What do you think? Is civilisation bad?
There is no universally agreed definition of how civilisation is defined. But it seems to be generally agreed on by academics that cities, and urban development, are key to the definition. In fact the word "civilisation" is derived from the Latin word civis, meaning citizen. City life is at the heart of civilisation and is heavily populated compared with the other areas of the civilisation.
The word "civilised" has come to be associated in people's minds with positive terms such as: refined, polite, well-behaved, urbane, cultivated, gallant, educated - while the terms "uncivilised", "savage" or "barbaric" have all been turned into negative words.
As a result of this, it is a common false assumption that any organised society with values associated with the word "civilised" should qualify as being a civilisation. This would lead to the contradiction of barbarians such as the Germanics or Vikings being classified as civilised. They had small towns and villages, but no centralised city from which society was organised.
What at first seems an irony of today is that the most "savage" behaviour, as regards the association of this word with lack of refinement, education, and a tendency towards mindless violence is found overwhelmingly within cities (the very place where people are supposed to be most "civilised") rather than in the surrounding areas. Many people in today's cities are like the mob of ancient Rome, only interested in food and entertainment. This is because civilisations have a birth, middle-age and then decay and die. This degeneration is, by definition, a falling from a higher state.
Civilisations have always contained the seeds of their own destruction. Although they are initially created by intelligent, noble and creative people (barbarians!) they have always served to assist the dysgenic process of breeding increasing numbers of people who would never have survived without the crutch of civilisation. Eventually this leads to the civilisation weakening and falling apart. Historically, at this point, the barbarians have conquered the civilisation and had a purifying effect (such as the ancient Germanics did to Rome). This has, in turn, led to new civilisations being born.
In short, civilisation is bad because it causes people to become genetically weaker at a rapid rate, losing qualities such as physical and mental health and instinct - and condemning the society to a painful degeneration and death. It is also bad because it has led to the development of unsustainable, ecologically damaging behaviour (pollution, deforestation, etc). And because it draws many people into a dehumanising lifestyle, such as working in the assembly line of a factory for a slave wage. And because civilisations have ended up spreading so far that it would be nearly impossible for any tribe to escape its clutches. (Vaccinating natives, for eg, or plundering their resources). Even the overpopulation of the world is as a result of the excesses of civilisation and civilised values.
In the end, when world resources, which civilisations depend on, cease to be available, there will be war, suffering, starvation on a massive scale and ecological disaster. The remaining people will have no alternative but to go back to living in a primitive and sustainable way. We will be thrown back into a pre-civilised existence. However, this time there will be no natural metal, oil or coal to mine once again and to re-develop industry, as this will have all been used up. Industrialisation can never rise again once we have gone back to this stage - possibly stuck in a stoneage unless we could recycle previously used materials.
It's a shame really, because if the faults of civilisation were tackled: dysgenics and unsustainability, a whole different future would be possible; a potentially limitless progress rather than an inevitable decline.
There is no universally agreed definition of how civilisation is defined. But it seems to be generally agreed on by academics that cities, and urban development, are key to the definition. In fact the word "civilisation" is derived from the Latin word civis, meaning citizen. City life is at the heart of civilisation and is heavily populated compared with the other areas of the civilisation.
The word "civilised" has come to be associated in people's minds with positive terms such as: refined, polite, well-behaved, urbane, cultivated, gallant, educated - while the terms "uncivilised", "savage" or "barbaric" have all been turned into negative words.
As a result of this, it is a common false assumption that any organised society with values associated with the word "civilised" should qualify as being a civilisation. This would lead to the contradiction of barbarians such as the Germanics or Vikings being classified as civilised. They had small towns and villages, but no centralised city from which society was organised.
What at first seems an irony of today is that the most "savage" behaviour, as regards the association of this word with lack of refinement, education, and a tendency towards mindless violence is found overwhelmingly within cities (the very place where people are supposed to be most "civilised") rather than in the surrounding areas. Many people in today's cities are like the mob of ancient Rome, only interested in food and entertainment. This is because civilisations have a birth, middle-age and then decay and die. This degeneration is, by definition, a falling from a higher state.
Civilisations have always contained the seeds of their own destruction. Although they are initially created by intelligent, noble and creative people (barbarians!) they have always served to assist the dysgenic process of breeding increasing numbers of people who would never have survived without the crutch of civilisation. Eventually this leads to the civilisation weakening and falling apart. Historically, at this point, the barbarians have conquered the civilisation and had a purifying effect (such as the ancient Germanics did to Rome). This has, in turn, led to new civilisations being born.
In short, civilisation is bad because it causes people to become genetically weaker at a rapid rate, losing qualities such as physical and mental health and instinct - and condemning the society to a painful degeneration and death. It is also bad because it has led to the development of unsustainable, ecologically damaging behaviour (pollution, deforestation, etc). And because it draws many people into a dehumanising lifestyle, such as working in the assembly line of a factory for a slave wage. And because civilisations have ended up spreading so far that it would be nearly impossible for any tribe to escape its clutches. (Vaccinating natives, for eg, or plundering their resources). Even the overpopulation of the world is as a result of the excesses of civilisation and civilised values.
In the end, when world resources, which civilisations depend on, cease to be available, there will be war, suffering, starvation on a massive scale and ecological disaster. The remaining people will have no alternative but to go back to living in a primitive and sustainable way. We will be thrown back into a pre-civilised existence. However, this time there will be no natural metal, oil or coal to mine once again and to re-develop industry, as this will have all been used up. Industrialisation can never rise again once we have gone back to this stage - possibly stuck in a stoneage unless we could recycle previously used materials.
It's a shame really, because if the faults of civilisation were tackled: dysgenics and unsustainability, a whole different future would be possible; a potentially limitless progress rather than an inevitable decline.
.
