I dont think we can say that for certain. The jury is still out on that one imo. I know of no ecologically sustainable civilization to ever have existed. The Mayans, the egyptians, the romans, the Han-chinese - They all exploited and expanded. I'm not saying that civilization is bad for sure but the empirical data (being world history since 10.000 BC roughly) would suggest that civilization by definition is unsustainable. Whatmore every civilization since the dawn agriculture has had a social hieracy that implied someone at the bottom to be exploited and someone at the top to reap the rewards. Classlesness has not existed since our hunter-gatherer past.This is a great point. However, the fact still remains that it is THIS civilization that is the problem, not ALL civilization. I haven't read books from either author, but advocating the violent destruction of civilization is as anti-human as you can get. We've had violent revolutions in the past, and look where they've led us. How about trying something different for once?
As for the violent revolutions in the past: They brought us french democracy (French revolution), american separatism and freedom from the british king (American revolution, granted - it should've never happened and the europeans calling themselves 'americans' should've stayed in europeans and left th e new world for the real - native - americans). You really cannot judge anything as bad by virtue of it being violent. Is violence uncomfortable? sure but we're not discussing comfort, we're discussing neccesity and it could very well be a neccesity.
I think we agree on alot here. We're definitely raised in a culture that promotes excessive consumption and utilization of bullsh*t.Lastly, almost all world events are dictated by a very small handful of people. People in this culture are not raised with the knowledge of how to live self-sustainably in accordance with nature, but rather as cogs in a machine that creates massive profits for this "elite" few. Again, it is not civilization that is the problem -- it is our current approach
But i doubt that any civilization would be capable of turning this around. Civilization could very well, in an ecological perspective, inherently be evil.
Edit: To live sustainably i think we need to alter our mindset completely (and end the materialist-fascism wreaking havoc upon both our soul and the world ecology) This is where entheogens and psychoactive drugs in general become a useful endavour imo. The unifing feature of almost every psychedelic experience is a sense of unity and empathy with nature. In addition the definining feature of prehistoric (and historic) shamanism is the use of psychoactive drugs to contact a Deus Otiosus and the spirit world. For this reason i believe only true cultural change can come in a prehistoric package of a neo-shamanic movement promoting tribal living and resonsible use of mind-opening/altering drugs.
We cannot truly alter ourselves if we stay in the materialist paradigm and think of nature in terms of percentages, statistics, and gas emissions.