My apologies for misreading you.

No guarantees, just the ability to obtain them. The problems begin to arise whenever we enter the realm of human civilisation, where nobody has equal access and odds of obtaining these sought after necessities. — jm0

Squirrels don't have equal access to all of the acorns. Some squirrels are bigger, smarter, and more aggressive than others. If the top gestapo squirrels happen to control the tree, the unfortunate Slavic squirrels will just have to do without. (Gray squirrels imported from North America are the conquering Prussians in comparison to the peaceable European ginger squirrels.)

North American grey squirrels stalk humans carrying paper bags. They can tell the difference between merchandise bags and food bags. Squirrels on university campuses, for instance observe, assess, follow, and then aggressively confront likely food bearers. "Hand it over or I'll just climb up your pant legs to take it away from you." and then proceed to leap.

If the early birds get all the worms, the late risers will just have to go on worm-free diets.

How is that different from human civilization? (Well, one way it is different -- unpleasantly different -- is that it is no longer birds and squirrels, but us minor divinities that have to put up with nature's arrangements for distributing what there is.

@Bitter Crank First of all, Squirrels are not depending on a well functioning civilisation to get their food (except for the university squirrels of course), nor do they have the capability to form a squirrel civilisation, however cool that might be. I would actually think that the squirrels would do much better than us. Because of their more simplistic nature of being, they just need acorns and trees to climb around in. No televisions, internet, or advanced infrastructure needed. I think part of the problem is that we are just so god damn advanced!

The difference between us and the squirrels is that the squirrels can just find another tree to get their acorns from, we can't just find another planet to get our food source from. We only have this planet, this civilisation. Either you are a part of it, or either you are a part of it.

Funny story of the university squirrels.
Now, what does humans do when they can't get food on the table by conventional means like getting a job for example. Compromise on their morality and rob a bank, or starve themselves to death with their morality and integrity still intact? Both things happen, i guess. Humans living under these low conditions have the potential to suddenly begin to start acting like the university squirrels. Looking in trash cans for alternative food sources, because we as a civilisation fail to ensure that everybody gets fed. This is why it is of utmost importance that we do our best to meet the basic needs of our people, it helps bring peace to the world.

A quote from a former Danish politician:

For two reasons, there will never be a revolution in Denmark. First and foremost, it's too much rain and you can not revolutionize under an omitted umbrella. Second, every turn to revolution must be over before dinner, because the Dane will not miss his hot dinner — Arne Melchior

Another way of saying that whenever the basic needs are met, and the people have food on the table. There is no need for war, destruction, or revolution. I just thought that would fit well with the talk we're having here :D

I think part of the problem is that we are just so god damn advanced! — jm0

True, and another part of our problem is that we can't seem to tell the difference between being "advanced" and just consuming (literally and figuratively) a hellishly huge amount of 'stuff'. Houses (in the US, at least) built before 1920 had very few closets. Why? Well, one reason was that most people didn't have a lot of clothes. A small cabinet of drawers and a small closet would be sufficient. People didn't used to have refrigerators, so they bought food much more frequently, prepared it right away. Most people did not have a car, and most people used public transit. (Even in the days of horse and buggy, a lot of people didn't have horses because they were expensive to keep; there were, naturally horses for rent. Or you walked, took a train, or borrow a ride.)

People used to have pianos, banjos, mandolins, violins, and horns. If you wanted to hear music, you played it or listened to someone else play it--always live and in person. No radio, TV, fiber optic, modem, router, speakers, amps, receivers, iPods, iPads, Macs, PCs, game consoles, etc. If you wanted to write, you took pen in hand and wrote on paper.

The air was dirtier back then because people burned wood or coal for heat, and oil for light (before electric light). When I was a young boy, the snow in the winter would become gray from coal smoke, and this was in a very small town.

Maybe some of the late 19th century inventions actually advanced us. Bicycles. Electric light. Telephone. Recorded sound may have been an advance; it's less obvious that broadcast sound was an advance. Just like switching from vinyl to cd to mp3 to streaming doesn't represent an advance. It just marks different ways of selling culture.

IF we were to go back to the late 19th century, we would still be civilized, but would be consuming far less of the stuff that nature provided.

By 1900 public sanitation, nitrogen fertilizer production, germ theory, some vaccines, and so on were in place, or could be. Going back to 1900 would not be going back to the dark ages. Yes, one would have to learn how to read music and play it -- but all sorts of people did that. Yes, one would have to read the newspaper to find out what was going on. (Emerson thought that once a month for reading the news was sufficient.) Yes, one would have to use a train, a bicycle, a street car, or walk. Yes, one would have maybe two pairs of leather shoes, one set of work clothes, one set of going-to-church clothes, and a few pair of underwear. One would be smellier than one is supposed to be now. No one ever died of body odor.

Yes, life would be harder -- but then, one wouldn't have to go to the gym every day to avoid being a blob of muscle-less protoplasm.

@Bitter Crank I get your point of view, we think we need so much. But in reality, we don't need that much to survive. I can subscribe to this. I eat one meal a day. I look forward to that meal every day, and it tastes bloody amazing every time. Even if it's the same food i have to eat every day.

That is the major downside to capitalism and the monetary system in general. To get food on the table you have a lot of opportunities, but in the end you have to sell something or work for someone who is selling some things. That way a lot of unnecessary stuff gets produced and consumed.

Welcome to earth, the biggest consumer planet in the universe. Even our whales are filled with micro plastic from all of our garbage. I'm sorry, i don't want to paint a big and horrible picture here. But it's kind of depressing. Relax, think positively! This is our fuck-up planet, so we learn how to take care of our next one if we get there ;)

Another point i would like to make, is that modernism falsely assumes that everything that is old are not worth bringing into the new world, because it's not modern. Only new things are modern. And if we're all trying to be modern, and live the modern life, then we are automatically sorting out everything from the old world, just because. Like the point you were trying to make, that maybe we can learn a lot of good things from "the old world". I'm not saying modernism is all bad, just trying to point out that maybe it's not always so good after all. And to be all-modern and completely stripped of everything from our cultural past, is just boring as heck, sad even. We have a huge cultural heritage, we need to embrace that IMO.