Civilization

CIVILIZATION
Is civilization and human progress something good or bad? Abravanel, in light of his real-life experience in the service of royal courts, condemned civilization as negative and unnecessary:
The overall intention of this great section[4] is to inform us that God created man in His intellectual image... And He also created everything essential for his existence - food, drink, the fruits of the trees of the garden that He had planted, and the waters of its rivers. This was all made available in the natural world, so that there should be no need for effort, toil or human activity. Everything that man needed was ready and available to him at all times, so that he should not trouble his soul to seek out what his body needs, but rather to perfect his soul for which he had been created. For this reason, God commanded man to content himself with the natural things that he had created for his needs, and not to allow himself to be drawn after luxuries which require work... All this notwithstanding, the man of his own free will and choice walked in darkness.... (Abravanel, Bereishit 3)
Kayin worked the land, his nature inclined to the material [aspects of the world] which God had cursed... He himself became a slave to the land and to beastly possessions, and did not rule over them... When Kayin involved himself in work activities, every day plowing in order to sow... For that reason God has respect to Hevel and to his offering, which was from the animal kingdom, born naturally with no work whatsoever. But to Kayin and to his offering, the product of work, he had no respect. (Abravanel, Bereishit 4:4)
Abravanel claims that nature is superior to artificial civilization. Nature suffices to provide for all of man's needs. Civilization leads only to unnecessary luxuries, and with them worries and distraction from the fear and service of God. Kayin and Hevel differed on this point.[5] Abravanel sees the pinnacle of human existence in the lives of the hunter-collectors, the most primitive form of human existence. Similar ideas echo in the approach of Jean Jacques Rousseau:
If I consider him, in a word, such as he must have issued from the hands of nature; I see an animal less strong than some, and less active than others, but, upon the whole, the most advantageously organized of any; I see him satisfying the calls of hunger under the first oak, and those of thirst at the first rivulet; I see him laying himself down to sleep at the foot of the same tree that afforded him his meal; and behold, this done, all his wants are completely supplied. (Jean Jacques Rousseau, On the Inequality among Mankind, pt. I)
An innate abhorrence to see beings suffer that resemble him... I mean that of pity... a sentiment obscure but active in the savage, developed but dormant in civilized man... Now it is evident that this identification must have been infinitely more perfect in the state of nature than in the state of reason...
Nothing less than those evils, which threaten the whole species, can disturb the calm sleep of the philosopher, and force him from his bed. One man may with impunity murder another under his windows; he has nothing to do but clap his hands to his ears, argue a little with himself to hinder nature, that startles within him, from identifying him with the unhappy sufferer. Savage man wants this admirable talent; and for want of wisdom and reason, is always ready foolishly to obey the first whispers of humanity. In riots and street-brawls the populace flock together, the prudent man sneaks off. They are the dregs of the people, the poor basket and barrow-women, that part the combatants, and hinder gentle folks from cutting one another's throats. (ibid.)
Abravanel and Rousseau maintain that man can survive perfectly well without civilization, and that technological and social progress has been detrimental to him. They describe natural life as romantic and perfect. But anyone whose yearnings for the natural life are aroused by Abravanel and Rousseau should try to imagine life without a roof over his head to protect him from the elements, without running water for a shower, without antibiotics.
How different are the famous words of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on this issue:
Man's likeness to God expresses itself in man's striving and ability to become a creator...
Adam the first wants to be human... and to be human means to live with dignity... Man of old who could not fight disease and succumbed in multitudes to yellow fever or any other plague with degrading helplessness could not lay claim to dignity. Only the man who builds hospitals, discovers therapeutic techniques and saves lives is blessed with dignity. Man of the 17th and 18th centuries who needed several days to travel from Boston to New York was less dignified than modern man who attempts to conquer space... In doing all this, Adam the first is trying to carry out the mandate entrusted to him by his Maker who, at dawn of the sixth mysterious day of creation, addressed Himself to man and summoned him to "fill the earth and subdue it." (Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Lonely Man of Faith, pp. 11-16)
Rabbi Soloveitchik does not see the development of civilization as a curse, but as a blessing; not as a sin, but as a mission and destiny. Perhaps, the lesson to be learned from this disagreement is that one must try to exploit the advantages of civilization, while at the same time recognizing its disadvantages and striving to avoid them so as not to repeat the mistakes of those who built the tower of Bavel.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The reference is to the precedent of the flood.
[2] Or as Napoleon formulated it: "You can't prepare an omelet without cracking the eggs."
[3] I.e., the communists wished to guarantee an orderly economy and satisfactory risk-free living conditions, thinking that they would solve the problem of poverty.
[4] Regarding the sin committed by Adam.
[5] Similar explanations were proposed by Rabbi S.R. Hirsch and Hillel Zeitlin. See Rabbi Elchanan Samet, Iyyunim be-Farshat ha-Shavu'a, Bereishit, pp. 6-17; Beit Mikra, [5747], p. 381; and Y. Rosenson, "Le-Fetach Chatat Rovetz," Megadim III (5747).