Scarcity

 An observation that remained true for me for quite some time now is that the fundamental drive for the development for human civilisation has been the scarcity of needed resources. The very existence of a shelter or of a spoonful of warm soup on a cold night garnished with all the right ingredients, require a certain amount of resources. 

Of course, needed resources change according to the knowledge of a given society and their understanding of what is best for them at any one time. Revelations happen that shift our relationship with the natural world. All in the effort to conquer or mimic the wonders of nature. Then, another drive appears that might justify human civilisation and it is the will to dominate. Even so, at a further reading, domination derives from the material restriction of one to another. Power has been practically quantifiable through the possession of resources and/or the deprivation of them. Also, to dominate nature that hindered our lives and wellbeing in the most horrendous ways...

And yet, nature is the sandbox that we get to realise and exist within. There is no detachment of the species from its natural environment. There is fear of this environment hence, we create artificial ones. It is this negation of nature with our safety that created all this. Negates the paradoxical approach of dominating nature when it has given us life. 

Dominating nature might be the ecological destruction to build more facilities and expand the reach of our artificial environments. Another, to minimise our dependency on nature through synthetic diets and virtual realities. And yet, all these creations are fuelled by natural resources. Even so, there is also the mental dependency of humans to nature. We began making art while struggling to survive in the natural world. All our development has also been guided from this struggle. Then, for humans to live and die in artificial environments will unavoidably affect our own human nature, in ways that i can best describe as being a "vegetable". 

Even if you do want to live and die in artificial environments, always bear in mind that the people who created and preserve these realities only care about you as an exploitative subject that will preserve and verify their status of power. How can you still want to live in a reality where nothing was build in your best interest? Nothing. 

To draw parallels with our existence in the natural world - as the so-called social darwinist would love, might be that "the unforgiving nature doesn't provide everything in your plate and so, you shouldn't expect everything from social arrangements and institutions". There is a variable that is missing from this narrative. Our own deaths and misfortunes benefits other species that will thrive where we did. The struggle of humans to survive does not mean that other species struggle as well. When humans cannot survive in an environment other species with populate the area and thrive. Of course, humans missing from a certain ecosystem diminishes the richfullness of the various species but we do not have to live and thrive everywhere. 

Then who does the exploitation of humans by humans through wage-labour and our enclosure in artificial environments, benefit? No other species will thrive where we sweat and moan labouring the fruits of our efforts and progress. It is not another species but certain social classes. Then the argument goes to waste because when nature does not provide me with the necessary tools to survive other species will survive through me. In the artificial world, our survival and deaths benefits its creators for which a sea of blood has been formed from wounds and deception, still and untouchable with no breeze nor birds chirping, only affected momentarily by the constant drops of blood creating ripples that eventually fade away. 

Maybe consciousness is the ability to imagine one self with no material restrictions. An abundance of resources to match all the caprices of humans. (Do mouflons dream of endless fields with grass and different warm shelters? Different partners and scandalous sexual arrangements?).