Consumptionism vs. The Natural State

There are voices in society that romantically speak of a "get back to nature" state of living - where we simplify society, eliminate government, and pare down our "consumption" to the bare essentials. This desire persists in some despite the evident benefits of society.

Civilization:

• Is able to insulate us from scarcity
• Provides for the ownership of private property, without which there can be no freedom
• Builds the mechanisms by which we acquire, improve, and share the knowledge that improves our lives 

The voices that speak romantically of the "noble savage" tell us that we must learn how to eliminate 'consumptionism' and "get back into harmony with nature." These people have made several fundamental miscalculations with regard to nature - human and otherwise.

Some of these people are of purely noble intentions, but it is not intentions that matter. You know what they say about the road to hell, after all. It's true. Intentions don't matter at all compared to results. Furthermore, the "back-to-nature" people are in error about several of their assumptions, which I am willing to assume are borne of naiveté rather than anything more conspiratorial.

Namely:

• The Idea of a "Balance of Nature" is a Myth. Nature is not ever in a state of equilibrium. Nature is always striving against itself. The various species are winning and losing - sometimes to extinction - every day. They are competing for food and for space every waking minute....and they will kill and eat each other to be the victors. These victorious bloodlines are what the same biologists who talk about the "balance of nature" call "successful" species.

• It Is Our Sophisticated Brain that Saves Us from the Same Fate as Animals: While there are human civilizations in the world that live primitively, it is our capacity for civilization - when realized - that SAVES us from the same struggle that the animals endure. Without humans around, the lion would be at the top of the food chain by virtue of claws, teeth, and muscles. Instead, we are at the top because of our sophisticated brains - unique in all the world for being able to form complex thoughts - abstract thoughts, even - and yes: societies. Sure, I hear you, monkeys and elephants live in societies with complex rituals, tools, and communication too. In answer to that: Yes, all of that monkey business is complex if you don't compare it to New York City; the Space Shuttle; or, well, you see where I'm going...

• Man Would Not Live in Greater Harmony Without Civilization: I can only gather from the ideas expressed by the "back to nature" and "anarchy" crowds that they believe men can live in harmony without the need for police protection from those who would use the vacuum of legitimate authority to impose their will on others. It is as if they believe that everyone could "buy in" to the idea of the commune and abandon all sense of self-interest. Furthermore, they seem to believe that, through education and enlightenment, we could eliminate the bullies we have all known. I am reminded here of the now popular song "Waiting on the World to Change." The World - and human nature with it - is what it is. If you read ancient books you see that mankind has not fundamentally changed in essence over these many millennia. We still face the same pettiness that mankind always has. Human nature can improve - I do believe that - but we will never reach a point where everyone will abandon their self-interest, or greed, or possessions, or whatever else John Lennon can imagine. It's fanciful, at best - and dangerous, at worst - to think so. Dangerous because any attempt to establish such a society would remove the very civilization that protects the whole. Just ask anyone who saw what the Soviet Union - and all other socialist and communist experiments - came to when they tried the national commune. Not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, but it does show that a naive attempt at social and economic harmony will always lead to oppression. Why? Because it does not factor in self-interest, which - by the way - is not always greedy or malicious. For more on this idea, go to my Communism and Socialism pages. Now, you might respond to me here by saying that only civilizations can produce armies that threaten harmony and well-being even more than the neighborhood bully does. And you'd be making a good point if you said such a thing. But we live in an imperfect world, so there is no solution that is without a downside. I'll grant you that war is a pretty nasty "downside." Even still, at least we have a modicum of control in war-waging that we do not enjoy in the "natural state" of man. And though it might be costly to do so, you can - in spite of your citizenship - choose the side of the defender or the hero, rather than the aggressor. At least in war there is the opportunity to be on the side of the noble, rather than just scrapping in the woods or the streets (oh! I forgot. There wouldn't be any streets or cars) over scraps.

• Civilization is Man's Mechanism for Sharing Knowledge and Improving His Condition: Try to imagine that you and twelve other people were suddenly marooned on an uninhabited island. Suddenly, you would be back in the Stone Age - forced to reinvent bronze (okay, wise guy - that is unless you happened to have such a craftsman with you, but follow the logic, okay....stay with me a minute), and fire-making, and tools that are long-since considered obsolete in civilized society. It is through our shared knowledge that we start to make progress. The Library of Alexandria in ancient Egypt was the first such repository of knowledge, and people came from all over the Known World to share the (intellectual) wealth. In this way, through organized information that was only possible through the structure of civilization, all of mankind enjoyed a much better life. By contrast, is it not true that under-developed societies all pretty much look the same...earthen huts with adobe walls and dusty people clawing at the Earth to eke out some grain that they can hand grind? Now, before you start calling me names for berating their noble and simpler way of life, consider first that these people know that they are poor and uneducated. They would LOVE for their children to enjoy your standard of medical care, education, and opportunity. Set aside your romantic, "from-your-easy-chair" sentimentality for their "nobler way of life" and consider the needs of these very real people who have the same capacity for a better life as you do. All they lack is the sophistication of civilization to attain it.

• It Does Nobody Any Good to Share Their Misery - Share Your Technology Instead: If you are among the "back-to-nature" crowd reading now, then please answer this question: Which of the two things you can do will help the aforementioned poor societies more: a). sharing your knowledge and technology; or b). selling all you own and going to live among them - as they live and on their terms - so that you can show how compassionately you relate? Would it do them any good if you can relate on some emotional level? Will you sit in coffee shops and debate the pitfalls of option a? Is "a" what you would call "self-centric social interventionism" (or some other "academic-ese") among your fellow anthropology students? Will you be willing to show poor societies the way to improve their lives through the example of your technology? The armchair philosophers spoken of in the previous sentences likely consider themselves the true champions to underdeveloped societies; while simultaneously berating missionaries and foreign aid workers as harmful "interventionists." Ironic, isn't it?

Back to Main Politics Page