Should civilization be destroyed?

[Glorious Homeland]

So just think about it, do we really want what we have now? Or do we want this because we are used to it? I don't know, but I think we would be better of with a few steps back.

I for sure don't want a high mortality rate, lack of antibiotics, probable comeback of smallpox before long, and what have you. The whole suggestion is fucking stupid, because it wouldn't be how people would be thinking if we took a few steps back, they'd be saying "oh if only my baby didn't die of a common infection or malnutrition.".

[Norstal]

Lets just say when you're out in the woods hunting and its a mile back to toliet paper and you're praire doggin it, you use what you can get.

Your hand?

Err, I think using your hand for toilet paper would defeat the purpose of inventing toilet papers.

[Natapoc]

Well? Should it? What's so good about civilization anyway? Imagine how much more easy everything would be without it? Nearly all the problems that people are so worried about (often to the point of killing each other) these days are the direct result of civilization.

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

If you like civilization why? What value is there in civilization for you personally?

Alright Pol Pot... using your internet, with your electricity and literacy to spread philosophy gained via civilisation.

I suppose it doesn't matter either way since we're all going to die anyway, but it's pleasant to see progress on many fronts due to civilisation. To understand parts of how the universe works.

...
The question is also stupid, because "humanity" is something we understand metaphysically as a result of civilisation. So it can't be a bad thing to happen to humanity, civilisation. Gargh.

Perhaps you have a metaphysical concept of "humanity" that requires "civilization" to exist but not everyone does, indeed it would seem to be very rare.

I tend to think of humanity from a biological, not a metaphysical perspective.

Just as the universe existed BEFORE humans had a chance to develop a metaphysical concept of the universe so also humanity existed before before humans developed a concept of humanity.

Further just as dogs have the concept of what a "dog" is or what a group of dogs are despite a lack of "civilization" so also pre civilization humans knew what "humanity" was.

[Trotskylvania]

Alright Pol Pot... using your internet, with your electricity and literacy to spread philosophy gained via civilisation.

I suppose it doesn't matter either way since we're all going to die anyway, but it's pleasant to see progress on many fronts due to civilisation. To understand parts of how the universe works.

...
The question is also stupid, because "humanity" is something we understand metaphysically as a result of civilisation. So it can't be a bad thing to happen to humanity, civilisation. Gargh.

Perhaps you have a metaphysical concept of "humanity" that requires "civilization" to exist but not everyone does, indeed it would seem to be very rare.

I tend to think of humanity from a biological, not a metaphysical perspective.

Just as the universe existed BEFORE humans had a chance to develop a metaphysical concept of the universe so also humanity existed before before humans developed a concept of humanity.

Further just as dogs have the concept of what a "dog" is or what a group of dogs are despite a lack of "civilization" so also pre civilization humans knew what "humanity" was.

Humans also aren't dogs. Civilization is a product of innate human abilities, and conceived in value neutral terms, is an inevitable development for any species that is capable of higher order language and tool using. The question you should be asking is how civilization should be ordered into an ecological, humane society; not whether or not it should be "destroyed".

[Meryuma]

I like having a society with electricity, birth control, the Internet, flight, effective anesthetics, and space travel. If we could have these things in a tribal society, sign me the fuck up. I'm serious: if we could have these things without civilization, that would be heaven. I definitely have a bit of a primitivist side, I just don't oppose technology. However, I do definitely see the benefits of returning to a more wild state of life.

[Glorious Homeland]

Alright Pol Pot... using your internet, with your electricity and literacy to spread philosophy gained via civilisation.

I suppose it doesn't matter either way since we're all going to die anyway, but it's pleasant to see progress on many fronts due to civilisation. To understand parts of how the universe works.

...
The question is also stupid, because "humanity" is something we understand metaphysically as a result of civilisation. So it can't be a bad thing to happen to humanity, civilisation. Gargh.

Perhaps you have a metaphysical concept of "humanity" that requires "civilization" to exist but not everyone does, indeed it would seem to be very rare.

I tend to think of humanity from a biological, not a metaphysical perspective.

Just as the universe existed BEFORE humans had a chance to develop a metaphysical concept of the universe so also humanity existed before before humans developed a concept of humanity.

Further just as dogs have the concept of what a "dog" is or what a group of dogs are despite a lack of "civilization" so also pre civilization humans knew what "humanity" was.

The human species is not naturally equatable to humanity; which is the sum of human experience and being. If you lock someone up with dogs all their life then they'll exhibit very little humanity, but they are still human. Your definition is off.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I like having a society with electricity, birth control, the Internet, flight, effective anesthetics, and space travel. If we could have these things in a tribal society, sign me the fuck up. I'm serious: if we could have these things without civilization, that would be heaven.

Yet, just like going on a date with that really hot celebrity, it can never happen.

I definitely have a bit of a primitivist side, I just don't oppose technology. However, I do definitely see the benefits of returning to a more wild state of life.

I like the fleabitten furs part, as Kat mentioned.

[Fedeledland]

Well? Should it? What's so good about civilization anyway? Imagine how much more easy everything would be without it? Nearly all the problems that people are so worried about (often to the point of killing each other) these days are the direct result of civilization.

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?
Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

If you like civilization why? What value is there in civilization for you personally?

Well, civilization has provided us advanced means in almost every field. If we returned to pre-civilization, then our average life span would be of about 30 years.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Well, civilization has provided us advanced means in almost every field. If we returned to pre-civilization, then our average life span would be of about 30 years.

I think if we were instantly returned to pre civilisation, life expectancy would be much lower than it was before we civilised ourselves. The last 5000? or so years have subtly selected for humans that thrive in civilised conditions. We'd be boned

[Free Soviets]

If we returned to pre-civilization, then our average life span would be of about 30 years.

life spans were about the same. life expectancies were significantly lower due to high infant mortality. but it must be noted that civilization was worse for life expectancy (and overall health and well-being) for the vast majority of its history. only in the recent past has the bulk of the world topped what was lost by becoming civilized.

[Hydesland]

If we returned to pre-civilization, then our average life span would be of about 30 years.

life spans were about the same. life expectancies were significantly lower due to high infant mortality. but it must be noted that civilization was worse for life expectancy (and overall health and well-being) for the vast majority of its history. only in the recent past has the bulk of the world topped what was lost by becoming civilized.

Civilisation has had a relatively short history compared to the entire history of humanity, give it a chance.

[Free Soviets]

Civilisation has had a relatively short history compared to the entire history of humanity, give it a chance.

i'm actually something of a techno-optimist. i just temper that with primmie cynicism.

did you see the video i linked to earlier graphing the countries of the world in terms of life expectancy and wealth over the past 200 years?

[Vetalia]

Anyone who is aware of what a living hell it is for organisms outside of human civilization knows it's a moot point. Humans are living better today than any organism ever that has ever existed ever has across the entire history of life on Earth.

[Hydesland]

did you see the video i linked to earlier graphing the countries of the world in terms of life expectancy and wealth over the past 200 years?

Yeah, interesting stuff. I have it bookmarked as I anticipate it being useful sometime in future debates.

[Rokartian States]

So just think about it, do we really want what we have now?

Hell to the motherfucking yes. I rather enjoy living without the constant fear of my neighbour cracking my skull open to steal the deer I just spent the last dozen hours hunting down.

[Free Soviets]

Yeah, interesting stuff. I have it bookmarked as I anticipate it being useful sometime in future debates.

haha, nerd.

{ok, fine, i also keep a list of useful charts ans such}

[Hydesland]

Yeah, interesting stuff. I have it bookmarked as I anticipate it being useful sometime in future debates.

haha, nerd.

{ok, fine, i also keep a list of useful charts ans such}

Just look at the economics section of my sig, it's full of useful links in case someone decides to rage on my choice of degree, man I'm sad.

[Arilando]

Civilization allows scientific research to better the live of human beings. If there is no civilization, how are we ever gonna survive a meteor? Civilization is necessary for the survival of the human race. It also allows you to live longer.

You didn't actually just say that, please tell me you didn't
I think even with the aid of scientific research, a large meteorite would still no matter what devastate earth.

Think far into the future, like 2000 years.

[Dickballs]

natapoc

you're retarded

kill yourself irl

[Czardas]

natapoc

you're retarded

kill yourself irl

dickballs

you're *** warned for flaming ***

go do something productive instead of trolling NSG please

[Atheimsa]

define civilisation.

I for one conside any agglomeration of different people a civilisation. may be that you disagree. and if you aks if the planet has too many people? yes although europes is doing the best to avoid it (pity about the mulitbreeding african states, give them a good health cae and some security and they'd stop(good example would be cuba and its neigh bor diminica)

[Kreanoltha]

You didn't actually just say that, please tell me you didn't
I think even with the aid of scientific research, a large meteorite would still no matter what devastate earth.

Think far into the future, like 2000 years.

If we're talking 2000 years into the future it won't matter what happens to Earth because the chances are that Earth will just be a back water planet in the lager empires that rose from it. It's destruction will be of little concern to us.

[Poorisolation]

Think far into the future, like 2000 years.

If we're talking 2000 years into the future it won't matter what happens to Earth because the chances are that Earth will just be a back water planet in the lager empires that rose from it. It's destruction will be of little concern to us.

In which case and I admit to some doubt as to that scenario but in which case then Civilisation would surely have found a solution to the possibility of species destruction as a result of an impact by a large extra-terrestrial body? In this case by making the significance of the bio-sphere of planet Earth of lesser importance to the continued survival of the species.

I am not trying to imply that either Kreanoltha or Arilando are wrong but merely that you are perhaps arguing at cross purposes?

[Person012345]

Well? Should it?

No.

[Natapoc]

This thread has actually been very productive in that it has taught me something new, that is there is a type of "religion" of civilization which allows itself to go uncriticized.

If I were to stand up in front of a christian church and ask if "Christianity should be destroyed" the emotional response from the audience would be so great that few would answer the actual question. Sure I'd be called all sorts of names and if I'd a few hundred years ago would have been put to death for questioning if the church should exist publicly.

EVEN if I was a good christian and fully believed the church should exist the mere fact of questioning it's "good" presents a threat to the belief system.

In the same way questioning the value of civilization is responded to with hostility even by someone like myself who actually supports "civilization"

The pure reaction in this thread to the very idea that there could be something wrong with civilization and the fact that most of these angry responses were identical in meaning demonstrate dogma of civilization.