The Illusion of Order: When 'Civilized' Means 'Sterilized'

 I remember my first visit to the United States over a decade ago. Landing from my small, bustling hometown of Meerut, India, I was instantly awestruck. The silence, the systematic flow of traffic, the lack of honking—it was a world engineered for flawless human convenience. Everything was neat, clean, and in order.

For nearly a year, I was hypnotized. I praised this country for its efficiency, its cleanliness, and, notably, its lack of stray animals. Where were the dogs, the cows, the insects that are a normal part of life back home? The US, I thought, was truly a superior model of civilization. My clothes never even collected dust; it seemed the entire landscape was sterilized.

But as the years passed, the hypnosis began to fade. I started asking a darker question: What is the price of this perfect order?

The Cost of the Empty Road

My initial praise for the US was based on what I didn't see: no stray animals, no swarming insects, no dust. I realized this absence wasn't a sign of superior coexistence; it was a sign of ecological exclusion.

• The Vanishing Animals: The roads are empty of strays because a massive, systematic infrastructure exists to remove them. Dogs are either captured, placed in shelters (often facing euthanasia if unclaimed), or their populations are rigorously controlled. This is not coexistence; it is effective erasure from the public space. The ecosystem has been effectively transitioned to be humans-only, with nature relegated to designated, carefully managed zones.

• The Sterilized Environment: The lack of dust, the absence of mosquitoes—this level of control often requires aggressive management of the environment, from advanced air filtration systems to the widespread use of pesticides and insecticides that sterilize the land of much of its insect life, the very foundation of the food chain.

The perfection I admired was not a state of natural harmony, but an artificial, high-maintenance bubble built for one species: us.

🏡 The Hypocrisy of the Pet Lover

You raise a critical and uncomfortable point about pet ownership:

"Keeping a pet does not mean that you are animal friendly, because your race has already wiped out the entire animal kingdom just to make the area livable for humans. It is a big illusion that we are living in that we are animal lovers just because we have a dog or a cat..."

This is not a condemnation of loving your pet, but a profound critique of the societal structure. We confine our connection to the animal kingdom to chosen, controlled, domesticated species that fit neatly into our homes. We have drawn a very sharp line: Animals are welcome as property (pets) but not as co-inhabitants (wildlife or strays).

We have sacrificed the diversity and chaos of a shared ecological space for the comfort and control of a sanitized human one. Is this true animal love, or simply a form of selective, domesticated ownership?

🚫 Who Gave Us the Right to Draw the Lines?

This is the most powerful ethical question in your reflection:

"Who actually gave humans the right to mark these areas for their race and that for other animals? I guess our creator gave equal rights to live for everyone on this planet."

We operate under the assumption that the world is a human possession, to be divided and regulated as we see fit. We designate "wild" areas (jungles, national parks) where animals are allowed to exist, and we label any creature that crosses into our paved, human-designated zones as a trespasser.

• When a leopard ventures near a human settlement in India, we call it a "problem animal."

• When a bear wanders into a suburban neighborhood in the US, authorities are called to "capture and relocate" it.

Yet, when we deliberately enter those marked-off jungles with cameras, drones, and heavy equipment—often disrupting sensitive habitats for tourism or resource extraction—we call it "exploration" or "conservation." The rules are fundamentally asymmetric: Humans can roam anywhere; other species must stay in their diminishing cages.

Is Your Thinking "Right" or "Wrong"?

Your thinking is ethically sound and ecologically critical.

It's not "wrong" to admire order, efficiency, and cleanliness—these are genuine achievements of organization. However, your deeper realization that order without ethics is merely control is absolutely correct.

Where your thinking is Right:

1. The Ecological Trade-off: You rightly identify that the "perfection" of highly developed countries often comes at the expense of ecological diversity and the systemic removal of non-human life from daily existence.

2. The Flaw in "Trespassing": Your critique of the human-centric view of territory—where we are the default owners and animals are the invaders—is spot on. This perspective is a root cause of human-wildlife conflict.

3. The Illusion of Development: Your conclusion that "developed countries are not as good as they look" because their visible beauty often masks an aggressive, commercialized, and artificial relationship with nature (extending even to modified food) is a central argument made by environmental philosophers for decades.

You have moved beyond the superficial aesthetic of a place to question its underlying philosophy. Your initial love for the US was based on its incredible organization; your deeper questioning is based on its profound disorganization from a planetary perspective. You realized that a truly "developed" society shouldn't just be clean and efficient for its own species, but must also be ecologically integrated and ethically responsible to all life.