Here a better definition: Civilization is a culture that uses a variety of hierarchically focused systems to render control of the resources everyone needs into a very few hands.
PC is what stymies the debate and on the flipside, the discussion has been used historically to do some cruel things. But it is a device for discussing human development and people need the maturity to understand it in that critical context and not see it as it is often used- as a value judgment.
The thing that people might want to start asking themselves is if civilization is actually a bottom line benefit to the human species. {points at:} Genocide Climate Change Authoritarianism Violence Greed... the fatal element that brings down all civilizations that manage to survive the slings and arrows of natural disaster. These are all features of civilization, which is nothing more or less than a culture that uses hierarchical systems to render control of the resources everyone needs to survive into the hands of a very few. This is WHY civilizations are established, not moral progress, but to create a wealthy class of rulers. This follows from the fact that ALL hierarchical systems establish authority by the few over the many... through some kind of force. It's not an accident that a few people control most of the world's resources. It's why civilizations are established.
Using the loaded, moral improvement sense of civilization, what is our aspiration for future civilization? Star Trek attempted to answer that question, but I don't know what good, scholarly work has been done on that question.
The idea that civilization involves moral improvement as any kind of main feature doesn't seem realistic to me. Especially once law took the place of divinity as the excuse for allowing human authority. Once law took over the question stopped being about some universal moral code and much more about relative ethics. From my perspective civilization's main focus is to render control of the resources everyone needs to survive into a very few hands. And things are probably best defined by their function and not simply by their features... The hierarchical structures of civilization are specifically established to give power to a few... across all systems that civilization uses. Hierarchical systems are themselves a methodology that gives a very few control over the very many... by definition. And these systems are enforced with some form of violence. Therefore since civilization chooses to use these systems... we can safely assume that the purpose to which these hierarchical systems are universally put are in fact the REASON these systems are established. Civilization is a kind of culture that has proven to be highly unstable, violent, and profligately exploitative for a variety of reasons that all involve the foolishness of allowing greed to flourish within communities. Greed will bring with it all other moral crimes... and has... and does... and will continue to do. Although pre-historic life is highly varied and largely obscured, we do know that as a rule hunter gatherer bands do not tolerate greed in high status individuals. High status individuals are those that contribute most to community life, not those that steal the most from it. Civilization makes a fetish of greed... because civilization is a culture designed to render control of the resources that everyone needs to survive into the hands of a very few. This is not a bug... its the intended purpose of the culture we call civilization. Seen in this way, the Star Trek model is pretty obvious pie in the sky. Like all civilizations the Star Trek universe is a highly hierarchical system. That is it focuses on giving power, control, and resources to the few, not the many. Star Trek is from a sociological POV an oxymoron, because civilization is designed to give a few people control... not the many. So a society of universally rich individuals is not possible because the greediest will seize control and divert the bulk of the wealth to themselves. If we advance as a species in cultural knowledge then we will replace civilization with a more just way of distributing resources and identifying and pursuing community goals. But whatever culture the positive future holds it will be what replaces civilization. Which, I'm sad to say, has been a failure... over and over again.
@@blogintonblakley2708 I imagine that most people make little distinction between a culture and a civilization. At least, that's long been my thinking. The sharp contrast you draw between them is interesting food for thought.
@@BradyPostma Yes, I know... I think that it is important to realize civilization is just a culture, not "the" culture. This is especially important to realize when we understand that civilization is a culture that is spread through violence.
angle makes the right ear look like the mouth of another face. can't unsee. dropped.
We need the script of this video
Here a better definition:
Civilization is a culture that uses a variety of hierarchically focused systems to render control of the resources everyone needs into a very few hands.
Thank you
YES.
PC is what stymies the debate and on the flipside, the discussion has been used historically to do some cruel things. But it is a device for discussing human development and people need the maturity to understand it in that critical context and not see it as it is often used- as a value judgment.
The thing that people might want to start asking themselves is if civilization is actually a bottom line benefit to the human species.
{points at:}
Genocide
Climate Change
Authoritarianism
Violence
Greed... the fatal element that brings down all civilizations that manage to survive the slings and arrows of natural disaster.
These are all features of civilization, which is nothing more or less than a culture that uses hierarchical systems to render control of the resources everyone needs to survive into the hands of a very few.
This is WHY civilizations are established, not moral progress, but to create a wealthy class of rulers. This follows from the fact that ALL hierarchical systems establish authority by the few over the many... through some kind of force.
It's not an accident that a few people control most of the world's resources.
It's why civilizations are established.
So if writing is needed then what about Great Zimbabwe
They had writing
@@lastword8783 beyond saying that what writing did they have?
Using the loaded, moral improvement sense of civilization, what is our aspiration for future civilization?
Star Trek attempted to answer that question, but I don't know what good, scholarly work has been done on that question.
The idea that civilization involves moral improvement as any kind of main feature doesn't seem realistic to me. Especially once law took the place of divinity as the excuse for allowing human authority. Once law took over the question stopped being about some universal moral code and much more about relative ethics.
From my perspective civilization's main focus is to render control of the resources everyone needs to survive into a very few hands. And things are probably best defined by their function and not simply by their features... The hierarchical structures of civilization are specifically established to give power to a few... across all systems that civilization uses.
Hierarchical systems are themselves a methodology that gives a very few control over the very many... by definition. And these systems are enforced with some form of violence.
Therefore since civilization chooses to use these systems... we can safely assume that the purpose to which these hierarchical systems are universally put are in fact the REASON these systems are established.
Civilization is a kind of culture that has proven to be highly unstable, violent, and profligately exploitative for a variety of reasons that all involve the foolishness of allowing greed to flourish within communities.
Greed will bring with it all other moral crimes... and has... and does... and will continue to do.
Although pre-historic life is highly varied and largely obscured, we do know that as a rule hunter gatherer bands do not tolerate greed in high status individuals. High status individuals are those that contribute most to community life, not those that steal the most from it.
Civilization makes a fetish of greed... because civilization is a culture designed to render control of the resources that everyone needs to survive into the hands of a very few.
This is not a bug... its the intended purpose of the culture we call civilization.
Seen in this way, the Star Trek model is pretty obvious pie in the sky. Like all civilizations the Star Trek universe is a highly hierarchical system.
That is it focuses on giving power, control, and resources to the few, not the many.
Star Trek is from a sociological POV an oxymoron, because civilization is designed to give a few people control... not the many. So a society of universally rich individuals is not possible because the greediest will seize control and divert the bulk of the wealth to themselves.
If we advance as a species in cultural knowledge then we will replace civilization with a more just way of distributing resources and identifying and pursuing community goals.
But whatever culture the positive future holds it will be what replaces civilization.
Which, I'm sad to say, has been a failure... over and over again.
@@blogintonblakley2708 I imagine that most people make little distinction between a culture and a civilization. At least, that's long been my thinking. The sharp contrast you draw between them is interesting food for thought.
@@BradyPostma Yes, I know... I think that it is important to realize civilization is just a culture, not "the" culture.
This is especially important to realize when we understand that civilization is a culture that is spread through violence.
My comment was abruptly removed...related to civility....huge censorship !!!!!!!