So what the problem in being anti-civilization? In this century many myths have been propagated both by the racketeers and undertakers. The medical myth. The synthetic myth. And most insidious of all: the production myth. And in some ways the green myth. Each myth screwed this present civilization over in its own unique way. Giving rise to false hopes and breaking realities at the same time. Maybe its not so much the issue with being "against" civilization. Maybe its more about the people, ideas, and beliefs that make up an attitude that is not against civilization. For its never active resistance by the masses to an ingrained establishment, only a minority such as deep-green does that. Progress, if indeed thats what it can be called, should never come for the sake of progress. Thats when science and reason meet the same foible as religion and turn into dogma. Progress needs a goal as to be open and conscious to a world in need of it's answers. Progress can't exist isolated as thats not even progress. Thats just change without reason. And thats why "anti-civilization" and materialist attitudes alike exist.
Well, maybe they do have a point for being against "modern" society. Does the most over-fed country on Earth need altered plant genetics to supposedly produce more food? Especially if the methods were never proven safe or whose safety is dictated by the corporation selling it? Starving countries continue to starve as this country wastes millions pounds of food every year. Ironically, most this food is nutrient-depleted and doesn't even provide adequate subsistence to us let alone the impoverished people of another country. Thus, this technology should never have been released into the food supply and is without reason. Change for the sake of change, without sticking to older better methods and improving upon them. Could this technology be of use someday? Maybe, but they don't belong in food, and I'm bias towards believing anything humans alter can't possibly be good for us or environment. Let's stick to older more sustainable methods and improve upon them. Not altering a nature we understand little about. Dogma should not be allowed to suppress the truth that new isn't always better. Indeed. Its nothing but short-sightedness to only focus on new without considering the benefits of older technology over new.
And look what else these technologies gave us: nonrenewable energy dependency, hazardous chemicals, brainwashing media outlets, horrific weapons of war, and a infrastructure sure to leave no one in peace. But as the powers-that-be and all their grazing sheeple eagerly point out these technologies have a flip side. Certainly they do and at the expense of environment, human health, and economically. Its the same economical means that enslaves anyone not fortunate enough to be born into the ruling establishment.