Does having more money, more things, more technology, more labour saving devices, more clothes, a bigger house, etc equal civilisation? Do we measure the worth of a society/individual by what it/he has? Is it more civilised to use technology to kill people for profit or gain materially from such behaviour, rather than attack someone for insulting you?
Technology and wealth are more the result of a civilisation than the measure of it, but in the same sense it is quite reasonable to measure the worth of a society by "what it has". It represents industriousness, ingenuity, and the ability to not only derive uses for resources, but to manage and produce them. Without these attributes, a civilisation would never evolve to be one. As to the third question, there is no real answer. It is all very well to say "no", that civilisation should be humans all living in peaceful coexistence and harmony. The reality is, however, that they never have. If you point out a society which has shown itself to be more peaceful than most, I'll show you the inability or lack of practical opportunity of that society to stamp itself and its ideals on others, or the inability to defend itself from aggression. It is usually this society which complains the most about oppression, in the same way that a poor man will philosophise about the worthlessness of wealth. That same poor man's philosophy might be quite different were he not poor, and that peaceful society would not be as peaceful were it in a position of power.
So when you say a civilisation evolves, what do you envision as the primary factors considered desirable as a definition of civilisation?
Yes and no, this also has to do with factors not under thier control such as other's values. A do or die scenario or having to defend yourself because another is trying to kill you. If people weren't trying to exploit you, their would be no need to play the game thier way. Think of the planet as a locked room with two people, one is trying to kill the other while the other wants peace.
You're getting more philosophical than political here. That is one hell of a large question. It needs a sense of identity. It needs a certain industriousness and ingenuity on the part of its members. It needs cohesiveness. It needs resources. It needs... space, room to grow. Does it need tolerance? Or is that simply desireable, a result of ideals? Does a man who avoids a fight do so because he is philosophically opposed to fighting? Or has that philosophy has arisen within him because he cannot fight? Chicken and egg scenario. When one has the ability to fight, and wants peace, he simply forces the other to stop fighting. If he cannot force him to stop fighting, he consoles himself with ideals of his own superiority by way of his ideals.
You are ignoring the issue of meeting others halfway. There is something called greed. You are right, that others have to force balance but there is something called an opportunist, that's why we have to constantly check eachother. There are still others who will impose on others and that's what you are ignoring, the constant barrage of an aggressor trying to get it's way. Do you agree with china oppressing tibetans? Are they bothering anyone? Do they have a right to impose thier values on them when they are peaceful? They have to fight or give in, right? But the greater question is, who is wrong? Not just the one who can't or won't fight. When someone is a pain in the neck, you've got to do what you've got to do but that doesn't make the other right either. Duh You are slightly biased in seeing it from one perspective.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm simply questioning whether or not the scenario of "meeting others halfway" out of pure philosophical ideal actually exists.
Why whenever the word civilization is dropped, our brains immediately start to produce images of something beautiful, desirable and overall superior? Thousand years of social indoctrination? I don't consider "civilization" to be admired just because it produced literacy and A bomb. It does lots of nasty things to a person, its character, etc. not speaking of destruction of surrounding.
In reply to your later edit - Actually, it does make it right. The Tibetans, if they cannot fight or do not have someone else to fight for them, are going to cease to exist. If that happens, their idealology, religion and culture will also cease to exist, other than that which survives in a mutated form picked up by others. You cannot argue about who is right or wrong when you're dead and gone. No one is going to be able to listen to a civilisation whch can only claim "we were right" from the grave. Remember the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" series? Where Harrison Ford shoots the sword wielding Arab who is threatening him? That Sword wielding Arab can't argue about the merits of an honourable fight. He's dead. And that's all there is to it.
You are biased and my point went completely over your head. This is good because your values illustrate the main reason shit happens and keeps happening. You are actually as much a fatalist, nihilist and defeatist in another way. I would go so far as to say destructive. Whether they go out because of their values or not, doesn't necessarily merit right or wrong just because you are dead anymore than a dead child murdered is wrong because they are dead. And even later, those stupid societies hell-bent on destruction may actually realize the ones they oppressed had superior ideas. It's not so simple. You're pathetic.
Nothing went over my head, dear girl. I simply think your idealism is a fine display of naivette. I am not destructive. I have no part in anything which happens, nor do I condone it. I simply watch. If anything, you are more a fighter than I am - because you defend your ideals to the utmost of your ability. Ironic, really... isn't it. I never said the dead child was "wrong". I simply said it has no opinion to put forward in the matter any more. Whoever conquers a dead nation is going to continue to believe they are "right", until someone proves otherwise. There is far more to this question, in that some nations or cultures are regarded in some circles as being "core" cultures regardless of whether or not they are temporarily conquered. But I have a feeling I might be wasting my time (and fingers) writing all of it out for your benefit.
no if a dog does his business on four legs and I do my business in an expensive european car with four wheels, where would the advancement of civilization lie? in dog society, yes here's what the experts have to say Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Civilization is a technology unto itself. The basic meaning of the word is "the building of cities." The entire history of civilization, starting with its precursor, agriculture and the permanent villages that agriculture both required and made possible, can be seen as Homo sapiens overriding the pack-social instinct that ruled the lives of Paleolithic and Mesolithic people. Neolithic people had to learn how to live in harmony and cooperation with people with whom they were not intimately acquainted, people who their instincts told them were competitors for scarce resources, to be distrusted or even hated. City dwellers have to live in harmony and cooperation with total strangers. Civilization is a triumph of our uniquely massive forebrains over our animal midbrains; the triumph of learned and reasoned behavior over instinctive behavior. Therefore, I submit that the measure of a civilization is the degree to which the pack-social instinct has been overcome. The first cities were home to several hundred people. Today a typical city holds tens of thousands, and many hold millions. That is a transcendence of three to five orders of magnitude over the nomadic extended-family hunter-gatherer clans that characterized the Mesolithic Era before the invention of the technology of agriculture. By that measure, civilization is a rousing success. But moreover, networks of cities have united into nations and even trans-national communities. This is a further triumph over the pack-social instinct, because within these transcendent supercommunities, peace is the norm. Of course the occasional throwback to the Stone Age commits murder or mayhem on a fellow citizen, but these outbursts are so rare that they seldom disturb the nature of civilization. The existence of such a small number of nations on the globe today is prima facie evidence of both the progress and value of civilization. Occasionally nations disintegrate and entire sub-communities of throwbacks engage in violence and mayhem. But this is often due to the nationhood having been proclaimed before it had actually congealed, such as colonial powers drawing arbitrary lines on a map and giving the resulting fictional objects glorious names like "Iraq" and "Kenya." Homo sapiens is not quite ready to be grouped into the two hundred (or whatever) nations recognized by geographers, but today's civilization of nations is far advanced over the tens of thousands of suspicious and hostile tribes that comprised it eight or nine thousand years ago when it was new. The last two thousand years BCE, which astrologers call the Age of Aries, was characterized by nearly constant and ubiquitous warfare. By contrast, even during the relatively brief "World Wars" of the last century, there were enormous swaths of civilization in which peace prevailed. As to the "wealth" question... The reason civilization is so appealing is that by its nature it creates surplus wealth. Division of labor and economy of scale result in more goods and services being produced by less labor. Some of the surplus is dissipated in consumer goods, some goes into the furtherance of culture by arts, education and science, and some becomes capital, which is used to build infrastructure, starting with houses, furniture and sturdy cooking utensils and progressing to transportation networks, universities and the internet. The level of peace provided by the transcendence of the pack-social instinct is one measure of the "success" of civilization, but surely almost all humans will agree that the level of comfort, convenience and directed leisure is another. You're focusing on external rather than internal peace and harmony. Each time five tribes combine into a nation, there are twelve fewer intertribal relationships on this precious planet with the potential for warfare. Within the nations peace and harmony almost always prevail, from a statistical perspective. The primary factor is the continued expansion of the primitive pack-social instinct to include more people within the civilization. Today, virtually all people who live in actual nations (as opposed to the victims of colonialist fantasies) feel and express a sense of harmony and cooperation with virtually all of their fellow citizens. The next level of transcendence is already underway. The nations of Western Europe have surely fought their last war among themselves, as have those of Latin America. Many of us already count as brethren people who live on the opposite side of the globe, people we'll never know except as statistical abstractions. All of us who are reading this probably fall into that category. The fact that we're here talking casually to each other as a "virtual family" both illustrates and reinforces that new, higher transcendence. I will refuse under penalty of death any command to wreak violence on any of you in your respective nations, and I daresay you all would as well. This is the "peaceful existence and harmony" Outie is looking for. It is spreading right under his mouse. The final step in the process of civilization will be the integration of all people into a single, ultimate, transcendent world community, in which all but the rare throwbacks live in harmony and cooperation. This will be the ultimate triumph of learning and reasoning over our pack social instinct. It will mark Homo sapiens as the crowning achievement of evolution, even as our development for the past twelve thousand years has transcended the forces of evolution itself. The Jews and the Roma ("Gypsies," "Tzigane," etc.) would beg to differ with you. Both have survived with their cultures intact through millennia or one millennium, respectively, of persecution and pogrom, without resorting to violence. A diaspora coupled with a strong sense of group identity was the engine in both cases. The Roma don't even have the religious identity and the written language that helped the Jews, but of course the Roma are relative beginners at this kind of survival compared to the Jews. I understand that Buddhism has not always been a religion of peace, but it is today and there's no way the Tibetans are going to take up arms against their Han occupiers. The United States has proven willing to allow the Sudanese to suffer genocide rather than provoke a nuclear war with China, so we are clearly not going to risk it over the bloodless genocide in Tibet. Probably what they need to do is start sending out their own diaspora. There is already a Tibetan community in America, but I wonder if it's quite big enough to do the job.
Getting mighty tired here, it has been one long, boring shift. And that is one mammoth post to read with somewhat blurred eyesight. However. Couple of quick comments. The rub being that that same social instinct is necessary for a civilisation to form to begin with. Is it overcome, or does it overcome? The idea that one civilisation will eventually form does not indicate that the pack instinct has been overcome - only that a single one has survived. That might involve some final conflict, and it might involve one civilisation eventually "swallowing" of all others. Still, your definition here seems a contradiction of itself. Of course. "Peace and harmony on Earth" cannot be fully realised until there is no possibility of any external threat remaining. That requires only one civilsation. Any more than one, and there will conflict, in one form or another. Agreed, but at what point will the boundaries firm again? I can guess. Neither one has a fixed reference point from which one might attempt to wipe them out. The nazis may have tried, but they had other concerns as well and really had no chance of completing the job. And one can hardly "invade" the Gypsies. In terms of the non-practise of violence, Israel would seem to disqualify the Jews in that regard, beginning last century. When the transfer from disparate group of nationalities linked by a common religion became a fixed society, suddenly they were as capable and willing to defend themselves as everyone else. Either that, or risk the extermination of those in that new homeland. Now the question is, would either qualify as a civilisation? Both seem to be more of a society, If even that. They are more a group of people living in different nations, connected via religion or culture rather than a "civilisation". Particularly considering your definition of civilisation, given in the earlier preamble.
Of course. If man had not arisen, given enough additional eons, the next species to try would be another social species. Probably another new kind of chimpanzee or gorilla, since they have the head start. But dogs, raccoons and several other pack-social mammals could develop the hands needed to build cities. Even a herd-social species might do it. They have the advantage of not being suspicous and aggressive with strangers. It could be one of the psittacines. I've lived with several parrots, macaws, etc., and they are just as bright and just as clever with their three "hands"--two opposable thumbs on each foot plus a prehensile beak. And many species already live in communities of hundreds. Both actually. To be more precise, what we have done with our pack-social instinct is not to overcome it but more precisely to adjust it. We apply it to a larger number of pack-mates in a tiered system. Rather than one extended family, we have nuclear family, friends, colleagues, fellow citizens, citizens of friendly countries, and others. I don't feel the same sense of caring and dependence for the citizens of Greece as I do for my neighbors, and less for them than for my wife and my buddies. But I do feel it. I presume their cooperation in keeping all of our businesses and cultures running smoothly, and when disaster strikes them I go into full compassion mode and ask what I can do to help. But in fact six civilizations have formed independently: Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Olmec, Inca. It seems to be a step that human societies reach naturally, once they've invented agriculture and gotten over the first hurdle of combining clans into tribes. The planning, coordination, and passing of detailed information from one generation to the next that drove the Neolithic Revolution is presumed to be impossible without the technology of language. We will probably never be able to figure out when it developed, or how long it took, but it's a good bet that it was also the technology that allowed the first successful migration out of Africa, and therefore is at least 70,000 years old. Particularly since recent research using massively parallel computing yields tantalizing hints that all non-African languages might be a single superfamily. Those six civilizations were indeed mighty hard on each other. One of them even destroyed three of them. The Muslim and Christian offhoots of Mespotamian obliterated the civilizations of Egypt and the New World, respectively. Of course. But that one civilization does not have to be built in the traditional Christian/Muslim way, by military conquest and subjugation of competing cultural motifs. Nations all over the world are congealing into trans-national economic and cultural networks. The Middle East and the United States appear to be the big holdouts, and I'm doing what I can to keep another Stone Age Throwback from getting into the White House. The process will probably not be securely completed until the boundaries have faded and only mark administrative subdivisions and a preference for baseball over soccer. Quite a paradox. From the standpoint of an outsider to religion, the saving grace of Judaism is its non-evangelical nature. We don't have to endure a billion Jews threatening world peace the way we have to endure a billion Christians or a billion Muslims doing it at regular-as-clockwork intervals. Now that they have their own country--or is it somebody else's, that depends on which version of history you read--they seem to be just as capable of inciting and prosecuting a Holy War as the other Children of Abraham. Civilization is "the building of cities," nothing more and nothing less. Israel had a civilization, lost it, and is rebuilding it. During the long period in between, the Jews as an ethnic group made major contributions to the civilizations in which they lived, but they could not be construed as having a distinct Jewish civilization. The Gypsies often lived as nomads on the fringes of cities, entering them for commerce. Both groups have a rich culture, but that is not the same as a civilization. The indigenous North Americans, Australians, sub-Saharan Africans and Pacific Islanders had rich cultures, but no cities.
I think SAM should be clearer on if she means civilisation or civilised? A civilisation can be a small group and it is relative to the total number (planetwide), whereas civilised would be another level - higher.
