The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Is Civilization Really a Good Thing?
Hexmage-PA
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
The popular conception of hunter-gatherer societies is that their members were savages who faced the threat of starvation on a daily basis or the risk of being mauled by the animals they were hunting.
From what I've learned recently in my Cultural Anthropology class, though, apparently life before civilization was nowhere near as bad as people believe. Hunter-gatherers were nomadic people who obtained much of their dietary needs from plants and lived in small, tight-knit communities. They could not carry many personal possessions with them as they traveled, and everyone had to contribute in the act of gathering food and tending to the needs of the community. As a result, there was little in the way of social stratification. Infectious diseases were also rare, as there were not populations of humans large enough for them to easily spread, and it is believed that the average hunter-gatherer lived a healthy life.
In light of this view of hunter-gatherer civilizations I've come to question whether modern civilization is indeed superior. Civilization breeds social stratification as man-made systems emerge that allow certain individuals to become much wealthier than others. Civilization gives individuals a way to easily take care of themselves, reducing the need for close-knit relationships. There is also evidence that people in developed countries are more likely to feel stressed and unhappy. Civilization enables infectious diseases, and some fear that such diseases will eventually become resistant enough to overcome our efforts to prevent and treat them. Pollution is another cause for disease. Take into account as well that people in modern societies often don't get the exercise they need, as they do not need to expend much effort to survive in the age of air conditioned homes and supermarkets.
So, is civilization really such a great thing? Were people better-off in a simpler time? What positive features do civilizations possess that make-up for their faults?
From what I've learned recently in my Cultural Anthropology class, though, apparently life before civilization was nowhere near as bad as people believe. Hunter-gatherers were nomadic people who obtained much of their dietary needs from plants and lived in small, tight-knit communities. They could not carry many personal possessions with them as they traveled, and everyone had to contribute in the act of gathering food and tending to the needs of the community. As a result, there was little in the way of social stratification. Infectious diseases were also rare, as there were not populations of humans large enough for them to easily spread, and it is believed that the average hunter-gatherer lived a healthy life.
In light of this view of hunter-gatherer civilizations I've come to question whether modern civilization is indeed superior. Civilization breeds social stratification as man-made systems emerge that allow certain individuals to become much wealthier than others. Civilization gives individuals a way to easily take care of themselves, reducing the need for close-knit relationships. There is also evidence that people in developed countries are more likely to feel stressed and unhappy. Civilization enables infectious diseases, and some fear that such diseases will eventually become resistant enough to overcome our efforts to prevent and treat them. Pollution is another cause for disease. Take into account as well that people in modern societies often don't get the exercise they need, as they do not need to expend much effort to survive in the age of air conditioned homes and supermarkets.
So, is civilization really such a great thing? Were people better-off in a simpler time? What positive features do civilizations possess that make-up for their faults?
Hexmage-PA on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
or, you know, have a bad winter, or get scratched by a wild animal
it was impossible to really develop sciences or the arts or crafts or really any kind of non-hunting specialist without cities and agriculture.
and yeah there were some tradeoffs - disease and (arguably, possibly) the carbohydrate-centric diet were problems.
but on balance, the pastoral ideal of hunter-gatherers strikes me as so much hippie bullshit. life was pretty rough and brutal, the lifestyle was unsustainable and it was basically impossible for humans to progress from it without settling down.
Also, we couldn't sustain the huge population that we have now without civilization.
Basically what Irond Will said.
It was sustainable just fine. It did place a cap on our ability to advance though.
But do we need a huge population? There are a few surviving hunter-gatherer societies out there that artificially limit population growth by encouraging mothers to breast feed longer (which apparently reduces the chance that they will get pregnant again).
You and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would probably be friends, that is if Jean-Jacques Rousseau ever had any friends, and to a large extent he didn't. I didn't find his conceptualization of nascent man particularly compelling, but it may find a better home with you; find a copy of "Discourse on the Origins on Inequality" and give it a whirl.
Birth rates among nomadic hunter-gatherers are also lower than birth rates among sedentary agrarian populations.
No, we don't. But we did at one point to get to where we are now.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know people who are "anti-civ", at least to a degree. They're environmentally conscious, but it comes more from a desire to be autonomous from central authority. They figure civilization essentially requires people to rule over others, for some to toil and other to benefit. Which is true, but it doesn't really get anyone anywhere.
Also hopefully one day it will enable us to get off this rock.
This is a value judgement, some people would rather risk their lives for more freedom and autonomy. It's a risk vs reward scenario. Some people find the rewards of civilization to be lacking what they truly desire.
If the question is "is (sedentary agrarian or industrial) civilization beneficial" the answer is "yes and no." Was nomadic hunter-gatherer life better? Yes and no. We're describing a huge variety of lifestyles with really broad brushes, and there's no reason to act as though they're mutually exclusive diametric opposites. It's entirely possible, and in my opinion likely, that as we progress we will find the aspects of nomadic hunter-gatherer life that were beneficial and introducing them into our technologically-advanced context.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So like we have to drive around town to find our favorite taco van?
Please to be explaining this to my hippie fiance without her getting mad at me. Kthxbai
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
I'm somewhat "anti-civilization." I've had my Tyler Durden visions of men in furs laying venison to dry along an abandoned interstate. I consider that simple critical thinking - to look at a state of affairs and imagine, "What if we didn't have all this?"
But you know what? I like it that women don't die during pregnancy. Yes, I get the flu because I'm indoors around other people all the time, but at least I know that I won't have my entire family group destroyed by smallpox or rabies in the blink of an eye. I'd rather struggle against obesity than struggle against starvation.
But I'm also pretty sure that the future of mankind is going to involve lower birth rates, a more mobile population (skilled and information work allow people to be economic nomads), and less reliance on highly environmentally-controlled factory farming and more reliance on regional/seasonal eating. I share Will's skepticism about the modern diet, and I find aspects of the paleo diet interesting.
Adapting some of the positive aspects of pre-neolithic society doesn't mean we have to wear furs and dry our venison along the interstate, though.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I don't have to spend my day "hunting or gathering". In return, I perform a function that someone needs in return for "currency" that I can then spend on basic necessities. The economy of scale that civilisation provides means that I also have some left over so that I can choose to do things I enjoy, and buy goods that I want rather than need.
I also understand that some people don't get as much out of this social contract - but I like it just fine.
Like most people, I enjoy the idea of a hunter gatherer society as kind of a cool idea, but I imagine the realities would wear thin pretty fast.
Oh, now, be fair. It's far and away better written than anything penned in part or whole by most political writers nowadays.
I'm not referring specifically to the theory it contains.
Just the ability to consistently link a subject with a verb.
A lot more free time was one benefit, yeah. And of course the side benefits of this like less stress.
Hexmage is right that you had fewer endemic diseases like influenza. However, if you contracted a communicable disease, it was likely to kill your entire community group because... hey, less developed immune systems.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, I am. Me, a white American male of sufficient means living at one of the top tiers of the global ladder in the early 21st century, can expect those sorts of things.
I'm an aberration, historically speaking. As someone with an academic interest in both types of societies, I can say quite confidently that we would probably be quite a bit happier living a semi-nomadic lifestyle (ie Bedouins, some pre-contact Native American groups, and other societies that were not quite at the "organized state" level - "civilization" is a loaded term) as opposed to living at the bottom of the social ladder in, say, a factory town in mid-19th century England, or pre-revolution France.
I doubt the "paleo" diet combined with regional/seasonal eating will be anything more than a luxury diet for first world yuppies barring a reduction in world-wide population that would make Malthus swoon.
Yes.
I really like that you pointed this out, everyone seems to be arguing about how civilization is now in america as opposed to how civilization has typically been historically speaking. I mean think about all of the slavery and wars etc.
Civilization was perhaps better for the plantation owners, but I doubt anyone would argue it was better for the slaves.
You might be right about the paleo diet, mostly because grains are a cheap way to feed a lot of people.
You're dead wrong about regional and seasonal eating. Not having seasonal and regional eating is a luxury.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So it clearly isn't a good thing for a large number of people.
Oh yeah man. I need to install Civ4 on this computer again.
Way too much noble savage up in here.
If I had to pick between wiping with leaves and wiping with Quilted Northern, I'm picking the Quilted Northern.
People living in 1st world countries even at the poorer end of the economic spectrum probably have a better lifestyle because they aren't worrying about starving or freezing during winter. Social safety net FTW (which could be better in the US)
yes in the modern day, but look at civilization throughout history
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_rifkin_on_the_empathic_civilization.html
Summary: Civilization is the bees knees.