Should civilization be destroyed?

[Xarithis]

Well, it means you want other people to stop civilization. If you want other people to do (or not do) something do you figure it would be a good tactic to isolate yourself from other people?

Or do you instead think it would be a good tactics to try to persuade as many people as possible to help you end civilization by engaging as many people as possible in discussion about it?

Do you imagine then that someone who wishes to bring about the end of civilization would quite correctly use any tool at his/her disposal to do so including the internet?

So this is about forcing your will upon others? In that case, I empathize with the primitivists, even if I don't agree with their goals.

[Cyndonian Legion]

By nature, we have almost unlimited rights. I have the right to kill you and burn the planet to the ground, if nothing can stop me. Doesn't make it a desirable action/outcome.

Right. I just don't see anything inherently wrong with that. The universe keeps running. Maybe not practical, but arguing that one should care any point beyond practicality(I'm not sure if you've argued this, I may indeed have just been reading into too much) isn't very sound.

Humans may have more complex 'needs' than other creatures, but we waste a lot in fulfilling these needs. A bachelor doesn't need an eight-bedroom mansion on his own private square mile of miniature golf course, and we don't need sprawling structures of glass and steel to be productive little office workers in.

I agree. We could to much to eliminate waste. I, on the other hand, wouldn't put dams in this category.

If they could do so, they'd probably be sentient beings, and I'd disapprove of them destroying the environment in the same way.

What sets us apart?

Like I said, we could do without a lot of our industrial wasteful ways. Cars are so convenient because our civilization has largely separated us from one another. It is efficient in some ways, but very inefficient in others. I don't think our species should come first just because I'm a member of it. Sue me.

I disagree with you on that stance. I'm a loyalist to my species like that. Maybe if there were an organization of sentient races, I'd think differently. Maybe.

It'll also probably start another ridiculous war (if it's confirmed that Iran has "the bomb", U.[SN]. will likely go to war over it, don't kid yourselves). Most Humans are just too selfish and petty to control the power of weapons of mass destruction.

Maybe. Probably. But, that's unlikely to happen for some time, and we've done well so far, all things considered.

[Cyndonian Legion]

Do you see the impracticality in yours?

Its honestly a good chance for you to experience it yourself and ponder "Can I, eventually, convince the whole of humanity to do the same?"

Even so, there's nothing illogical about it. I just think idiots like you should isolate yourselves voluntarily and do us all a favor.

Ah flaming now are you? What exactly do you mean by "idiots like me." What viewpoints to you assume I have that make me an "idiot"

That you can somehow disregard and change how we have been genetically programmed and continue to be programmed.

[Cyndonian Legion]

Hey now, we can disagree with people but calling them names starts to push the bounds of civil discussion.[not a mod]

Watch your mouth.

Put a bar of soap in my mouth.

[Natapoc]

Well, it means you want other people to stop civilization. If you want other people to do (or not do) something do you figure it would be a good tactic to isolate yourself from other people?

Or do you instead think it would be a good tactics to try to persuade as many people as possible to help you end civilization by engaging as many people as possible in discussion about it?

Do you imagine then that someone who wishes to bring about the end of civilization would quite correctly use any tool at his/her disposal to do so including the internet?

So this is about forcing your will upon others? In that case, I empathize with the primitivists, even if I don't agree with their goals.

Since when is persuasion by rational discussion forcing ones will on others?

Also as I've said it's not actually my goal that civilization be destroyed. I think that if we don't make radical changes it has a good chance of destroying itself and taking most of our biosphere with it.

I agree with most of the primitivists arguments but I stubbornly hold onto the hope that reform is possible... That we can solve most of the problems of civilization.

Now I also feel that civilization was a mistake but that now that we have it we should try to fix it. I don't want to destroy civilization because it would result in the death of about 6 billion people.

There are some severe reading problems on these forums.

[Natapoc]

Ah flaming now are you? What exactly do you mean by "idiots like me." What viewpoints to you assume I have that make me an "idiot"

That you can somehow disregard and change how we have been genetically programmed and continue to be programmed.

What are you talking about? Genetically programmed? Cyndonian Legion, what is your wold view? How do you think humans were created? Or evolved? I don't want to insult you or anything if your religion involves some kind of software developer punching in lines of genetic code or something then that is all good.

You can believe what you like.

[Cyndonian Legion]

That you can somehow disregard and change how we have been genetically programmed and continue to be programmed.

What are you talking about? Genetically programmed? Cyndonian Legion, what is your wold view? How do you think humans were created? Or evolved? I don't want to insult you or anything if your religion involves some kind of software developer punching in lines of genetic code or something then that is all good.

You can believe what you like.

I am neutral on the status of deity(that being, I am an agnostic atheist). I believe, as has been accepted by and large by the scientific community, that we are evolved(and evolving). "Programmed" or "programming" is not an uncommon word I find when there are discussions on genetics and behavior in direct relationship to each other. This is only an analogy to compare it to something more down to earth to us, a computer(ironically, our biology isn't).

[The Christian Reich]

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?

Reading some Nietzche, eh?

I am rather fond of underpants 'cuz they keep me warm. Also god gave it to me, and it's kinda hard to return to sender.

[Cyndonian Legion]

You can believe what you like.

And you as you like. This is of course no different to how you many view others as idiots for other reasons, though I'm sure I'm far more vocal about it if you are. If not, and you don't view certain people as idiots, thank goodness for you, the world needs more Ghandi's. Keeps us honest. I, on the other hand, am no such person and don't intend to be. Its certainly nothing personal, I'd say moreso that the idea is idiotic, but I'm not having a discussion with the idea, and I have extremely high standards for everything, humans included.

[Yakutiya]

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.

That is certainly true. Just to be clear, I agreed with you about the destructiveness of human beings, but not about our being the only species to alter our environment.

There are, of course sustainable and unsustainable ways of going about this. Undermining the surrounding ecology to the point that the carrying capacity of the land is destroyed is entirely unsustainable.

The problem is, however, that certain situations and activities can increase carrying capacity temporarily. This happens not infrequently in nature, and the end result is typically a population crash. It's what I think has happened to human beings due to the discovery and hyper-exploitation of fossil fuels. We're way over the carrying capacity of the planet and are probably due to receive our comeuppance sometime in the next century.

[Yakutiya]

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.

At the same time, humans have the intelligence to know this is a problem, and attempt to solve it. If biodiversity were threatened in a world without us, plants and animals would simply die off until the problem went away, or they did. Humans could actually do something about it.

Except that we're not.

Which leads me question whether humans as a species do in fact have the intelligence to understand this problem, or if we do, if that "intelligence" actually amounts to anything.

My position is that human beings are not essentially different from other animals, the conceit of many humans aside. All of our supposed "rationality" has done nothing but reason us right into an ecological dead end. We can observe the same pattern of overshoot in many other species.

[Cyborg Militants]

Even if we were to erase civilization, it would build itself back up. Humans are, genetically, social creatures, and do best in groups. Civilization is the root of the sciences, medicines, and modern education. Because of medicines and modern hygiene, the common life expectancy is about 80 years, whereas between 30-40 was the common life expectancy pre-civilization. Were there some people who lived to a ripe old age? Yes. Very few, however. The chances of it were like the chances of winning the lotto.

[Eireann Fae]

Right. I just don't see anything inherently wrong with that. The universe keeps running. Maybe not practical, but arguing that one should care any point beyond practicality(I'm not sure if you've argued this, I may indeed have just been reading into too much) isn't very sound.

Again, scale comes into play. You speak of the universe, others speak of the Sol system, I speak of our one planet, and Humans' impact on it. Time and Space will not cease to be if Earth is utterly destroyed. That's not a reason to not care.

What sets us apart?

Intent. We know exactly what impact we're having on the world (as a condition of our sapience), and we do it anyway.

I disagree with you on that stance. I'm a loyalist to my species like that. Maybe if there were an organization of sentient races, I'd think differently. Maybe.

A solid difference of opinion, here. I'm not a loyalist to my species :)

Maybe. Probably. But, that's unlikely to happen for some time, and we've done well so far, all things considered.

I don't think we've done very well at all. Relatively speaking, we've caused massive damage to our own little ecosphere in the past couple of centuries alone. Not only do I think another large war is coming, I think it is coming soon, and the impact will probably be far worse than what happened in Japan a scant 65 years ago.

That is certainly true. Just to be clear, I agreed with you about the destructiveness of human beings, but not about our being the only species to alter our environment.

There are, of course sustainable and unsustainable ways of going about this. Undermining the surrounding ecology to the point that the carrying capacity of the land is destroyed is entirely unsustainable.

The problem is, however, that certain situations and activities can increase carrying capacity temporarily. This happens not infrequently in nature, and the end result is typically a population crash. It's what I think has happened to human beings due to the discovery and hyper-exploitation of fossil fuels. We're way over the carrying capacity of the planet and are probably due to receive our comeuppance sometime in the next century.

All-around good post, but regarding the bold, I just gotta say that it can't happen soon enough. I actually like the civilization showed 800,000(,000?) in the future in the Time Machine (movie, never read the book). That's totally a tenable situation to me. I just wish I could see it.

[Cyndonian Legion]

The chances of it were like the chances of winning the lotto.

Unless you were chinese. Then it was like playing chess with nature. Sucked for them of course, because they only had Weiqi.

[Yakutiya]

All-around good post, but regarding the bold, I just gotta say that it can't happen soon enough. I actually like the civilization showed 800,000(,000?) in the future in the Time Machine (movie, never read the book). That's totally a tenable situation to me. I just wish I could see it.

Morlocks and all?

I have no doubt that we will see some drastic changes in our lifetime. Exactly what the scope and nature of those changes is still undetermined.

[Cyndonian Legion]

That's not a reason to not care.

This is going in circles. Again, its the kind of caring.

Intent. We know exactly what impact we're having on the world (as a condition of our sapience), and we do it anyway.

So we are different from non-sentient beings?

I don't think we've done very well at all. Relatively speaking, we've caused massive damage to our own little ecosphere in the past couple of centuries alone.

Considering the hostile environment and that it was only used twice in the same frequent time period, I'd say we've done well, speaking in relativity. We could have done MUCH worse.

[Cyndonian Legion]

Morlocks and all?

Just had HUGE X-Men nostalgia. <- nerd

[Eireann Fae]

So we are different from non-sentient beings?

Of course we are. A goat is different from a fish, too. Doesn't mean either are apart from nature.

Considering the hostile environment and that it was only used twice in the same frequent time period, I'd say we've done well, speaking in relativity. We could have done MUCH worse.

I was talking about everything we've done since the Industrial Revolution as a whole, actually. Urban sprawl, monoxides, all that good stuff. The pair of atomic detonations were a blip (albeit a sizeable one) on the radar in the big scheme of things.

I agree, though, we could have done far worse. Just so long as you acknowledge (which I know you do) that we could have done far better, too ;)

[Natapoc]

What are you talking about? Genetically programmed? Cyndonian Legion, what is your wold view? How do you think humans were created? Or evolved? I don't want to insult you or anything if your religion involves some kind of software developer punching in lines of genetic code or something then that is all good.

You can believe what you like.

I am neutral on the status of deity(that being, I am an agnostic atheist). I believe, as has been accepted by and large by the scientific community, that we are evolved(and evolving). "Programmed" or "programming" is not an uncommon word I find when there are discussions on genetics and behavior in direct relationship to each other. This is only an analogy to compare it to something more down to earth to us, a computer(ironically, our biology isn't).

I see if you are actually an atheist do you subscribe to the dominant scientific theories regarding the development of humans? If so then you know that there is no "goal" to evolution, humans were not genetically "programmed" to do anything.

Species simply adapt to best fit their environment or die, the human species included of course. I suspected for a moment that you may have been a creationist because the idea that humans are "programmed" implies a programmer (ie God).

Evolution has no intent or purpose.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "That you can somehow disregard and change how we have been genetically programmed and continue to be programmed."

Because I in no way suggested that I had any desire to change human genetics (which you call "programmed")

[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?

Reading some Nietzche, eh?

I am rather fond of underpants 'cuz they keep me warm. Also god gave it to me, and it's kinda hard to return to sender.

I don't like underpants. I'd rather go naked. Except in cold weather but I'd rather move to a warmer place in cold weather then put more clothes on.

[Hoyteca]

Civilization is great. It gave us technology.

It also gave us Ghandi. Asshole keeps attacking me just because I wouldn't give him Nationalism for free. Then England, France, and Rome attack because of some sweetheart deal they had with India. Then the Romans get involved and it all goes to hell. The only thing keeping my Iroquois empire afloat was an alliance I had with Egypt and China. Then you realize that it's 2025 CE and you still don't have steam power yet. But Ghandi has tanks. How my mounted warriors killed his tanks, I'll never know. You'd think he would have horseproofed his 30-ton Shermans by now.

You know what? F-ck Civilization III. I'm going to stick with playing Age of Mythology and losing at StarCraft.

In short, civilization gave us Civilization, which led to Civilization III.

[Trotskylvania]

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?

Reading some Nietzche, eh?

I am rather fond of underpants 'cuz they keep me warm. Also god gave it to me, and it's kinda hard to return to sender.

What does Nietzsche have to do with primitivism?

[Xarithis]

Also as I've said it's not actually my goal that civilization be destroyed. I think that if we don't make radical changes it has a good chance of destroying itself and taking most of our biosphere with it.

I agree with most of the primitivists arguments but I stubbornly hold onto the hope that reform is possible... That we can solve most of the problems of civilization.

Now I also feel that civilization was a mistake but that now that we have it we should try to fix it. I don't want to destroy civilization because it would result in the death of about 6 billion people.

Thank you for the summary of your views on the topic. That was what I was going for. And no, I do not have any reading problems - you were quite clear when you said:

"Or do you instead think it would be a good tactics to try to persuade as many people as possible to help you end civilization by engaging as many people as possible in discussion about it?"

Because you have provided me with an answer, I will answer your questions:

If you could have stopped civilization from ever stating would you have?: No. It benefits me. Certainly, a primitive life style would benefit me as well in ways, but I prefer civilization's benefits. (Particularly, easy access to knowledge)

Do you think it is possible to return to a pre civilization state?: I am unsure. Even if it is possible, I believe it would be exceedingly difficult. It would require people (all people) to completely change their outlook on life. And, even if civilization did end, there would be nothing to keep it from developing again in the future.

[Geniasis]

I am neutral on the status of deity(that being, I am an agnostic atheist). I believe, as has been accepted by and large by the scientific community, that we are evolved(and evolving). "Programmed" or "programming" is not an uncommon word I find when there are discussions on genetics and behavior in direct relationship to each other. This is only an analogy to compare it to something more down to earth to us, a computer(ironically, our biology isn't).

I see if you are actually an atheist do you subscribe to the dominant scientific theories regarding the development of humans? If so then you know that there is no "goal" to evolution, humans were not genetically "programmed" to do anything.

Species simply adapt to best fit their environment or die, the human species included of course. I suspected for a moment that you may have been a creationist because the idea that humans are "programmed" implies a programmer (ie God).

Evolution has no intent or purpose.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "That you can somehow disregard and change how we have been genetically programmed and continue to be programmed."

Because I in no way suggested that I had any desire to change human genetics (which you call "programmed")

Well, it's not that simple. True, there is no "end goal" to genetics, but in a sense we are programmed to desire certain things and to act in certain ways. This doesn't imply a sentient will of evolution, but rather a large and highly unconscious set of survival instincts from days gone by.

Pretty sure those things are scientific fact.

[Cyndonian Legion]

I see if you are actually an atheist do you subscribe to the dominant scientific theories regarding the development of humans? If so then you know that there is no "goal" to evolution, humans were not genetically "programmed" to do anything.

Species simply adapt to best fit their environment or die, the human species included of course. I suspected for a moment that you may have been a creationist because the idea that humans are "programmed" implies a programmer (ie God).

Evolution has no intent or purpose.

I'm full aware of this. ITS JUST AN ANALOGY. Never, at all, is "programmed" used in terms of genetics to imply that there is intent. Honestly, this is not a difficult concept. A computer follows its programming. We follow our DNA. Analogy ends. Have you never read anything on genetics? Its a fairly common term.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHF ... 9f1e35bc77

There, googled it for you. Wasn't that hard. Every topic uses the phrase "genetically 'programmed'". Again. Just an analogy.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "That you can somehow disregard and change how we have been genetically programmed and continue to be programmed."

Because I in no way suggested that I had any desire to change human genetics (which you call "programmed")

What I mean by this, is that we have evolved to be social creatures and that evolution is a constant process. That is all.