How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?

first of all, that very question shows the change. before the advent of our concept of civilization, humans didn't live with nature at all. they were just living, they were nature.


civilization is the direct result of hardcore agricultre, that is, producing more food then needed. this leads to an increased population because the food surplus is feeding more people. contray to common belief, increased food production is not a solution for famine but is a cause of famine.


as the population increases, food production increases, as food supply increases, the population as a whole increases.


after several generations, there are too many people for the land to support(famine), and people need to expand. this is when they organize themselves in towns, cities and kngdoms. the need to expand leads to wars of conquest. also, the need to increase food supplies leads to the kiling of unwanted and unneeded plants and animals. only the species needed for agriculture are kept.How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
Civilization is a culture of oppression and occupation. In order to objectify others (plants, non-human animals, or other humans) you need to see them as less-than, otherwise you'd be less likely to kill them without thought.





There are some destructive tribal cultures but civilization by far takes the cake. The reason for this is that civilization, as I said, is a culture of occupation. It constantly needs more and more, and will use more and more until there is nothing left. The cultural mythology is that civilization is the ';right'; way to live, that everyone should live this way or be disposed of. This mindset destroys diversity (both ecological and human cultures). Any biologist will tell you that the more diverse an area, the more stable. With that said, civilization leads to more and more instability (environmentally, health, etc).





Civilization isn't very human-friendly even for those that live in it. Its a very controlling culture that encourages those in power to use violence to control, while telling those on the bottom that self-defense is not allowed. It drastically increases stress, mental and physical disorders (the majority of diseases we now suffer from are largely created by civilization (cancer, heart disease)), reduces our leisure time while reducing our nutrient levels.





In other words, it sucks. Other cultures are much more in tune with life and living.How did the rise of civilizations change how humans live with nature and other humans?
There was so much truth in this answer I think it is worth repeating.





Civilization is a culture of oppression and occupation. In order to objectify others (plants, non-human animals, or other humans) you need to see them as less-than, otherwise you'd be less likely to kill them without thought.





There are some destructive tribal cultures but civilization by far takes the cake. The reason for this is that civilization, as I said, is a culture of occupation. It constantly needs more and more, and will use more and more until there is nothing left. The cultural mythology is that civilization is the ';right'; way to live, that everyone should live this way or be disposed of. This mindset destroys diversity (both ecological and human cultures). Any biologist will tell you that the more diverse an area, the more stable. With that said, civilization leads to more and more instability (environmentally, health, etc).





Civilization isn't very human-friendly even for those that live in it. Its a very controlling culture that encourages those in power to use violence to control, while telling those on the bottom that self-defense is not allowed. It drastically increases stress, mental and physical disorders (the majority of diseases we now suffer from are largely created by civilization (cancer, heart disease)), reduces our leisure time while reducing our nutrient levels.





In other words, it sucks. Other cultures are much more in tune with life and living.


Source(s):


Derrick Jensen, Daniel Quinn, biology, anthrology, psychology, etc. papers