This Post reported responses to the interventions of Henry Marcellus, Gaetano, Elisa and Gianfranco which together form the recent post about the book Posts "Free from civilization" . Some obvious harmonies have made possible the interest of the blog for the book of Henry, however, both Marcello interventions, Gaetano, Elisa and Gianfranco, and these responses Enrico also show significant diversity of views. The debate on these issues could then be long, but we prefer to give the last word to Henry and then leave open the questions examined in the next post to return to the "more usual" topics of the blog.
(Marcello, Gaetano, Elisa and Gianfranco)
on Intervention OF MARCELLO
Dear Marcello,
thank you very much for the compliments that I have addressed. It is always a great satisfaction to be comprehensible and "interesting." Concerns or issues that remain open to the questions addressed to me in LIBERI DALLA CIVILTA' è pacifico (il mio libro non ha certo la pretesa di rispondere ad ogni quesito possibile), e dunque mi stimola l'idea di dibattere a proposito di tali questioni. Vorrei però fare chiarezza su una cosa che ritengo importante. A me, come persona, non sono mai piaciute (e non interessano tuttora) le pure speculazioni teoriche, gli intellettualismi, i cerebralismi e, soprattutto, non vorrei che i lettori potessero pensare che il mio libro fosse intriso di questa retorica o la incoraggiasse. Con questo non voglio dire che il tuo intervento dia credito a questa mia preoccupazione, ma siccome è facilissimo cadere in equivoci e fraintendimenti (tanto più se si fa uso di parole), vorrei solo evitare che il lettore che si approcciasse per la prima volta a questo blog senza aver letto il mio libro pensasse che LIBERI DALLA CIVILTA' si inserisse in quella categoria di saggi colmi di considerazioni pleonastiche e di questioni di pura “lana caprina”.
Consentimi dunque di fare la precisazione che segue. Per quanto nel mio libro abbia cercato di tenere aperto lo sguardo ad ogni possibile prospettiva d'indagine (una critica organica alla civilizzazione lo imponeva), e per quanto abbia dunque trattato di filosofia, di psicologia, di antropologia, di biologia, di medicina, ecc., LIBERI DALLA CIVILTA' non è un libro di filosofia, né di psicologia, né di antropologia, ecc. Non è insomma un libro “specialistico”, but a book that I have endeavored to make as simple and understandable. A book that I like to call "popular", whose purpose is, is not to make a display of wisdom, but to allow everyone to have the desire and the good heart to read it, you can find some ideas to increase their critical awareness to the gloomy world is killing us. My only aspiration is indeed to see a more widespread determination to "resistance" to the civilization that is resistant to the practice of devastation all around us every day is presented as the quintessence of freedom and happiness.
How did you regularly noted, moreover, I always speak of civilization and not of our civilization, and I talk about why I refer to the civilization and culture to our Western ways. I mean, that is, a process that was developed about ten thousand years ago with the birth of agriculture and that, wherever it arose (and expanded in the world), he did stands on some characteristics unshakeable. If we look at civilized history, whatever the different connotation of costume that civilization has changed over time and space (from ancient Mesopotamia to the modern Western society), it has always been characterized by the presence of a single common denominator: il distacco dell’Individuo dalla Natura e l’affermazione di un dominio del primo sulla seconda. È per questo che l'agricoltura è considerata (anche convenzionalmente) l'atto di nascita della civiltà.
Con l'agricoltura, infatti, l'essere umano realizza fattivamente questa separazione: inizia cioè a concepirsi non più come un “Io” connesso a tutto il resto, ma come un “Io” separato dal mondo e dominante verso di esso. Con l'agricoltura, insomma, la natura cessa di essere un “soggetto” e diventa un “oggetto”: un qualcosa di diverso dall'Umanità e destinato ad essere sottomesso da questa (sottomesso = messo below, put to good use).
are the things you use, not people. And when we are using the subjects (which happens more often in the modern world) is because our civilized mentality has taught us to even conceive of subjects as they were objects (objectification). The objectification of nature, then, is the very foundation of civilization: from our own as of the Toltec, from our own as that of Egypt, from our own as that of ancient China, Polynesian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, etc.. If we want to investigate the source of the crisis of our time, with the values \u200b\u200bof this reifying process we call civilization that we must take, not with individual Western ways rather than Islamic ones, Indochinese, or Kurds.
What is dragging us towards the destruction of the world is not the our civilization, but civilization. As long as humans have lived in harmony with the natural environment being considered as an integral part of that indivisible whole that our mentality reifying called "Nature", there were neither arbitrary nor lust for conquest. Why is not the hunger that gives rise to war if the relational fabric of the community is based on mutual aid, the closeness and mutual aid. What mother does not share with your child the only piece of bread? What lover would not do the same with their loved one? Of course, in the world "dell'arraffa-grabbing", the "take-all and fregatene of others," the "be smart and make your personal interests," a piece of bread would emerge an endless war. And since we live immersed in economic thinking "dell'arraffa-grabbing", the "take-all and fregatene of others," the "be smart and make your personal interests," we can no longer even conceive that there is another way non-civilized living. All the more, then, if you begin to shake the specter of the "death" (hunger). Even the threat of death, however, is not able to crack even the slightest feeling of those living in nature, knows that death is part of Life. It is we, once again, that living in an artificial existence canned that enhances the loss of all contact with reality through the illusion of freedom from pain (medicine), aging (technology) since the end of life (religion ), we fear death like madmen. And to avoid it would be also willing to kill ...
civilization has made us so dependent on our wasteful lifestyle that we can no longer detoxify. This is the problem. Civilization is doping, and we, who live just drugged by pseudo-comfort del mondo civile, sappiamo bene quanto sia difficile disintossicarci da queste abitudini. La civiltà è drogante perché ogni passo che noi facciamo lungo il suo percorso di domesticazione, ne diventiamo sempre più dipendenti. Cento anni fa la luce elettrica non esisteva; oggi nessuno potrebbe farne a meno. E quando fra cinquant'anni tutto dipenderà dal funzionamento delle centrali nucleari saremo disposti a credere allo stesso inganno che ci costringe anche oggi alla catena: vale a dire credere che il nucleare sia indispensabile alla nostra vita. Il nucleare, come l'elettricità o la macchina, non è indispensabile alla nostra vita. È indispensabile alla civiltà: a questo enorme e infaticabile processo autoinglobante che sta portando all to the destruction of everything.
is this awareness which I think is important, not what "balance of nature" or the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution is linear or not ...
On the other hand, even in these purely theoretical considerations, the conditioning civilized that we experience every day, quietly, is all too evident. The concept of "linearity" for example, is a concept typically geometric, so civilized. In nature, nothing is straight, let alone if it can be a process. In the history we know that different populations of hunting and gathering that are dedicated to agriculture have been the go back to the nomad. Questi particolari, però, non incidono su quella che potremmo definire una valutazione generale, la quale ci dice che il processo di civilizzazione è un processo tendenzialmente unidirezionale, condizionante, spinto verso l'autodistruzione.
Lo stesso vale per il concetto di “equilibrio”. È solo la nostra mentalità scientista che lo vede come sinonimo di “perfezione”. Quando dico che la vita paleolitica è stata in equilibrio armonico con la natura per almeno due milioni di anni, non voglio dire che la vita primitiva fosse un Eden. C'erano senz'altro dei problemi, e immagino che fossero anche tanti. Ma erano problemi rapportati alla capacità che gli umani hanno di affrontarli e (sperare to) solve them. Faced with a leopard you can always hide (if you know to run fast), you can always groped to climb up a tree (if you know climbing), it can also deal with it (if you are strong of their prowess Physical and body). Of course you can fail in order to save himself, but was not totally at the mercy of the danger. Today, however, the problems we are thrown upon the artificial world in which we survive are mostly resolved by ourselves: What can we do about the catastrophe represented by the tide of oil is leaking from BP's platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and that is turning the sea on a funeral? What can we do against the outbreak of a nuclear reactor (every year, hundreds of nuclear accidents around the world)? What can we do about the fact that the economy contemplates the existence of cyclical monetary crisis? None. We've turned a world "measure of Nature" in an alien world to ourselves and to nature, and what we can do now is to just suffer the consequences, or try to bring the world to "measure of Nature." I see no other viable solutions.
non-civilized life was not an Eden, but it was a life worth living because each individual has of himself and had not been deprived of its ability to sort and put at the mercy of a machine or decisions of the specialist on duty or a government. We do not realize it, but in the civilized world we have lost the use of the feet. If we take off our shoes are no longer able to move .... We do not realize it, but in the civilized world we are no longer able to provide our own existence: we can no longer recognize a puddle of water from a polluted, no longer able to distinguish a poisonous mushroom from an edible; we are no longer able to protect us from the cold to fend for themselves, to recognize berries, roots and other plant nutrients essential to our ... In short, we become "disabled". As was written in the civilized world "we are like chickens in battery: If you stop the flow of feed, the scenario is the collapse. " And the more we become dependent on the flow of feed, the more we will be forced to accept the decisions, rules, restrictions and abuses of those who control and manage these flows. This much more specific, the more we become dependent on technological processes of the civilized world, the more we will proclaim themselves to be ensnared by religious and ideological right-wing or left-wing parliament, the more we will be delighted in theoretical speculation ends in themselves instead of organizing the daily struggle the causes of our imprisonment (civilization), the more we turn away even the ability to imagine a different world ... And I say, dear friend, with no desire to be controversial, but only because this is my main concern: that by dint of Artificial quietly, lightly to separate from reality, to say the majority of chickens in battery making the real reality the virtual one, we've got to just lose the ability to imagine a natural world in which to return to live. It is in this sense that I hope my book will be of help to someone.
on Intervention of Gaeta ELISA
Dear friends, I save each fitting being quite clear that I have sincerely appreciated the respect that I have expressed in words.
The fact that we can make an instrumental use of a thought or analysis (especially if collected in a text) is not a problem that comes with my book. I agree with you when you say that the Revolution is not made with the incense and prayers, but by carrying out activities and initiatives. But I believe that concrete steps should be clear that these should detract from the value system that you want to "revolutionize" does not legitimize it indirectly. If we think that the parliamentary left is different from the right and see it as a "problem" that the Left lost much acclaim from having to support electorally, we are not questioning nulla del sistema in cui oggi viviamo, quello cioè che ci espropria delle nostre abilità di genere per metterci al servizio della tecnologia, dell'economia, dell'esperto di turno o del governo. Che cos'è un politicante (di destra o di sinistra) se non uno specialista che dovrebbe occuparsi della nostra capacità di pensare gestendo la vita di tutti? Cosa cambia nella sostanza (e sottolineo nella sostanza) se ai comandi della devastazione del mondo si trova Berlusconi o Bersani? Il governo progressista americano di Obama ha forse messo in discussione la logica militare che ne fa lo Stato dominante al mondo? Ha forse cessato di sostenere quel sistema truffaldino che ci tiene al guinzaglio e che chiamiamo Economia? Si è forse impegnato per combattere la mentalità tecnologica che sta riducendo il mondo ad un grande schermo con la massima risoluzione d'immagine?
È ovvio che essendo ogni persona diversa dall'altra, anche ogni partito (che è solitamente composto da persone) sia diverso dall'altro. Ogni partito, infatti, utilizza pratiche e sistemi d'imbonimento differenti. Ma il problema è che queste pratiche e questi sistemi sono finalizzati TUTTI allo stesso obiettivo: governare, dirigere, amministrare gli altri; imbonire insomma! E per quanto le attività dei diversi politicanti possano apparire caratterizzate da metodologie differenti (e spesso lo sono, non c'è dubbio), si iscrivono tutte quante nella stessa logica di soggezione e dominazione. Non c'è alcuna possibilità di fare diversamente: se si vuole governare qualcuno lo si deve sottomettere, costringere (se non si adegua spontaneamente) e punire (se si ribella). Governare è un po' come mettersi ai comandi di un computer. Come ogni persona che si siede davanti al computer fa tutto quello che si deve fare per accenderlo e per entrare nei relativi programmi, anche ogni politicante che si siede ai comandi di un dato Paese fa tutto quello che si deve fare per amministrarlo secondo i valori del mondo civilizzato in cui vive e che lo ha messo in carica: sostenendo l'economia, la tecnologia, la cultura, la paura, la pratica del dominio.
Quante rivoluzioni si sono susseguite in the history of civilization? Yet the process distancing and reifying we call civilization continues to proceed undisturbed encompassing everything and everyone. Why? The answer seems simple: why no revolution has really put into question the paradigm of the civilized world, nor its core values. Every revolution, in reality it has simply legitimized the basic assumptions, renewing and ever: he argued that the economy has relied on technology, has used the fear and the culture to tame, has preserved the anthropocentric ideology and the consequent logical domain (on the Nature and our nature), has supported and defended the principle of division of labor and specialization. In short, every revolution, instead of working to get the world to return and become a world "measure of Nature", and has kept it as it is today: a "measurement system". Consequently, every single living being has always been kept away from the possibility of determining it.
As we said at the beginning of the blog in the world we live in. People do not count, nor the reports nor the subjects, and counts of Economy, Technology, Culture ... In a word: the system. If the system is what counts, is the system that should be preserved, and we all become subordinate to that priority. If today we were transformed into ingranaggi di questo Grande Meccanismo che ci sovrasta, che si nutre di noi, che ci usa e ci consuma fino allo stremo per poi buttarci tra i rifiuti quando non siamo più Efficienti e diventiamo “vecchi”, è solo perché nel mondo civilizzato ciò che conta è appunto il Sistema (la Megamacchina).
Nei fatti, lo vediamo bene quotidianamente, la nostra vita non è più nelle nostre mani, ma in quelle dei politicanti (e del loro racket del consenso), dei medici (e del loro business sulle malattie), degli economisti (e dei loro ricatti monetari), dei tecno-scienziati (e delle loro manipolazioni genetiche che hanno raggiunto anche la vita umana)... Dobbiamo allora riportare la nostra vita nelle nostre mani! Prima lo faremo, prima fermeremo la catastrofe. Ogni altra soluzione di ripiego rimarrà una soluzione di ripiego.
Carissimi Gaetano ed Elisa, io ho grande considerazione umana per le posizioni che avete espresso, ma vi chiedo: pensate davvero che la raccolta differenziata dei rifiuti possa cambiare la struttura del mondo civilizzato? Senza voler polemizzare sul fatto che ogni raccolta differenziata viene poi compromessa nei fatti all'atto del conferimento dei rifiuti nell'inceneritore (e che dunque raccolta differenziata di rifiuti vuol dire anche inceneritore...), sono assolutamente convinto che l'ammasso di rifiuti che produciamo ogni giorno non sia il problema , ma il sintomo of the problem. Would not it be more appropriate, then, begin to wonder why we produce much waste? We would see that the problem would lead us straight to the issue of consumerism, which finds its justification in the industrial that has meaning only in a world where people do not matter but things, the movement of things, the administration of things , the wealth of things ... Thinking to solve the waste problem while preserving the logic that produces them, it seems simply meaningless.
On the other hand, pulling the strings of decomposition in this universe knows how to preserve their power, even without blocking (formally) the criticism of himself simply to meet any opposition "effects" of the problem rather than its "causes", and that's it. Stuck in muddy ground of criticism of the effects, animate us to determine how to dispose of, control, reduce, move, prohibit, hide ... And while the causes of our continued impoverishment and everything will remain untouched as ever: democratically undisturbed ...
Medical science is not master in the art of solving problems. In fact, it just teaches us to deal with the effects of the disease. We have the fever? Well, the fever should be removed ... Too bad that the fever is not the cause of the disease but an effect, just a symptom. In essence, fever tells us there is something wrong in our bodies and we have to try to understand what the problem is and then groped to remedy.
Similarly we look evil in the world just trying to mitigate its effects. It is the governments (of any color possible), the tycoon, the scientists, the "technicians" who teach us well. We think the only meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 where the Department of Earth have come together to talk about global pollution limits. Set limits to pollution worldwide is how to work to try to reduce fever. The pollution is in fact a symptom of an underlying problem: there is something wrong in our system, so much so that it produces pollution (symptom). As long as we take care of setting limits to pollution (and not to struggle to return to a world that produces no pollution), pollution will be justified and will not go away ...
If we are sick we have to look at the causes of the disease, not to worry just to hide (or resize) the symptoms. Empty the garbage under the rug will not make the room clean and, by dint of throwing garbage under the rug, the room has become so saturated that is about to burst ... We want to continue to seek a new carpet?
We think the serious problem of air traffic. Yourself you have rightly raised as a priority problem. Do you really think that issue is resolved "substantially reducing the number of flights? And the noise? And the routes of animals affecting all aircraft? And the issue of chemtrails? And exploitation (human and environmental) that lies behind the construction of an airplane?
Again what prevails in our way of seeing things is the anthropocentric perspective. We migratory birds do not give a damn. You know you! For two stupid birds! What I do not understand is that our life depends also on the flight of those two "dumb" birds. And if you block that route, indirectly we also hurt ourselves. Why in the world we live in we are not islands: everything is interconnected. And if civilization has taught us to perceive themselves as separate from everything (and dominant), we in fact we are all inseparable parts of this, and any migration route that will prevent, any land paved, every river that might contaminate each animal vivisection , knock down every plant that will be a bit 'of life that we take to ourselves.
Unfortunately our civilized mentality that does not allow us to see what we have seen for millions of years (when we lived on the non-civilized). We keep thinking of it as the master of nature, as that nature was in fact a Ireland insignificant to our mail service. We do not realize that everything is connected to everything, and that we are not masters of anything. In the words of Ishmael , the wise gorilla protagonist of the novel by Daniel Quinn, is not the world that belongs to us, we who belong to the world. And as long as our mentality is not coming back to be like the primitive (which well cover the above assumption of interconnection), we will continue to destroy, to devastate, to pollution, deforestation, to abolish, to kill ... according to law. Maybe with a good measure of ecological parliamentary left to the government that will explain it ended the era of classical economics (the ugly and capitalist) and the era of the Green-Economy: the clean, renewable, sustainable ... the "green" in short, as the dollars are green justify ...
As I said at the beginning, I do not seem controversial, and indeed I must thank you for the intervention because it allows me to express what I think. If I insist, therefore, in referring to your words is not for pedantry, but because I seem to be full of food for thought. You say it's better the policy of "small steps", the "least worst".
The problem, in my view, is that the policy of "small steps", by imposing to target the few energy that we have the objective of "small step", tends to lose sight of its overall purpose. I make a very brief historical example to make myself better understood.
the late nineteenth century, in Italy, after years of increasingly heated discussions and comparisons, the Socialist Revolutionaries were separated from the reformist socialists who, in 1892, come together in the Italian Socialist Party (PSI). The reformist socialists believed that the political struggle (for a world of free and equal) would be a "small steps" even entering the institutions to tackle them from within, and supported the need to show up at the polls. The Socialist Revolutionaries (gli anarchici, tanto per intenderci), ribadivano invece che questo stesso obiettivo (una società di liberi e di uguali) potesse essere raggiunto solo evitando di passare per il tramite di un governo socialista (che sarebbe diventato ben presto un governo come tutti gli altri), e operando al contrario tra la gente, per una diffusa sensibilizzazione sulle problematiche di volta in volta portate all'attenzione pubblica. Ritenevano, insomma, che la battaglia politica dovesse farsi fuori dalle istituzioni, senza compromessi; e questo proprio per evitare di essere fagocitati dalle istituzioni stesse e trasformati in strumento del potere.
I socialisti riformisti si presentarono alle urne (1882) e riuscirono anche ad eleggere un loro deputato (il bolognese Andrea Costa, ex anarchico approdato alla causa dei “piccoli passi”). Grandi esultanze celebrarono questo evento e mentre gli anarchici continuavano a guardare la svolta con preoccupazione, continuavano anche a ribadire il fatto che aspirando ad entrare nelle istituzioni, i loro compagni socialisti riformisti avrebbero prima o poi perduto l'orizzonte dell'obiettivo finale (una società di liberi e di uguali) per occuparsi di istituzioni, con tanto di possibile scalata al potere (alla faccia dei liberi e degli uguali). Non ho bisogno di andare oltre nel riportare i fatti storici e per dimostrare quanto avessero ragione gli anarchici. Tutti sappiamo come sono andate le cose nei cento anni successivi, con il PSI al governo and Craxi (and its depredations) ahead of all the disappointments of the socialist reformers.
After changing the goal (from the "general" than the "small step"), it usually ends with him losing the original objective to pursue other things .... until it is lost completely. Today, just to conclude the above example, we know that the historical part of the PSI supports even the right and is part of Berlusconi's fascist parties that lead the fascist government of the "leader" Silvio ...
seems to me that accepting the policy of "small steps" is nothing but a symptom of a yield, and yield inevitably leads to sconfitta. Purtroppo, lo dico guardando prima di tutto a me stesso, cadere nella trappola dell'arrendevolezza è molto facile nel mondo iper-controllato e addomesticato in cui sopravviviamo. La civiltà, insomma, ci costringe quotidianamente a una vita talmente addomesticata e servile che anche i nostri atteggiamenti tendono a farsi sempre più docili. In questa resa alla conformità dimentichiamo solitamente che oltre alla Libertà (valore di cui si fa sempre un gran parlare, politicamente) esiste anche la Dignità. Nel mondo dell'utilitarismo, delle attenzioni al “proprio orto”, delle preoccupazioni individualistiche, non siamo più in grado di fare battaglie per affermare la dignità dell'esistere. Ci accontentiamo in fact the lesser evil, the little there is, of what can be achieved right away, forgetting that what you can get is often not immediately achieved, but granted. And I say this with great bitterness, because all are victims. Yet, just touch us in love just because they react as free and dignified individuals, showing how the politics of "lesser evil" is just a surrender to the imperative of not-want-change-anything. An example of the paradoxes that take from the shelf, I can make my argument even more clearly.
Suppose that one day show up at our door a madman in uniform that you notify us of this decision disturbing: "From today, it was decided that she should take ten blows per day. I shall myself every morning at 8:30 to beat her for duty! "What would we do faced with such a choice? We will probably at work to try to get that brute who simply come to trim "only" eight blows per day, or pretend not to be touched? I am convinced that our dignity we would communicate immediately to do everything possible to avoid being beaten. Yet those who deny that it is better to take eight blows that take ten?
Everyone is obviously free to do whatever they want with their life, but I am convinced that if we put in that situation instinctively we would try to fight for that nobody can beat up by decree. We may also fail in the enterprise, there is no doubt, but the choice between a life devoted to menial barrel morning to the extent legally living and the prospect of not being beaten, most of us would opt for the path of freedom, dignity. And we are not interested to know that, scientifically speaking, eight blows per day trimmed to an individual of our age would not exceed the maximum margin of tolerance to the slap of the human brain, and thus the damage of those beatings do not have any immediate repercussions on our health. We would not be beaten, period!
Struggling for an economy Green, for a technology with low environmental impact, for democratic politics, for the collection of waste, reducing the number of flights, we are doing is fighting for only eight slaps.
course, my example is only apparently paradoxical. Why the slap in fact, receive them for real. Only that there are printed directly on the face: we come to a third party, through the suppression of daily living and the destruction of the natural world. Nature, that is, continues to take thousands of blows per day (enough to be on the verge of collapse) and we, what can we do? Invest our energies to reduce un po' il numero delle botte?
Io non ho pretese di convincimento di nessuno. E rispetto le vostre opinioni e di chi la vede diversamente da me. Non sarò però al fianco di chi, consapevolmente, operi per legittimare questo mondo di sfruttamento e di morte. Io voglio impegnare le mie energie affinché la Terra, le Persone, gli Animali, la Vita non la si tocchi più! E il mio riuscire nell'intento credo dipenda anche dalla volontà e dall'azione di tutti coloro che non abbiano già gettato la spugna...
SULL'INTERVENTO DI GIANFRANCO
Caro Gianfranco,
sta nell'ordine delle cose che opinioni, valutazioni o teorie non appaiano convincenti to someone. It is a pity that there were people able to imagine something "better" because of the origins of agriculture. Also your theory, moreover, as suggestive, it does not seem conclusive. If everything had been born with the emergence of a fear in emotional contact and fascination for power, does not explain why agriculture would be developed only after ten thousand years ago, in many different contexts and with no contact with each other (fertile Crescent rather than the Indus Valley, New Guinea, rather than ancient China), and in a limited period of time, including just between ten thousand and five thousand years ago (for the last "arrived" in the Americas just five thousand years ago). In short, because only in that period and not in another, in that much more extended period of two million years of the Paleolithic? If it was all due to a "stoned" by someone, because many of these "someone" who had no contact with each other and were separated by thousands of miles away, stoned together in those five years and not before?
On the other hand, your argument assumes a sort of "existential absolute perfection" (heaven on earth you call it) before the advent of civilization justifying the existence of hunter-gatherers. In fact, if it is true that the parents of a baby human being will inevitably make mistakes in raising their children, this was also true for hunter-gatherers of the Paleolithic (which were also human beings), which did not indulged agriculture for at least two million years. Anyway, even gatherers who still resist the genocidal invasions of the civilized world are certainly mistakes in raising their children, nevertheless, their communities continue to grow in a balanced, rewarding, peaceful, enviable, and not "stoned "...
I do not think that the cause of the birth of agriculture is due to regions that have imagined, and I still believe much more plausible the religious cause (after the development of symbolic culture). About one thing, though, I agree completely: as you say, "whatever the reasons for the initial turning point, we must accept that the vessels are already broken and we need to work on the pieces to do what is possible today." This seems to me the real issue on which to reflect, discuss, act.
Henry
0 comments:
Post a Comment