After the end of Japanese rule in Korea, the country was occupied yet again, apparently to help create an independent Korean state. The Soviet Union entered the country first; the United States, in its campaign against communism, also stepped in. They agreed to draw an imaginary line to divide the peninsula. The north was sponsored by the Soviets and communism, the south by the US and capitalism. To this day, they both claim themselves to be the only true Korea.

In the eyes of the colonizers, Asia remains a vast resource, and Asians remain either an obstacle or another resource. What lies ahead of us is dim, and we have been back against the wall.

…

Yet the struggle for Asia remains as either capitalist or communist. The underlying nationalism serves to give up the individual into the good of the whole. In this way, individuals will sacrifice their livelihoods to the future that is the product of a power-hungry elite. The individuals turn towards some vanguard to tell them what is good for the nation; this has always meant self-sacrifice for the people and ecological destruction.

…

The productionist, industrial way of life will inevitably destroy life on this planet, as the community of life stands in the way of ‘resources’ needed to build a completely synthetic reality, devoid of all that it means to be human and to live.

Anonymous, “Against Communism, Against Capitalism: The New Asian Revolution”

The imaginary line, with its land mines, fortified fences, and armed guards on both sides, is a line created by hatred, fueled by hatred. Four kilometres separate the states, the area being two hundred and fifty kilometres long, and few will ever cross. A true no man’s land, it would seem to be a completely inhospitable place. If we look more closely, we can see that it is not.

The land left alone by infrastructure has become a nature reserve. Despite the narrow space, hundreds of plant and animal species flourish within. Those who have been persecuted by humanity have found a safe space: bears, deer, spoonbills, cranes, ducks, and possibly even tigers and leopards live in the woodlands. Just goes to show how pointless our human conflicts are, soon to be forgotten by nature.

This is why I am anti-civilization.

To be anti-civilization means looking at the life that slips thru the cracks and showing some respect. To understand that the mass society that surrounds it – roads, cities, cars, military bases, space programs, computers, and all the politics that lie within – are not as important as the needs of the planet. What appears to be merely a nature reserve or dandelion in the cracks is actually a glimpse of the world that civilization takes from.

Civilization is not ecologically sustainable. It is always in contrast with the natural world, a repurposing of land exclusively for humans. The living spaces of other species are cleared, as the materials for building cities are extracted in droves. With no ecosystem to provide or way to migrate, and thousands to feed, food must be produced in other manners. The trees are felled to allow grazing for privately owned animals. Grains are grown in massive fields, killing forests and wetlands. Those from the wild who seek food and shelter in civilization, more than likely out of desperation, will likely be shot.

This is true of the entire civilized world. As the DMZ shows us, civilization’s ways of ecological destruction are constant. Without us to continue the habit of taking and never giving, the web of life will show itself again, our structures falling, being melded into a place for any species to grow and play.

Civilization is as much a political ideology as communism or capitalism. It is an arrangement of human beings, a set of decisions as to what is to be done with the earth, a system of production: based on taking from nature rather than living with it. Its grip on our minds is strong but not invincible.

And somehow, often without even without a second thought, we prefer the civilised world. We want to have our reliable things: our computers, cars, fast food and a thousand others, but what really causes this preference is that we believe nature to just be the place outside the cities and suburbs. Civilisation is viewed as a constant, having moved beyond nature and its rules. The fact that our minds have become civilized does not change what nature needs. As Derrick Jensen said:

“If your experience is that your food comes from the grocery store and your water comes from the tap, you’ll defend to the death the system that brings those to you because your life depends on it. If, on the other hand, your food comes from a landbase and your water comes from a river, then you’ll defend to the death that landbase and that river, because your life depends on them.”

It is obvious that the resources for civilization come from somewhere. But most of us believe that resource consumption can just be scaled down and we can still have the modern world – or even that futuristic technology is necessary to reduce our carbon footprint. As if they did not run on the same materials. That modern technology must continue and turn into something better. As if it were destiny. These only come from their time and place, and are not guaranteed to stay.