Civilization’s Collapse

[thoughts from   ~burning woman~   ]

It seems so long ago now, but before I retired, it was part of my job to go to a troublesome account and make the call whether a piece of equipment should be written off and replaced with a new one. I suppose it’s a responsibility that as the then most senior person in the department I was expected to take on. Further, they knew well enough that I had been old-school European trained; that I didn’t have the throw-away mentality so prevalent in Canada and America. When I said a piece of equipment was a write-off, there was no point sending more techs to try to make it work. It was replaced.

The point of this long preamble is that I developed a kind of second-sight about what can be salvaged and what should be written off. Does this apply to other than machines, buildings or human bodies? Can an individual assess the level of entropy in a much larger and more complex system, for example, an empire or an entire civilization? As a matter of fact, that is a deduction that isn’t difficult to arrive at. Let me explain.

While I was thus involved in the technological world of a global multi-national corporation I was also very much involved in social and environmental issues. To me the two went hand in hand. The corporation taught me to see what was wrong with the technological world we were developing and it also taught me that past a certain point in the life of any system, be it a dispenser or a civilization, entropy reached a level that made it pointless to continue fixing.

Now to bring up an unpopular subject: the downfall of man’s civilization and the fact that we are now totally engaged into and sliding down its dark side. Should it come as a surprise that such events do not happen only to others far behind us in history? We are facing, not a change but an implosion of gargantuan magnitude and while a few millions seem concerned it remains that the billions are not.

I know this. It’s not something I wanted to happen, I worked hard enough to prevent it, but it is precisely because of the recent work I put into preventing this global collapse that I can feel what is coming. I know because of the obdurate stance people in general have taken against change; particularly against changing personal lifestyles. People don’t want less, they want more of what is destroying the physical and social environment. They want it because it is convenient and comfortable, post-WWII “virtues” that have become a matter of faith, faith in success, in winning, in having, keeping and adding to. That is the formula for corruption and consequently entropy.

We’re certainly not short of voices raised in protest, anger and sometimes even in hope yet none of them have any traction in the current social morass because none are willing to, or even know how to, address the real problem: Earthian nature. It is that nature that will determine whether this civilization continues or implodes.

Well… obviously it is that very nature that has brought civilization to this sad place and just as obviously that same nature is hardened against changing itself so, what could a thinking person conclude? The driving force of any civilization of intelligent, sentient and self aware beings is the nature of such beings, not the systems they invented to serve them. Would-be change agents look at the systems, proposing change to the systems, but Earthians have become Cyborgs, their way of life, their very bodies entirely dependent on the systems they created for their profit, comfort and convenience. If the systems were terminated prior to new ones properly developed, tested and put on stream most of mankind would perish. That is a foregone conclusion.

So, not only will mankind not change its mind; its ways, but it no longer can. It is physically and mentally welded into its collapsing social construct. Therefore my conclusion is simple: man’s civilization is a write off. You could write these words upon any major public place anywhere on the planet, date them, and time will prove them unassailable. It’s not a condemnation, it’s a simple but accurate assessment of a too-obvious condition.

Here is that famous sonnet “Ozymandias” by Percy Shelley, written in January 1818, over 200 years ago.  It has a new meaning today:
“I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

35 thoughts on “Civilization’s Collapse

  1. Regis Auffray

    Well-written, succinct and to the point, no one (unless basically unable to read) can claim that they do not get your point.

    Sadly… …I have to agree.

    I know you will not object me to sharing this.

    Thank you for sending it along.

    *Régis (Reg) Auffray*

    *Email:* *r jauffray52@gmail.com *

    *Website: **http://www.authorsden.com/regisjauffray *

    *Facebook: **http://www.facebook.com/people/Regis_Auffray/538821429 *

    *My Books:** http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/rauffray *

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Share away, of course. It’s just my take on the growing mess based on previous experience, and what are experiences good for but to learn from?

      Reply
  2. madraallta

    i love your commentary and i have to agree with you. though i wish it wasn’t so. I have to say it is.!! watching the destruction from being very close to it. it makes me ill. the destruction makes me sick. not the destruction man. the destruction of all other lifeforms in their countless varieties. Each being killed off by the greed of the human race and those species have no voice with which to scream.They have no voice to protest. Yet their pain is very real. The human race has earned its fate. The other life did not! they are innocents. That is what saddens me the most. The simplest of lives that are killed off for greed. No one fights for them. They die a quiet death no one grieves. Except us. We do grieve though we are powerless to stop it. Thank you for your well though out article and your sentiments. !

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thank you. I know it is not easy stuff to read and ponder, but who in their right mind would participate in prolonging the planet’s agony? Man’s civilization is approximately in a place similar to what was Hitler’s Nazi forces in late 1944. It’s over and the only way to stop the mindless destruction, poisoning and killing is to end man’s civilization. There is no other fix. Personally I have no regrets. Like you, I’ve seen and felt more than I can take.

      Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thank you for commenting. We’ve put ourselves in the most terrible of places by choice. No one twisted our arms to make us do the things we did, and continue to do, to our world and to each other. Now we must accept the consequences of our irresponsible and callous behaviour.

      Reply
      1. Sha'Tara Post author

        There are millions of people actually looking for and talking up storms about solutions. We don’t actually need solutions, or I should say “solutions” isn’t where we must start. We must begin with one solution and that solution is so simple, so obvious, so ‘impeccable’ and so available to each and everyone that, surprise, surprise, hardly anyone wants to commit to it. I’m of course, speaking of living the compassionate life. Everyone of us is fully equipped to live such a life; it’s already within us, waiting to be activated. It isn’t love, it isn’t empathy, it’s compassion, a volitional choice that becomes a way of life. I am not impressed by the gilets jaunes, nor by school kids demonstrating for green new deals or any other collective effort at making change because I already know such things have no lasting effects. What we are facing is the necessity of changing our mindset about everything, and choosing to live compassionately will accomplish that for us if we engage and trust in the process. Then we will have no need to hunt for solutions, they will offer themselves.

      2. equinoxio21

        An interesting reflexion. I hadn’t thought so much about compassion as… “decency”? I had my own company for many years, and my personal rule was to treat everyone, employees, suppliers, clients, as human beings. Just that: treat people decently, as human beings. And the odds are they will respond as human beings. 🙂
        (In most cases, but that is another story)
        Be good.

      3. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for commenting. Yes, decency should be common sense, but it’s still “just” decency. The reason I “push” compassion, or the concept is there is so much more to compassion than meets the usual understanding of it which is, well, just another one of those “nice” things you do, or a “nice” way you interact with others. Compassion is something else, in a class by itself. While practising the compassionate way I have often compared it the the Force of Stars Wars, minus a dark side. It is actually a motive force within us that pushes us to constantly, day and night, change our very nature, and we can observe ourselves changing. It is difficult to explain because, as with the Force, you have to become one with it before you can know whether you’re just trying to be a nice guy, or you are actually a different person, so different in fact that you cannot ever go back to not living compassionately, no matter what you are doing or not doing, and your thinking, your inner voice, reflects it automatically. Compassion, unlike love or respect or kindness or other substitutes is not subjective. When we choose to activate this aspect of our nature it takes over the controls and inexorably forces us to become true humans.

      4. equinoxio21

        You’re probably right. Though I’m not sure there is such a great distance between “decency”, fairness, and other synonyms, and compassion as you describe it. Though it probably takes some training. A lifetime maybe? 😉
        Be good. A bientôt.

      5. equinoxio21

        Pas de quoi. 🙂 Il a fallu que je vérifie en ligne, mon Breton étant très rudimentaire. Trugarez vras à toi. Kenavo et tout ça. 🙂

  3. rawgod

    Even to the point of reviving Oxymandias (which I renamed Trumpmandias) you are stating what I have been stating, except I do not believe it is too late. Well, too late for most humans alive today, but not all. I have been calling for large-scale, life-changing, society-changing, humanity-changing ideas for quite some time, but except for a very special few my calls are being ignored. You could say this is mostly because I don’t have a loud enough voice–or a big enough audience–but the reason I have neither is more because I cannot light a fire under anyone’s ass. My ideas do not set well with society’s leaders, or even tomorrow’s leaders. Nobody wants to lose what they think they already have, even if it leads to planetary destruction for most living beings.
    The cockroaches have apparently survived from very early eons, but they never needed to progress. Soon they will be called upon to do so. I hope they have seen us make enough mistakes to know which pathways to avoid. The bible proposed that the meek shall inherit the earth. I propose the cockroaches shall inherit the earth. Let’s see whose prediction is more accurate.

    Reply
  4. gserpent

    This world is getting everything it deserves. When you build a world on deceit, lies and illusions you can’t expect people to see the truth.
    Great post.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      As you know I don’t “do” hope, that being another disempowering weapon of the Matrix but yes, there is much that one self-empowered individual can do within a corrupt, stagnant and imploding directionless morass as is current society. The first thing is knowing who you are and owning yourself, your thoughts and ideas. Promoting them is much less important and comes only after you have tested yourself and made your ideas work for yourself. Then you’re invincible.

      Reply
  5. Phil Huston

    Ahhh…I love the smell of gloom and doom in the morning. We are past the stage of salvation unless someone figures out what to do about plastic. However the elephant in the room here is that Shelley’s words remain, having outlived rulers and empires and manage a timelesss feeling of now in a sea of pasts and futures. An anarchic, a rhetorician of the highest order, able to capture eons and the foolishness of vanity in a few lines. Who was not to be pigeonholed with only fallibility, but also a true romantic.

    “Jane brings her guitar, and if the past and the future could be obliterated, the present would content me so well that I could say with Faust to the passing moment, ‘Remain, thou, thou art so beautiful.’”
    Wise to remember that everything, and everyone, deserves more than one facet, and the capacity for beauty amidst the beasts.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Something inside of us forces us to see beauty even in the most dire of straits but any beauty is ephemeral. It doesn’t nurture or feed. But neither does ugliness. Our civilization is ugly to the degree that it grows increasingly anti-life by destroying life to sustain itself. It isn’t strictly speaking a predatory behemoth or a machine however, it is the sum total of billions of individual minds feeding it and using it. If you could pull these minds out of it, one by one, civilization would implode but the minds would not die, they would find their freedom and their beauty in that freedom. We don’t need civilization to live our life, it’s the other way around: civilization needs to suck our life energy; to feed off of us in order to maintain itself.
      Duty calls… gotta go back to the grindstone.

      Reply
  6. Hyperion

    A very clear voice in a distracted den of mutterings across the globe. I agree. Our nature is the root of everything we do. Though our lives are vastly different, our societies have evolved, our nature is the same and hasn’t evolved at all. The societal problems of the past are the societal problems of the future. The difference is our problems are not sustainable and a collapse must occur which forces change momentarily until our nature wins again. It would be insanity to try to preserve what we have now in the way we have it. Natural disasters and war will force a reset and from that reset we will once again strive to rise, to climb, to organize. We will succeed, or learn, or perish but our nature will not change until the last breath of the last person is exhaled. Must my opinion. No animals were harmed during the formulation of this opinion; however, coffee supplies were nearly depleted.

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      It is true, man’s nature globally has failed to evolve. The problems that were once tackled with a stone axe are now tackled with drones and nuclear weapons, but they’re the same problems and only a change of mind, a changed nature, can resolve those problems. We possess the means to re-shape our minds and change our nature as individuals but as long as we insist on seeking such changes through collective effort we are doomed.

      Reply
      1. Hyperion

        Agreed. That is why I exist only in the blogosphere. My physical self is an eccentric old dude that avoids people to prevent various kinds of predation and disease. My avatar, Hyperion, isn’t afraid of literary STD’s and other human borne vectors of contrahumane affliction. It’s a wonderful existence. I get my cake and eat it too, no sharing, just animalistic face stuffing. It’s a lot like Conan the Barbarian dressing up like Lord Greystoke after stuffing Tarzan in a lion’s mouth for safe keeping. It’s a little eccentric, but it works.

  7. selizabryangmailcom

    I think I agree with Hyperion. There’s a historical pattern, isn’t there? And it always seems to lead ultimately down some negative path. Carlos Castaneda believed a negatively charged alien group has had us in its thrall for eons, manipulating minds and directing Earthly events. Aside from the fact of there being no proof of that, I’d also prefer to believe that’s not true, although it would be easier to have a scapegoat instead of pointing at ourselves. A lot of positives come from being human and having our big brains, but I always wondered if the pros actually outweighed the cons. Are we actually really *special* enough, in other words, that we SHOULD continue on…?

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Finally getting to your comment – I was holding it back as I thought about how to respond. Carlos wasn’t off track. The entities he talked about, the Teachers called them ‘Time Lords’ – a baleful title indeed but it suits them since they did formulate the enslaving aspects of “tick-tock” time and measurable space. These are supreme controlling systems under which this universe fell and all sentient life was enslaved by. The only thing special about mankind is that it isn’t a naturally evolved entity. It is a cloned creature designed for a particular use and to always remain under the absolute control of its designers and programmers. I’ve explained in simple terms how anyone can readily see this if one is even a little bit observant. Man thrives under artificial conditions such as within a power grid, in cities. The move is to, seldom from, the city. The city allows man to exist while violating every natural law that exists. The Darwinian hypothesis that man is a naturally evolved creature is beyond laughable to me. How could nature develop a predator that it could not control and that would become anti-life? It wasn’t nature that made it possible for man to develop, but man’s makers. They lost control of their “Cyborg” creation and the earth fell into the hands of an unnatural predator: man, and the destruction of earth’s ecosystem began. The test of whether man is a naturally evolved creature or not is quite simple: arbitrarily and totally take away everything unnatural man relies on, including basic needs such as food, shelter and clothing and observe the results. How long would it take for the population to plummet down to less than a billion? It’s a simple fact that the creature, but for a very few, cannot survive in a purely natural environment.
      Other than it being an artificial construct, there is nothing so special about mankind that says the species has to continue. Currently it is only adding disaster upon disaster to itself and its world. It isn’t adding anything of note or value to the concept we know as life.

      Reply
  8. selizabryangmailcom

    I’ve heard that premise before, about mankind being created by *others* for some obscure purpose, although I’m not sure where I stand with that. Putting that aside for the moment, in regards to *evolution*, what are your working dates, exactly, for mankind and cities and being anti-life in general? Are you talking about Western man? Because before Western man, wasn’t there much more balance and embracing of nature? I think it was the Greeks who invented some kind of mechanism that would open huge doors into their settlements and whatnot, but it was Egyptians who remained unimpressed and asked, “What about the men who used to have jobs opening the doors themselves?”
    What about people who used to live in harmony with nature–and those that still do, in the quickly disappearing places where that still happens?
    So right now after time and brainwashing and the building of cities and land fills and packaged food, if shelter and clothes and accessible food was removed, the result would be chaos and riots. But before that way of life was a wide-spread reality, shelter, food and clothing were the basic necessities of life that one dealt with day by day. So those people made their own clothes, caught and/or grew their own food, created their own shelters.
    So are you specifically talking about later in time, after more people were populating the planet and space and resources first began running out? Because I definitely don’t believe that all people have always been predatory and anti-life. So maybe you’re saying, per the supposition, that man was *created* by others long ago, and the *gentle* pro-life, in balance with nature folk were the preferred stock, since they were more controllable? Then at some point in history the gentle stock began to change into xenophobic material-oriented predators (Western mindset) and this was the *clones* getting out of control?

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Short of writing a novel, there is no way to answer your questions adequately, and in any case any answer “I” can give will still remain my answers based on what I know, what I remember, what I learned from reading research materials and of course from what I learned from “the Teachers” over many years.
      What “I” know for sure: the man species is not naturally evolved. Any observant person can immediately see this in man’s various attempts at setting up civilizations that keep collapsing around him. If man had naturally evolved, created a civilization and it collapsed, that would have been the end of man. When nature makes a mistake it destroys it. Man operates outside of nature’s rules of order!
      Now we need to apply the “who, what, when, where, why” process and that gets very murky as in real “reality” events do NOT proceed linearly and space/time are artificial constructs designed to present a quantifiable uni-linear cartoonish reality. That is the reality of Earth and also the greater universal reality. Things are not as they seem. What we’ve been taught about our world(s) are basically official lies presented in such a way that in a rough estimate I’d say 99% of the sheeple herds accept or believe in as a matter, not of deductive reasoning or critical thinking (to use a term I was just reminded of) but as a matter of faith. People are programmed to believe official “truth” even when it is obviously pure propaganda. Heaven, Hell or Evolution or natural selection are the current fads or offered explanations for the when and the why. These are accepted by faith since there is no other way to prove the truth of it… because there is no truth behind any of it. OK, so there, I didn’t answer any of your questions but I have stretched the canvas on the easel of man’s history.
      I’m not really talking about a time-line of history – there isn’t one. But we can use concepts like “long ago” or “more recently” and work with that. There has been many interventions into the affairs of planet earth over “time”. After the chaos following the destruction of the giant planet called “Tiamat” which gave birth to Earth and its moon, Earth was repopulated with a type of pseudo-human intended to live a natural life, like the other mammals of earth. I cannot engage the history/story of this particular intervention as it involves the galaxy and to a lesser extent the universe.
      Billions or millions or thousands of years later when earth had settled into its natural cycles and was taking care of its natural life, it was ‘discovered’ by space faring aliens and used for resource extraction. Using Sitchin’s calculations, that happened a half million years ago. After thousands of years of exploitation the aliens needed more workers and using existing earthian pseudo human DNA mixed with their own, created, or cloned, a whole new species of intelligent, self-aware sentience to serve as slaves. (Skipping huge amount of details easily found in Sitchin’s books and on the Internet these days). The new species was as much alien as it was of earth product and it rapidly evolved mentally so as to challenge their “gods” and pushing them off the planet eventually after rebellions and wars. Meanwhile the new species gave vent to its aggressive genes by hunting down and killing the proto humans of earth until few remained. This new species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, rapidly increased in numbers and time and again fell victim to diseases, plagues, famines and natural catastrophes its sedentary and alien lifestyles were conducive to and unable to evade. In its development HSS “chose” to follow the ways of its gods rather than the ways of natural earth and the rest is man’s history to this day.
      Where did the ones who lived at peace with earth’s nature come from? In every mutation there are throw-backs. Also and obviously there were descendants of cross-breeding between the alien clones and the proto-humans. These went back to living the more natural life although as seen in many aborigine races, they kept some rules and taboos from the early days, such as wearing loin cloths to hide their sexual parts. Some less naturally adapted made shelters and even grew their own food rather than be totally dependent on nature for their daily needs as do animals. Some even captured escaped domesticated animals (horses in the case of Amerian Indians) and used them for travel and warfare. So a sense of “not quite animal” was retained by the “breeds” and the throw back mutants. The descendants of these people is what “civilized” groups, following their ancient programming of “search and destroy” were so keen on killing off and wiping out, still going on to this day and to continue until all are either absorbed as acceptable members of modern man society, or utterly obliterated.
      Hope that helps.

      Reply
  9. selizabryangmailcom

    That helps a lot. Thanks! That was a LOT to write, and I appreciate it, but it definitely clears up some time lines and perspectives. Fascinating stuff. At any rate, something that really stands out to me in all this is the concept of the clones rebelling and warring against their creators, because that corresponds to myths and stories of the war between angels and heaven. The parallels can’t be ignored. So this is, at least, one root explanation. Also read some Zecharia Sitchin in the past but still am on the fence with him, meaning therefore all of this still holds a giant question mark for me. But similar to the saying “Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t mean he/she/it doesn’t believe in you”……….just because I’m not sure about any of this doesn’t mean it isn’t true or real. But like a mentor of mine said 30 years ago–verify for yourself. That’s all we can do, and it’s the logical thing to do. But thank you very much, Sha, for taking the time to lay it all out!

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks Seliza(?). All I did was drop off a tiny synopsis of our past/future fascinating stories. There is so much more, and so much more I have yet to learn “in my next life”! All most of us need is a bit of goading and the willingness to go out and discover the times and worlds and events for ourselves. In my world there is no truth, truth being the weapon of legalists and controllers, there is but what I learn and temporarily accept as building blocks until something new comes along, or until I build something more suitable for myself. History and myth are fully interchangeable.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.