I didn't win on the Alpine Fellowship Writing Prize, 2021 ("Untamed: On Wilderness and Civilization")

I didn't win on the Alpine Fellowship Writing Prize, 2021 (theme: "Untamed: On Wilderness and Civilization"). Here is my essay:

 

Civilization is the new Wilderness

As far as we know, our species (Homo Sapiens) has come into being in small communities. They were hunter-gatherers (like some monkeys), and there was a limited supply of food for them, that's why their population could not grow significantly. Some people call their system „primitive communism”, as they shared the food among themselves, and their land was common. This means that there was probably not much competition inside their own group, but instead, they were fighting or competing against other small groups. The soul of humankind has formed in this kind of environment, with its ability to love and hate, to forgive or avenge, to be brave or cowardly, to think, speak, act or omit. Later in history, agriculture allowed the sizes of populations to increase, so the smaller groups grew into city states and even nation states. This way they had more chance against smaller groups in wars, and this kind of civilization conquered the world (or at least, the Earth, if extraterrestials exist). As the magnitude of communities was increasing, love and hate, gratitude and retribution were no longer able to govern human relationships, so laws were required, like the Code of Hammurabi in Babylonia or the Ten Commandments of the Bible. These laws were usually able to sustain peace inside the states (preventing civil wars), but did not manage to sustain „primitive communism”. Inheritable social inequalities appeared, and people possessing military power (like the aristocrats in ancient Greece) or spiritual power, real or alleged (like the Brahmins in India) owned and commanded more. The institution of slavery in antiquity meant an even larger kind of inequality. Due to the unjust inequalities in society, more rivalries came up among members of the same state (e.g. „class struggles”, as some people call them, or competitions for jobs), so in case of humankind, the evolutionary struggle for existence (as Darwinism teaches) got two dimensions (not to mention the environment): struggle among states (or nations) and struggle among individuals of the same state (or nation). Well, this might have been so in prehistoric times as well, but on a different level. In today's world (the era of United Nations) there is less competition among groups (or nations), and more competition among individuals (or nuclear families). This means that we are more like bears and less like ants than before. Thus, it seems that we have been untamed!

Well, of course, the case is not as simple as that. People are still urged to be law-abiding, useful to others, and popular (to have many friends or acquaintances). There is just more individualism and cosmopolitanism on Earth than before. The point is that in today's world, civilization to humans is like wilderness to bears. It is no longer a strong alliance, but only an environment of rules telling how to compete. These rules or laws cannot ensure that people remain tame inside, as there are always loopholes or lacunae in such a system. For example, the conduct of pupils and students is worsening in schools, and the movies are more and more violent. There is cyberbullying despite the countermeasures. There are many video games with protagonists who actually commit crime in their imaginary world. There are soccer fans (or football hooligans) who might break shop-windows after a match. Copyright infringement is widespread, and there are also many other kinds of crime and corruption. Thus, it seems that many people in our era are born to be wild, which they remain to be inside, and only look tame from the outside as they get more sophisticated. It also seems that Christianity knew this, and tried to improve the situation by focusing on love (or alliance) instead of the laws. Still, the evolutionary struggle continues, and it still means competition among individuals (or nuclear families) in an environment of rules called civilization. To us, it matters how fair these rules are, and how they differ from the true wilderness.

The rules of civilization should be better for us than those of wilderness, otherwise failing states and anarchy would be a priority. Believe me, they are not a priority, even if you are an anarchist. If there were anarchy, your standard of living would fall, you would lose many opportunities of entertainment and learning, so you would have less enjoyments, while you would suffer more, you would probably be hungry, you would probably feel cold in winter, etc. Even your life would be in danger. If these were not enough, you might also lose your main reasons of being an anarchist: justice and freedom. Anarchy would not be just, because better equipped and larger groups would probably defeat the smaller ones. After doing so, they might turn you (or the anarchist) to a slave, like the Islamic State did with many people. Moreover, anarchy would not be sustainable either. Sooner or later some kind of military would form, and it would take control and then install some kind of civilization different from anarchy. Humankind would reorganize itself, and organization would conquer the less organized. Thus, failing states and anarchy are not a real choice, they are just temporary. Instead of them, we shall contemplate on different forms of civilization, which one is better than the others...

Well, while anarchists do not offer real solutions, they might still see some problems well. They are good at being against something, and this thing is the unjust distribution of power, including too great power over the poor. In the wilderness, there is no such a huge injustice. Animals only control their own bodies, and even alpha males have to fight for their superiority. This means that probably the ablest individual rules in Nature, if there is any rule at all. In human society, however, this is not necessarily the case... The 20th century has shown us two kinds of societies: capitalism and communism. The anarchists were against both, but they did not manage to introduce their own system, which is not a surprise after what I wrote here. In capitalism, probably the capitalists rule, i. e. those who have a lot of money. Even if there are a lot of opportunities for getting rich (or for getting political power), it is not likely that the ablest (or the wisest, most ethical, most diligent, etc.) individuals rule in capitalism in general. In communism, the political elite rules, probably those who are favoured by former politicians or who knows? The communist systems of the 20th century might not be the same as ideal communism. Ideal communism is democratic, while most of the communist systems of the 20th century were like dictatorships. Anyway, the power of the State is quite strong in communism (as well as the power of one Party), and this power might easily be even worse than the power of capitalists over the poor. Therefore, it is also not likely that the ablest (or the wisest, most ethical, most diligent, etc.) individuals would support a dictatorship or such a strong power of the State (or of „the” Party), so it is not likely that they would generally rule in communism either. (Note that a large state administration is not necessarily bad: but it should be about a „large public sector” instead of the „strong power of the state”.) Thus, we have seen that the political and economic systems of the 20th century were not perfect, and we (or the anarchists) can learn from the wilderness to criticize or improve them.

The point is to improve the rules of civilization, making it almost as just to humans as Nature was to different bears (or maybe even more)… and to make civilization almost as sustainable as Nature was (natural life has a history of millions of years, but civilization has been changing much more rapidly). Thus, in some respects, Nature is the role model, and some of its beneficial functions still missing from civilization should be implemented in society, too. For example, overpopulation should be prevented by laws, instead of letting Nature check it (as the latter would probably bring more suffering and instability). Something like permaculture (or organic farming) should be widespread, instead of letting farmers use genetically modified (GMO) seeds, pesticides and fertilizers, etc. The children of the rich should not inherit a lot of land from their parents (as land was common in Nature). There are many more ideas for a sustainable and equitable society, and these ideas can also be elaborated in more detail and perfection… but the question arises: are you willing to support some kind of law against overpopulation? Are you willing to pay more for better food? Are you willing to vote for big socialist reforms? Yes? Then why don't the politicians speak about these topics more often? Why isn't the limitation of overpopulation among the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations? Okay, maybe no one could suggest perfect and detailed laws (maybe „natural laws”) against overpopulation yet, especially not on the global level. In many developed countries, the population is not growing significantly, so the politicians might have thought that this will be the case globally after every country becomes developed… however, population would also grow in developed countries if the prices of houses and of utility bills were cheaper. Some „unassuming” part of their population might still grow. Also, overpopulation should be limited now, not only after every country gets developed, which will either happen or not. Maybe the possible laws against overpopulation would be worse for some countries than for others, and the people at the United Nations did not dare to introduce these restrictions. Anyway, at least I have written a little about these questions in this essay… but let's return to the topic.

Civilization is the new wilderness, and together with the old wilderness they determine the rules of the game of life. Life is like a game, and it does not seem to be a good game if we suffer or lose due to handicaps (but it may still be good if there is reincarnation, Heaven or Nirvana). Democratic Socialism (something between capitalism and communism) may diminish these handicaps. Success in life (and therefore, its enjoyment) may also depend on grace (at least in capitalism): workers can get good jobs by the grace of their employer, and entrepreneurs can sell their goods by the grace of their customers. If someone does not manage to get enough grace, then he or she can still fight or compete. For example, one may try to play chess professionally… Untamed again.