Should civilization be destroyed?

[Person012345]

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.

How do you define civilisation anyhow?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Civilization is all that separates us from the animals. I don't want to be the moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon.

[Natapoc]

Civilization is all that separates us from the animals. I don't want to be the moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon.

Would you care to clarify here what you mean? Do you believe nomadic human tribes which lack civilization (are you confusing this with culture?) are "moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon."

[Dumb Ideologies]

Civilization is all that separates us from the animals. I don't want to be the moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon.

Would you care to clarify here what you mean? Do you believe nomadic human tribes which lack civilization (are you confusing this with culture?) are "moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon."

Pretty much. Human development is more or less a process of becoming progressively less bacony.

[Geniasis]

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.

Why does that surprise you? You're essentially asking people if something that they deem as important should be totally and eternally wiped out. That tends to be a bit of a sore spot with people.

For instance, say you have a cat. You love your cat. One day, I open up an honest question and ask if your cat should be killed, because I'm allergic to it/he's been genociding the local bird population/I think he's the ugliest fucking creature on God's green earth.

Are you likely to respond in a calm, rational, and reasoned manner?

At any rate, this hasn't been what's happened in this topic. People have asked you what benefits a lack of civilization would bring. You have not answered. People have talked about the benefits of civilization. You have not rebutted. Instead, you cherry pick the weakest posts and act like they represent the thread, when anyone paying even a cursory amount of attention could see that this is not the case. So I can't help but conclude that your claim to be "pro-civ" is disingenuous at best.

[Hydesland]

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.

I think you're kidding yourself. Your OP presented a very hostile demeanour towards civilisation, if you think it sounded like an impartial criticism, you're wrong.

[Natapoc]

Would you care to clarify here what you mean? Do you believe nomadic human tribes which lack civilization (are you confusing this with culture?) are "moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon."

Pretty much. Human development is more or less a process of becoming progressively less bacony.

Are you joking or serious? Sorry I can't tell today.

[Poorisolation]

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.

Is this another of your trademarked "Once again I am wrong but if I twist the words around in my head I can convince myself I am right" type comments?

Most of the responses supporting the preservation of civilisation here started have from the rational premise that it at least does a lot of good and in some cases may in fact hold the only solution to certain problems. On the other hand the attacks on civilisation have been mainly to claim it does harm without asking if those harms would in fact be reduced by its removal of said civilisation?

The support for civilisation or at least tolerance of it as a least bad option found in this thread is at heart founded on rational judgements of self-interest both as individuals and as a species. The scenario you alluded to of somehow stopping the development of our current civilisation before it got started would have inevitably resulted the non-existence or premature death of most of the equivalent identities among posters on this forum as well of course resulting in the non existence of this forum. A forum I might add where you were able to pose this question.

Whatever the level of skill posed in their counter arguments at least they can claim to have originated from a rational basis.

Your question and opening statement do not however demonstrate any reasoned basis for the non-civilisational state of being having any desirability. Nor do any of your posts subsequently.

Also you have done little to burnish your credentials as a "supporter" for civilisation by your deriding a desire to defend it as an idea as being "religious", religion I gather is another of your bete noire. Perhaps you could state your rational reasons for supporting the existence of civilisation and then offer a considered alternative state of human existence?

Then we really would be learning something

[Dumb Ideologies]

Pretty much. Human development is more or less a process of becoming progressively less bacony.

Are you joking or serious? Sorry I can't tell today.

I must be a ham actor.

[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.

How do you define civilisation anyhow?

There are many definitions, most of which I would accept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

One definition of civilization that I tend to think of often is the time when humans began relying on agriculture for food production over gathering.

[Ifreann]

Would you care to clarify here what you mean? Do you believe nomadic human tribes which lack civilization (are you confusing this with culture?) are "moral equivalent of walking rashers of bacon."

Pretty much. Human development is more or less a process of becoming progressively less bacony.

This makes civilisation sound terrible......

[Poorisolation]

Pretty much. Human development is more or less a process of becoming progressively less bacony.

This makes civilisation sound terrible......

Perhaps he means more moving from being the bacon to eating the bacon?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Pretty much. Human development is more or less a process of becoming progressively less bacony.

This makes civilisation sound terrible......

Bacon is good to eat. It is not good to yourself be bacon. Not enough people understand this.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

This makes civilisation sound terrible......

Bacon is good to eat. It is not good to yourself be bacon. Not enough people understand this.

i don't like the taste of bacon.

[Poorisolation]

Bacon is good to eat. It is not good to yourself be bacon. Not enough people understand this.

i don't like the taste of bacon.

oooooome me baggises your share

[Natapoc]

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.

I think you're kidding yourself. Your OP presented a very hostile demeanour towards civilisation, if you think it sounded like an impartial criticism, you're wrong.

It only seemed like that due to your predispositions. I asked several questions and then stated a fact. I think we can all agree that life is good right? That being alive is good? You will not accuse me I hope of hating life? (how absurd that I must defend myself here as if my personal beliefs mattered)

So lets do life:

Should all life be destroyed?

Well? Should it? What's so good about life 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 life.

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

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

Will you, like a poster below you now demand some sort of certification that I truly am a member of the "civilization believers?" Is there a membership card?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

i don't like the taste of bacon.

oooooome me baggises your share

i'm confused

[Ifreann]

This makes civilisation sound terrible......

Bacon is good to eat. It is not good to yourself be bacon. Not enough people understand this.

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

[Natvia]

Hey man, civilization is it, man.

You wake up. You get outta bed. You go out.

You wanna buy shoes. You go the store.

But you know what?

There's no civilization, man! Ain't no shoes with no civilization!

[Dumb Ideologies]

Bacon is good to eat. It is not good to yourself be bacon. Not enough people understand this.

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

Civilization allows you to plug into a bacon simulator and keep experiencing the continual deliciousness without having to resort to lifetime limiting self-cannibalism.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

Hey man, civilization is it, man.

You wake up. You get outta bed. You go out.

You wanna buy shoes. You go the store.

But you know what?

There's no civilization, man! Ain't no shoes with no civilization!

except. there's the shoe event horizon

[Vitaphone Racing]

Bacon is good to eat. It is not good to yourself be bacon. Not enough people understand this.

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

But eating bacon will kill you anyway

[Poorisolation]

oooooome me baggises your share

i'm confused

Is okay is merely getting my claim in so that when the authorities lock up all NSers in a seclusion camp to protect the rest of society if there is a bacon ration included in the food allocation I can now legitimately eat your share. You can have any avocado pears from my ration as I really do not like them.

Don't worry if any of the above made sense to you the madness is infectious.

[Natvia]

Without civilization, what's to stop a homeless person from breaking into our houses at night and just, like, eating us? Just putting us in a pot and just... just going to town? Just cooking us up and eating us?

Do you wanna wake up in a Hobo's belly?

[Natapoc]

But if I was bacon, then I would never have to go get bacon, I would always have bacon. I could just eat myself. I could eat bacon until it killed me and my life would be complete.

But eating bacon will kill you anyway

Yes, cardiac arrest: Retributive justice of swine.