Should civilization be destroyed?

[Natapoc]

Should civilization be destroyed? By all the gods and goddesses of every religion ever known to mankind YES! Civilization is a plague upon humanity, and all life in general. It is inherently destructive, oppressive, and cancerous. It grows and grows without thought to sustainability or regard for other life.

Civilization was the biggest mistake humanity ever made.

Do you think that it is possible to reform civilization in any way as some suggest to make it less destructive?

[New Lusitaniagrad]

I agree. I also enjoy electricity very much.

I like it when the power goes out So nice and quite without the constant buzzing of electronics. But I'm weird like that.

It is nice from time to time, yes.
But not so much so when you playing video games and haven't saved from a while.....

[Fedeledland]

Should civilization be destroyed? By all the gods and goddesses of every religion ever known to mankind YES! Civilization is a plague upon humanity, and all life in general. It is inherently destructive, oppressive, and cancerous. It grows and grows without thought to sustainability or regard for other life.

Civilization was the biggest mistake humanity ever made.

We would not have any advanced technology, medicine, art, language, religion, etc. if it was not for the advanced type of culture we call "civilization". Without it, we would return to the Stone Age over a few years.

[Hydesland]

We would not have any advanced technology, medicine, art, language, religion, etc. if it was not for the advanced type of culture we call "civilization". Without it, we would return to the Stone Age over a few years.

That's what he wants.

[Trollgaard]

Should civilization be destroyed? By all the gods and goddesses of every religion ever known to mankind YES! Civilization is a plague upon humanity, and all life in general. It is inherently destructive, oppressive, and cancerous. It grows and grows without thought to sustainability or regard for other life.

Civilization was the biggest mistake humanity ever made.

Do you think that it is possible to reform civilization in any way as some suggest to make it less destructive?

Possible, sure, but the probability is very very slight. The powers that be are content with getting rich, and will not allow the radical changes that will be necessary to occur without a fight.

A change in mindset would also be required. The idea that money is paramount needs to go. The desire to aquire more and more stuff needs to be severely curtailed, capitalism and materialism need to become less strong in people's mindsets. People need to realize they don't need the newest gadget the comes out every year, they don't need all the things that companies say they do.

So yeah. Change can happen, but it requires a fundamental change in peoples' mindset as well as new technologies and changes to society functions.

[Trollgaard]

Should civilization be destroyed? By all the gods and goddesses of every religion ever known to mankind YES! Civilization is a plague upon humanity, and all life in general. It is inherently destructive, oppressive, and cancerous. It grows and grows without thought to sustainability or regard for other life.

Civilization was the biggest mistake humanity ever made.

We would not have any advanced technology, medicine, art, language, religion, etc. if it was not for the advanced type of culture we call "civilization". Without it, we would return to the Stone Age over a few years.

And the bad in that is...what?

[Fedeledland]

We would not have any advanced technology, medicine, art, language, religion, etc. if it was not for the advanced type of culture we call "civilization". Without it, we would return to the Stone Age over a few years.

And the bad in that is...what?

Well, nothing, besides that you would be an ignorant person with the mentality of an ape, with a life span of thirty-two years and with beliefs over the sun and the moon running your average life with a language of under 500 words and whose most advanced building is a collection of stones at the Stonehenge way.

[Columbaria]

Civilization can pretty much be created with one family unit or a couple friends. You can be civilized even without technology. The problem, in my opinion, with most civilizations is that the majority thinks it has the right to rule the minority (or weak) thus you can have technology without civilization. Just think of all the many all powerful governments or individuals that were able to act subhuman because those they preyed upon didn't have some form of equalizer!

[The Rich Port]

Nah. Destroying it would be taking the easy way out. We got ourselves into these messes. It's our responsibility to dig ourselves out.

Okay. How will you do that?

I don't think there's much I could do by myself.

Assuming a large majority of folk saw things my way, I'd start with America, seeings how it is the most promising. I'd start taking rich people's shit, all of the luxurious shit they wasted precious resources on, leaving them only with the bare middle class essentials. I'd spread all that extra money around, encourage people to get jobs, start businesses, etc. etc. etc., all the shit to get the economy chugging again. Next, I'd boost the educational system and change the teaching methods, placing emphasis on developing and/or exploiting individual talents. After our test scores are #1 again and at least only .5% of people in the U.S. are in poverty (by this point, they either belong in a mental hospital or just can't help themselves), I'd deal with everybody who could potentially fuck up the planet for being trigger happy with their nukes. Afterwards, I get real friendly with the rest of the world. I reform the U.N., get everybody's heads out of their asses, and start working towards the big things: eliminating famine, disease, etc. Next, I form a world government. Don't care who's elected, but if he doesn't stick to his guns, I'll just shoot him and keep running the show.

Finally, after we've secured Earth, we go beyond: colonization. We go in and then we go out. We go into the ocean, build homes there, hopefully curing the overpopulation problem for at least a few years, at least until we can get off the ground. When we can get off the ground, we colonize other planets.

It's going to take a whole lotta money, kill millions of people... But, uh, hey, it'll get us even more money and save billions.

In return, I demand only an infinite supply of books, video games, TV, soda, and peanuts.

[Kreanoltha]

Nah. Destroying it would be taking the easy way out. We got ourselves into these messes. It's our responsibility to dig ourselves out.

I'm sorry. You actually want to destroy civilization?

[Trollgaard]

And the bad in that is...what?

Well, nothing, besides that you would be an ignorant person with a life span of thirty-two years and with beliefs over the sun and the moon running your average life with a language of under 500 words and whose most advanced building is a collection of stones at the Stonehenge way.

So pre-civilized people are 'ignorant' are they? You sound like you are the one who is ignorant. Sure they wouldn't know about computers, calculus, etc, but they do know how to live in tune with their environment, how to survive with very little, know what is and is not edible at what timeduring the year, how to find food. So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

Living for 32 years? Nope. Try again sir.

How many words do people really need or use anyway? I honestly don't care either way.

Stonehenge is pretty damn impressive, but the type of society that I, and I think Natopoc are talking about is pre Stonehenge stuff. Hunter-gatherers and such.

[Hydesland]

So pre-civilized people are 'ignorant' are they? You sound like you are the one who is ignorant. Sure they wouldn't know about computers, calculus, etc, but they do know how to live in tune with their environment, how to survive with very little, know what is and is not edible at what timeduring the year, how to find food. So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

So why don't you learn how to do this stuff, and fuck off to the woods to hunt rodents and sleep in caves or mud huts, for the rest of your life?

[The Rich Port]

Nah. Destroying it would be taking the easy way out. We got ourselves into these messes. It's our responsibility to dig ourselves out.

I'm sorry. You actually want to destroy civilization?

... No. That would be TAKING THE EASY WAY OUT. WE GOT OURSELVES INTO THIS MESS.

You can't just be like "Oh, LOL, oops, we fucked up the world. We're gonna hafto nook it and start over, <:)" This isn't NationStates, after all.

[Korintar]

Nah. Destroying it would be taking the easy way out. We got ourselves into these messes. It's our responsibility to dig ourselves out.

I'm sorry. You actually want to destroy civilization?

No, he thinks it would be much better to take the harder route of reforming civilization. Now a question that has not been posed is what, exactly, are we talking about when we speak of civilization? What does it do, or what is its biological function in sentient species? What are alternative social organs that provide the same beneficial function to our species? What are those alternative institutions advantages and drawbacks as they relate to each other and to civilization?

[Trollgaard]

So pre-civilized people are 'ignorant' are they? You sound like you are the one who is ignorant. Sure they wouldn't know about computers, calculus, etc, but they do know how to live in tune with their environment, how to survive with very little, know what is and is not edible at what timeduring the year, how to find food. So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

So why don't you learn how to do this stuff, and fuck off to the woods to hunt rodents and sleep in caves or mud huts, for the rest of your life?

I would love to, but you know I do actually like people and don't much relish a life alone. Now if I could gather a group of like minded people, then you bet I'd be all for it.

[Hydesland]

I would love to, but you know I do actually like people and don't much relish a life alone. Now if I could gather a group of like minded people, then you bet I'd be all for it.

I bet you my entire life savings you wouldn't. Or at least, you wouldn't survive a month.

[Trollgaard]

I would love to, but you know I do actually like people and don't much relish a life alone. Now if I could gather a group of like minded people, then you bet I'd be all for it.

I bet you my entire life savings you wouldn't. Or at least, you wouldn't survive a month.

Have fun being poor, then.

[Yakutiya]

For the same reason the algae, when presented with a temporary glut of nutrients, will increase in numbers at unsustainable levels.

We're animals. It's what we do. It's not smart, perhaps, but nature's self-correcting mechanisms will kick in sooner rather than later.

True but we can always hope that humans are able to demonstrate that they are more rational then algae. Then again, actions speak louder then words...

Precisely.

I would argue the conceit that human beings have this marvelous rational faculty that lifts us above all other animals has played a decisive role in bringing about the current course we have set ourselves on.

Human rationality is the idol of this civilization. It's amusing that so many of the people who rail against god and fancy themselves to be atheists have simply set themselves up another idol in god's place. The narrative of progress that they subscribe to is largely lifted from the apocalyptic narratives of the Christianity they claim to reject.

[Korintar]

Well, nothing, besides that you would be an ignorant person with a life span of thirty-two years and with beliefs over the sun and the moon running your average life with a language of under 500 words and whose most advanced building is a collection of stones at the Stonehenge way.

So pre-civilized people are 'ignorant' are they? You sound like you are the one who is ignorant. Sure they wouldn't know about computers, calculus, etc, but they do know how to live in tune with their environment, how to survive with very little, know what is and is not edible at what timeduring the year, how to find food. So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

Living for 32 years? Nope. Try again sir.

How many words do people really need or use anyway? I honestly don't care either way.

Stonehenge is pretty damn impressive, but the type of society that I, and I think Natopoc are talking about is pre Stonehenge stuff. Hunter-gatherers and such.

I'd say the average, adult modern human uses, on average, about 5,000 words bare minimum. The next closest organisms probably use a tenth of that.

[Yakutiya]

I'm sorry. You actually want to destroy civilization?

... No. That would be TAKING THE EASY WAY OUT. WE GOT OURSELVES INTO THIS MESS.

......but can we get ourselves out? You haven't presented an argument that we can.

[Fedeledland]

So pre-civilized people are 'ignorant' are they? You sound like you are the one who is ignorant. Sure they wouldn't know about computers, calculus, etc, but they do know how to live in tune with their environment, how to survive with very little, know what is and is not edible at what timeduring the year, how to find food. So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

OK, I agree. We would be ignorant in their world. But I consider the pre-civilization ignorance that is so large that you cannot write nor read, that you don't have advanced services, economy over basic trading, mathematics or science so that we can understand the world to a deep level greater than out ignorance of surviving with basics, knowing a basic of edible and non-edible food, etc...

Living for 32 years? Nope. Try again sir.

The average lifespan since Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved from early primates until the Greeks, and later during the Renaissance was always under half a century. Living slightly over 30 years was the average during most of pre-history and ancient history, and then again during the Middle Ages. Without medicine, a goddamned flu could kill you. What do you think would happen to you if you got a heart problem, or pneumonia, or any other complicated disease? You'd die within a month, probably less.

How many words do people really need or use anyway? I honestly don't care either way.

Well, for my part I don't think it would be very attractive if the only things you could say in all possible languages were eat, sleep, and reproduce.

Stonehenge is pretty damn impressive, but the type of society that I, and I think Natopoc are talking about is pre Stonehenge stuff. Hunter-gatherers and such.

Well, that's even worse. Having a skin hide or animal bone camp as your most advanced building would be terrible.

[The Rich Port]

......but can we get ourselves out? You haven't presented an argument that we can.

If this thread is representative, there most likely isn't an answer, nor is there a desire to find the right way out of the situations in the world.

Didn't you see my other post? It's my way of getting ourselves out of this mess.

I get the feeling that if an answer doesn't come out eventually, the world will just revert back to primordial ways. Lots of war, lots of death, until finally the population reverts to prehistorical levels. That is, if nuclear weapons don't come into the equation.

[Hydesland]

I bet you my entire life savings you wouldn't. Or at least, you wouldn't survive a month.

Have fun being poor, then.

Bushmen are still around:

http://www.africaguide.com/culture/tribes/bushmen.htm

Go live with them please.

[Free Soviets]

Living for 32 years? Nope. Try again sir.

The average lifespan since Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved from early primates until the Greeks, and later during the Renaissance was always under half a century. Living slightly over 30 years was the average during most of pre-history and ancient history, and then again during the Middle Ages. Without medicine, a goddamned flu could kill you. What do you think would happen to you if you got a heart problem, or pneumonia, or any other complicated disease? You'd die within a month, probably less.

life expectancy at birth, not lifespan

[Sungai Pusat]

Well? Should it?

Nope!

What's so good about civilization anyway?

Medicine, computers, broadband. And the fact that you can type this complaint in to add to discussion is a good thing about it.

Imagine how much more easy everything would be without it?

No computers, trains, cars, roads? No nothing? I think it will be alot more inconvenient.

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.

Nope, they're the direct result of the governments who don't think straight on diplomacy. Civilisation only provides the means to do so.

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?

Nope

Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?

Like someone said, it could be possible by wiping out the infrstructure and most of the people and technology too. BUt like that guy said, it will rebound, just in a different kind, though.

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

Computers. The fact that I can refute your idea of wiping out civilisation is good. The fact that technology is what can push for less war and a greener Earth (As depicted by environmentalists, those truly commited to the Earth.) is a good thing. It's like the theory of evolution: You stack it up continuously, improving on the creature. Similar story: Technology and infrastructure are improving mankind and such, because everyone's kinda getting the mssage that Earth is in big trouble. (I'm personally worried on the usage of fossil fuels! XD)