Should civilization be destroyed?

[Person012345]

Would you care to provide a more robust support for the inherent veracity of your claims?

How robust? I won't write a thesis on the matter here unless you pay me as a professional writer.

However I will provide support for the only claim I made in my OP:

"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. "

Take a look at the worries expressed on NSG and in the media:

Wikileaks would not exist without civilization.
Taxes would not exist without civilization.
War would not exist without civilization.
Iran would not exist without civilization.
Universal Healthcare would not exist without civilization
Insurance would not exist without civilization.
Debt would not exist without civilization.
North Korea would not exist without civilization.
Republicans would not exist without civilization.
Democrats would not exist without civilization.
Libetarians would not exist without civilization.
Computer hackers would not exist without civilization
Stock market crashes would not exist without civilization.

And so on.

Computers and the internet would not exist without civilisation. Granted, whilst this would mean no-one could whine about anything on NSG, lack of internets makes lack of civilisation bad.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

I'm going to ask again, what are the pros of abolishing civilization?

erm we get to make tree huts and they're always fun. except maybe the prickly trees, they're not so fun.

[Natapoc]

Half of the word "civilization" is "civil." And everyone likes to be civil.

Arguments of the form "All A likes B" simply need a single counter example to be proven false.

Counter example 1: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s ... =&gs_rfai=

Your statement is therefore false.

[Natvia]

okay but what happens when snoop dogg dies who takes over after him? there'd be a power struggle. chaos i tells ya.

He shall live on forever in our hearts and in our souls. As a beacon. An idol of light and goodness.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

I'm going to ask again, what are the pros of abolishing civilization?

erm we get to make tree huts and they're always fun. except maybe the prickly trees, they're not so fun.

actually, they seem warmer in winter, due to the prickling stimulating the heat nerve endings under you skin. so they are!

[Mad hatters in jeans]

okay but what happens when snoop dogg dies who takes over after him? there'd be a power struggle. chaos i tells ya.

He shall live on forever in our hearts and in our souls. As a bacon. An idol of light and goodness.

so he'l be devoured?

[Natapoc]

I'm going to ask again, what are the pros of abolishing civilization?

Stop mass extinction and destruction of the biosphere.

[Person012345]

Half of the word "civilization" is "civil." And everyone likes to be civil.

Arguments of the form "All A likes B" simply need a single counter example to be proven false.

Counter example 1: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s ... =&gs_rfai=

Your statement is therefore false.

Yeah? Well... NO U!

Refute that.

[Rokartian States]

Would you care to provide a more robust support for the inherent veracity of your claims?

Wikileaks would not exist without civilization.

Nor would any organization with large, possibly humanitarian goals.

Taxes would not exist without civilization.

Because there would be no way to effectively divert funds towards the betterment of the community.

War would not exist without civilization.

Neither would countries who can provide for their citizens.

Iran would not exist without civilization.

See above.

Universal Healthcare would not exist without civilization

...Yeah.

Insurance would not exist without civilization.

Surely this is a bad thing?

Debt would not exist without civilization.

Because there's no way to buy goods.

North Korea would not exist without civilization.

See above concerning Iran.

Republicans would not exist without civilization.

When one has to fight for their daily needs, political ideology is hardly high on one's priorities.

Democrats would not exist without civilization.

See above.

Libetarians would not exist without civilization.

See above.

Computer hackers would not exist without civilization

Neither would computers.

Stock market crashes would not exist without civilization.

Nor would the stock market.

[Natvia]

Arguments of the form "All A likes B" simply need a single counter example to be proven false.

Counter example 1: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&s ... =&gs_rfai=

Your statement is therefore false.

Hardly. That evidence doesn't count. It's the wrong color.

[Ifreann]

Would you care to provide a more robust support for the inherent veracity of your claims?

How robust? I won't write a thesis on the matter here unless you pay me as a professional writer.

However I will provide support for the only claim I made in my OP:

"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. "

Take a look at the worries expressed on NSG and in the media:

Wikileaks would not exist without civilization.
Taxes would not exist without civilization.
War would not exist without civilization.
Iran would not exist without civilization.
Universal Healthcare would not exist without civilization
Insurance would not exist without civilization.
Debt would not exist without civilization.
North Korea would not exist without civilization.
Republicans would not exist without civilization.
Democrats would not exist without civilization.
Libetarians would not exist without civilization.
Computer hackers would not exist without civilization
Stock market crashes would not exist without civilization.

And so on.

Which is patently useless as a criticism of civilisation.

[Natapoc]

Which is patently useless as a criticism of civilisation.

Indeed because that list was not a criticism of civilization but instead a direct response to a challenge about the truth of a statement I had previously made.

[Poorisolation]

I'm going to ask again, what are the pros of abolishing civilization?

Stop mass extinction and destruction of the biosphere.

Hum could you please go tell that to the dinosaurs, I have reason to suspect they may not have got your memo once you are back from telling them I have a whole slew of species that will also need to be informed the good news.

Also how would abolishing civilisation prevented say the flood basalts that resulted in the Deccan Traps for example which had a truly devastating effect on the then biosphere.

[Korintar]

Which is patently useless as a criticism of civilisation.

Indeed because that list was not a criticism of civilization but instead a direct response to a challenge about the truth of a statement I had previously made.

There are some people who would argue with you about the whole "No warfare without civilization" thing, fyi.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

Indeed because that list was not a criticism of civilization but instead a direct response to a challenge about the truth of a statement I had previously made.

There are some people who would argue with you about the whole "No warfare without civilization" thing, fyi.

there'd simply be no organized warfare, just a huge free-for-all, yeah.

[Geniasis]

Stop mass extinction and destruction of the biosphere.

And these are intrinsic to civilization? Is it impossible to have civilization and refrain from doing these things?

We're giving up a lot if we get rid of civilization, not the least of which is the infrastructure that can help us to change these things. You have not shown this to be a good trade.

[Poorisolation]

Which is patently useless as a criticism of civilisation.

Indeed because that list was not a criticism of civilization but instead a direct response to a challenge about the truth of a statement I had previously made.

Interesting claim but it still does not address the bolded parts

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?

For example you claim that war would not exist without civilisation and yet there is archaeological evidence of what may be inter human conflict prior to any found for civilisation and there is also the evidence gleaned from the studies of non-civilised peoples in both Amazonia and New Guinea to name just two examples of regions where people who do not live as hunter gatherers engage in conflict.

So partial and from a brief glance incorrect but you do have the opportunity to still craft an argument of some sorts. I will recognise you are time limited but surely I hope you could go into perhaps a little more detail or provide something to address the first bolded claim?

[Kreanoltha]

Stop mass extinction and destruction of the biosphere.

And these are intrinsic to civilization? Is it impossible to have civilization and refrain from doing these things?

We're giving up a lot if we get rid of civilization, not the least of which is the infrastructure that can help us to change these things. You have not shown this to be a good trade.

You do know that if we start making nuclear reactors that are deigned to produce plutonium and then re-react the plutonium we will essentially have made to cleanest source of energy possible. It only needs a few years of R&D if we can't do it already. Destruction of the biosphere is a non-issue.

[Ifreann]

Which is patently useless as a criticism of civilisation.

Indeed because that list was not a criticism of civilization but instead a direct response to a challenge about the truth of a statement I had previously made.

It's pretty clear that the statement itself was meant to be a "con" in regards to civilisation. Or were you just saying it for funsies?

[Poorisolation]

Indeed because that list was not a criticism of civilization but instead a direct response to a challenge about the truth of a statement I had previously made.

There are some people who would argue with you about the whole "No warfare without civilization" thing, fyi.

Iran would not exist without civilization.
Universal Healthcare would not exist without civilization
North Korea would not exist without civilization.
Republicans would not exist without civilization.
Democrats would not exist without civilization.
Libetarians would not exist without civilization.

Those are things on the list whose existence I would actually regard as a good thing in general terms. After all I would not wish away the existence of the People of North Korea as much as I might like to do without the ruling party there but maybe Napotec considers such thoughts of too great a complexity?

[Carcharhinidae primari]

And these are intrinsic to civilization? Is it impossible to have civilization and refrain from doing these things?

We're giving up a lot if we get rid of civilization, not the least of which is the infrastructure that can help us to change these things. You have not shown this to be a good trade.

You do know that if we start making nuclear reactors that are deigned to produce plutonium and then re-react the plutonium we will essentially have made to cleanest source of energy possible. It only needs a few years of R&D if we can't do it already. Destruction of the biosphere is a non-issue.

except the uranium we'd use would run out in under 50 years, it's a temporary fix. fusion is the real step forwards, and it too only needs a few more years of RnD. that is taking into account using the plutonium again. add thorium and you've maybe got 60 years with ALOT of radiating waste.

[Rokartian States]

You do know that if we start making nuclear reactors that are deigned to produce plutonium and then re-react the plutonium we will essentially have made to cleanest source of energy possible. It only needs a few years of R&D if we can't do it already. Destruction of the biosphere is a non-issue.

except the uranium we'd use would run out in under 50 year

wat

Source please?

fusion is the real step forwards, and it too only needs a few more years of RnD.

Nuclear fusion has needed a few more years of R&D for decades now.

[Korintar]

There are some people who would argue with you about the whole "No warfare without civilization" thing, fyi.

Iran would not exist without civilization.
Universal Healthcare would not exist without civilization
North Korea would not exist without civilization.
Republicans would not exist without civilization.
Democrats would not exist without civilization.
Libetarians would not exist without civilization.

Those are things on the list whose existence I would actually regard as a good thing in general terms. After all I would not wish away the existence of the People of North Korea as much as I might like to do without the ruling party there but maybe Napotec considers such thoughts of too great a complexity?

I agree, the people of many nations are not bad in and of themselves, but their governments are often staffed with pricks, maybe that's what Natapoc meant to say- without civilization the regimes of N Korea and Iran would not exist- if that's not what s/he meant, then Natapoc must be advocating genocide. Without civilization, the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians as organizations would not necessarily exist, but as world views or communities they could still, theoretically, exist. Universal Healthcare is a good thing... a triumph of civilization if done correctly.

[Person012345]

fusion is the real step forwards, and it too only needs a few more years of RnD.

Nuclear fusion has needed a few more years of R&D for decades now.

We could produce net energy gain with fusion reactors right now. We just need a few more years of R&D to become commercialised.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

except the uranium we'd use would run out in under 50 year

wat

Source please?

at a glance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jun/07/guardiansocietysupplement2
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/atearchive/s76a3936.htm

fusion is the real step forwards, and it too only needs a few more years of RnD.

Nuclear fusion has needed a few more years of R&D for decades now.

first power producing plant is coming into fruition already:
http://www.iter.org/proj/buildingiter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

sorry for not producing sources first time, was busy.