Where are the Roots?

[A thought-essay by   ~burning woman~   written by Sha’Tara]

Got this idea churning around in my head. Well, that’s nothing new, there’s always something churning around there, but this is broader  than any I’ve yet entertained outside of my tendency to imagine fiction and science fiction scenarios. It’s about man and his civilization.

There is no doubt whatsoever that civilized man (Homo Sapiens) is a totally invasive, parasitic species. Anybody can see it that wants to see. But what is not so easy to see, and I blame the programming for that, is that “his” civilization is a predatory monster; a monster that has been feeding on the planet and on the very species that believes it invented it and is “making it happen” so to speak. “Man” is civilization’s obedient slave, repeating, ad nauseam, all his previous mistakes, helplessly. Not because there is no better way; not because he could not try other ways; not because he doesn’t know of better ways but because these are the ways by which the monster feeds itself and through brainwashing, insures that the pattern is endlessly repeated.

If this is true then what is civilization? Is it simply the sum total of all that man has, is, and will, accomplish on Earth, as a species? Just a “record” of man’s passage, or is it much more? We have a tendency to always go along what is taught, what is repeatedly told and believed so this is my attempt to not do that; to present broad facts fully in evidence that no one is allowed to see or talk about.

Can we separate ourselves from our traditional beliefs and knee-jerk responses? Can we back out of the vehicle and observe “it” from a safe distance where is becomes possible to think that the vehicle man has been riding through time is really quite unsafe, dangerous, polluting, deadly to life in general and man is not in the driver’s seat?

From this unusual vantage point, let’s look at some aspects of the monster bus we cannot look at when we are stuffed in a seat halfway down the cluttered aisle and the blinds are shut tight so we can’t really see how the bus is destroying the natural environment it is passing through.  

How about analyzing the vehicle’s accomplishments over time, for example. I think, while we’re in the spirit of impeachment, it’s fair to consider civilization’s doings while in power over Earth and mankind. Since its inception, what has civilization contributed to the planet in terms of evolutionary improvements to the natural state of being? I can’t think of a single one but if you can, then how are such improvements embedded permanently in the natural processes that make this a living world? Which improvements over nature can be said to now be a permanent and essential part of the evolution of Earth? What has civilization contributed to the planet and everything that exists on it  which this world could no longer proceed without?

Going from civilization to man, what are man’s living roots in the living natural environment? When I speak of roots, I mean a measure of not just fair exchange of resources, as all other life forms here perform, but examples of how man’s presence has improved Earth’s natural biosphere… in some way or other. How is man contributing to and expanding the natural evolutionary process – emphasis on natural?

Again, I cannot think of a single way, but the list of diametrically opposite to constructive activities performed by man upon this world would be very long.

If this was a political situation and I was called upon to render a judgment on both, man and his civilization, I would call for impeachment. Guaranteed that I would not lack for witnesses to fully indict.  What does that say about man and his civilization, then? 

Question: If all evidence of man and his civilization were to vanish like fog in the morning sun how much worse off would this world be? 

  

30 thoughts on “Where are the Roots?

  1. jim-

    I can’t think of anything we’ve improved on the earth itself, but maybe the question is the wrong question. Certainly man behaves in predictable fashion but all is not hopeless. Certainly the teachers taught you what you needed to know, but that is not all there was to know. Likely the programming will end this round of humans, but the earth, this universe has a way of peopling from time to time—five times that we know of. The earth will do it again in season, just as an apple tree gives off fruit. When it sheds in the fall the tree is not dead, but dormancy prepares the universe for what it does again and again. No need to worry so much.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for your response Jim. I wasn’t trying to demonstrate a state of worry since I already know what the future holds for Earth. My point was to show that man is an invasive species, a parasite and his civilization is a monstrous predator. Oh, the things I could write about to prove those incontrovertible facts! I know that Earth has gone through other upheavals, harsh and cleansing times prior to these, but that’s nature, not man. With man it’s different because in our case we were given the means and the teachings to actually make significant and positive change to nature’s harsh predatory reality. We could have changed that but instead we made it much worse than how we found it. We did not accept that we were personally responsible for all the grief, harm, desecration and gratuitous violence we unleashed upon what was essentially a defenseless world (defenseless against our rapacious scheming and war mongering, that is) and equally against the poorest, weakest, most vulnerable members of our own species. Instead of joy, we sowed sorrow. That is what I was pointing at; what I have been, and will continue to, point at: man’s sin of pride which is his eventual downfall. The Man species has proven itself to be a heartless, cruel, vindictive and purposeless species; a tree that bears no fruit, suitable only to be cut down and thrown into the fire, as has been said before.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Sha'Tara Post author

        My limited understanding is that a parasite doesn’t have to be a virus. It can be a plant or an animal. Man is a parasite, based on the description of the term. I don’t know where the virus thing came from, I don’t think I used it – not familiar enough with biology to venture into the lab and analyze the contents of the petri dish… I’d get booted out in a hurry! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Phil Huston

    My general feeling is that we are parasites. Having seen the Earth as a living thing, Mother Earth, I think if we become too much of a mess all the planet needs to do is sneeze and we’re gone. In a moment. Poof. In fact even when young (back when dinosaurs were first starting to turn into disposable lighters) I considered Dr. Seuss’s “Thidwick the Big Hearted Moose” a cautionary tale if not a full on parable. How much garbage can we heap on this poor planet before it shakes us off like a wet dog? Will the Earth miss the plastic continent we built? The islands and landscapes of refuse? I doubt it.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Well said, Phil. A good “close” for the essay: you answer the question… which shows it wasn’t entirely rhetorical! In terms of the natural evolution of a world we came to dominate, we have contributed, added, improved absolutely nothing, quite the opposite in fact. That is the point I was making as a gesture against that insufferable Earthian hubris.

      Like

      Reply
  3. rawgod

    Somewhere in there, S’T, is a middle way, a symbiotic relation where intelligence can live together with nature to the evolution of both. We have not found it, because our early ancestors ignored the ballance between nature and humanity. While there is always a chance that balance could still be found, my reason tells me it would be simpler to kill off humanity and let some other life form try again.
    We didn’t miss by much, but the gap between human life and nature is now probably too wide to bring back together. Humanity should be “a part” of nature, not “apart” from it. Such a little thing, but now an insurmountable difference. Yup, civilization stinks. It pains me, but I will be glad to see it go.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  4. selizabryangmailcom

    Not sure what the above means exactly: our early ancestors ignored the balance between nature and humanity. Whose early ancestors? If early Westerners was what the writer meant, yes, I agree. But there actually WERE folks who understood the earth and saw it as alive and attempted to live that way. Western society destroyed all of that. So I don’t think we should ignore THOSE early ancestors.
    Maybe if that hadn’t been destroyed but had only evolved and grown, we would be a species with much to leave behind and/or contribute to the Earth.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thanks for commenting. I know your question is addressed to rawgod’s comment but I just want to insert a crucial point in understanding what is meant. “We” are Homo Sapiens. Whatever was before was before and cannot be called our “early ancestors.” Our early ancestors, properly noted, were Homo Sapiens and from its very inception this species chose (for choice was involved as our religions and philosophies amply describe) to go against nature and build a counter system that was predatory, parasitic, and of course, entropic because all of it was based upon use and abuse of natural resources which as we all know are finite in a finite environment. If some want to bring in more natural aspects of Homo Sapiens, groups who had escaped the basic programming of the species and had turned to a more natural lifestyle, more in tune with nature; less exploitative or oppressive; less parasitic, so be it as long as it is remembered that “civilized” Homo Sapiens fell upon those more natural members and decimated them, enslaved them and forced them to join civilization, like it or not. Their evident evolution was considered by “civilized” Homo Sapiens as a serious aberration to be snuffed out. So these are the “facts” as I see them that prove to me that HS is an artificial species, invented for purposes long forgotten, left to its own devices when no longer needed which proved much longer lasting than its “makers” or “gods” had ever intended. There you have it, and that is but the tip of the iceberg of information available regarding the gross success this parasite has had over Earth’s natural environment. Hope this makes a bit more sense.

      Like

      Reply
      1. selizabryangmailcom

        Yeah, exactly. That’s what I said: “If some want to bring in more natural aspects of Homo Sapiens, groups who had escaped the basic programming of the species and had turned to a more natural lifestyle, more in tune with nature; less exploitative or oppressive; less parasitic, so be it as long as it is remembered that “civilized” Homo Sapiens fell upon those more natural members and decimated them, enslaved them and forced them to join civilization, like it or not.”
        Some people DID escape the brain-washing or whatever it was. In recent history were Native Americans: The Seventh Generation Principle is based on an ancient Iroquois philosophy that the decisions we make today should result in a sustainable world seven generations into the future.
        In ancient history, the Egyptians were extreme environmentalists.
        What if whoever these “civilized” homo sapiens were are the ACTUAL predators of the world and almost everyone else is “normal”? What if there’s a strain of homo sapiens that developed into ruthless, narcissistic material-oriented creatures that poisoned the rest of the world?

        Like

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks for that pointed comment. Quote: “What if whoever these “civilized” homo sapiens were are the ACTUAL predators of the world and almost everyone else is “normal”? What if there’s a strain of homo sapiens that developed into ruthless, narcissistic material-oriented creatures that poisoned the rest of the world?”

        Perfectly stated, it’s what I was attempting to convey also. I believe that. I think that archaeological and historical evidence proves this to be the case. I also observe that this “problem of relationship” has gotten even more out of control, threatening the very survival of man’s civilization. But then, I don’t see the end of civilization as a problem for Earth and “normal” people, I see it as a freeing.

        Like

  5. sherazade

    Ho letto molto attentamente e rispondo in sintesi alla tua domanda.
    L’uomo oggi senza criterio in termini egoistici sta distruggendo il pianeta.
    Dall’altro lato la civiltà avrebbe (lo dico con il condizionale) permesso all’uomo di essere migliore: io non posso pensare a me stessa senza collegarmi ai grandi maestri che hanno fatto la mia storia tra pensiero e bellezza e mi danno la speranza che ci sia una scintilla di ribellione che imponga un inversione a questo egoismo individualista.

    Un sereno weekend Sha ‘Tara

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      Thank you, Shera, for presenting another aspect of the story. I had thought of that, of course, but since the point made was about living roots into the planet’s biosphere or environment, I didn’t think that the arts as developed by man, qualified as a counter “defense.” Man’s greatest arts, whether in paintings, music, statuary, edifices, do not have living roots into the earth. They disintegrate and disappear and do not naturally reproduce. I think it is important to realize this about the things we do. None of our accomplishments are alive; none grow living roots. None reproduce naturally. All of man’s works are artificial, non-living. Man has surrounded himself with dying things which are accounted as more precious than the living environment.
      (Translation:) Grazie, Shera, per aver presentato un altro aspetto della storia. Ci avevo pensato, ovviamente, ma dato che il punto sollevato riguardava le radici viventi nella biosfera o nell’ambiente del pianeta, non pensavo che le arti sviluppate dall’uomo si qualificassero come controtendenza. Le più grandi arti dell’uomo, che siano dipinti, musica, statue, edifici, non hanno radici viventi nella terra. Si disintegrano e scompaiono e non si riproducono naturalmente. Penso che sia importante rendersene conto delle cose che facciamo. Nessuno dei nostri successi è vivo; nessuno cresce radici viventi. Nessuno si riproduce naturalmente. Tutte le opere dell’uomo sono artificiali, non viventi. L’uomo si è circondato di cose morenti che sono considerate più preziose dell’ambiente di vita.

      Like

      Reply
      1. sherazade

        “Nessuno dei nostri successi è vivo ….”
        In tutto questo ultimo paragrafo non mi trovi d’accordo.
        Vivo è il pensiero che si riproduce nelle azioni positive che creano radici e connessione dell’uomo con il vivente. Madre Teresa di Calcutta ha insegnato che noi siamo gocce Ma che ogni singola goccia contribuisce a creare un mare.
        La cultura Intesa in senso vasto del termine è vita e le nostre radici le troviamo sin nei primi rozzi disegni delle grotte del paleolitico.
        Io ho fiducia perché qualcosa sta cambiando.
        Shera🌲🌲🌲💚

        Like

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        Thanks Shera. From that sense, OK, I can understand. However, if you look at nature you see that it reproduces itself. A tree has roots into the soil and it gives birth to new life from seeds and so on. Man’s type of civilizing “roots” is historical and archeological, but it is not biological. Man carves a statue but that statue does not give birth to new statues. Man builds a house but that house does not give birth to a new house. Whatever man does, outside of giving birth to its own kind, is entirely and always, dependent upon extracting from a non-human living environment, exchanging life for death. None of it is alive, i.e., self-replicating. That is the point I am working on at the moment as I observe man’s artificial civilization becoming decadent and corrupted. I believe it is very important to note this now as we observe our global downfall. I will have more to say on that later.
        Traduzione: Grazie Shera. Da quel senso, OK, posso capire. Tuttavia, se guardi la natura, vedi che si riproduce da sola. Un albero ha radici nel terreno e dà vita a nuova vita dai semi e così via. Il tipo di “radice” civilizzatrice dell’uomo è storico e archeologico, ma non biologico. L’uomo scolpisce una statua ma quella statua non dà alla luce nuove statue. L’uomo costruisce una casa ma quella casa non dà alla luce una nuova casa. Qualunque cosa faccia l’uomo, al di fuori del parto, è interamente e sempre dipendente dall’estrazione da un ambiente di vita non umano, dallo scambio di vita con la morte. Niente di tutto ciò è vivo, cioè auto-replicante. Questo è il punto su cui sto lavorando in questo momento mentre osservo la civiltà artificiale dell’uomo diventare decadente e corrotta. Credo che sia molto importante notare questo ora mentre osserviamo la nostra caduta globale. Avrò altro da dire al riguardo.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Hyperion

    “If all evidence of man and his civilization were to vanish like fog in the morning sun how much worse off would this world be?” No worse off at all, I think. I think of the Mayan and Incas who disappeared after creating huge metropolises now completely reclaimed by jungle. We are only now able to rediscover these major cities, some with estimated populations as big as modern cities. And the jungle reclaimed it all and established a formideable but balanced ecosystem until the current civilization begain burning it all. Nope, no worse off, but certainly with a chance for reclaiming all nature lost. And speaking of nature, I entertain the thought that nothing changes the fact that we act according to our nature and our nature is coded in our DNA. Our minds are also deeply influenced by our nature even though we can override that nature in short spurts with some higher level thinking. What I am entertaining in my mind is that evil or good doesn’t matter. What you see is what was meant to be because it is our nature to do as we have done. Just thoughts. No conviction there at all, but I do wonder if Marquis de Sade wasn’t a prophet and was right all along. He saw the giving and receiving of physical and emotional pain as the predominate nature that gave us the greatest pleasure. He said we are always ripe for it. And today as a global infestation all we contribute is the pain of our existence. As a parasite we are well suited to the role where the parasite destroys the host to bring about the next phase in it’s propagation cycle. Isn’t it the single role of viruses, bacterias, and parasites to multiply, to seek a host, replicate, and die. Isn’t the cells of our body individually alive serving the master being created by a cooperative of cells with coordinating duties. And arent civilizations like the carbunkle on a circus clowns ass? I think we are as we should be if parasite is what we are. No worries, the collapse of parasitic colonies is inevitable but there is always the few remaining viable proteins that restart the growth again, sadly to repeat the process just as our nature intended. If we believe that we should be eradicated to save the planet, are we not akso saying that human life has no value only detriments. Even that seems more true and natural than holding our lives as sacrosanct above all else.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Sha'Tara Post author

    Hi Daniel, quote: “I entertain the thought that nothing changes the fact that we act according to our nature and our nature is coded in our DNA. Our minds are also deeply influenced by our nature even though we can override that nature in short spurts with some higher level thinking. What I am entertaining in my mind is that evil or good doesn’t matter. What you see is what was meant to be because it is our nature to do as we have done.”
    I know you say no conviction there at all… but the fact is that so many people, and I mean thinking people, are swinging in that direction these days and I can’t help but wonder how much of that contributes to the decline and fall of civilization. I read that “evil or good doesn’t matter.” If that is so, then why not abrogate all our laws and justice systems? Why not promulgate the so-called “law of the jungle” and let the richer buy the poorer to enslave (the new normal); let the racists have their lynchings and pogroms and ignore it all (the new normal). Let the pedophiles prey on all the children and pay it no heed (the new normal). Let the warmongers develop even more destructive weapons of mass destruction and join ’em when they let loose upon countries whose politics they don’t like or whose resources they want. (the new normal). Let might make right and be done with it all. (The final new normal).
    I find that approach troublesome because it spells the utterly corrupted end of a creature with a sense of right and wrong; with a living conscience dictating that there is, indeed, a good and an evil. This way of thinking is guaranteed to make man the most depraved and corrupt creature ever to walk the face of this world. Is this what you want? Is that man’s Brave New World?
    If it is our [unchanging] nature to do as we have done, then why guilt? Why getting incensed at institutionally promoted injustice? If we were never meant to know right from wrong, why then do we retain at least some aspect of that awareness? What you and some others are telling me, if indirectly, is that the great push to establish a mindful, thinking, reasoning Renaissance man was struck down at the turn or the last century with the onset of Darwinism when man was, almost desperately it seems, stripped of his higher nature and given the status of an animal; a violent heartless predator that could prey upon anything and anyone it wanted if it was strong enough to overcome it. And indeed, that is where we are going at this time, isn’t it.
    This doesn’t address the topic of the post which is, what aspects of man’s accomplishments have naturally rooted themselves into the planet? What aspects have living roots and seeds and are capable of reproducing themselves naturally, without help? Of what benefit have we been to the planet after conquering it and subduing it?

    Like

    Reply
  8. deteremineddespitewp

    I’m going to revisit one of my favourite themes of placing Humanity in the context of the History of the World, 4 billion years worth.
    So Life comes along and goes through all sorts of changes and formats. One facet which seems to be a ‘given’ as regards animal life is that there is always a drive to defend territory or to drive out others in order to survive in various ways. Thus the fact that Humanity has that streak should not be a surprise. Where Humanity runs into a problem is when its reasoning and adaptability features. Now these should function to extent in which Humanity realises to truly survive and proper Humanity needs to co-operate and also nurture the resources. However the basic drives to consume and the hold territory have not been subsumed by the reasoning aspect. Thus reasoning is subsumed by the basic.
    This, it can be argued, is a dangerous flaw in species development and can lead to an extinction of the species. In addition because of the runaway affect of Humanity this in turn can lead to an Extinction Event which affects many species and the environment.
    We have not been around that long not even anywhere close to some life forms. Thus we either adapt on just become that smear on the fossil record, barely noticeable, leaving future beings to wonder what was the cause of ‘That Event’ all those millions of years ago.
    Just putting things in a certain perspective, s’all.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      I think I’m being honest when I say that I totally follow your argument as you develop it on that particular time line and reasoning. Mankind, esp. as we see it today, has a serious problem which you put the finger on: lack of dovetailing between adaptability and reasoning. Man, it seems, simply does not know when to say “enough” and continues to conquer, exploit, subsume and enslave. Mankind also does not have a natural block to its population expansion and by extreme aggression and skewed scientific methods has prevented nature from exercising its normal population control as happens with all other natural predators. “Out of control”???

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. deteremineddespitewp

        There are those amongst the Human species who would be so vain and arrogant as to think themselves above Nature.
        If I was to be stuck on top of a mountain as waves rages about it and it was obvious the storm would consume it I would like to think I would be sharing that time with the likes of Trump and his ilk.
        I would say nothing. Absolutely nothing.

        Like

      2. Sha'Tara Post author

        What would there be to say? They would still adamantly refuse to take any responsibility. As the saying goes, the intelligent person know what to say, the wise one knows whether to say it or not.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. thesarahdoughty

    You make some excellent points, as always, Sha’Tara. Existential thoughts aside, from the universe’s perspective, I doubt there would be anything of significance lost. As a member of said civilization, and the fact that death scares me terribly, I’m not liking the idea of not just myself, but everything else being gone. Like the ones I love.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Sha'Tara Post author

      One unchallengeable truism: on this world we are born to die, as is everyone we know… and all the rest. 360,000 people are born daily, 152,000 die. Because of the high numbers of population and so much else going on we hardly pay these statistics much attention but they are here and real. I taught myself to detach from special relationships long ago. I still have a few but I lose no emotion on such relationships. I try to see all people as equally worthy of my awareness and empathy. “Try” is the operative word of course but I’m making more and more gain in that as I experience the freedom in non-emotional relationships. No fear of losing them and on my part no attempt to control any aspects of them. Relationships, to me, are like blogging: anyone can ‘unfollow’ anytime they want to, it’s their prerogative. I have no advice to give anyone who would want to try such a way of life except that it only works for someone who is compassionate or the exact opposite, a complete narcissist.

      Like

      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.