progress”.

[quote=“timeLESS, post:7, topic:1498”]A problem i often encounter is that in discussion we attack the way ideas are presented instead of exploring ideas themselves.

this seems somehow inherent to written language where fluid ideas become rigid, authorative, statements that will never match a fluid perceived reality, once written down.[/quote]

timeLess, I would like to hear a bit more about your thoughts on this. I don’t quite yet see the connection between writing and changing how we discuss a topic. To discuss an idea we need to pin that idea down. That way we can both explore that idea. It’s very diffucult to explore an idea that changes halfway through the discussion.
i.e. I think we are discussing man made global warming, but you then change the topic to the effects of litter. While both are pollution, I think the discussion on those topics would be significantly different. We need a solid topic.

In my experience the problem of going after how something is presented is normally caused by one side or the other trying to avoid the actual topic. They don’t want to explore they want to dominate, and prove they are right.

Which runs somewhat into Brian’s post:

I would suggest that if the only reason we would discuss our beliefs in rewilding is to convince others that we are right makes us no better than the civilized person that just attacks that what he doesn’t understand. “You must see my way because I’m right.” sounds very similar to what the white man did to the native americans.
I understand the temptation, because I don’t believe anything unless I am very convinced that it is the truth, but to truly believe you are right doesn;t require you to proselytize.

A good debate should be more about exploration than competition. What does this other person believe, and why do they believe it? Then you hope that the courtesy is returned, but if it’s not then at least you learned soemthing. Even if it why you really believe what you believe.

I have a slightly off topic request here that’s also probably a pretty futile request:

CAN WE STOP BLAMING “THE WHITE MAN” FOR WHAT IS BEING DONE TO NATIVE AMERICANS?! The Native Americans aren’t abused by a specific race or gender, they are being abused by a culture!

Yes, but I suppose even in exploration it helps to have a leader to keep on a trail and not backtrack when attempting new discoveries. I would like to see more rewilders take a persuasive leadership role, and not feel like they are being pulled every direction and mired down in rhetorical quicksand.

I agree that it’s important to know Civ-minded beliefs and arguments inside and out, if you intend to debate with them. In this case, it’s good exercise to debate so that you understand why they have their beliefs, and to find the “chinks in the armor,” so to speak. I have actually made some progress doing that in discussions with the Civ-minded, but I haven’t perfected the art.

I remember something helpful that Daniel Quinn wrote about mostly asking questions to “pave” the way for the other person to have their own journey to your viewpoint, instead of just ambushing them with ideas. You can see how he uses this technique in the “Ishmael” series, and in “If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways.”

I’ve found it helpful not to “look back” too often when describing rewilding. Civ-people have a tendency to bring up “facts” and past examples which they think apply directly to the discussion when, in fact, rewilding is very much about the present and future. If you describe rewilding to them as a “native lifestyle”, they probably picture some harsh existence in some foreign environment with people they hardly know. Instead, why not lead them to a vision of a prosperous and close-knit familial existence within the area they live now… familiar landmarks and all.

[quote author=timeLESS link=topic=1610.msg15913#msg15913 date=1294351619] A problem i often encounter is that in discussion we attack the way ideas are presented instead of exploring ideas themselves.

this seems somehow inherent to written language where fluid ideas become rigid, authorative, statements that will never match a fluid perceived reality, once written down.

[/quote]

timeLess, I would like to hear a bit more about your thoughts on this. I don’t quite yet see the connection between writing and changing how we discuss a topic. To discuss an idea we need to pin that idea down. That way we can both explore that idea. It’s very diffucult to explore an idea that changes halfway through the discussion.
i.e. I think we are discussing man made global warming, but you then change the topic to the effects of litter. While both are pollution, I think the discussion on those topics would be significantly different. We need a solid topic.

In my experience the problem of going after how something is presented is normally caused by one side or the other trying to avoid the actual topic. They don’t want to explore they want to dominate, and prove they are right.

I should let timeLess answer this as well. But Joe, I think that with the development of writing there came an increasingly self-reflecting world created only out of text. If you haven’t read “The Spell of the Sensuous” by David Abram, I suggest it as an eye-opener. Basically, it explores the idea of what the written word does when it is separated from its basis in the natural world: It creates its own rules separate from perceived reality. That wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, except that it has a tendency to make people get lost in those rules.

No matter how well I describe a tree, an animal, a person, etc. I will never be able to completely describe it in writing as it is in reality because it is constantly changing, moving, and interacting, and so am I. This doesn’t mean it’s inherently harmful to try to use written words, but it’s important to remember that allowing ideas to evolve is not the same thing as “changing topics.” I think if you can look at an idea from several different perspectives and proximities, a broader picture of a process emerges. For example, from a broader view, I see both litter and global warming as result of a linear civ process which creates and releases wastes in such a way that they are unable to be recycled into the ecosystem before becoming harmful. We could address global warming and litter separately, but we might be ignoring the process at the root of the problem.

When you allow someone to “pin an idea down” completely, you’re not giving it room for play in your discussion. You can only learn so much about it and its relationship to other ideas. It’s like pinning down and dissecting an animal specimen. You’ll find out plenty about its appearance and individual mechanics that way, but not as much about how it lives and interacts with the rest of the world.

I like keeping ideas flexible and alive because, that way, they can evolve. The most strongly interdependent and observable ideas would be the ones that survived, while the ideas that are based solely in broad rhetoric are hopefully exposed for what they are. The broad, yet dense perspective that I hope this would lead people to is one that valued biodiversity and ecosystem health above all else.

I would like to see more rewilders take a persuasive leadership role, and not feel like they are being pulled every direction and mired down in rhetorical quicksand.

Amen to that. At this point in the movement I believe this is vital. We don’t have a lot of people to follow so we need to be leaders. Just like you said here.

Instead, why not lead them to a vision of a prosperous and close-knit familial existence within the area they live now... familiar landmarks and all.

I could not have said it any better.

I think that with the development of writing there came an increasingly self-reflecting world created only out of text. If you haven't read "The Spell of the Sensuous" by David Abram, I suggest it as an eye-opener. Basically, it explores the idea of what the written word does when it is separated from its basis in the natural world: It creates its own rules separate from perceived reality. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except that it has a tendency to make people get lost in those rules.

I iwll look that up. Might be a bit before I get to it, since I have a house full sick people, (myself included) and I am behind on other very pressing tasks, but it is on my list and I will read it.

That is an interesting point, and I would argue that the written word does not create rules. We create those rules. Written words are just stored information, and if we disconnect that from the natural world, then we have made the mistake. We should take that sotred infomration and see if it holds up in the natural world. That may fly in the face of come civilized people, but then rewilding is the anti-thesis of civilization.

When you allow someone to "pin an idea down" completely, you're not giving it room for play in your discussion. You can only learn so much about it and its relationship to other ideas. It's like pinning down and dissecting an animal specimen. You'll find out plenty about its appearance and individual mechanics that way, but not as much about how it lives and interacts with the rest of the world.

You have a good point, and I think that what I should have said is that we need to know what we are discussing. If there are other topics that need to be added then we should be allowed to change the topic or add to the subject at hand. The idea of pinning it down is all parties involved understand what is being discussed. You are right. If we take an idea and try to discuss it in a vacuum we are never going to truly understand it. Everything affects everything else.

Which leads to a different quote from thunderthighs

[quote=“thunder thighs, post:10, topic:1498”]I have a slightly off topic request here that’s also probably a pretty futile request:

CAN WE STOP BLAMING “THE WHITE MAN” FOR WHAT IS BEING DONE TO NATIVE AMERICANS?! The Native Americans aren’t abused by a specific race or gender, they are being abused by a culture![/quote]

I will admit that this caught me a bit off guard. But I think there was an underlying miscommunication. I was using the words “white man” to refer to the Western European cultures. I made an assumption that was understood. Yet, it was misunderstood by thunderthighs as meaning only the caucasian males that came to the Americas. I should have either pinned down that idea that “white man” = “European Cultures” or have been more clear in my communication.

Thanks, Brian for the response. I am still digesting it and may have more to respond to later.

Exactly! That’s pretty much the theses of the book I mentioned… What I meant there was this: While we have the power to create the rules of written word, the written words also have a way of coming back around and categorically shaping our thoughts. Instead of being uttered into the wind and received as a fleeting experience like the spoken word is, written or recorded words can be studied and reflected upon like stagnant math equations. People can become focused on dogma or ideology that doesn’t integrate or properly value the natural world. Fleeting and hard-to-describe processes like “progress” and “freedom” are often given static and dishonest definitions, whereas before the invention of writing they were more relative characteristics. Civilized people have been relentlessly told a story that sounds truthful on paper and in speech, but probably isn’t panning out as they think in the real world. Verbally, what we are engaged in as rewilders is a war against false rhetoric, armed with the true wisdom of the inherent value of wildlife on earth.

That’s not to say that this war mustn’t be fought through the written word, and the rules changed from within… in fact, it seems that rewilders need the written word to maintain an audience more than Civ does. Within the daily experience of civilization, it’s easy to ignore where our food, water, and fossil fuels come from, and where our waste goes. People fall under the spell of Civ without having the full picture. Writings, pictures, and films (although often used to promote civ) are often the only way to allow the civilized to have glimpses of the results of their lifestyles and get the real story of how things came to be this way . That’s where writings like the ones featured on this site come in handy… to unravel the confusion and broaden and refine the rewilding-worldview.

With all the literature already out there, however, I still think there’s a lot more to be said for experience when it comes to helping others form deep-down values. I think this is an area where more exploration could be done. As it relates to this thread , maybe we could find a way to draw on our own personal experiences when arguing with Civ-mindset people… or maybe we could get the other person to delve deeper and question their own experiences. We could definitely put less energy into arguments, and instead focus on giving willing participants and children a direct experience that shows them the ways of the wild and the destruction caused by civilization. But since the general goal right now seems be locating and collecting an audience and encouraging/learning with them to be future leaders in the rewild movement, it’s not a bad idea to learn to defend our arguments rhetorically as well.

In a lot ways I would call rewilding a spiritual path. Not in some sort of dogmatic religion says this kind of way, but in that there is a feeling that I get when I am out trying to break out of the mold civilization puts us into. This is something near impossible to describe, it’s something you have to experience. I feel it’s like describing the color red to a blind person.

If I am to invite people to rewild, I have to somehow share the feeling I get when I am out of the bound of civilization. That is something I am struggling with and willing to accept advice. The more stories I hear about people that began to rewild, the more I feel that there is somethign inside that calls for it. Somehow we get a taste and then we begin to strive for more. That is more convincing than any argument we could give.

But then I agree we should learn to defend our stance rhetorically as well. I’m pulling a quote from a bit further back in conversation.

I think looking back is a bad idea as well. The truth is that the Native American cultures lost to the Western European Cultures. If we recreate the Native American culture then we are likely to lose to the Western European cultures as well. Rewilding is not going back. It’s going forward. We should learn form the past. All of it, not just the parts that make us feel good.

That’s why earlier I said that an argument against rewilding based on that the ancient cultures were bad too is a shill argument. It’s an attempt to get us a bend to their will and not an attempt to give an actual critique. I welcome a good honest critique, of both rewilding as a whole and my personal path in it. Every honest critique I’ve received has only made me more excited, not more depressed. (Even if it did end with me having to change some of my ideas.)

As far as the money thing goes, just bring up gift economies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy). This is central to indigenous living.

P.S.

[quote=“thunder thighs, post:10, topic:1498”]I have a slightly off topic request here that’s also probably a pretty futile request:

CAN WE STOP BLAMING “THE WHITE MAN” FOR WHAT IS BEING DONE TO NATIVE AMERICANS?! The Native Americans aren’t abused by a specific race or gender, they are being abused by a culture![/quote]

Yea, White culture. But there is a fundamental difference between White people and white people.

Wow, guys, thanks for the great discussion here! :3 I’ve been away for a while since writing this I know, but I wanted to update my thoughts since the original question, after considering everyone’s input here.

I think that because rewilding does feel spiritual in a sense, and perhaps even the root of it is a spiritual choice to view the world differently, it may be important that people come into it by choice. I don’t see it being the kind of spiritual path someone chooses just because their parents do it or it’s a popular/majority type thing, like some religions. Everyone I know who got into rewilding has because their personal feelings, experiences, and knowledge have led them to personally conclude that it makes most sense for them. I mean, that’s how it was for me. That’s one reason why I think it wouldn’t really help to force it on people who haven’t already seen or realized some of the important points of rewilding, or reasons for it, themselves. Or if they’ve been exposed to the impending-collapse-of-civ scenario, and were open enough to consider it, and not just deny it.

About a week ago I was feeling really depressed about everything going on, mostly after reading about the mass fish death near California. So a close friend of mine asked why I was down. I had never mentioned my reason for being interested in rewilding to him before, only that I had made the trip to Echoes in Time last summer to learn some dynamite skills. I basically said how I was frustrated that what most people in our society consider as the “real world” is actually the abstract concepts of money economy and business and such, over the REAL WORLD which consists of living things, soil, water, etc, and the economy/ecology of how they all should be able to balance each other. After saying this, he asked if I had read Ishmael, haha and I actually was pretty excited and cheered up. Apparently he has a good friend in NY who he really looks up to who has recommended he read more related works (Derrick Jensen, etc.). He’s already into discussing concepts of all kinds of things, which made it easy for me to broach the subject.

And then there’s the point about debate being forcefull. It’s just part of my personality to become stubborn if someone tells me to do something in a way which makes me feel ordered. Even if it’s something I would happily choose to do on my own, I think I just greatly dislike the feeling of doing something just because someone else told me to. It’s very important for me to have the ability make an independent choice about what I do. So I’ve had to tell friends and people I work with before that I’ll be very eager to help or do something if it’s asked or suggested, but if it feels like they are “telling me what to do” I immediately become stubborn and even feel a little resentment. (Haha, it’s kind of funny to me how drastically different it is, if someone asks for help or contribution, I’m happy to give them my best effort, but if I feel like they’re not giving me a choice, even if it’s just all in the verbal delivery, I’m like “NOPE.” >:| ) I’m bringing this up because I think that if I don’t like ideas forced on me, why should anyone else respond well? They’ll likely become defensive, and isn’t that what debate seems to be made of? “HEY THIS IS MY FACT, I"M SHOVIN IT IN UR FACE” “OH HELL NAW! U CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO THINK. THIS IS HOW I DO.” “NO THAT’S DUMB” “PFFT well why should I buy what you’re telling me”. LOL I guess that’s a worst case scenario, but even when carried out politely, the impression of respect is really just a front, as people are still forcing ideas.

I will admit that I think earlier on I wanted to debate, because to me, the concept of inevitable civ collapse as well as the continuing destruction of the nonhuman people and life we actually need to support our own life (and all the thoughts of how insane that is) is such an obvious reality to me. I was frustrated that so many people just didn’t see it, or if they would be willing to see it, they still would make reasons or justifications for things being this way, even when I pose my feelings about the “real world” that civ is founded on, and the real physical living world like mentioned above (I usually hear human nature arguments, basically bullshit reasons in my opinion). I felt that when a person pressed their “facts” about all societies being based on sex, money, war, I got defensive. I felt that it should be obvious, but because it’s rare for people to already understand, thanks to civ-indoctrination and such

I could go on forever, but I’m feeling it’s time to conclude for now. So my conclusion:

I definitely prefer communication like that used here on this forum, ideas are suggested, and everything is given fair consideration. If something is disagreed with, there are reasons, but it has still been considered. I feel that people are generally respectful of personal independent choices, and in that way people can be open with each other, and actually get along better than if everyone just buys into the exact same concept, agreeing with each other like a flock, and then attacking ideas that differ. I think that’s where a lot of the negativity and horizontal hostility may come from (though I don’t really know for sure, it could be all kinds of things, that’s just a thought I had. I’m willing to bet someone else can suggest different reasons, and I’d invite them). Lol, my brain is beginning to tangent now on how interesting it is that though being open to and inviting independent choice, a society could be more accepting, less forceful, and perhaps less likely to become stagnant, as they are open to new independent choices and ideas. I just think that’s neat. (sounds kinda like egalitarian tribe dynamics that I’d think rewilders would take a liking to)

–having spent the last few hours having multiple conversations and not having had much sleep, I’ve kind of trailed off, so if I have any further thoughts later, maybe I’ll write another post.

TL;DR: Basically I’m deciding not to bother with debate, probably mostly for empathic reasons (I don’t like things being forced on me, why should I use a forceful method of communication such as debate, especially when rewilding is often a path taken by individual choice, based on an individual’s personal experience, knowledge, feeling, etc. leading them to that choice.)

Haha, besides, I simply suck at debate, so why waste my energy learning to when I can invite people to the ideas, and let them grow into rewilding on their own?

I’ve found myself personally, when discussing an idea with someone, and someone attacks, disagrees with, or otherwise puts down the idea, I myself become defensive, even when it’s not my own idea, or even an idea I completely agree with!

This may happen when arguing something with someone. The person, regardless of how they feel about civilization in general, may identify with civilization, and thus feel attacked. They will then defend civilization to no ends, because in their view, they are defending their self.

True dat. Unfortunately, this precludes having any discussion about rewilding with most people (even a calm, friendly sharing of experiences and views), because they identify so strongly with civilization. So as soon as I present a view that attacks civilization, they feel personally attacked, and then the sharing ends. I think for someone to feel open to rewilding, (the whole thing, not just a certain part of it), they must first have begun to stop identifying with civilization within themselves.

Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult, because practically everyone around us identifies with civilization, on a deep subconscious level, and as social animals, humans have a very strong tendency to do as those around them do, and think as those around them think. The pressure to conform runs very very deep within us. I think this poem describes the difficulty of escaping the civilized mindset really well (an excerpt):

THE TRAP
It is possible to get out of a trap.
However, in order to break out of a prison, one must first confess to being in a prison.
The nature of the trap has no interest whatsoever beyond this one crucial point: WHERE IS THE EXIT OUT OF THE TRAP?
The most ridiculous as well as the most tragic thing is this:
The exit is clearly visible to all trapped within the prison. Yet nobody seems to see it.
Moreso, whoever moves toward the exit, or whoever points to it is declared crazy or a criminal or a sinner to burn in hell.
It turns out the trouble is not with the trap or even with finding the exit.
The trouble is with the trapped ones.
As soon as they get close to the exit they start screaming and run away from it.
As soon as anyone among them tries to get out, they kill him.
Only a very few slip out of the trap in the dark night when everybody is asleep.

I think this poem also describes the hatred and violence that civilized people direct towards those who reject the civilized culture. Anytime we present a different way of thinking and living, we run the risk of getting attacked. I know that I have been verbally attacked by some of the people closest to me - who love me - because I inadvertently attacked them by expressing a worldview critical of civilization. So nowadays, I freely express my worldview, but I don’t make a serious attempt to explain my worldview to others unless they have already indicated their openness or (at least partial) agreement, and desire to hear more. Other than that, I just don’t really feel that it has any positive impact to try to “educate” or “inform” others about civilization or rewilding. If someone hasn’t started down that road themselves, nothing I say or do will change that.

But at the same time, I feel that we MUST openly express a rewilding perspective, in order to help those people who have started down that path but who haven’t yet encountered any signposts to help them along. Without those signposts, they may never find out about rewilding.

I think that most of us have had to come to rewilding on our own - guided by signposts, perhaps, but without having a rewilding culture around us to “conform to”, so to speak. I think if a true rewilding culture visibly existed around us; if we grew up within a rewilding culture and were taught its ways by everyone around us, then I think many many people would have a rewilding mindset for no other reason than to follow everyone else.