Civilization has nothing to do with freedom or tolerance

We like to think that a more "advanced" civilization would be more free and more tolerant.

However, although that's certainly a possibility to be desired, I don't think that the measure of civilization is freedom or tolerance; you see, freedom and tolerance only matter at the individual level. They only matter if individuals want to live, for themselves; and obviously we are by-and-large very tolerant today because, quite clearly, we want to be happy and be satisfied and succesful.

However even that is not a requirement for a society to be "civilized"

Civilization is the collective; it's the machine. It's society, it's the "we", the nation, the state. As such the best measures of how advanced a civilization is

1)efficiency
2)productivity
3)technological sophistication (as measured by something like the Kardashev scale which measure the amount of energy a civilization can harness)

The most civilized society would be the most "ordered", the most efficient and most productive. It would also be the one with the fewest "glitches" and inconsistencies in the system (thus diversity is undesirable for civilization) as well as the most "kept together", i.e, a lack of dissent.

Freedom, diversity, and tolerance, although they are usually key to human happiness, are also inefficient and create potential for "error". Therefore if civilization is the goal, these things cannot remain. They are inefficient.

Although I hate to admit it, state communism and fascism, although certainly the least free, are in my opinion the most civilized systems. They focus on the collective efficiency and productivity; the expansion of the state; and they are not hindered in performing "maintenance" and "cleanup"

Now, ultimately some level of individual will is required because otherwise there are no goals to set, and therefore no "progress". However who said everybody has to be free? One free man and a million subjects would be the most efficient system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those measures of civilization reflect your own opinions. They could just as easily be:

1. Level of happiness
2. Length of workday
3. Health

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem is when you go by those measures, then all sorts of things become possible

A civilization that plunders others and engages in slavery might lead to an increase in happiness (among the actual members of society, i.e, the free), a decrease in the length of the workday, and they could focus on becoming more healthy.

However going off common themes for "civilization", it becomes apparant that civilization is associated with control. Therefore, as I said, fascism is the most civilized system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not my point. My point is that benchmarks about what are the most important aspects of civiliation are arbitrary.

 

Yes. Obviously


However I was only making a point as well: just because a society isn't free or tolerant doesn't mean it isn't civilized. On the contrary, I would imagine that as this is the most controlling society, it's the most civilized.

 

Which society is the most controlling?

 

As in, a modern day example?

North Korea, I'd imagine. North Korea is also the most civilized society; the least free, yes, certainly not tolerant and certainly not a good place to live.......however they are the most civilized, the most machine-like, and very efficient. There are also no roadblocks to performing cleanup and the state is able to do away with inconsistencies and inefficiencies

Thus, they are very civilized.

 

That is possibly the most wrong thing you've ever said.

North Korea, whose streets are so broken that you're barely able to drive them. Who forces celebrations of the leader, and bans criticism of him, BOTH under penalty of death.

North Korea, who has arguably the worst human rights record in the world today, who subjects political prisoners to brutal conditions, is the most civilized? With their public executions and electro-shock prison torture? How about the man who was executed for making international calls from phones he had secretly in his basement? He was shot to death in front of 150,000 people. Or the 15 people that were publicly executed for leaving the country for China? That's civilization for you?

You're talking shit. You haven't the first clue as to what you're talking about. It's empty philosophy, total garbage that is the product of your imagination and nothing else. The country can't even feed itself.

 

Apparantly you don't understand what I said.

I already said freedom and tolerance have nothing to do with civilization. Therefore everything you've mentioned about N. Korea is irrelevant; the focus is productivity and efficiency.

And at any rate, those people broke the law. If you break the law you must pay the consequences; that's very civilized in my opinion.

 

OK, you know what? I had a whole post lined up, but I erased it. There's no point. First, I want to hear what makes you think North Korea is so productive and efficient, since you say that these are the sole parameters for civilization (well, you say it now; before you said something else).

So what are they good at? Where is their productivity and efficiency?

 

They're good at nothing and they're not very efficient. They're simply under a system that would be for the peak of efficiency and productivity.

i.e, although they themselves aren't very productive, the system itself is the most civilized. It has the most potential

America under a fascist state would be the most productive, most civilized, most secure, and most efficient.

And there lies my point, civilization doesn't have anything to do with being tolerant or loving or free. It has to do with cold hard productivity and efficiency.

And as I said, those people broke the law so there's nothing uncivilized about what happened to them; if you break the law you pay for it.

 

It's pretty clear that you don't have any idea what the word "civilized" means. It's kinda funny, actually. It's like talking to a kid. I assume you're early in your teens?

 

I do understand what "civilized" means, it means control. Unless you can enlighten me on what "civilized" means.

As I said, from my perspective freedom and tolerance are irrelevant to civilization. A society can still be productive, efficient, and under control without freedom or tolerance.

Therefore, civilization does not require freedom or tolerance.

Also either address my points or don't bother posting. Personal attacks and insults only display your own immaturity.

 

Civilization does not need tolerance or freedom to survive, but being civil usually means a lack of brutality or barbarism. Grouping many human beings in one place usually requires a certain amount of tolerance. Modern notions of what makes a civilization great do include things like productivity, but they also include quality of life issues.

 

Yes but my point was it isn't necessary. Therefore if you do want to gain more control and increase productivity, in fact, it would be best to limit the freedom and diversity as these create inefficiences and inconsistencies

And as for "grouping many human beings in one place usually requires a certain amount of tolerance", this only applies if humans are diverse. Through efforts like eugenics and "extermination" and cleansing, this wouldn't be the case thus no tolerance is required.

I do appreciate your reply, by the way. But in the end the very systems we despise are also the most civilized.

And this also brings up another point: you said "some level" of tolerance. Therefore, as there is not even any obligation to be tolerant in the first place, we can arbitrarily determine what groups of people we do tolerate and which we do not.........and still remain very civilized.


Perhaps this is the message: we can be too civilized. We are still organic, imperfect beings with natural urges.....for revenge and barbarity. And while we can try to cooperate as best as possible, as we are human we desire freedom and thus ultimate "civilization" is an impossible goal in our present state.

And then there are even more difficult topics: is revenge uncivilized? Or is it civilized? Revenge is fair. If fairness is a measure of civility, then revenge is civilized.

 

But how is it efficient and productive? They don't produce anything and they are only efficient in suppressing their population at the expense of their economic growth. Hell the State cannot even feed its own population, I think the standard for efficiency should at least be the ability to make sure the populace is fed.

 

I addressed this. It's the system itself; N. Korea consists of a single ignorant man that is mismanaging his assets.


The system itself, however, the system itself has the most potential.

 

Yes but in a system like this one there is no way for the population nor the system itself to change leaders and choose a less ignorant dictator. To assert that the system itself is perfect but the man who runs it is not shows the flaw in your idea of the perfection and efficiency of a totalitarian civilization.

Would you want to live there? Aren't you are a libertarian? I would have thought that a State this all encompassing would seem odious to you, taxing an unwilling population etc.

 

He doesn't know what he is. Clearly, he's talking out of his ass.

 

Yes, there are several points I agree with you about. Civilization does not inherently require values of freedom or tolerance. We can use the novel 1984 as an example. Perfect efficiency is possible as the expense of freedom and personal happiness. An ant colony is a good example. However, I don't equate efficiency with civilization as you do. Civilization is not an ideal, it's just a method of social organization centered around the possibilities created by agriculture. Agriculture meant that food could be hoarded, and that made specialization of professions possible, which led to technology, money, and all the rest we now think of as hallmarks of civilization. So, I don't think "too civilized" as a phrase makes any sense.