Should civilization be destroyed?

[Cyndonian Legion]

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.

Right. I can do all of those things, but with computers and calculus. I'll take the easier, more satisfying and progressive life, thanks.

So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not ignorant of their world. Its pretty shitty. But, you're right, I suppose only you yourself are knowledgeable of these things.

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

The barrier of language is already bad enough, you want to make it worse? You may not care, but the majority of the human population does. I care about beauty and I care about the development of empathy. Go grunt, moan, and point in a fucking cave somewhere if you want, I'll have none of it.

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.

Go live with other hunter-gatherers there then. Seriously, why are we even discussing this?

[Xarithis]

Imagine how much more easy everything would be without it?

I don't see how everything will be easier. We would be trading our current difficulties for new(old?) ones.

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

I am partial to the knowledge we have gained over the course of human civilization. For me, losing the entirety of human knowledge before I learn it all would be a tragedy.

[Eireann Fae]

Yes.

[/only read the title]

[Yakutiya]

Yes.

[/only read the title]

You're not missing much. It's the usual pissing match between neo-primitivists and techno-cornucopians, with most of the same arguments re-hashed on both sides regarding lifespan, medicine, technology, hypocrisy, etc.

[Bendira]

The anti civilization argument I think is one based on the fact that it was a less stressful/easier life. We didn't destroy the environment on a mass scale. The drawbacks are obvious though, loss of modern medicine and perhaps some technology if you see that as a positive.

I can sympathize to a small degree with the luddite position, because I enjoy camping quite a bit. And I can tell you, after a few days in the woods you honestly forget about technology. I think there are quite a few drawbacks to civilization, and humanity in general. But I still have to come down on the side of being "pro-civilization".

[Eireann Fae]

Yes.

[/only read the title]

You're not missing much. It's the usual pissing match between neo-primitivists and techno-cornucopians, with most of the same arguments re-hashed on both sides regarding lifespan, medicine, technology, hypocrisy, etc.

Thanks for the assessment. Totally not wasting my time reading 15 pages of "NO U!".

Suffice to say, I'm a pretty environmentalist sort, and I think Earth would be better off without us.

[New Korongo]

Animals do not have any civilisation but they still have a hell of a lot of problems.

[Ifreann]

You're not missing much. It's the usual pissing match between neo-primitivists and techno-cornucopians, with most of the same arguments re-hashed on both sides regarding lifespan, medicine, technology, hypocrisy, etc.

Thanks for the assessment. Totally not wasting my time reading 15 pages of "NO U!".

Suffice to say, I'm a pretty environmentalist sort, and I think Earth would be better off without us.

Misanthropy? On my internet? The planet will be fine, regardless of what happens to the lifeforms on it.

[Hydesland]

The anti civilization argument I think is one based on the fact that it was a less stressful/easier life. We didn't destroy the environment on a mass scale. The drawbacks are obvious though, loss of modern medicine and perhaps some technology if you see that as a positive.

I can sympathize to a small degree with the luddite position, because I enjoy camping quite a bit. And I can tell you, after a few days in the woods you honestly forget about technology. I think there are quite a few drawbacks to civilization, and humanity in general. But I still have to come down on the side of being "pro-civilization".

What technology though. I mean, do you have sleeping bags? Tents? I presume you don't eat hunted animals and foraged buries right? Perhaps you forget about some technology, but not all.

[Eireann Fae]

Thanks for the assessment. Totally not wasting my time reading 15 pages of "NO U!".

Suffice to say, I'm a pretty environmentalist sort, and I think Earth would be better off without us.

Misanthropy? On my internet? The planet will be fine, regardless of what happens to the lifeforms on it.

By "Earth", I meant "Everything on Earth, excluding Humans". Dodos would be running the show by now if we never happened! :p

But seriously, I don't think Humans are capable of eliminating life on Earth, a point I've made several times (see my posts in anthropogenic climate change threads). I still think the world, as a whole, would be better off if we weren't on it, though.

[Yakutiya]

You're not missing much. It's the usual pissing match between neo-primitivists and techno-cornucopians, with most of the same arguments re-hashed on both sides regarding lifespan, medicine, technology, hypocrisy, etc.

Thanks for the assessment. Totally not wasting my time reading 15 pages of "NO U!".

Suffice to say, I'm a pretty environmentalist sort, and I think Earth would be better off without us.

No worries. I lean in the same direction.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Right. I can do all of those things, but with computers and calculus. I'll take the easier, more satisfying and progressive life, thanks.

So basically they would be ignorant in our world, and we would be ignorant in theirs. Its a matter of perspective.

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not ignorant of their world. Its pretty shitty. But, you're right, I suppose only you yourself are knowledgeable of these things.

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

The barrier of language is already bad enough, you want to make it worse? You may not care, but the majority of the human population does. I care about beauty and I care about the development of empathy. Go grunt, moan, and point in a fucking cave somewhere if you want, I'll have none of it.

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.

Go live with other hunter-gatherers there then. Seriously, why are we even discussing this?

I'm with you. I can't imagine that more than a few people would seriously want to go back to a Mesolithic world. (It wasn't all grunting and moaning in caves, though, you know. By 12,000 years ago Europe was warming nicely and we were living in huts and various sorts of shelters in river valleys and on hillsides and what-not. And some of us were pretty dang articulate.)

[Ifreann]

Misanthropy? On my internet? The planet will be fine, regardless of what happens to the lifeforms on it.

By "Earth", I meant "Everything on Earth, excluding Humans". Dodos would be running the show by now if we never happened!

Which is a useless distinction. We're as much part of life on Earth as anything else.

But seriously, I don't think Humans are capable of eliminating life on Earth, a point I've made several times (see my posts in anthropogenic climate change threads). I still think the world, as a whole, would be better off if we weren't on it, though.

Better how?

[Eireann Fae]

The anti civilization argument I think is one based on the fact that it was a less stressful/easier life. We didn't destroy the environment on a mass scale. The drawbacks are obvious though, loss of modern medicine and perhaps some technology if you see that as a positive.

I can sympathize to a small degree with the luddite position, because I enjoy camping quite a bit. And I can tell you, after a few days in the woods you honestly forget about technology. I think there are quite a few drawbacks to civilization, and humanity in general. But I still have to come down on the side of being "pro-civilization".

What technology though. I mean, do you have sleeping bags? Tents? I presume you don't eat hunted animals and foraged buries right? Perhaps you forget about some technology, but not all.

You mean animal skins laced together, and perhaps filled with feathers or some other substance for added insulation? Freshly-hewn limbs leaning together with animal hide sewn and stretched over them to provide a simple shelter (EF trivia: my grandmother had a teepee in her backyard for the kids to hang out in :-)? How do you know he didn't hunt/fish/forage? Lots of people do, after all, and I think growing a small garden can be done outside of modern 'civilization'. There are varying degrees to 'civilization', and I think it's possible to go back to a time such as I've described here without too much of a negative impact on Earth.

Getting the Humans to adjust, on the other hand...

[Bendira]

The anti civilization argument I think is one based on the fact that it was a less stressful/easier life. We didn't destroy the environment on a mass scale. The drawbacks are obvious though, loss of modern medicine and perhaps some technology if you see that as a positive.

I can sympathize to a small degree with the luddite position, because I enjoy camping quite a bit. And I can tell you, after a few days in the woods you honestly forget about technology. I think there are quite a few drawbacks to civilization, and humanity in general. But I still have to come down on the side of being "pro-civilization".

What technology though. I mean, do you have sleeping bags? Tents? I presume you don't eat hunted animals and foraged buries right? Perhaps you forget about some technology, but not all.

Lol, if you want to be like that, yeah, I use some technology. For instance, the car I use to drive to the woods because all the woods that used to be around here were bulldozed.

[Bendira]

What technology though. I mean, do you have sleeping bags? Tents? I presume you don't eat hunted animals and foraged buries right? Perhaps you forget about some technology, but not all.

You mean animal skins laced together, and perhaps filled with feathers or some other substance for added insulation? Freshly-hewn limbs leaning together with animal hide sewn and stretched over them to provide a simple shelter (EF trivia: my grandmother had a teepee in her backyard for the kids to hang out in :-)? How do you know he didn't hunt/fish/forage? Lots of people do, after all, and I think growing a small garden can be done outside of modern 'civilization'. There are varying degrees to 'civilization', and I think it's possible to go back to a time such as I've described here without too much of a negative impact on Earth.

Getting the Humans to adjust, on the other hand...

I don't have anything against environmentalism, but I think you must remember humans are nothing more than quasi-monkeys, and we ourselves are part of nature. Environmentalists have a tendency tot hink of nature as everything except humans.

[Hydesland]

There are varying degrees to 'civilization', and I think it's possible to go back to a time such as I've described here without too much of a negative impact on Earth.

I think it's possible to go forward to a time where there is a positive impact on Earth, go figure.

[Farnhamia]

There are varying degrees to 'civilization', and I think it's possible to go back to a time such as I've described here without too much of a negative impact on Earth.

I think it's possible to go forward to a time where there is a positive impact on Earth, go figure.

Just make sure you know how to use the seashells.

[Eireann Fae]

You mean animal skins laced together, and perhaps filled with feathers or some other substance for added insulation? Freshly-hewn limbs leaning together with animal hide sewn and stretched over them to provide a simple shelter (EF trivia: my grandmother had a teepee in her backyard for the kids to hang out in :-)? How do you know he didn't hunt/fish/forage? Lots of people do, after all, and I think growing a small garden can be done outside of modern 'civilization'. There are varying degrees to 'civilization', and I think it's possible to go back to a time such as I've described here without too much of a negative impact on Earth.

Getting the Humans to adjust, on the other hand...

I don't have anything against environmentalism, but I think you must remember humans are nothing more than quasi-monkeys, and we ourselves are part of nature. Environmentalists have a tendency tot hink of nature as everything except humans.

Oh, I realize that Humans are a part of nature. I just think that we're the most destructive animals in nature, and the most prone to fucking up our environment. Most animals adapt to suit their environment - Humans adapt the environment to suit themselves, for better or, more often, for worse.

[Yakutiya]

By "Earth", I meant "Everything on Earth, excluding Humans". Dodos would be running the show by now if we never happened!

Which is a useless distinction. We're as much part of life on Earth as anything else.

I agree, although a case can certainly be made that a large range of human activities, from deforestation to the propagation of GMO crops, are contributing to the destruction of biodiversity. This will likely impact the long term ability of biotic populations to adapt to new conditions. While it's not destroying "the planet", it is resulting in an unprecedented mass extinction of flora and fauna, and may very well result in a seriously reduced number of species on Earth.

[Yakutiya]

I don't have anything against environmentalism, but I think you must remember humans are nothing more than quasi-monkeys, and we ourselves are part of nature. Environmentalists have a tendency tot hink of nature as everything except humans.

Oh, I realize that Humans are a part of nature. I just think that we're the most destructive animals in nature, and the most prone to fucking up our environment. Most animals adapt to suit their environment - Humans adapt the environment to suit themselves, for better or, more often, for worse.

I slightly disagree - every animal shapes its environment. Beavers build dams. Termites create mounds. Humans create their own settlements and structures.

Our activities differ in scale, but not in kind, from those of other animals.

[Bendira]

I don't have anything against environmentalism, but I think you must remember humans are nothing more than quasi-monkeys, and we ourselves are part of nature. Environmentalists have a tendency tot hink of nature as everything except humans.

Oh, I realize that Humans are a part of nature. I just think that we're the most destructive animals in nature, and the most prone to fucking up our environment. Most animals adapt to suit their environment - Humans adapt the environment to suit themselves, for better or, more often, for worse.

I personally think nature has a way of balancing it out, like creating diseases to kill us. Also, since our society is built largely on morals, survival of the fittest is no longer part of human genetics. So we are breeding more and more mentally disabled/defective people. We will eventually die, and nature will eventually win. I think nature is the last thing we need to worry about destroying, since ultimately it will destroy us.

[Cyndonian Legion]

Right. I can do all of those things, but with computers and calculus. I'll take the easier, more satisfying and progressive life, thanks.


No, I'm pretty sure I'm not ignorant of their world. Its pretty shitty. But, you're right, I suppose only you yourself are knowledgeable of these things.


The barrier of language is already bad enough, you want to make it worse? You may not care, but the majority of the human population does. I care about beauty and I care about the development of empathy. Go grunt, moan, and point in a fucking cave somewhere if you want, I'll have none of it.


Go live with other hunter-gatherers there then. Seriously, why are we even discussing this?

I'm with you. I can't imagine that more than a few people would seriously want to go back to a Mesolithic world. (It wasn't all grunting and moaning in caves, though, you know. By 12,000 years ago Europe was warming nicely and we were living in huts and various sorts of shelters in river valleys and on hillsides and what-not. And some of us were pretty dang articulate.)

Yes, I'm well aware. Not everywhere had readily available caves to begin with and many peoples were simply nomads. I was being facetious about the idiotic comment on how the amount of words available is insignificant in the long run to Trollgaard.

[Eireann Fae]

Which is a useless distinction. We're as much part of life on Earth as anything else.

I agree, although a case can certainly be made that a large range of human activities, from deforestation to the propagation of GMO crops, are contributing to the destruction of biodiversity. This will likely impact the long term ability of biotic populations to adapt to new conditions. While it's not destroying "the planet", it is resulting in an unprecedented mass extinction of flora and fauna, and may very well result in a seriously reduced number of species on Earth.

Yeah, I agree

I slightly disagree - every animal shapes its environment. Beavers build dams. Termites create mounds. Humans create their own settlements and structures.

Our activities differ in scale, but not in kind, from those of other animals.

Scale matters. The Hoover Dam has changed the local landscape far more than your typical beaver dam. Termites bring up their mounds in plains. Humans tear down forests and dramatically re-shape the environment to put up their own structures. No termite mound has had the destructive effect on the local flora and fauna that building New York City has had.

[Orwellian Huxley]

Yes to hell with it. Burn it down before the conservatives get a hold of it.