Are We Any More Civilized?

[Guitar's Cry]

In the vegetarian thread, Suraj wrote:

I am talking about a period in history which you mention, which was uncivilised and less evolved. If you consult any history book this will become very clear. In age where we construct tools from nanomaterials, compared to an age where we construct tools from animal bones, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say we are more evolved and civilised.

I'd like to discuss this without taking the other thread off-topic.

Are we any more civilized now than any other period of history?

First, what do we mean by "civilized"? It seems to me that it refers to how we treat each other and the world around us rather than our technological developments, but I've seen the term used to describe that as well: "No computer? How uncivilized!"

I say we are no more civilized than when we hunted our own animals, produced weapons and food from them, and lived in simple shelters (some are not so simple!).

1) While we produce products from inorganic materials, this process still affects the environment in such as way as it doesn't eliminate the role of death or suffering from the process.

2) We certainly do not treat each other or the world around us any better. We have compassion within the human species, but I'm sure we always have.

3) Ecological concerns were known by our frugal ancestors as well, but on a more utilitarian, and arguably a more practical, level.

What else could civilization mean?

 

[Willamena]

Are we any more civilized now than any other period of history?

I believe we are not. The tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same.

First, what do we mean by "civilized"? It seems to me that it refers to how we treat each other and the world around us rather than our technological developments, but I've seen the term used to describe that as well: "No computer? How uncivilized!"

I say we are no more civilized than when we hunted our own animals, produced weapons and food from them, and lived in simple shelters (some are not so simple!).

1) While we produce products from inorganic materials, this process still affects the environment in such as way as it doesn't eliminate the role of death or suffering from the process.

2) We certainly do not treat each other or the world around us any better. We have compassion within the human species, but I'm sure we always have.

3) Ecological concerns were known by our frugal ancestors as well, but on a more utilitarian, and arguably a more practical, level.

What else could civilization mean?

Civilization is related to civility, which has to do with the ways people treat each other. In a civilization people treat each other with dignity, trust and mutual respect regardless of the role they are fulfilling, be it emperor, handiman or slave. They are able to do this because everyone participates in civilization with the same qualities. Those who do not willingly, actively and spontaneously participate are uncivil, uncouth.

 

[doppelganger]

I would consider "civilized" to be a reference to the complexity by which we organize our affairs and relationships in social reality. Technology, as in the OP, is just a symptom of a more organized, task-oriented culture that allows for a greater degree of sub-specialization and cooperation among many people and over long periods of time.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I think that humanity is more civilized. In a time when many could do what they wish without the fear of retribution, they did. For example, how often do you hear of a village being pludered? Societ would not stand for this in our current age and the use of technology helps to keep villians in their place (to a certain point). I often wander though how many people would commit crimes if they thought they could get away with it. If you look at the statistics, the world is much more populated now, but the ratio of people that commit crimes v. the population is quite low statistically. It is sad that with all of the worlds knowledge and technologies, that we have yet to find a way better take care of our (only) home.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think that humanity is more civilized. In a time when many could do what they wish without the fear of retribution, they did. For example, how often do you hear of a village being pludered? Societ would not stand for this in our current age and the use of technology helps to keep villians in their place (to a certain point).

I like Willamena's statement of "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same."

I think villages are plundered everyday, and often in "civilized" areas. America's military bases are a prime example...

The villains and the crimes are there. They're just better masked in a time when people are faceless.

Sometimes you wanna go where everyone knows your name.

 

[Quagmire]

I believe we are not. The tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same.

Someone once said, "Men have always been able to come up with a blueprint for goodness, but mankind has never been able to live up to it".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe we are not.

Who cares what you believe. You're a woman. Why are you intruding into this conversation?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

< Pretty outlandish, wasn't it? I wonder how many would have thought so a few centuries ago. >

 

[DallasApple]

Some things have gotten better..Some things have gotten worse..JMHO..

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

< Pretty outlandish, wasn't it? I wonder how many would have thought so a few centuries ago. >

You would be surprised what still goes on in many peoples minds...This isn't over yet..(they let it "slip")

Love

Dallas

 

[gnomon]

In the vegetarian thread, Suraj wrote:



I'd like to discuss this without taking the other thread off-topic.

Are we any more civilized now than any other period of history?

First, what do we mean by "civilized"? It seems to me that it refers to how we treat each other and the world around us rather than our technological developments, but I've seen the term used to describe that as well: "No computer? How uncivilized!"

I say we are no more civilized than when we hunted our own animals, produced weapons and food from them, and lived in simple shelters (some are not so simple!).

1) While we produce products from inorganic materials, this process still affects the environment in such as way as it doesn't eliminate the role of death or suffering from the process.

2) We certainly do not treat each other or the world around us any better. We have compassion within the human species, but I'm sure we always have.

3) Ecological concerns were known by our frugal ancestors as well, but on a more utilitarian, and arguably a more practical, level.

What else could civilization mean?

I have never seen the term civilization used as a euphemism for civility except in a derogatory sense.Civilization denotes at its base an collective and complex agrarian society which has established a division of labor among its peoples.

There is no need to alter the meaning of the term civilization for the sake of advancing a concept that human beings as a collective need to engineer technological methods to better their standard of living and ensure a continuation of that standard.

Moving on.

Are we better than our ancestors?

The question is too broad. Western society is generally seen as the most progressive and egalitarian society on the planet. Yet the West (Americas and Europe) account for less than a third of the world's population, is probably less "civilized" than most people wish to imagine and a cursory look at the 20th century history of the West is fraught with the most immoral acts of nations done in the face of hypocrisy we have known in all history.

Ecological concerns were known by our frugal ancestors as well, but on a more utilitarian, and arguably a more practical, level.

I seriously doubt this. I think ecologically speaking there is far more concern among more people regarding our relationship to the planet. But supporting such a belief is practically impossible as it regards the whole of humanity now to the whole of humanity then.

In practical terms, is it even relevant to compare ourselves to our ancestors? The only known in such an endeavor is that we are probably incorrect in trying to state with any certainty what our illiterate ancestors believed. Even with an earlier development of writing taking the statements of the elite few to represent the whole of the group would be as pointless as it is now. Do we really need to know what our ancestors believed to use reasoned, empirical thought to draw the necessary conclusions for modern humans.

I say no.

 

[Caladan]

Many see civilization as the reason for mass exploitation of nature and its resources, while many believe that primitive hunter-gatherers live more in tuned with their ecological niche.
the opinions about being more civilized can be very dependent on personal interpretation of what exactly is civilization, and what are the personal priorities in the social life of each of the interpreter; for example is it progress? and if it is.. is progress good or bad?

 

[DallasApple]

Do we really need to know what our ancestors believed to use reasoned, empirical thought to draw the necessary conclusions for modern humans.

I say no.

We probably dont..But some people use the comparison to continue being cruel or "uncivilized" towards others...

Because?? We have made so much "progress"...Its all about greed...

Just a thought..

Love

Dallas

 

[Guitar's Cry]

< Pretty outlandish, wasn't it? I wonder how many would have thought so a few centuries ago. >

As DallasApple stated, I wonder how many still do.

Gnomon brings up an interesting point:

In practical terms, is it even relevant to compare ourselves to our ancestors?

What is the purpose of comparing us to our ancestors?

I would suggest it is in the same spirit as learning history or studying mythology. The human race could be seen as a dynamic entity (doesn't have to be, and I can think of some practical reasons for both viewpoints), and if claims are going to be made of it being "more evolved" or "more civilized," then we can look at where we were and decide if where we are is where we want to be.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Many see civilization as the reason for mass exploitation of nature and its resources, while many believe that primitive hunter-gatherers live more in tuned with their ecological niche.

Right! We are aware of the science, and continue to ignore it, while they were concerned with food, water, and shelter sources and couldn't ignore it.

I think that just because primitive hunter gatherers were probably unaware of the complex model we use, it doesn't mean they weren't ecologically aware.

 

[DallasApple]

As DallasApple stated, I wonder how many still do.

Gnomon brings up an interesting point:



What is the purpose of comparing us to our ancestors?

I would suggest it is in the same spirit as learning history or studying mythology. The human race could be seen as a dynamic entity (doesn't have to be, and I can think of some practical reasons for both viewpoints), and if claims are going to be made of it being "more evolved" or "more civilized," then we can look at where we were and decide if where we are is where we want to be.

I do agree...Its helpful...to the ones who want to make things better than before..to reflect back on what was done in the past..that brought good ..and what brought bad..

In other words...If we could only learn from our mistakes..(our meaning all of it..the entire history)...

Its so fluid..Thats why we need many...think tanks..

Love

Dallas

 

[gnomon]

As DallasApple stated, I wonder how many still do.

Gnomon brings up an interesting point:



What is the purpose of comparing us to our ancestors?

I would suggest it is in the same spirit as learning history or studying mythology. The human race could be seen as a dynamic entity (doesn't have to be, and I can think of some practical reasons for both viewpoints), and if claims are going to be made of it being "more evolved" or "more civilized," then we can look at where we were and decide if where we are is where we want to be.

And who determines how our ancestors were?

The archaeologist, anthropoligist and historian.

The priest, the imam or the shaman.

Or do we rely on the traditionalists.

Who states with any certainty what the pre-literate humans believed and how they lived? The relevancy doesn't come in whether or not its worthwhile. It comes in rather or not we are accurately determining such ancient ways or seeking to fulfill wishful thinking.

Having read enough historical claims in regards to Mayans, Druids, pre-Roman Christians, Greeks, etc.....none of whom are truly ancients....the only common conclusion that can be reached is that most of the claims are usually wrong.

Many see civilization as the reason for mass exploitation of nature and its resources, while many believe that primitive hunter-gatherers live more in tuned with their ecological niche.

How does one exploit nature? Using exploitation at its most basic and original meaning, stating that civilizations exploited (made productive use of) natural resources is just stating the obvious.

It may be that civilization came about as populations increased, agrarian systems with a division of labor provided more food to more people to sustain the people and that the move from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian society was the first step to an egalitarian society.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

And who determines how our ancestors were?

The archaeologist, anthropoligist and historian.

The priest, the imam or the shaman.

Or do we rely on the traditionalists.

Who states with any certainty what the pre-literate humans believed and how they lived? The relevancy doesn't come in whether or not its worthwhile. It comes in rather or not we are accurately determining such ancient ways or seeking to fulfill wishful thinking.

Having read enough historical claims in regards to Mayans, Druids, pre-Roman Christians, Greeks, etc.....none of whom are truly ancients....the only common conclusion that can be reached is that most of the claims are usually wrong

We know who our ancestors are through holistically-minded research of the best evidence we can muster.

Of course, history isn't going to necessarily tell accurately the lives of those before us. But if we decide to make claims based on the past, we have to do the best we can through the use of our intelligence and creativity.

 

[Caladan]

It may be that civilization came about as populations increased, agrarian systems with a division of labor provided more food to more people to sustain the people and that the move from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian society was the first step to an egalitarian society.

Actually according to the terminology in research, civilization is the least egalitarian of the systems. when the state 'confiscates' the power of the individual.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You would be surprised what still goes on in many peoples minds...

No, I would not, but that fact is hardly relevant to the thread.

To suggest that we are no more civilized than earlier periods is little more than thoughtless sophistry. Who in their right mind would suggest that it would be just fine for Black America to go back to the norms of the 1500's because there's really no fundamental difference -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"? Or that women might as well return to pre-suffrage, pre-Roe-v-Wade standards -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"?

To dismiss the advances made is to irresponsibly denigrate the very real efforts and sacrifices of those who made them.