One challenge that I imagine most people face in their lifetime is choosing between what society and family say they should do and what they feel in their heart they need to do. Parents often pressure their children to succeed in school by getting good grades and participating in extracurricular activities. They want their progeny to have a strong resume and get a secure career so that they'll make money and live a healthy, comfortable life. Young people approaching adulthood start to understand where their own strengths and weaknesses are and what they want to do with their life. Their options start to be limited by all kinds of outside forces and they might start questioning what their real dreams are. In my life, I've had two fears about my future. One fear is that I won't figure out what my ideal life is. The other is that I won't follow through with that ideal.
It's hard to make a judgment as to what my alternative life would be like. By answering that question you're implying that you've made choices that you wish you could change in this life and that you're not entirely satisfied with where you are. My life right now is a general synthesis of my two main interests: music and the environment with an emphasis on the environment. I've made decisions that factored in not only my interests, but also the desires of family. While I'm not dissatisfied with how things have gone, if a second life was available to me I would live it in a slightly different way.
In my second life I presumably would have stuck out high school for the sake of my parents and my future. As I begrudgingly passed from class to class I would have done my best while still questioning the necessity of the industrial education that was being thrust upon me. Upon graduating, I would have found a farm in some forward-thinking state like New York or California and become a resident. I would have brought along my guitar, clothes, a few other possessions, maybe my car, and certainly my bike if it was possible. While working there I would find a library or a college where I could read and learn on my own. If there was a free school nearby I would take classes and learn all I could in my free time. Most importantly, I would spend time in nature and learn as much as I could from other people and on my own about wilderness survival. I would spend as little money as possible and save it up for future travels. During this time I would also write stories and songs, practice playing music, and maybe even perform. I would try to find like-minded people who support the environment and oppose industrialization. We would work together living sustainably, protesting, and doing whatever we could to help preserve the natural world.
Eventually, I presume I would get itchy feet. I would store or pawn off my excess possessions and gather up the necessities before heading off to a foreign country or another continent. I would travel by bike, foot, or any way I could in far off lands. I could do odd jobs, work on farms, and camp when I need to. By meeting new people I would gain friends, learn languages, and learn as much about the world as possible. I would again try to meet up with anarchists and environmentalists and work together with them protesting civilization and protecting their communities. I would keep reading and writing as much as possible. As often as I could I would contact my family to let them know where I am and how I'm doing. I would do my upmost through the whole journey to make sure they don't think I'm running away or making rash life decisions. In each new nation and new community I would try to learn and respect their culture without intruding. I would want to understand their values as well as the challenges that they must overcome in the face of the increasing industrialization of the planet.
In terms of a profession I don't know that I would have a title. At some point perhaps I would try to earn a higher degree, but I might not be inclined to right away. My self-prescribed title would probably be Anthropologist/Environmentalist/Anarchist. I would live a low-impact life while learning about diverse cultures and their struggles during the environmental crisis. I would help people in whatever way I could and I would probably someday choose a home where I would join or set up my own community. As civilization reaches a point where it can no longer sustain itself, which it will presumably do, I will be there to use my diverse knowledge and diverse friends to help whoever comes to my doorstep. My ultimate goal would be to learn everything I need to survive the growing world crises, share that knowledge with anyone who will listen, and protect any human and non-human life that survives along with me.
Overall, this life is only different in how it's carried out. Many people in this culture would see it as a life without productivity, a wasted life by the values of civilization. I wouldn't be contributing to an economy and I wouldn't be "bettering" myself in the eyes of the professional world. Ultimately, though, my values will be the same. I would want to learn as much as I could, work hard, and help people which are all goals of mine now. I would do it differently though, more independently. I would still be working to protect the environment like I am now and will be doing for the rest of my life. However, it would be through less mainstream channels than I'm currently using. This alternative life would be different only in practice not in theory. My values wouldn't change, just my plan of attack.
I'm interested in your definition of civilization. It always seemed to me that being opposed to civilization meant to be in favor of a kind of isolated individualism and self-sufficiency, yet you certainly seem in support here of community and communal living. What do you see as the difference?
ReplyDeleteThere's certainly some debate about what "civilization" encompasses. I would define civilization as a culture based on cities that require the importation of resources. In other words, there aren't enough resources in and around the city to sustain it so resources must be imported - bought or taken - from another group of people in order for the city to survive.
ReplyDeleteThere is a certain individualism and self-sufficiency inherent in being opposed to civilization because you don't have the same means of support as provided by the dominant culture. In addition, a true anarchist (I really can't claim to be one) would be considered an outcast to many people based on their beliefs and so would experience a certain forced individualism.
I am in support of communal living because that's how humans survived for hundreds of thousands of years and because people (generally) LIKE to be in a mutually supportive group. There's no reason a group of people can't live together in a healthy, comfortable, mutually supportive community outside "mainstream" civilization.
I would say the difference is mostly in time. People can't survive alone forever, they require companionship. A person who is opposed to civilization might be in a way ostracized at first. Outside of civilization a person is mostly alone. Community is just the next developmental step - you leave one world only to find another.