What has so-called "civilization" brought to humanity on the whole? What is the net result? I submit that it has been nothing better than disease, misery, poverty, destruction, and death.
It is so very easy to dismiss my claim, what with so many people pointing to the "miracles" of civilization in the form of technology and concepts that presumably did not exist prior to men becoming civilized. But when one conducts even a comparatively cursory but suficiently noiseless analysis of human civilization, it becomes rather rapidly clear that these claims of the purported miracles are eminently questionable.
Once again, words matter: they form our thoughts, and our thoughts form our realities. Depending upon the exact presumptions under which one chooses to labor, civilization may be deemed a blessing, a curse, any combination of the two, the kitchen sink, a barn door, and so on.
But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. Let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of. Don't take my word for it, but let us once again consult several dictionaries.
But what does it really mean to be "civilized"? That, too, may change depending on one's presuppositions. Let me not wax too pedantic and come to my own box of brass tacks. The very word itself, the verb "to civilize", to me means to domesticate; to bring to heel; to break the nature of. Don't take my word for it, but let us once again consult several dictionaries.
Starting in economy class, dictionary.com puts it this way:
civilize verb (used with object), civ·i·lized, civ·i·liz·ing.to bring out of a savage, uneducated, or rude state; make civil; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine: Rome civilized the barbarians.
The Oxford etymological dictionary says:
civilize (v.)c. 1600, "to bring out of barbarism, introduce order and civil organization among, refine and enlighten," from French civiliser, verb from Old French civil (adj.), from Latin civilis "relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen; popular, affable, courteous," alternative adjectival derivative of civis "townsman" (see city). Intransitive meaning "become civilized" is from 1868.
Samuel Johnson's 1785:
To CIVILIZE, siv'-il-ize. v. a. To reclaim from savageness. Wallor.
So what, then, does it mean to be civil?
Dictionary.com:
adjective
Oxford:
civil (adj.)
late 14c., "relating to civil law or life; pertaining to the internal affairs of a state," from Old French civil "civil, relating to civil law" (13c.) and directly from Latin civilis "relating to a society, pertaining to public life, relating to the civic order, befitting a citizen," hence by extension "popular, affable, courteous;" alternative adjectival derivative of civis "townsman" (see city).
Meaning "not barbarous, civilized" is from 1550s. Specifically "relating to the commonwealth as secularly organized" (as opposed to military or ecclesiastical) by 1610s. Meaning "relating to the citizen in his relation to the commonwealth or to fellow citizens" also is from 1610s.
Johnson:
CIVIL§, siv'-il. a. [civilis, Lat.] Relating to the community. Hooker. Relating to any man as a member of a community. Bp. Taylor. Not in anarchy; not wild. Roscommon.
We see the notion of savageness, barbarity, and wildness are referenced. Therefore,
Dictionary.com:
barbaric adjectivewithout civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive: barbaric invaders.
living in a state of nature; not tamed or domesticated: a wild animal; wild geese....uncivilized or barbarous: wild tribes.
Oxford:
barbaric (adj.)
late 15c., "uncultured, uncivilized, unpolished," from French barbarique (15c.), from Latin barbaricus "foreign, strange, outlandish," from Greek barbarikos "like a foreigner," from barbaros "foreign, rude" (see barbarian (n.)). The meaning "pertaining to or characteristic of barbarians" is from 1660s. Related: Barbarically.
savage (adj.)
mid-13c. (late 12c. as a surname), of animals, "ferocious;" c. 1300, "wild, undomesticated, untamed," also "wild, uncultivated" (of land or places), from Old French sauvage, salvage "wild, savage, untamed, strange, pagan," from Late Latin salvaticus, alteration (vowel assimilation) of silvaticus "wild, woodland," literally "of the woods," from silva "forest, grove" (see sylvan).
Of persons, "indomitable, valiant," also "fierce, bold, cruel" (c. 1300); from late 14c., of persons or behavior, "wild, barbarous, uncivilized;" c. 1400 as "reckless, ungovernable," and by 1610s as "pertaining to or characteristic of savage peoples, living in the lowest condition of development." In heraldry, "naked or clothed in foliage" (1570s). The -l- often was restored in 16c.-17c. English spelling.
wild (adj.)
"to run wild, refuse to be tamed," Old English awildian (see wild (adj.)). Wilding (n.) in the teen gang sense first recorded 1989. Earlier it meant "plant that grows without cultivation" (1520s).
Johnson:
BARBARICK, bar-bar'-ik. a. Foreign) far-fetched. Milton. Uncivilized. Milton.
SAVAGE §, sav'-vldje. 90. a. [sauvage, Fr. ; selvaggio, Ital.] ; Wild ; uncultivated. Milton. Untamed; cruel. Shak. Uncivilized; barbarous; untaught; wild ; brutal. Raleigh.
WILD §, wild. a. [úïld, Sax.; wild, Dutch.] Not tame ; not domestick. Shak. ... Savage; uncivilized: used of persons, or practices. Bacon. ungoverned. Milton.
There are two things I would have you notice here. For one, the difficulties apparent in these definitions. One of them is that of circularity. For example, to be civil is to be non-savage. To be savage is to be uncivil. Defining words in these ways is semantically dangerous in those instances where semantic rigor is necessary to proper and sufficient understanding. Furthermore, these sorts of inadequacies in our words underscores the tenuous nature of our communications, which in turn make glaring just how tenuous is our grasps on reality, at least in terms of our abilities to think abstractly. And yet, we manage to get from day to day without destroying ourselves; we manage to feed and house and recognize beauty and danger, love each other, avoid the destruction and other harming of others. To my mind, this is all prima facie proof of the inherently miraculous nature of all that we are, and experience. God is ever so real, and ever so omnipresent, even in the horrors of that which we deem our misfortunes.
We are, at our cores, wild animals. To believe anything less than this is to lie to oneself. It is this wildness that is the very embodiment of our freedom, that thing for which so many here claim to pine and to which they tell the world their honors and fortunes are pledged. But how can this be when most people fail to understand the most basic aspects of their own nature? Any suggestion of the true nature of men gives rise to the deepest and most violent revulsion in the vast majority, and that is the reason the world is what it is: people want pretty slavery and nothing whatsoever to do with actual freedom.
Even my Canon of Proper Human Relations is something of a fib because it compromises the true nature of men away for the sake of the illusions of peace and security, and that is the unvarnished truth. You want pure and wild freedom? I do. You, most likely, do not - but I shall speak for no other man. True freedom is largely terrifying. Imagine another man attempting to kill you for a stick of gum. While unlikely in a truly free world, it remains a real possibility. However, when we look at it more circumspectly, it is not appreciably more likely than under our current cultural circumstance. In point of practice, it may in fact be less likely for reasons I hope will become apparent shortly. Imagine it: we have literally millions of "laws" on the books and yet people still murder each other for the most inanely flimsy reasons. Law is NOTHING. Human nature and the decisions of the individual man are EVERYTHING.
The difference between being a savage and a civilian is almost precisely this: the savage assumes full responsibility for his every action, whereas the civilian renounces the greatest proportion of responsibility for that which he thinks, feels, and chooses, preferring to pass them off onto his fellows. But in doing this he abnegates his sovereignty, tossing his sacred freedoms to the wind because he wishes to live his life in the manner of an ill-bred child in preference to being an actual adult.
In a savage society, every man is free to do precisely as he pleases. If he wishes to walk up to a stranger and attempt to put a sword through the man's belly, that is his choice, just as it is today, all false appearances of "law and order" notwithstanding. The only difference lies in what happens next. In either case of savage or civilian, the intended target may not cotton to the notion of being run-through. The only question then remaining is, "who will prevail?", and generally speaking we may say that it is anyone's guess because combat is inherently non-linear.
But if we assume Johnny is successful in running his blade to the hilt into Tommy's belly, what then? In purest terms, nothing. Johnny is alive, if a bit blood-soaked, and Tommy is skewered. In more real terms, however, if Tommy survives, Johnny faces the risks and dangers of retaliation. Whether Tommy dies or lives, Johnny may in either event face the same risk of vendetta, whether at Tommy's hands, or those of Tommy's family, friends, or other agents on his behalf.
There need be no contrived legislation to pose Johnny's hazard, as is the case today. In the savage world, just as in the civilized, the only threats to Johnny in the wake of his choice are other human beings. The difference between the two worlds is that the savage is honest, whereas the civilized is endlessly otherwise. The savage society is honest about how such things work, whereas the civil society lies endlessly about justice,
I greatly prefer the savage world precisely because it forces people to be responsible for the things they think, say, feel, and do. The civilized world renders men as imbecilic infants, whose heads become filled with the most idiotic of notions that aim to treat their fellows with gross and often felonious disrespect without having to face any consequences for their perfidies. And they rely upon the machinations of men in suits to pass edicts that guarantee the ability to get away even with literal murder in more than the rare and passing case. The list of ways in which this has been made manifest could take us weeks or even months of dedicated discourse here in order to name, analyze, and discuss them all.
The civilized man has been taught to believe in a great and endlessly harmful raft of lies about the savage world. For instance, he has been taught that savages are wildly undisciplined maniacs with nothing but rape and murder on their tiny, misshapen minds, every second of every day. The most cursory analytic consideration of this assertion quickly exposes its raw and suppurating absurdity. Generally speaking, people like being alive and do the best they can to ensure they remain that way. In this, the savage is no different from the civilian. Given this, how long does anyone think a savage society would last if being savage meant endless killing and destruction? It would be over in matters of days; weeks at best. This has never been the case in general terms where savage societies have been concerned. They have survived the millennia just fine. Certainly they have many examples of one group wiping from the earth all traces of another, but this is no different from civilized people. Just consider the countless millions, savages and civilians alike, slaughtered by the Roman church, or the Pharaohs. How about the kings of Europe; the emperors of the various east-Asian empires including but not limited to China and Japan; the empires of South and Middle Americas? Africa? Middle-east?
Can anyone point to an example where a savage society has so much as attempted to do what Stalin and Mao did, much less actually accomplish it?
So far as I can see, civilization has been the grandest show of smoke and mirrors in all human history. People have fallen for the false miracles of architecture, technology, and the hideous idolatry thereby raised in so many forms. Truly, where civilization has been concerned, the medium has always been the message: pure power - don't mess with us. The typical modern man whines about "muh roads", "muh internet", and so on down a depresingly long list of things that, were they never to have to into existence, would not be missed by anyone. I cannot begin to count the number of people who have used these sorts of miserable examples as the justification for demanding that every man submit to their visions of pretty slavery.
The repulsive "leftie" demands not only to be allowed to engage in all manner of unsavory acts, but that everyone must praise him for it. The similarly repugnant "righty" defines freedom more broadly, but still ends up with pretty slavery as his vision of paradise on earth. And damn it if most of them all want "muh gummint" to provide the force needed to compel the compliance of others, no matter who gets hurt or how terribly someone else's quality of life may turn out due directly because of said applications of force.
And just look at the pure absurdity of it all. For example, Obama signed an executive order, only to have Trump undo it all with the stroke of a pen. There's your "civilization"; back and forth like a lethal yoyo moving in whichever direction those currently in power decide it shall swing. It is pure whim, and as often as not, caprice. Few give a true damn about your rights. Most don't even care about their own rights, save to the paltry extents their limited and frightened little selves auto-circumscribe and build their own prison walls at the sadly narrow delimiters dictated by their willful ignorance, cowardice, avarice, and indolence.
Similarly, some people attempt to justify our slavery because it has provided all the miracles of modern medicine. Once again, the absurdity of this is of such a nature and degree as to leave the thinking man numb. For one thing, the attitude is reflective of the determination to squelch all risk from life. It's the same old rotten saw about wanting something for nothing; in this case, wanting all the perceived benefits of "freedom" without having to pony up for any of the costs. This is the mindset of thieves and dull, ill-bred children, rather than proper adults.
It is instructive to note that were all these miracles of modern medicine not available, several things would happen. For one thing, people would SLOW DOWN. Their physical movements would become more careful and deliberate in a world where a broken leg or even a cut could mean death. They would slow down their mouths greatly, the necessities of a truer reality driving them to put their brains in gear long prior to engaging their yaps. Why? Because to speak ill-advisedly could result in one becoming severely injured or even being killed. Death tends to be a wonderfully sound advisor, by and large.
A savage land would be different in so many ways precisely because the prospect of death or dismemberment at the hands of other humans, or even just happenstance, as the result of one's poorly considered behavior would teach one deep and abiding respect for his fellows, as well as the cold and hard realities that surround him. He would learn and practice REAL respect, vis-à-vis this thin and hollow gasbag shell so many today mistakenly conflate with actual respect. By "respect", I do not mean the modern and comparatively superficial notion of esteem and the sense of worth, but rather the more ancient meaning, which goes something as follows:
deference to a right...or someone...[recognized] to have certain rights...; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment
There are so many intertwining layers of the various aspects of this that I am certain a very large, laborious, and verbose tome or three could be written on the matter of what it means to respect another human being in the sense that is relevant to this discussion. It has nothing to do with bunnies, light, love, and running around in one's underwear while making childish noises. It has everything to do with recognizing the just and valid claims of other men such that one refrains from trespassing upon them with intent, and making whole that which has been insulted when done so by accident.
Suffice to say that this is a topic that is broad, endlessly deep, and goes on well beyond the horizon. For my money, civilization is more bad than good. Yes, without it there would be little to no modern medicine, but how many have considered the possibility that without the rest of the steaming pile that has been heaped upon us over the centuries, maybe most of the diseases we so deeply dread such as cancer, HIV, etc. may never have come to any notable rise in the first place? How much of that which we suffer can we give thanks for to our forebears who polluted the living hell out of the land, air, and seas? Are we so cock-sure that the ever climbing cancer rates are not attributable to such causes and would have come to what they are today, even if we had we forgone civilization, in favor of the savage life?
And I reiterate the fact that despite all these miracles and statutes, people appear today to be more miserable in their spirits than ever their savage forebears seem to have been. Civilization has done nothing as much as it has fought the natural order of the planet. Our technologies and medicine have resulted in a world choking on nearly 8 billion people. The idiotic religions of the civilized world have given rise to thoughts so poisonous, yet so deeply and I daresay terminally ingrained that we fail to see the folly to which we have committed ourselves. That, to me, is the insanity of civilization; it is the codification, formalization, and deification of raving, howling madness.
And for those Christians (just to pick on one of many prime candidate classes) who might chafe at the notion that their religion is somehow less-than sane in any aspect, I would point out that had men remained as savages, there would have been no need for God to send a messiah in the first place. Think on that awhile... if you dare do so honestly and with open mind.
The minority of one has written, and please accept his best wishes.
