Should civilization be destroyed?

[Eireann Fae]

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.

This post gave me a warm fuzzy feeling :3

BRB, losing to the computer in another round of FreeCiv...

[Cyndonian Legion]

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.

This post gave me a warm fuzzy feeling :3

BRB, losing to the computer in another round of FreeCiv...

Elizabeth is the real asshole in Civ 5. Look, I know you wanted the natural wonder, but god dammit my settlers got their first!

[Person012345]

The US already has a reactor that can produce more power than in invested into it. It isn't a functioning power plant yet, but with modification it could be.

Source? Japan has the JT-60 which IF it could handle D-T it could produce net gain, but only the JET in the UK is equipped for D-T currently.

[Ifreann]

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.

Except we are. How many environmental charities and NGOs are there? Perhaps we should or could be doing more, but we are doing something.

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.

Obviously we do understand the problem of losing biodiversity. You can tell because you were just talking about it. Unless you're a dog or something.

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.

And what makes you so sure that we're in an ecological dead end?

[Mosasauria]

Civilization is nether good or evil, it just exists. Good and evil are only labels, they do not exist either.

[Natapoc]

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

1. You can loose the attitude and false superiority complex. You happen to be speaking to someone who is an expert in the field of computer science who has written published papers which dealt, in part, with properly modeling biological processes.

2. Socialization is NOT civilization. If you know that then you still need to explain your statement.

Now please explain you statement.

[Cyndonian Legion]

1. You can loose the attitude and false superiority complex.

I can, but I won't, not until you lose your attitude anyways. And, don't pretend you're not in the same position. But, I suppose a TRUE superiority complex is better than a false one in your eyes.

You happen to be speaking to someone who is an expert in the field of computer science who has written published papers which dealt, in part, with properly modeling biological processes.

Nice job accusing me of implying a creator or goal with the term "programming" then. All that expertise is really going to good use.

2. Socialization is NOT civilization.

I am aware of this. But, socialization, and increasing socialization, leads to civilization and heavily encourages current civilization.

I'll also take the time here to ask what it is your definition of civilization is, and how/if this differs from society.

If you know that then you still need to explain your statement. ow please explain you statement.

No, I really don't. The explanation I gave was satisfactory in defining my statement. That IS what I said, and that IS what I meant, and you have provided nothing suitably objectionable to this.

Now, if you want me to explain further into what I mean in that statement's indirect relationship to the conversation, certainly.

Civilization has grown as a result of two things:
Our technology that eliminates time and space.
Our increasing sociability.

Interestingly enough, we're the only creature known to adapt to ourselves.

The combination of these two things has led to increasing empathic development(something we are, in fact, soft wired for, mirror neurons) for human beings as a species, as we adapt on a neuro-cognitive level to this environment we ourselves have created. Empathic development breeds loyalties, loyalties and sociability breeds civilization when increasing populations are introduced.

With hunter-gatherer tribes, empathy only extended to the local. Everyone over the other mountain was the alien. Empathy only extended to blood ties. When we went to the hydraulic agricultural civilization, scripted allowed us to extend the central nervous system by eliminating time and space, bringing people together.

The variety of skills and increasing self-identification(something that increases empathic development, because the mirror neuron reaction increases with the self) created primitive philosophical consciousness and empathy created a new fiction. We detribalized and began our association with religious ties. All Jews start to see all other Jews as extended family, Christians all Christians as extended family, Muslims, Hindus, est.

We reach to the 19th century with two revolutions having passed, the French and the American, and the oncoming Industrial Revolution where we extend our markets to larger areas, we created the fiction of nationalism and the nation state. All British started to view the British as extended family, all French see the French as extended family, all Americans see Americans as extended family. There is no Britain. No Germany, no Australia, no Russia, no Greece.

But, they allow us to extended our loyalties based on the complex transport and communication systems that we have come to, which continue to eliminate more time and space.

We're currently in the midst of another transitional period. After two world wars, we've now have not only a globally functioning and inter-dependent economy, but a extremely aware international community. Do you remember the Haitai quake? It was just hours after the quake it, after the tweets and the reports, that the entire world rushed to this empathic embrace of the plight of Haitai. We're even developing a subtext of people, beginning largely(but not only) in the 60's, an example of which is right here in this thread; those like Eireann Fae, who are beginning to extend their empathic development and loyalties to the entire eco-sphere of the earth itself, and would think rather that it'd be a lot better off without us.

These are the conclusion of Jeremy Rifkin, world renowned political, economic, social, and ethical activist and advisor, with some of my own interjections within as the mere second year college student/full time emergency medical technitican that I am with the capacity to reason and research. Sorry to ruffle your feathers, most high supposed computer science expert.

What you're telling me, is that you have the capacity to not only stop the wheel(and the wheel is turning friend), but reverse it back to hunter-gatherer levels? All of these levels still exist, in multiple subtexts(such as the nation, to the state, to the county, the the clan, to the sport, est.), and eliminating one(as impossible as that is to me to begin with) will certainly not eliminate the others. What, exactly, would be your method of doing this?

This is why I say that you're an idiot. Have fun fighting neuro-cognitive development and what that entails.

[Geniasis]

1. You can loose the attitude and false superiority complex. You happen to be speaking to someone who is an expert in the field of computer science who has written published papers which dealt, in part, with properly modeling biological processes.

Glass houses, Natapoc.

[Angleter]

No. The fact that it's quite cold out there tonight is enough to encourage me to believe that houses, central heating, and other such things civilisation brought us are quite nice.

[Poorisolation]

No. The fact that it's quite cold out there tonight is enough to encourage me to believe that houses, central heating, and other such things civilisation brought us are quite nice.

Indeed, imagine the joy of traipsing around to check your snares in this?

Napotec having viewed the above I have to say that your aggressive anti-civilisational stance appears to have returned despite you claims (honest as they may be) to actually be neutral on the subject.

Yet despite constantly requiring and multiple times being provided an argument as to why civilisation is better than primitivismin the eyes of most you have yet to demonstrate why a pre-agrarian lifestyle without the supports of a modern manufacturing process would be easier.

Perhaps at some point you would care to address that discrepancy of standards?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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?

If civilization was destroyed wouldn't we lose the great things we invented like computers and electricity?

[Pantera]

Civilization gave us crisp bacon, Crown Royal, and rock and roll. The Big Three, if you will. These easily balance all the evil that man has brought about. And that's leaving out air conditoning, sweat socks, hot showers, pain killers, high-grade marijuana, OBGYN's, crock pots, nipple rings, oral sex, driving my car real fuckin' fast, AMC, bars of soap, Iced Tea, working indoors, turning on a lamp, freedom from marauding cannibal sodomites, and, very importantly, not dying of the flu, since I have Sprite, Nyquil, and saltine crackers.

I'll go ahead and keep civilization running. For now.

[Plopburger]

No. The fact that it's quite cold out there tonight is enough to encourage me to believe that houses, central heating, and other such things civilisation brought us are quite nice.

Indeed, imagine the joy of traipsing around to check your snares in this?

Napotec having viewed the above I have to say that your aggressive anti-civilisational stance appears to have returned despite you claims (honest as they may be) to actually be neutral on the subject.

Yet despite constantly requiring and multiple times being provided an argument as to why civilisation is better than primitivismin the eyes of most you have yet to demonstrate why a pre-agrarian lifestyle without the supports of a modern manufacturing process would be easier.

Perhaps at some point you would care to address that discrepancy of standards?

She won't bother. Natapoc is a chronic hit and run debator. Whenever someone comes up with a sound refutation of her (often) nonsensical arguments, she'll say, without fail, "I have something else to do right now, but I'll return to this" ... then never does. It's very intellectually dishonest and I would not get your hopes up in expecting her to provide a logical explaination for her views. Every belief she has expoused on NSG has been based on fragile logic - sometimes outright denial of science - and appeals to emotion.

She'll ask me to provide examples of these claims, but it's all there in her posting history for anyone who wishes to verify them.

[Poorisolation]

Indeed, imagine the joy of traipsing around to check your snares in this?

Napotec having viewed the above I have to say that your aggressive anti-civilisational stance appears to have returned despite you claims (honest as they may be) to actually be neutral on the subject.

Yet despite constantly requiring and multiple times being provided an argument as to why civilisation is better than primitivismin the eyes of most you have yet to demonstrate why a pre-agrarian lifestyle without the supports of a modern manufacturing process would be easier.

Perhaps at some point you would care to address that discrepancy of standards?

She won't bother. Natapoc is a chronic hit and run debator. Whenever someone comes up with a sound refutation of her (often) nonsensical arguments, she'll say, without fail, "I have something else to do right now, but I'll return to this" ... then never does. It's very intellectually dishonest and I would not get your hopes up in expecting her to provide a logical explaination for her views. Every belief she has expoused on NSG has been based on fragile logic - sometimes outright denial of science - and appeals to emotion.

She'll ask me to provide examples of these claims, but it's all there in her posting history for anyone who wishes to verify them.

You do not need to I have been there before

[Yakutiya]

Except that we're not.

Except we are. How many environmental charities and NGOs are there? Perhaps we should or could be doing more, but we are doing something.

So? Exactly what have these charities and NGOs accomplished? Kyoto was a failure. Copenhagen was a failure. Cancun is also going to end in failure.

Meanwhile, over a thousand animal and plant species continue to go extinct every year. The work of NGOs and environmental charities has not seriously challenged environmental degradation or biodiversity loss. Indeed, many such organizations are accomplices to the worst corporations and governments. Have you ever heard of "greenwash" ?

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.

Obviously we do understand the problem of losing biodiversity. You can tell because you were just talking about it. Unless you're a dog or something.

You're missing the point. To paraphrase Wang Yangming, "to know, and not to do, is not to know."

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.

And what makes you so sure that we're in an ecological dead end?

A simple look at the numbers. Population is expanding around the globe. Most people want to live the high-entropy lifestyle of Americans. If everyone on the planet lived like Americans, it would require 5 additional earths to provide all of the resources.

These figures are not hard to find and the implications are not hard to see, although the conclusions can be hard to stomach for many people.

[Mytannion]

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?

If civilization was destroyed wouldn't we lose the great things we invented like computers and electricity?

The majority of us, but richer people (before the destruction of civilization), would probably be able to negotiate deals to have an electricity supply. The poorer people who couldn't afford them would die, and this is one of the many problems of a capitalist system we have in the world at the moment. Don't get me wrong, capitalism is all-good, but if it could somehow work in a way that the poorer people, who did most of the work got a fairer share, it would be the perfect system, and not called capitalism. So the destruction of civilization would probably just end up with the destruction of the human race. Mainly because humans are 'pack' creatures, and work together to achieve things. That is why we have families and friends etc.

[Poorisolation]

Except we are. How many environmental charities and NGOs are there? Perhaps we should or could be doing more, but we are doing something.

So? Exactly what have these charities and NGOs accomplished? Kyoto was a failure. Copenhagen was a failure. Cancun is also going to end in failure.

Meanwhile, over a thousand animal and plant species continue go extinct every year. The work of NGOs and environmental charities has not seriously challenged environmental degradation or biodiversity loss. Indeed, many such organizations are accomplices to the worst corporations and governments. Have you ever heard of "greenwash" ?

Have you ever heard of "greenwash"?

Obviously we do understand the problem of losing biodiversity. You can tell because you were just talking about it. Unless you're a dog or something.

You're missing the point. To paraphrase Wang Yangming, "to know, and not to do, is not to know."

And what makes you so sure that we're in an ecological dead end?

A simple look at the numbers. Population is expanding around the globe. Most people want to live the high-entropy lifestyle of Americans. If everyone on the planet lived like Americans, it would require 5 additional earths to provide all of the resources.

These figures are not hard to find and the implications are not hard to see, although the conclusions can be hard to stomach for many people.

The conclusions are not as set in stone as you seem to think. In fact from the data available it does not seem to me or a great many other persons that we are at ecological dead end. The growth in human population is slowing, energy efficiency in terms of GDP per Kilowatt Hour is increasing and food production methods are becoming more efficient not merely in terms of tonnes produced per hectare but also in the level of biochemical support required per tonne.

This is not coming from the point of view of someone who does not feel we should take steps to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. However it is the lack of necessity of any good reasoning for having to endure as species the added expense and suffering that results from climate change that concerns not any belief utterly unsupported by the data that such climate change will result in the end of civilisation let alone humanity.

However taking a species view rather than an individual view I would prefer it if my species had to capacity to me threats and changes that will face it over a time span of millions of years. Something that is only possible within the framework of a technologically progressive civilisation.

Since the implications of current trends when viewed in the light of past trends is that Human Civilisation is likely to survive the foreseeable crises of the next two centuries (no accounting for the unforeseeable of course) I must assume that the many people are people who wish somehow to force a return the pre-agrarian or at least pre-civilised (lacking in cities used in this specific sense) existence.

[Plopburger]

So? Exactly what have these charities and NGOs accomplished? Kyoto was a failure. Copenhagen was a failure. Cancun is also going to end in failure.

Meanwhile, over a thousand animal and plant species continue go extinct every year. The work of NGOs and environmental charities has not seriously challenged environmental degradation or biodiversity loss. Indeed, many such organizations are accomplices to the worst corporations and governments. Have you ever heard of "greenwash" ?

Have you ever heard of "greenwash"?



You're missing the point. To paraphrase Wang Yangming, "to know, and not to do, is not to know."

A simple look at the numbers. Population is expanding around the globe. Most people want to live the high-entropy lifestyle of Americans. If everyone on the planet lived like Americans, it would require 5 additional earths to provide all of the resources.

These figures are not hard to find and the implications are not hard to see, although the conclusions can be hard to stomach for many people.

The conclusions are not as set in stone as you seem to think. In fact from the data available it does not seem to me or a great many other persons that we are at ecological dead end. The growth in human population is slowing, energy efficiency in terms of GDP per Kilowatt Hour is increasing and food production methods are becoming more efficient not merely in terms of tonnes produced per hectare but also in the level of biochemical support required per tonne.

This is not coming from the point of view of someone who does not feel we should take steps to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. However it is the lack of necessity of any good reasoning for having to endure as species the added expense and suffering that results from climate change that concerns not any belief utterly unsupported by the data that such climate change will result in the end of civilisation let alone humanity.

However taking a species view rather than an individual view I would prefer it if my species had to capacity to me threats and changes that will face it over a time span of millions of years. Something that is only possible within the framework of a technologically progressive civilisation.

Since the implications of current trends when viewed in the light of past trends is that Human Civilisation is likely to survive the foreseeable crises of the next two centuries (no accounting for the unforeseeable of course) I must assume that the many people are people who wish somehow to force a return the pre-agrarian or at least pre-civilised (lacking in cities used in this specific sense) existence.

Although your signature belies a dislike of Facebook, I wish there were a "like" functionality so I could use it on this post.

Those who would rather destroy civilisation or spout doom and gloom regarding the challenges we'll face in the next few decades depress me because they have no faith in the collective capacity of humanity.

[Yakutiya]

The conclusions are not as set in stone as you seem to think. In fact from the data available it does not seem to me or a great many other persons that we are at ecological dead end. The growth in human population is slowing, energy efficiency in terms of GDP per Kilowatt Hour is increasing and food production methods are becoming more efficient not merely in terms of tonnes produced per hectare but also in the level of biochemical support required per tonne.

This is not coming from the point of view of someone who does not feel we should take steps to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. However it is the lack of necessity of any good reasoning for having to endure as species the added expense and suffering that results from climate change that concerns not any belief utterly unsupported by the data that such climate change will result in the end of civilisation let alone humanity.

However taking a species view rather than an individual view I would prefer it if my species had to capacity to me threats and changes that will face it over a time span of millions of years. Something that is only possible within the framework of a technologically progressive civilisation.

Since the implications of current trends when viewed in the light of past trends is that Human Civilisation is likely to survive the foreseeable crises of the next two centuries (no accounting for the unforeseeable of course) I must assume that the many people are people who wish somehow to force a return the pre-agrarian or at least pre-civilised (lacking in cities used in this specific sense) existence.

Although your signature belies a dislike of Facebook, I wish there were a "like" functionality so I could use it on this post.

Those who would rather destroy civilisation or spout doom and gloom regarding the challenges we'll face in the next few decades depress me because they have no faith in the collective capacity of humanity.

I don't advocate for the destruction of civilization.

You are correct in saying that I have no faith in the "collective capacity of humanity". That's precisely been my position throughout this thread. I have no faith in humanity or "the future", which makes me a secular heretic.

Pooristan's post is emblematic of this faith, which in my opinion is totally misplaced, given any honest appraisal of human history (it also flatly ignores the peak oil predicament and the constraints this will place on further technological innovation).

I could, of course, be wrong about all of this. However I suspect that we be able to glimpse within our lifetimes whether or not the cornocopian view of ever-increasing human progress holds water.

[Plopburger]

Oh, it will hold true, but your kind will still spout doom and gloom into infinity. If we fixed every problem that exists you'd still say "it won't last". It's a fundamental flaw in your worldview and reality won't change it.

[Poorisolation]

Although your signature belies a dislike of Facebook, I wish there were a "like" functionality so I could use it on this post.

Those who would rather destroy civilisation or spout doom and gloom regarding the challenges we'll face in the next few decades depress me because they have no faith in the collective capacity of humanity.

I don't advocate for the destruction of civilization.

You are correct in saying that I have no faith in the "collective capacity of humanity". That's precisely been my position throughout this thread. I have no faith in humanity or "the future", which makes me a secular heretic.

Pooristan's post is emblematic of this faith, which in my opinion is totally misplaced, given any honest appraisal of human history (it also flatly ignores the peak oil predicament and the constraints this will place on further technological innovation).

I could, of course, be wrong about all of this. However I suspect that we be able to glimpse within our lifetimes whether or not the cornocopian view of ever-increasing human progress holds water.

Since recorded history has been if viewed I admit a little but not entirely simplistically one long procession of conservative (as in the meaning of looking to the past) malthusians (as in the small m sense of someone who predicts calamity on the basis of weak data) being demonstrated to be incorrect then I would disagree that history provides much evidence for your viewpoint.

Humans could indeed get unlucky. We could meet an unexpected challenge too soon for us to be able to overcome it. Also we do not know what lies in the far distant future. However based on current data on current trends then neither peak oil nor its "constraints" will be the likely cause of the end of urban technological civilisation.

The problem with things such as the peak oil doom's day scenario is that it just does not bear up under close examination. The reduction in the supply of rock oil would not even force a society to abandon hydrocarbon fuels, it would not even force it to turn to so called bio-fuels the hydrogenation of coal would suffice. A hike in energy prices would slow economic progress but likely not halt it. It would certainly not result in the collapse of civ and no the Hydrogenation of coal to produce "synthetic" oil is far from the only of a range of possible options in fact I selected it as my least favoured one.

As to your "secular heresy" that is obviously a self applied label of much importance to you so I will not question it. You could try copying and pasting my nom de plume tho rather than misspelling it.

[New Ziedrich]

No, end of discussion, and I'm disappointed that I didn't see this thread until it was already nineteen pages long.

[Galloism]

I felt it necessary to point this out.

Per natapoc:

But without civilization and without the knowledge and technology that goes with it, how would you harvest it?

You really want to know? lol. Fecal oral contamination Gross but effective and what happens naturally without modern hygiene.

No thanks, I like my current life expectancy of 79.6 years.

Since this implied myth keeps being repeated I'll correct it for you. There is a certain misunderstanding with regard to "life expectancy."

These numbers refer to "life expectancy at birth" There are a few life points (mostly early childhood) where if you survive then you will live for a very long time. There were certainly 90 year olds in pre civ time.

Assuming you yourself are older than a young child (a good assumption I believe) you yourself would probably not have a significant difference in life expectancy.

Our other option to civilization, especially for young children, is eat shit and die.

I'll just leave this here.

[Natapoc]

No. The fact that it's quite cold out there tonight is enough to encourage me to believe that houses, central heating, and other such things civilisation brought us are quite nice.

Indeed, imagine the joy of traipsing around to check your snares in this?

Napotec having viewed the above I have to say that your aggressive anti-civilisational stance appears to have returned despite you claims (honest as they may be) to actually be neutral on the subject.

Yet despite constantly requiring and multiple times being provided an argument as to why civilisation is better than primitivismin the eyes of most you have yet to demonstrate why a pre-agrarian lifestyle without the supports of a modern manufacturing process would be easier.

Perhaps at some point you would care to address that discrepancy of standards?

UG. I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be "neutral on the subject" I keep being attacked for being anti civ when I'm infact pro (improved and non suicidal) civ. I just see problems with civilization. What discrepancy of standards are you speaking of?

What I'd like my dear readers to think of is how they can stop civilization from suicide as it's certainly going to.

Stop putting your collective heads in the sand and pretending everything is okay while having blind faith in technology to solve all problems while we destroy the very things that we need to survive.

[Natapoc]

Oh, it will hold true, but your kind will still spout doom and gloom into infinity. If we fixed every problem that exists you'd still say "it won't last". It's a fundamental flaw in your worldview and reality won't change it.

Okay lets have a bet. Fix only the major problems. Just the ones I listed before. If I still complain then you win.

I dare you!