Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #46  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:48 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
And they would be wrong. You cannot argue a point based on the idea that people might think that way out of ignorance. Just because said African tribe is ignorant of civilization, does not make them civilized.
True, but what if they also claim all of the qualities that you just proclaimed in your definition of civilization?

Surely then, by your logic, they must be civilized, regardless of whether or not they know there is a more technologically advanced society.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:49 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post
True, but what if they also claim all of the qualities that you just proclaimed in your definition of civilization?

Surely then, by your logic, they must be civilized, regardless of whether or not they know there is a more technologically advanced society.
They sure as heck don't have science, and sure as heck aren't urban. They would be wrong.

Again. Just because they think they are a civilization, does not mean they are a civilization. It's not a matter of perspective.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-21-2010, 12:53 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
They sure as heck don't have science, and sure as heck aren't urban. They would be wrong.

Again. Just because they think they are a civilization, does not mean they are a civilization. It's not a matter of perspective.
Alright I'm finished, cause I could spend hour arguing that.

I'm not saying that the thought of being civilized makes one civilized, however.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-21-2010, 01:01 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post
Alright I'm finished, cause I could spend hour arguing that.

I'm not saying that the thought of being civilized makes one civilized, however.
It's nothing to be argued. A 2-year old could honestly think that 2+2 = 5. That doesn't make him right. Civilization has defined meaning. An African tribe that is living the same way its ancestors did hundreds or thousands of years ago is not a civilization. They do not have science, they do not have advanced political structure or organization because they do not have enough population to merit such things, they cannot possibly be urban, and their technology is extremely primitive at best. Yes, civilization is somewhat open to interpretation, but there are things that are clearly not counted as civilization. There is a lower limit to what can be said to be civilized. Above that limit, the perspective and standards you speak of apply to an extent. Below it, they do not. The African tribe is very clearly below the standard.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-21-2010, 01:15 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
It's nothing to be argued. A 2-year old could honestly think that 2+2 = 5. That doesn't make him right. Civilization has defined meaning. An African tribe that is living the same way its ancestors did hundreds or thousands of years ago is not a civilization. They do not have science, they do not have advanced political structure or organization because they do not have enough population to merit such things, they cannot possibly be urban, and their technology is extremely primitive at best. Yes, civilization is somewhat open to interpretation, but there are things that are clearly not counted as civilization. There is a lower limit to what can be said to be civilized. Above that limit, the perspective and standards you speak of apply to an extent. Below it, they do not. The African tribe is very clearly below the standard.
There's plenty to be argued. Now I just told you that I'm not saying that just because they believe that are civilized that doesn't make them so. Continuously citing that instance and trying to prove it so isn't moving this discussion.

Now maybe that tribe was a bad example, let me try something else. The novel Brave New World, though fictional, questions the very perceptions of what is and is not civilized. Not sure if you've read it, but it presents and extremely advanced society that mirrors what we may commonly think of as futuristic. In that story, someone who lives like we do today, with our rationality, from our civilization in our current time, was outcasted and called both a savage and uncivilized because at that time, what our society offered was too primitive compared to that of the "futuristic" one.

That's what I'm getting at, on a figurative level. One day we will advance so far in technology that life as we know it today will become primitive and obsolete, therefore being labeled as uncivilized. Yes, I agree, today that's not the case, but this still remains a conceptional thing. And I'm not going to argue whether or not there is a concrete definition for civilization or not, because we have obviously reached and impasse on that topic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-21-2010, 01:36 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post
There's plenty to be argued. Now I just told you that I'm not saying that just because they believe that are civilized that doesn't make them so. Continuously citing that instance and trying to prove it so isn't moving this discussion.

Now maybe that tribe was a bad example, let me try something else. The novel Brave New World, though fictional, questions the very perceptions of what is and is not civilized. Not sure if you've read it, but it presents and extremely advanced society that mirrors what we may commonly think of as futuristic. In that story, someone who lives like we do today, with our rationality, from our civilization in our current time, was outcasted and called both a savage and uncivilized because at that time, what our society offered was too primitive compared to that of the "futuristic" one.

That's what I'm getting at, on a figurative level. One day we will advance so far in technology that life as we know it today will become primitive and obsolete, therefore being labeled as uncivilized. Yes, I agree, today that's not the case, but this still remains a conceptional thing. And I'm not going to argue whether or not there is a concrete definition for civilization or not, because we have obviously reached and impasse on that topic.
Brave New World doesn't question what is civilized, it's primarily meant to show what happens when pursuit of happiness becomes the ultimate societal goal. There's no questioning that the BNW's society is a civilization. "The Savage" doesn't live like we do today, he lives like a perverted version of a Native American tribe, certainly not civilized. No one in Brave New World ever questioned that civilization existed before them.

I understand what you're saying, but there's no need to worry about such comparisons. By the modern definition, the ancient Babylonians were a civilization. They had science, they were urban, they had social organization and political structure. No matter how much technology advances, certain societies will always be considered civilization, and some societies will never be considered civilization. Ancient Egypt was a civilization. So were the Mayans, and the Chinese. They always have been.

Furthermore, one could make the argument that it is irrelevant what the definition of civilization was at any point in time except the present. Thus, we ought to go by the current definition of civilization, and the perspective of what is civilized or not from a different time is entirely irrelevant.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 12-21-2010, 01:54 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Furthermore, one could make the argument that it is irrelevant what the definition of civilization was at any point in time except the present. Thus, we ought to go by the current definition of civilization, and the perspective of what is civilized or not from a different time is entirely irrelevant.

Alright, and that's a very convincing notion, outside of the fact that there exist so many different definitions of what civilization is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Google Web Definitions
-a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); -

-a particular society at a particular time and place; "early Mayan civilization"

-the quality of excellence in thought and manners and taste; "a man of intellectual refinement"; "he is remembered for his generosity and civilization"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.
6.
cities or populated areas in general, as opposed to unpopulated or wilderness areas: The plane crashed in the jungle, hundreds of miles from civilization.
Who's to say one of these definitions isn't more credible than one you have provided? Unless there exists some omniscient person that can tell exactly what civilization is, regardless of how everyone else views it, then this just proves that there are numerous different conceptions based upon it. Although all tend to hover around the same thing, it's hard to find an exact answer. Thus, there is no set definition, and the term remains controversial.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-21-2010, 02:31 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post


Alright, and that's a very convincing notion, outside of the fact that there exist so many different definitions of what civilization is.





Who's to say one of these definitions isn't more credible than one you have provided? Unless there exists some omniscient person that can tell exactly what civilization is, regardless of how everyone else views it, then this just proves that there are numerous different conceptions based upon it. Although all tend to hover around the same thing, it's hard to find an exact answer. Thus, there is no set definition, and the term remains controversial.
Ah, this argument. It's also not a valid argument to simply list definitions of a word then claim civilization is variable. Not all of those definitions apply here. As a word, civilization has different meanings in different context; attempting to use the meaning of a different context in this one is a childish ploy at best. From the second site you chose, the first two definitions:

Quote:
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
apply in this context. The others make no sense in such a context, and don't counter my argument in it. What you're doing is the equivalent of, after hearing me say "Turn right at Main St.," arguing that "right" can be interpreted as "correct" rather than a direction and so my directions are wrong.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-21-2010, 03:47 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Hey Lus? The actual characteristics of civilization, as listed to me by a friend of mine who is actually studying anthropology (you know, the history of humans and, yeah, civilizations) are:
Religion
Economy
Art/Architecture
Social Systems
Written language
Government structure

Nowhere in there is a high level of technology or urbanization included. For that matter, it just says government structure. As in, someone is in charge. No intricate or complex political systems required. So please stop discrediting less advanced societies as not being civilized (and for clarification, I mean that in terms of being a civilization, not being polite, in case you want to get into yet another debate on the contents of a dictionary) just because they don't look like ours, because basically the entire international community abandoned such notions with direct imperialism and you're making us look bad to the aliens.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-21-2010, 06:30 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Ah, this argument. It's also not a valid argument to simply list definitions of a word then claim civilization is variable. Not all of those definitions apply here. As a word, civilization has different meanings in different context; attempting to use the meaning of a different context in this one is a childish ploy at best. From the second site you chose, the first two definitions:



apply in this context. The others make no sense in such a context, and don't counter my argument in it. What you're doing is the equivalent of, after hearing me say "Turn right at Main St.," arguing that "right" can be interpreted as "correct" rather than a direction and so my directions are wrong.
You've completely missed the message. I'm not trying to get into some pointless dictionary war so much as I'm trying to show you that what we as Americans label as civilized may not, and is not widely accepted by the rest of the world. There's nothing childish about that.

The fact is that cities do not a civilization make. Sure a civilized society may have them, but that isn't the cornerstone aspect that makes it a civilization. You've been leaning on that for sometime now, and I apologize, but I just don't find a Wikipedia definition strong enough to prove otherwise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-21-2010, 08:10 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
Hey Lus? The actual characteristics of civilization, as listed to me by a friend of mine who is actually studying anthropology (you know, the history of humans and, yeah, civilizations) are:
Religion
Economy
Art/Architecture
Social Systems
Written language
Government structure

Nowhere in there is a high level of technology or urbanization included. For that matter, it just says government structure. As in, someone is in charge. No intricate or complex political systems required. So please stop discrediting less advanced societies as not being civilized (and for clarification, I mean that in terms of being a civilization, not being polite, in case you want to get into yet another debate on the contents of a dictionary) just because they don't look like ours, because basically the entire international community abandoned such notions with direct imperialism and you're making us look bad to the aliens.
No offense, but "my friend said so" isn't particularly convincing. I'm not making up the definition off the top of my head, so if you want to attack the definition, you'll have to prove the unreliability of the sources. If you explain why Wikipedia is wrong and your friend is right, then you would make a valid argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Primarily, the term has been used to refer to human cultures which are complex in terms of technology, science, politics and division of labour.
Once again, "civilized" is not the same as "civilization". The former may merely mean well-mannered, the latter has denotations of a specific degree of complexity in society.

This history professor: http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture1b.html also says textbook definitions of civilization as:

Quote:
Civilization is a form of human culture in which many people live in urban centers, have mastered the art of smelting metals, and have developed a method of writing.

The first civilizations began in cities, which were larger, more populated, and more complex in their political, economic and social structure than Neolithic villages.
And:
Quote:
In 1936, the archeologist V. Gordon Childe published his book Man Makes Himself. Childe identified several elements which he believed were essential for a civilization to exist. He included: the plow, wheeled cart and draft animals, sailing ships, the smelting of copper and bronze, a solar calendar, writing, standards of measurement, irrigation ditches, specialized craftsmen, urban centers and a surplus of food necessary to support non-agricultural workers who lived within the walls of the city.

Another historian agreed with Childe but added that a true definition of civilization should also include money collected through taxes, a privileged ruling class, a centralized government and a national religious or priestly class. Such a list, unlike Childe's, highlights human organization. In 1955, Clyde Kluckhohn argued that there were three essential criteria for civilization: towns containing more than 5000 people, writing, and monumental ceremonial centers. Finally, the archeologist and anthropologist Robert M. Adams argued for a definition of civilization as a society with functionally interrelated sets of social institutions: class stratification based on the ownership and control of production, political and religious hierarchies complementing each other in the central administration of territorially organized states and lastly, a complex division of labor, with skilled workers, soldiers and officials existing alongside the great mass of peasant producers.
Quote:
You've completely missed the message. I'm not trying to get into some pointless dictionary war so much as I'm trying to show you that what we as Americans label as civilized may not, and is not widely accepted by the rest of the world. There's nothing childish about that.

The fact is that cities do not a civilization make. Sure a civilized society may have them, but that isn't the cornerstone aspect that makes it a civilization. You've been leaning on that for sometime now, and I apologize, but I just don't find a Wikipedia definition strong enough to prove otherwise.
Believe it or not, Dictionary.com and Wikipedia aren't solely edited by Americans. Moreover, "civilization" is an English word, and the specificities of its connotations and denotations reside within English only; thus, the English definition of "civilization" is the only one that applies, because it's the only word we're using. I am fairly confident that Canadians, Australians, and the British do not have some vastly different definition of civilization from that of America.

I never said cities were the cornerstone of civilization, merely that it was an important part. Basically, if a society has science, social and political structure, and all the other things that make a civilization, then almost always it will have cities. If a society does not have the degree of complexity to create cities, then it will likely not count as a civilization.

You also have given no evidence that other parts of the world define civilization as anything different from what we do, merely suggested the possibility, and given no reason to think that it is significant.

Incidentally, I'm not sure how any of this relates to the topic at hand.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 12-21-2010 at 08:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-22-2010, 12:56 AM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
No offense, but "my friend said so" isn't particularly convincing. I'm not making up the definition off the top of my head, so if you want to attack the definition, you'll have to prove the unreliability of the sources. If you explain why Wikipedia is wrong and your friend is right, then you would make a valid argument.
He's not saying that you need to believe him because his friend says so. Apparently his friend is studying college level anthropology, which focuses on the very core of civilization. Given that his friend has learned just what civilization is, I would deem that information valid. Surely something you learn and study in an anthropology class is a lot more concrete than a definition someone finds on Wikipedia in three seconds. That's the point he's trying to make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya
Once again, "civilized" is not the same as "civilization". The former may merely mean well-mannered, the latter has denotations of a specific degree of complexity in society.
Alright, no offense, but it's appearing as though you just aren't reading what's being posted. He said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer
So please stop discrediting less advanced societies as not being civilized (and for clarification, I mean that in terms of being a civilization, not being polite, in case you want to get into yet another debate on the contents of a dictionary)
No one here is talking about manners and I'm perplexed as to why you've cited this definition once again. It's just not proving anything. He, and everyone else, are using the word "civilized" with regards to civilization - like "civilized people". No one has, or is going to say anything about manners because it couldn't have less to do with this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya
I never said cities were the cornerstone of civilization, merely that it was an important part. Basically, if a society has science, social and political structure, and all the other things that make a civilization, then almost always it will have cities. If a society does not have the degree of complexity to create cities, then it will likely not count as a civilization.
Yea ya did. Right here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Well, typically, "civilization" is an urbanized society, as opposed to a rural or tribal one. Meaning animals do not have civilization. However, neither did humans for much of history, so civilization is not something to base humanity off of.
And then you spent your next few posts after that (including this one), explaining how cities were such a critical factor in determining a civilized society. The fact remains that if you demolish all of the cities of America, they will still have the politics, the religions, the economy. All of these things a city does not make, however a city can, and I emphasize can, have these things.

Consequentially, even those African tribes can be labeled as civilizations. They have politics (they may not be as refined as our, but they definitely have them). Science is, in essence, is the name given to the system of learning about the world and its contents through a series of inference-based studies and findings. They've got that, and people have had that for as long as technology itself has existed. They have religion. They've definitely got economics, among most, if not all of those other factors that you're arguing makes a civilization. So what you're telling me is, they don't count as a civilization because they don't live in cities, regardless of the fact that they have an applied knowledge base that envelops and shapes their lives.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-22-2010, 02:33 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post


He's not saying that you need to believe him because his friend says so. Apparently his friend is studying college level anthropology, which focuses on the very core of civilization. Given that his friend has learned just what civilization is, I would deem that information valid. Surely something you learn and study in an anthropology class is a lot more concrete than a definition someone finds on Wikipedia in three seconds. That's the point he's trying to make.



Alright, no offense, but it's appearing as though you just aren't reading what's being posted. He said this:



No one here is talking about manners and I'm perplexed as to why you've cited this definition once again. It's just not proving anything. He, and everyone else, are using the word "civilized" with regards to civilization - like "civilized people". No one has, or is going to say anything about manners because it couldn't have less to do with this topic.
Hm, missed that part, my bad. The point still stands.



Quote:
Yea ya did. Right here:


And then you spent your next few posts after that (including this one), explaining how cities were such a critical factor in determining a civilized society. The fact remains that if you demolish all of the cities of America, they will still have the politics, the religions, the economy. All of these things a city does not make, however a city can, and I emphasize can, have these things.

Consequentially, even those African tribes can be labeled as civilizations. They have politics (they may not be as refined as our, but they definitely have them). Science is, in essence, is the name given to the system of learning about the world and its contents through a series of inference-based studies and findings. They've got that, and people have had that for as long as technology itself has existed. They have religion. They've definitely got economics, among most, if not all of those other factors that you're arguing makes a civilization. So what you're telling me is, they don't count as a civilization because they don't live in cities, regardless of the fact that they have an applied knowledge base that envelops and shapes their lives.
"Cornerstone" implies that if a society does not have cities, then it will not be a civilization. As I have stated before, that is false. Note the word "typically". However, if I demolish all the cities of America, Americans would build cities again. We would not live in isolated tribes of a few dozen people scattered across the country. Such an environment would not allow politics or an advanced economy. If we did, we would rapidly lose everything that makes us a civilization. We would lose our knowledge, our science, our religion as it exists today, our politics, and technology, our social system: everything that defines America, that defines modern life, that defines Western civilization cannot exist in the absence of cities. Like it or not, the degree of social and technological advancement expected of a civilization cannot exist without some degree of urbanization. Small populations CANNOT have advanced science, politics, or economics. They are too busy gathering enough food to survive. There's a reason why the development of writing, art, and science is directly traced to the founding of cities. It is only when people live together in sufficient number that they are able to overcome the elements and have enough resources for some people not to be directly involved in the procurement of food. As I have shown through the referencing written material from people rather more learned in such matters, urbanization is an integral part of civilization.

Civilization is not merely possessing these qualities, it is possessing them in sufficient complexity. I do not know why I have to repeat this. Just because they have politics, does not mean it is advanced enough. Even chickens have a pecking order, and I highly doubt you can make a convincing argument for them being a civilization. And no, they do not have science. This is quite obvious since they live exactly the same way their ancestors did for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, with virtually no change in their basic beliefs and way of life, clearly demonstrating that they have learned nothing through science. And yes, science is learning. Using the same system of beliefs for generations is not science. And they have an economy; and incredibly basic, simple economy. But chimpanzees also have a concept of ownership and payment. That does not make them a civilization.

Show evidence. It doesn't matter if YOU say African tribes are a civilization in the sense of the word we are using. Get a historian, an anthropologist, an archaeologist who thinks they count as a civilization. I have shown several sources that state urbanization is an important aspect of civilization.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 12-22-2010 at 02:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-22-2010, 03:58 PM
Exon Auxus's Avatar
Exon Auxus Offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: No.
Posts: 6,079
Send a message via AIM to Exon Auxus
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
Hm, missed that part, my bad. The point still stands.
No problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya
"Cornerstone" implies that if a society does not have cities, then it will not be a civilization. As I have stated before, that is false. Note the word "typically". However, if I demolish all the cities of America, Americans would build cities again. We would not live in isolated tribes of a few dozen people scattered across the country. Such an environment would not allow politics or an advanced economy. If we did, we would rapidly lose everything that makes us a civilization. We would lose our knowledge, our science, our religion as it exists today, our politics, and technology, our social system: everything that defines America, that defines modern life, that defines Western civilization cannot exist in the absence of cities. Like it or not, the degree of social and technological advancement expected of a civilization cannot exist without some degree of urbanization. Small populations CANNOT have advanced science, politics, or economics. They are too busy gathering enough food to survive. There's a reason why the development of writing, art, and science is directly traced to the founding of cities. It is only when people live together in sufficient number that they are able to overcome the elements and have enough resources for some people not to be directly involved in the procurement of food. As I have shown through the referencing written material from people rather more learned in such matters, urbanization is an integral part of civilization.

Civilization is not merely possessing these qualities, it is possessing them in sufficient complexity. I do not know why I have to repeat this. Just because they have politics, does not mean it is advanced enough. Even chickens have a pecking order, and I highly doubt you can make a convincing argument for them being a civilization. And no, they do not have science. This is quite obvious since they live exactly the same way their ancestors did for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, with virtually no change in their basic beliefs and way of life, clearly demonstrating that they have learned nothing through science. And yes, science is learning. Using the same system of beliefs for generations is not science. And they have an economy; and incredibly basic, simple economy. But chimpanzees also have a concept of ownership and payment. That does not make them a civilization.
I think you're flip-flopping, because now you're arguing the exact same argument I was a few pages back. Remember when I cited the word primarily, stating that a civilization didn't need to have cities? You proceeded to label that as "the rarity", a condition so uncommon that it need not be taken into account. Now you've chosen that rarity and changed the base of your argument from the idea that civilizations must comprise cities to the assertion that civilizations often boast cities as a product of their technological advancement. However, I think that's good, because it looks like you're beginning to understand that while cities can often act as a common sign of civilization, the absence of them does not rule out other civilized areas.

Furthermore, you can't argue that we'd instantly build cities again, because if all of the cities were demolished, we'd likely lose the technology that we used to build said cities and, consequentially, lose the wherewithal to do so. That would force humanity to resort to other methods to advance from it's primitive state, because we cannot just build cities. We'd have to extract naturally occurring raw materials, convert them into a form we can use, and actually spend the energy and time it takes to make cities. Additionally, you cannot state that cities define American life, because not all of America is comprised of cities. Actually, most of it isn't. To truly define and differentiate American life, you'd have to explain the political and socioeconomic factors(which are also aspects of civilization) that isolate it from most other countries in the world - and those differences existed before our first settlers even constructed cities in North America.

Even so, if we were to lose cities we don't just lose knowledge. You cannot just lose knowledge like that, it doesn't make sense. You're making it appear as though cities act as our brains, and by that logic, I'd forget everything I knew as soon as I left a city and entered a rural area. We wouldn't instantly be diminished to the same intellectual level our ancestors were X years ago.

Then one can argue what "urban" means. I'd hate to start arguing the definitions of words again but apparently we have to. Many definitions of the word "urban" consist simply of this - "a densely populated area". Huh. There exist some densely populated areas that aren't cities. The Ancient Indus Valley civilization had a large population density as well, among many other factors we can use to label what a civilization is. Records show that they used bronze tools and weapons too, which acted as advanced technology (and yes, "advanced technology" does change, because what was advanced one hundred years ago is not so advanced now). One could argue that they aren't a civilization because their cities were not "advanced" enough to be called such. That's nonsense for a number of reasons. Because then you're forced to define what deems a city as advanced enough to act as a hallmark of civilization, which is already controversial.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya
Show evidence. It doesn't matter if YOU say African tribes are a civilization in the sense of the word we are using. Get a historian, an anthropologist, an archaeologist who thinks they count as a civilization. I have shown several sources that state urbanization is an important aspect of civilization.
There is no evidence needed, outside of a search for published works, and this debate is not that critical that I, nor anyone else, needs to do that. While normally I oblige myself to use direct evidence, I'm not going to resort to Googling "civilization" and slapping the first two definitions I see in a debate and defending them, without even being completely sure of their credibility. The application of strong, useful evidence is obvious, because you know when someone really learned something as opposed to when someone snatched something quick off of the internet. You have chiefly shown sources that act as "quickie" definitions and information that don't really hold strong in debates. You cannot then boast evidence that isn't even meritable.
__________________

Last edited by Exon Auxus; 12-22-2010 at 09:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-22-2010, 04:04 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: Could we manage without technology?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exon Auxus View Post

There is no evidence needed, outside of a search for published works, and this debate is not that critical that I, nor anyone else, needs to do that. While normally I oblige myself to use direct evidence, I'm not going to resort to Googling "civilization" and slapping the first two definitions I see in a debate and defending them, without even being completely sure of their credibility. The application of strong, useful evidence is obvious, because you know when someone really learned something as opposed to when someone snatched something quick off of the internet. You have chiefly shown sources that act as "quickie" definitions and information that don't really hold strong in debates. You cannot then boast evidence that isn't even meritable.
Saying there is no evidence needed to support your answer is just as bad as using Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is at least something.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com