# Is civilization a discordant and divisive concept?



## blazeofglory (Jun 15, 2014)

I am civilized just because I wear modern the fabrics that distinguish from those who still live in caves and tribal communities. I am civilized just because I eat different foods and  live in modern buildings and use technical gadgets, can go to theaters, can elect representatives through votes, obey civil laws and pay taxes, enter into matrimonial relationships through the institutions of marriage and vow before the God of fire to live together and not engage in distrust and infidelity. 
My sense of civilization is to distinguish myself from a world of barbarisms, ancient communities and those who live in jungles, go naked, feed on  roots and shoots and never engage in matrimonial ties.
I am fencing myself from the rest of species through big buildings, sophisticated language devices, volumes of books and advancement of scientific materials.
Is civilization idea of something that is ethically correct? The idea of social, economic and moral justice  is taken into consideration when we deplete some of the natural resources we exploit regardless of the consequences of our derided acts and leading them to a state of up-rootedness in their own lands like the way we made inroads into the Americas and colonized Africa and Asia?
My main concerns here are to check whether we are truly civilized and moral by the dictums we use for civilization?

( This is not a political theme and I just felt like discussing it)


----------



## dither (Jun 15, 2014)

It seems to me, that civilized, or not, is about  personal thoughts and actions towards others. The way a person, in what manner one co-exists, with others.
It's not about "things".

This is one helluva subject, and as with writing, i think, i find it difficult to convey my thoughts on this, but much of what is generally considered civilization, isn't imo.

The short answer to your question is a yes from me.


----------



## Schrody (Jun 15, 2014)

Nope. You're civilized because you're (or should be) a creature of a reason, know right from wrong, and decide to do only good even though wrong sometimes feels like you succeeded. A civilized man don't need rules to know how to behave, not to kill/hurt or to steal from his fellow man, but to help him when in need. Civilized man won't look just for himself, he'll do whatever he can so his society gets the best of it too. Civilized man won't hunt for fun, he won't change his environment too much, so he could live in the unity with nature and animals. We humans often (wrongly) think we're the stars of the planet just because we have a reason, but we're nothing more than a spot, a parasite who lives destroying everything around him. Nature has its own way of restoring a balance, and that will, sooner or later, happen. No, we humans are not civilized even though we have all predispositions for it, and we won't be until we start respecting our home and each other.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 15, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Nope. You're civilized because you're (or should be) a creature of a reason, know right from wrong, and decide to do only good even though wrong sometimes feels like you succeeded. A civilized man don't need rules to know how to behave, not to kill/hurt or to steal from his fellow man, but to help him when in need. Civilized man won't look just for himself, he'll do whatever he can so his society gets the best of it too. Civilized man won't hunt for fun, he won't change his environment too much, so he could live in the unity with nature and animals. We humans often (wrongly) think we're the stars of the planet just because we have a reason, but we're nothing more than a spot, a parasite who lives destroying everything around him. Nature has its own way of restoring a balance, and that will, sooner or later, happen. No, we humans are not civilized even though we have all predispositions for it, and we won't be until we start respecting our home and each other.



This is an addendum to what I wrote and missed and if it is not for your insightful post what I had written would have been pointless and of course nature has to balance things out at the end of the day. The mother earth is burdened with our sinisterness and ill-treatment of the rest of her other creatures and of course she is upset with us. 

Our moral irresponsibility will cost us so much


----------



## Schrody (Jun 15, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> This is an addendum to what I wrote and missed and if it is not for your insightful post what I had written would have been pointless and of course nature has to balance things out at the end of the day. The mother earth is burdened with our sinisterness and ill-treatment of the rest of her other creatures and of course she is upset with us.
> 
> Our moral irresponsibility will cost us so much



I know what you meant with your post, I just wanted to say people who think that way are wrong. And there are people thinking like that.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 15, 2014)

Thanks to civilization we have the ability to write. I'm for civilization.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 16, 2014)

It is interesting to read your thoughts on civilization and I however want to look at civilization through different lenses. It is indeed colorful at times given the kind of comforts we live in today's world. We are indeed different from those who still live in some of the poorest parts of the world. At times civilization is synonymously taken with cultural evolution and prosperity. But today it has been more of affluence, calibrated living conditions. Those who come from undeveloped countries are often called uncivilized . Africa is indeed a country of great culture, history and heritage. Tibet has its own uniqueness but most of these old values cultural attributes are obscured and shadowed by modernism and modernism mainly stands for western values. My objective to post this is to see whether we can go beyond the surface and into a different realm where civilization may mean ethics and good heartedness as well


----------



## popsprocket (Jun 16, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> Those who come from undeveloped countries are often called uncivilized . Africa is indeed a country of great culture, history and heritage. Tibet has its own uniqueness but most of these old values cultural attributes are obscured and shadowed by modernism and modernism mainly stands for western values.



You're mixing up being civilised (a set of norms constructed by a society) and civilisation. People from third world countries aren't called uncivilised because they don't have great culture and history, they're called uncivilised because their lives don't conform to our societal opinions of what constitutes 'normal'.



> My objective to post this is to see whether we can go beyond the surface and into a different realm where civilization may mean ethics and good heartedness as well



Except that civilisation already means both of those things. Some of what binds a group of people together are common beliefs - such as views on ethics.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 16, 2014)

> My sense of civilization is to distinguish myself from a world of barbarisms, ancient communities and those who live in jungles, go naked, feed on  roots and shoots and never engage in matrimonial ties.


 This is not my sense at all. To me, this is the false sense, an attitude held by Conquistadors and Romans... I look at being civilized as having more to do with being civil. The practice of denigrating a society because of the level of their technology is simply an arrogant justification for robbing them. Your description quoted is actually held by many 'civilized' as to be the ultimate condition of civilization, beyond selfishness and greed, where cooperation and communal activities are not used to subdue each other or nature, but rather to benefit the whole.  Fantasy, I know.  Those ancient communities certainly had rules and most often matrimonial ties. Civilization on the other hand, is often not all that civil. The 'civilized' have a way of unleashing their barbarism when it comes to taking what it is they want, especially from the less technologically advanced. 





> we all have predispositions for it


This, I don't agree with. I will use the anecdotal example of the little boy who socked me in the face on the first day of kindergarten in order to take the toy I held away from me as proof. I saw no 'civil predisposition' whatsoever...


----------



## Pandora (Jun 16, 2014)

To me civilized is much different than civilization. The news is about civilization, we see as a group we have a long way to go. Civilized is the kind goodness some live, the golden rule.


----------



## dither (Jun 16, 2014)

Kevin said:


> This is not my sense at all. To me, this is the false sense, an attitude held by Conquistadors and Romans... I look at being civilized as having more to do with being civil. The practice of denigrating a society because of the level of their technology is simply an arrogant justification for robbing them. Your description quoted is actually held by many 'civilized' as to be the ultimate condition of civilization, beyond selfishness and greed, where cooperation and communal activities are not used to subdue each other or nature, but rather to benefit the whole.  Fantasy, I know.  Those ancient communities certainly had rules and most often matrimonial ties. Civilization on the other hand, is often not all that civil. The 'civilized' have a way of unleashing their barbarism when it comes to taking what it is they want, especially from the less technologically advanced. This, I don't agree with. I will use the anecdotal example of the little boy who socked me in the face on the first day of kindergarten in order to take the toy I held away from me as proof. I saw no 'civil predisposition' whatsoever...



Sad, but true.
And some of those tribes living in the jungle could teach us a thing or two i reckon.


----------



## movieman (Jun 16, 2014)

Hands up all those willing to trade the benefits of civilization for a life in the jungle?


----------



## dither (Jun 16, 2014)

movieman said:


> Hands up all those willing to trade the benefits of civilization for a life in the jungle?



Fair point MM.
Can't argue with that.

It's just that sense of community, or rather lack of, y'know?


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 16, 2014)

dither said:


> Sad, but true.
> And some of those tribes living in the jungle could teach us a thing or two i reckon.



You are true and the fact is we in the name of civilization is destroying natural habitats not only for other species but also humans who live in villages and third world countries. We are through our big industrial plants polluting rivers and poisoning seas and marine creatures. Today our glaciers are melting and as a result many villages are submerging. 

Our luxurious lifestyles, greed, possessiveness, unethical consumerisms are the traits of our civilization. The 1 percent dominating the rest 99 percent. They live in big skyscrapers, move in their private jets. While the rest live impoverished. It is this civilizational issue that has widened this gulf and conflict.


----------



## Schrody (Jun 16, 2014)

movieman said:


> Hands up all those willing to trade the benefits of civilization for a life in the jungle?



I really believe we can keep "civilization" and live in a balance with nature (maybe not 100%, but even 50% would be a progress), if only we wanted to. There are ways.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 16, 2014)

Is civilization a discordant and divisive concept?

To be (perhaps overly) technical, being civilized means living in a particular sort of human society. It's the one with urban centers larger and more permanent than villages. Cities. Civitus, if my Greek holds. These societies tend to depend on cereals for their basic food supply and can only exist when a significant portion of the population can survive without direct participation in agriculture or other food procurement activities. (Other forms of society have existed which also produced food surpluses, the most important of which is often termed pastoral, good examples of these existed on the Asian steppes and in pre-Columbian America. Thanks to thousands of years of civilized propaganda, these societies are usually called barbarian or savage, even though their practices were indistinguishably inhumane from those of civilization.)

Civilization tends to promote technical development, often for the purposes of warfare and, over the millennia, after some serious setbacks in the early days, has come to dominate the societal forms in which humans live. Only isolated pockets exist now, that are even marginally pastoral. 

Literacy was mostly a technological development of civilization, but it's not a requirement of pastoral society, that it be illiterate. Pastoral societies tend to be difficult, archaeologically, but there is no doubt that they evolved sophisticated cultures, mostly oral, with literatures and legal systems.

The global political organization consisting of an anarchy of modern nation states owning citizens and territory and having no committed obligation to intra-species cooperation is also a technological development attributable to advanced civilization, although no evidence exists that a different societal form would have produced anything more desirable.

The multitudinous evils of urbanization have been often remarked and many thinkers, particularly Europeans of the 17th and 18th centuries, have advocated a re-injection of the pastoral into civilization. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind, but there were many. 

It's mostly thousands of years of inhouse propaganda which has resulted in the desirability of being civilized and in the possible benefits of less urbanized and centralized forms of society being eschewed. No doubt all forms of society will be in some ways discordant and divisive, but it seems certainly useful asking.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jun 16, 2014)

I couldn't really tell you what civilization is, just that we don't live in it. Don't you have to be civil with each other in order to be civilized. We can't do it on a person to person basis a lot of the time let alone political party to party, country to country, religion to religion. So whatever civilization is, it doesn't describe us.


----------



## BobtailCon (Jun 17, 2014)

One of the definitions on Dictionary.com was polite and courteous. Guess I'm not civilized :sneakiness:


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 17, 2014)

Civilization and civility are two instinct things. We often misinterpret the word  civilized. Civilized literally is to be urbane, cultured, educated and of course morally inclined but this is just a literal meaning. On the other hand those who consider themselves as civilized understand the world differently. They simply differentiate themselves from those who hail from tribal communities, from undeveloped countries or those who live in a world where modern technological gadgets have yet to make inroads. We do not live by the literal or intrinsic meaning of the terms. Few persons take this word as it in fact should connote. People use this word out of their particular arrogance, or out of their understanding or programming they went through their socioeconomic or cultural sways.


----------



## dale (Jun 17, 2014)

civilizations are defined by order. "ethics" are relative and often completely incidental to environmental circumstance. maintaining the "order"
which defines a civilization can sometimes require a certain amount of brutality. this brutality doesn't negate a "civilization".


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 17, 2014)

Dale hits the nail right square on the head, for those of you who say we are not civilized take a deep breath and think for a moment, this forum is an exact replica of what is civilized and how a group of people function. If it was only Sam and I who joined the forum, the rules that we needed to communicate our ideas and values would be pretty simple. As long as I did not piss him off and he me, we would be in a perfect civilized forum. Add a couple thousand people to the mixture, all of which have the ability to be offended. Now Sam has to go to great detail to come up with more complex rules so that we strike a balance between information and relationships. All of a sudden it matters how things are perceived. Back when it was just Sam and I, if he said something that was a little off I could always look past that and know that in his heart he meant well. Add the thousands of members and I can no longer assume he meant well he will be judged by his words and deeds.  If there is also a good chance that it may not make any difference at all how we speak or think as we are already both very civilized :}  Today we have rewards for good behavior and writing, the Liked and LOL tags are meant to reward good writing and good behavior towards others. Sam can also ban you from the site. 


To somehow add the social context of communism verses capitalists, "the one percent verses the 99 percent" is pretty naïve.  Native cultures used up the resources in their local area and then moved on, it only appears that they had very little impact because of their numbers not because what they were practicing was pure. A native American Indian may have had a garden to feed himself and family and when the nutrients where gone he just moved the garden. Today in Modern agriculture, we put things back into the ground, add even more and get ten times the yield per acre as what the Indian did. You can not use this as a barometer of what is civilized. Man has a long history of being very barbaric to each other and their neighbors. There is a good chance statistically that true civilization takes place in the city not in some rural back woods mountain setting.  Using natural resources has nothing to do with being either civilized or un civilized.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 17, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> You are true and the fact is we in the name of civilization is destroying natural habitats not only for other species but also humans who live in villages and third world countries. We are through our big industrial plants polluting rivers and poisoning seas and marine creatures. Today our glaciers are melting and as a result many villages are submerging.
> 
> Our luxurious lifestyles, greed, possessiveness, unethical consumerisms are the traits of our civilization. The 1 percent dominating the rest 99 percent. They live in big skyscrapers, move in their private jets. While the rest live impoverished. It is this civilizational issue that has widened this gulf and conflict.




What difference does it make whethor or not our very own species perpetuates its own extinction, or the earth decides to consume us? One way or another, we're all going to die, and whether we like it or not, our species will most likely become extinct. Forever does not exist on this planet.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 17, 2014)

> this brutality doesn't negate a "civilization".


 Eventually, it does. After it's collapse we judge it by it's brutality. Take Rome , or, Antibellum, by todays standards both are harsh and brutal. 





> Today in Modern agriculture, we put things back into the ground, add even more and get ten times the yield per acre as what the Indian did. You can not use this as a barometer of what is civilized.


 You cannot use this as a barometer. Wait a hundred years... then see how it is judged. Certainly, hunter-gathered/subsistence farmer societies used things up, occasionally permanently(animal extinction) but at what rate? We are at a net loss, not a gain, as far as resources go. There is no plan for the future, and our commie comrades (numerically speaking) are much worse offenders in practice. They operate with impunity.


----------



## dale (Jun 17, 2014)

Kevin said:


> Eventually, it does. After it's collapse we judge it by it's brutality. Take Rome , or, Antibellum, by todays standards both are harsh and brutal.


during the disintegration years? yes. multiculturism causes division, which leads to a breakdown of all things "civilized". rome was one of the greatest civilizations of history.
the egyptian empire under the pharaohs? a great civilization. brutal? of course. the aztecs were a great civilization. brutal? most definitely. judging "brutality" by what WE
know as "civilized" is really just plain arrogant. i see many people here judging "civilized" by some sort of "environmental" crusade relating to other species. but the fact is...the real problem with the human species is one of overpopulation. mankind used to "cull the herd" through warfare, therefore creating a balance. now war is considered to be the most "uncivilized" event imaginable by some. but logically speaking, a world war which would wipe out a good 1/3 of the population would actually render an ecological balance between man and his environment, thus leaving room for civilization to progress. so is war "uncivililized"? or is war a means of maintaining civilization?


----------



## aliveatnight (Jun 17, 2014)

Most people lack a respect for the natural world, and that is one of our biggest flaws as people. We are civilized in the fact that we can reason and gain knowledge, but we cannot forget that we are animals too. The only difference between us and them is the fact that we're selfish and take everything we want for ourselves. Humans are doomed as a species, all that's left is the matter of our existence becoming no more.


----------



## dale (Jun 17, 2014)

aliveatnight said:


> The only difference between us and them is the fact that we're selfish and take everything we want for ourselves.



that's nonsense. if they could? they'd do it, too.


----------



## shedpog329 (Jun 17, 2014)

I don't think its so much as exploring the ideas that reflect or categorize certain cultures or aspects of a pertaining culture.  Its easy to ask a group of people a simple question by observation and get a variety of answers, disagreements and dividing concerns.  The question itself is almost paradoxical. 

What "roots or shoots" the cause I'd imagine is not the idea of choosing which culture as dominant or prosperous. (The answer isn't that hard to understand, you see?)  I think that there was one post up there that said something along the lines that "every culture has some sort of skill, trade or resource to contribute) 

It's like Kevin's example of sharing in pre-school. Can information become a slap in the face or always and inevitably caste ourselves as hierarchical?  We have systems of governments, sometime sub systems and so on that regulate foreign affairs quite like this. However it can be difficult to give to the needy when your in need yourself. 

Its not uncommon for people to hide out or put a mask over beliefs or intellectual ideals out of fear that it might just be too much for the world.  I think any culture has a common welfare either of themselves, of others, or of both.  Its difficult to please everyone, almost impossible.

The question was a clever one, and a good one.  Not sure if I got everything I wanted to mention in there, but I think I got the point.


----------



## stormageddon (Jun 17, 2014)

Fascinating thread.



dale said:


> during the disintegration years? yes. multiculturism causes division, which leads to a breakdown of all things "civilized". rome was one of the greatest civilizations of history.
> the egyptian empire under the pharaohs? a great civilization. brutal? of course. the aztecs were a great civilization. brutal? most definitely. judging "brutality" by what WE
> know as "civilized" is really just plain arrogant. i see many people here judging "civilized" by some sort of "environmental" crusade relating to other species. but the fact is...the real problem with the human species is one of overpopulation. mankind used to "cull the herd" through warfare, therefore creating a balance. now war is considered to be the most "uncivilized" event imaginable by some. but logically speaking, a world war which would wipe out a good 1/3 of the population would actually render an ecological balance between man and his environment, thus leaving room for civilization to progress. so is war "uncivililized"? or is war a means of maintaining civilization?


There's civilisation, and there's civilisation that deserves a place on this planet. The former we have, the latter we ought to strive for. Otherwise, what's the point? Why are we here, why bother living at all if our existence is of so little value that "culling" seems a viable option?

If killing off a third of the human race is something that could lead to progress...well, I don't mean to quote from Harry Potter,
but progress for the sake of progress = 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 An ecological balance between man and his environment is perfectly possible if we start to act on what we know to be right, and take some responsibility for the future of the planet. We don't have to resort to murder, though it does seem our go-to response.

Humans can be awesome. I know this because I exist  We're just very fond of excuse-making.


----------



## dale (Jun 17, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> Fascinating thread.
> 
> 
> 
> An ecological balance between man and his environment is perfectly possible if we start to act on what we know to be right, and take some responsibility for the future of the planet.



no, it's not. we can see this in all animal species, when it comes to overpopulation. even utopian fantasy has it's limits.


----------



## stormageddon (Jun 17, 2014)

dale said:


> no, it's not. we can see this in all animal species, when it comes to overpopulation. even utopian fantasy has it's limits.


The difference being that animals don't have the power of reason. We do, and we have the brains and technology to back it up with action (contraception is a wonderful example, and infinitely preferable to mass cullings, though that's only my opinion).

I concede that we'll never have a perfect world, but it could be a hell of a lot better than it is now.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jun 17, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> I concede that we'll never have a perfect world, but it could be a hell of a lot better than it is now.



I completely agree.


----------



## dale (Jun 17, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> The difference being that animals don't have the power of reason. We do, and we have the brains and technology to back it up with action (contraception is a wonderful example, and infinitely preferable to mass cullings, though that's only my opinion).
> 
> I concede that we'll never have a perfect world, but it could be a hell of a lot better than it is now.



the problem with contraception? it tends to be used mostly by the more intelligent of the species. this creates an imbalance where the ill-bred
  dullard population is FAR out-breeding the more well-bred population. war is a superior mode of action in decreasing the population simply because it tends to  reduce the more inferior segments of society. (sorry if that sounds cold and even offensive, but i am a fan of nietzsche.)


----------



## stormageddon (Jun 17, 2014)

dale said:


> the problem with contraception? it tends to be used mostly by the more intelligent of the species. this creates an imbalance where the ill-bred
> dullard population is FAR out-breeding the more well-bred population. war is a superior mode of action in decreasing the population simply because it tends to  reduce the more inferior segments of society. (sorry if that sounds cold and even offensive, but i am a fan of nietzsche.)


Not the more intelligent, rather the wealthy, who also happen to be better educated. The wealth stays with the small number of wealthy people, while the poor keep growing in number, with fewer and fewer resources to go around. That's a flaw in the capitalist system, and could be solved by redistribution of wealth (I'm not talking communism, let's steer well clear of danger zones  ).

If that was feasible, it would have a knock on effect of reducing over-population - the poor could afford contraception  I think we're still too self-interested as a species for that to work out, but one day. Even a slight redistribution could have a significant impact on that and world poverty.

My point is simply that there are nearly always two options we can take to solve a problem - the easy, nasty way, vs the difficult, nice way. Here, it is war/culling vs wealth redistribution, respectively. Obviously this is an incredibly simplified version of I'm-not-quite-sure-what, but it illustrates the point: we can do "bad", and create "great" civilisations, or we can do "good", and create worthwhile civilisations.

Just my humble, eighteen-year-old take on things. Speaking of which, it's approximately five hours past my bedtime v.v

Dale, we all know the heart beneath the scary philosophy is a warm one  just as the heart beneath this projection of warm fuzziness is a bitter and angst-ridden one indeed.


----------



## dale (Jun 17, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> Dale, we all know the heart beneath the scary philosophy is a warm one  just as the heart beneath this projection of warm fuzziness is a bitter and angst-ridden one indeed.



lol. that's cute.


----------



## shedpog329 (Jun 17, 2014)

I'm only civilized when I'm drinking


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 18, 2014)

shedpog329 said:


> I'm only civilized when I'm drinking



How truly this mirrors the core meaning of being civilized or else we are always showing off burying our real propensities  and of course proving to be what we are innately not. Though we wear garments of civilization deep down we are brutal and ruthless humans.

- - - Updated - - -



shedpog329 said:


> I'm only civilized when I'm drinking



How truly this mirrors the core meaning of being civilized or else we are always showing off burying our real propensities  and of course proving to be what we are innately not. Though we wear garments of civilization deep down we are brutal and ruthless humans.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> That's a flaw in the capitalist system, and could be solved by redistribution of wealth (I'm not talking communism, let's steer well clear of danger zones  ).
> 
> Just my humble, eighteen-year-old take on things.



These two points are why I have no hope in the future of the United States. 

Do you even understand the reasoning behind a capitilist system, which is the result of a Republic? It's that everyone has the freedom to succeed to whatever extent they wish, unhindered by the government. If one doesn't succeed it isn't society's fault, the government's fault, or anyone else's...it's the individual's. This idea that successful individuals should make up for the broken gears in society, forced by the government no less, is insane.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 18, 2014)

*





 Originally Posted by stormageddon                     

                 That's a flaw in the capitalist system, and could be solved by redistribution of wealth (I'm not talking communism, let's steer well clear of danger zones  ).

 Just my humble, eighteen-year-old take on things.*


That would be like saying all writers should all be published, the problem with the your line of thinking is that we are all equal. Some writers here are much better than others, they will go far, others not as talented will not make it or do as well

For a writer to make it he has to be willing to work long hours to perfect their craft, spend even more time with failed ideas and story lines that did not work. Look at anyone who does a daily word count of a 1000 to 2000 words every day and then tell me that it is un-fair for them to succeed and do better than the person who does not work as hard. 

I am very fortunate, I do make a lot of money and I did it because I work long hours, invest my money and take lots of risks with it, that most never would, I also have been in business for more than 35 years for someone to claim I am the problem and that I should share my wealth with them is a complete insult to me. 

Punish those who are willing to work long hours, take risks, invest in learning and you will create a system that is full of failures.  My success does not take away from you, it is  not like there is a pie and that there is only so many slices to go around. Poor people help no one, they do not invest, they do not have the ability to help anyone else. I personally am tired of the BS line of Income In-equality, it is no more than Socialism or Communism dressed up in different words. I liken it to the laws of the south for separation "white only" or separate but equal .. Fancy names and labels do more harm than the honest truth, if you want to use the term "income in-equality" be straight forward and just call yourself a Communist at least it would be honest


----------



## dale (Jun 18, 2014)

on this subject, i'm gonna say there is a huge difference between free market capitalism, which is almost non-existent now, and crony-capitalism,
which is the direct result of government interference in the market. corporations such as monsanto have basically been enthroned by our government.
and policies such as the bush and obama "bail-outs" essentially render free market capitalism dead in the dirt. why? because now it's the ruling elite 
dictating who stands and who falls, regardless of hard work or quality product or good decisions.


----------



## shedpog329 (Jun 18, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> How truly this mirrors the core meaning of being civilized or else we are always showing off burying our real propensities and of course proving to be what we are innately not. Though we wear garments of civilization deep down we are brutal and ruthless humans.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...




so true. But I certainly don't drink and drive.  Or jay walk. And I'm always really friendly. I do like to wait 10 minutes till I get back in the pool, you know? Completely safe.  At the end of the day my only garments are garnishes.  Strictly umbrellas or limes.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

dale said:


> on this subject, i'm gonna say there is a huge difference between free market capitalism, which is almost non-existent now, and crony-capitalism,
> which is the direct result of government interference in the market. corporations such as monsanto have basically been enthroned by our government.
> and policies such as the bush and obama "bail-outs" essentially render free market capitalism dead in the dirt. why? because now it's the ruling elite
> dictating who stands and who falls, regardless of hard work or quality product or good decisions.



This is an excellent point. And I find it interesting how easy it is to break a system, and then convince everyone it was someone else's fault, or the system never worked to begin with, which is precisely what modern government does. The only individuals willing to believe it though, are the ones not willing to research and study how free-market capitilism or a republic works. Wait...how they were intended to work, and at one point did work. How does that sound?



Plasticweld said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a great example! However, I'd go a step further and say it'd be like an excellent writer becoming successful and then forced to pay over 75% of his income to the government, rather than allowing every writer to be published. 

The re-distribution of wealth was never intended for the uber-rich, though. It's aimed at the middle class, to further separate the upper class from the lower class. 

What I find hysterical, is seeing a politician promote something like re-distribution of wealth all the while taking over $600,000 a year from tax payers, flying his family around on vacations in a private jet, making millions in his own personal career, etcetera, and never once forfeiting any of that money to those he feels could benefit from such an idea. I mean, if one believes in re-distributing wealth, why not limit his family's income to $100,000 a year, and give the rest away? Hmmmmmmm...:disturbed:. Those in the know, I think you know who I'm talking about.


----------



## stormageddon (Jun 18, 2014)

Dear me. I feel you both extrapolated some on what I actually said. All I said was that capitalism has it's flaws - that's true of every type of economy. Never even implied I disagreed with it. Flesheater, of course I understand the ideology behind the system. But many things seem a nice idea until you witness the reality. The system is always open to abuse, and abused it has been - that's what I'm commenting on. Not the idea, the reality. 

There is a dark side to capitalism. That dark side does not need to be there. I'm not saying punish the rich etc - I thought that was fairly apparent. Or reward people who don't deserve rewarding. Again, I never so much as implied it. What I am saying is that we ought to help those without the means to help themselves, and I'm speaking on a global scale, given that I'm not American, and that America 
makes up just 300 odd million out of over 7 billion people on this planet 

That could be where the misunderstanding came in, I suppose. But take America as an example - 1% of the population possess 40% of the wealth. That isn't right, in my opinion. Particularly given the methods by which many of them will have come into that wealth (exploitation of overseas workers etc). I'm not saying I want to do a Robin Hood and give all their money to the poor, but when there are people sleeping rough, unable to afford food and healthcare, unable to find work because they might not be educated, they might be disabled etc - surely it seems an acceptable thing to suggest that they receive help from those with the means to give it? To clarify once more, I'm strictly speaking people who can't help themselves.

The help given being fishing rods over fish.

Plasticweld, that was a lovely example, but unfortunately had no relevance to what I was trying to say v.v also, again not being American, I don't have strong feelings towards communism. It's a nice idea, and a nasty reality - that's about as much as I have to say on it.

If either/any of you disagree with anything I've said, that's fine, but can we keep it calm? As in, not personal. Thanks  And sorry if I've phrased anything poorly and come across as rude - I'm writing this on the bus and it's hard to concentrate.

EDIT: also, none of this is meant to come across as anti-American or anything, if it seems it. If I sound like I'm being unpleasant in one way or another, please give me the benefit of the doubt - I really don't have time to go through and rephrase.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 18, 2014)

Civilization has narrowed our world perspective as with our superiority complex of feeling of a more advanced genre. In fact civilization broke our homes dividing us or humanity along racial, economical and cultural and religious lines. There is a gap between those who live in bit cities, go to theater, eat in big restaurants, travel in jets and consume imported commodities and earn fat salaries from those who live with deprivations and live in rural areas. 

Civilization spurs warring mindsets and stimulate conflicting interests and increase our resistance to brutality and inhuman demeanors. We are as far as gross domestic happiness is concerned living unhappier than our ancestors. Our life span increased and we have triumphed over many fatal diseases but our happiness level has gone down and stress level gone up. This has greatly to do with our predisposition for civilization.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> Dear me. I feel you both extrapolated some on what I actually said. All I said was that capitalism has it's flaws - that's true of every type of economy. Never even implied I disagreed with it. Flesheater, of course I understand the ideology behind the system. But many things seem a nice idea until you witness the reality. The system is always open to abuse, and abused it has been - that's what I'm commenting on. Not the idea, the reality.
> 
> There is a dark side to capitalism. That dark side does not need to be there. I'm not saying punish the rich etc - I thought that was fairly apparent. Or reward people who don't deserve rewarding. Again, I never so much as implied it. What I am saying is that we ought to help those without the means to help themselves, and I'm speaking on a global scale, given that I'm not American, and that America
> makes up just 300 odd million out of over 7 billion people on this planet
> ...



The idea of redistributing wealth is also something that seems okay, until you see the reality of it. There is no other way to put it. It's an idea of forced charity, that in the case of the United States, would be enforced by the IRS, which is in a way, communism.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> Civilization spurs warring mindsets and stimulate conflicting interests and increase our resistance to brutality and inhuman demeanors. We are as far as gross domestic happiness is concerned living unhappier than our ancestors. Our life span increased and we have triumphed over many fatal diseases but our happiness level has gone down and stress level gone up. This has greatly to do with our predisposition for civilization.




What leads you to assert that we're unhappier, or more stressed now? 

This planet, this idea of civilization--neither guarantee happiness. Both cause pain and unhappiness, because it's the reality of this thing called life.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 18, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> The idea of redistributing wealth is also something that seems okay, until you see the reality of it. There is no other way to put it. It's an idea of forced charity, that in the case of the United States, would be enforced by the IRS, which is in a way, communism.



in a way or may seem like communism but not communism in principle and practice. Redistribution of wealth can reduce the inequality level. This is not forced charity. This can be done through the implementation of the progressive tax mechanism that is in force in some of the European countiries.


----------



## dale (Jun 18, 2014)

the best a civilization can provide is security, or a sense of security. happiness? it can be found in the pits of hell, if you're the right individual.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 18, 2014)

dale said:


> the best a civilization can provide is security, or a sense of security. happiness? it can be found in the pits of hell, if you're the right individual.



To find security in civilization is like to feel safe in a building found on sand


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> in a way or may seem like communism but not communism in principle and practice. Redistribution of wealth can reduce the inequality level. This is not forced charity. This can be done through the implementation of the progressive tax mechanism that is in force in some of the European countiries.



Well, technically, any such tax in America would be unconstitutional (as most of our taxes are), and yet, if not paid, the individual(s) would be fined or imprisoned. Right...nothing like communism.


----------



## dither (Jun 18, 2014)

dale said:


> the best a civilization can provide is security, or a sense of security. happiness? it can be found in the pits of hell, if you're the right individual.



I find it all a bit daunting tbh.


----------



## dale (Jun 18, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> To find security in civilization is like to feel safe in a building found on sand



you think? do you really believe you'd be safer in a free-for-all anarchist environment with no structure except one based on
animal hunger and lust?


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

dale said:


> the best a civilization can provide is security, or a sense of security. happiness? it can be found in the pits of hell, if you're the right individual.



Well said. It's easy to feel unhappy when an idea of happiness is constructed on the basis of wealth and/or fame. Or how many meaningless things you've acquired.


----------



## stormageddon (Jun 18, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> The idea of redistributing wealth is also something that seems okay, until you see the reality of it. There is no other way to put it. It's an idea of forced charity, that in the case of the United States, would be enforced by the IRS, which is in a way, communism.


Actually, Blaze has me thinking - that's pretty much just another way of looking at tax. Only, a large proportion of income taxed goes towards the funding of terrible things. So, I was going to say I agreed with you on "forced charity" being lame, but in a roundabout way, I've realized I might be in favour of it. Assuming I agree with tax. I could well be an anarchist...worse yet, an anarcho-communist. Oh yes >

But this isn't me (intentionally) trying to talk politics. This is me saying, quite simply, that humans could be less terrible than we are (by choice), and it would not be much of a struggle. I am hereby exiting this thread (I hope - I'm easily sucked in), but would like to thank you all for a fascinating time, and to apologize for any irritation caused, whether through misunderstandings, poor phrasing, or my own stupidity.

So, thank you, and farewell~

["good riddance", they whisper as she leaves]


----------



## Kevin (Jun 18, 2014)

A civilization is just a tribe on a larger scale.  We have always organized. Even chimps organize. 
"Ignorant brute."
"Uncivilized brute."
"Be civil."


----------



## dale (Jun 18, 2014)

Kevin said:


> A civilization is just a tribe on a larger scale.  We have always organized. Even chimps organize.
> "


i was thinking along these lines earlier. many animals have hierarchal social systems which could be construed as primitive
forms of a "civilization" amongst themselves. bee hives and ant colonies come to mind.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> This is me saying, quite simply, that humans could be less terrible than we are (by choice), and it would not be much of a struggle.



I don't disagree with you there. However, I have to disagree when it comes to infringing on anyone's rights, by taking their choice away and forcing them by law to be charitable, regardless of class status or wealth. 

I'll drop this after I say this. 

Imagine your future. Let's say you spend 8 or 10 years studying, working towards a Bachelor's, Master's, whatever degree, accumulate roughly $100,000 of debt in student loans, and then graduate, landing a job in your career field that pays (we'll say for the fun of it) $125,000 a year. Now, by most standards, that's an exceptional amount of salary. More than enough to get by on. More than most households in America. 

Now, because you're making roughly $85,000 more a year than the average minimum wage worker (I'm using America here because I'm familiar with it) they're going to tax you at a higher rate. We'll say that higher rate is 70% (all taxes included). Now you're bringing home $37,500 a year. That seems fair. I mean, you're still making more than minimum wage workers, but now you're all equals. I mean...those people working for minimum wage probably don't have $100,000 in student loans that need paid off, but who cares? It's fair. 

Now, let's hope you don't have children, or ever need any of these social programs you're paying for, because...let's be honest here, your gross income is WAY more than necessary. So, too bad, you don't qualify for these programs. 

See the dangers in allowing corrupt men and women to play Robin Hood? Seem insane? Yes it does. Genocide seems insane, too. But it doesn't seem to stop tyrannical governments, does it? Just remember, anything's possible. ANYTHING.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 18, 2014)

If economic systematics is going to be injected into a discussion of civilizations, then it's important to distinguish between capitalism, which asserts that monetary investment conveys ownership, and free market, which says everyone has equally the opportunity to produce and sell. Capitalism has obvious places where it can conflict with the general commonweal, which call for some limitations, and is balanced by a degree of socialism, wherein society as a whole holds ownership. Free market and central planning balance each other, it's not possible to plan everything to the last detail, but a degree of shared community goals is often useful. Communism as practiced is not an economic system but a political one, which borrows socialist ideological coloring to cover it's absolutist nature.


----------



## dale (Jun 18, 2014)

ppsage said:


> socialism, wherein society as a whole holds ownership..



 there's no truth in this. socialism is basically where the banks own all and government officials are appointed to regulate and protect what they own. this may not be "textbook definition", but it's reality. socialism is the father of crony-capitalism.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

Yeah...private property doesn't even exist within socialism. Everything is there to better the established government, not the people. Only in a Republic do the people hold ownership.


----------



## dale (Jun 18, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Yeah...private property doesn't even exist within socialism. Everything is there to better the established government, not the people. Only in a Republic do the people hold ownership.



america is a socialist nation. it pretty much has been since FDR, although wilson had everything to do with staging it. we own nothing.
that little thing called a "property tax" renders everyone a "permanent tenant" with the government as your landlord. you don't pay the "rent"?
you will be evicted.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 18, 2014)

dale said:


> america is a socialist nation. it pretty much has been since FDR, although wilson had everything to do with staging it. we own nothing.
> that little thing called a "property tax" renders everyone a "permanent tenant" with the government as your landlord. you don't pay the "rent"?
> you will be evicted.



I'm all too well aware of Soviet U.S.A.


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 18, 2014)

Civilisation is merely a word to describe the result of the pursuit of social development that advances the condition of humanity. The flaw in the concept is that not all advanced societies are civilised. Unfortunately there are always winners and losers, the vast majority losing out to those oafish and strong enough to have acquired the earth’s natural resources by fair means and foul back in the mists of time.


Take the celebrations in the UK surrounding the Magna Carta’s 800[SUP]th[/SUP] birthday party (June 1215).  Most might think it the daddy of democracy, enshrining basic freedoms of the people. Unfortunately it is no such thing, just a reactionary Latin text written by a Council of land owning Barons, reinforcing their personal rights and privileges over a Francophile King.  It was only meant to be a temporary document, and anyway repudiated by the king almost straight away.


800 years of inherited wealth later we have Sir George Young a 6[SUP]th[/SUP] Baronet, Government Chief Whip to the House of Commons, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury dropping this little gem upon the homeless masses:

"Aren't they the people you step over when you are coming out of the opera?"

While we are at it, in the birthplace of democracy:  The UK is governed by, I don’t know, 30 cabinet ministers garnered from a party who could only muster 36% of the popular vote in 2010. A country of 62 million allow their destiny to be controlled by just 650 members of Parliament using a discredited first past the post electoral system, and who have to negotiate with a completely unelected House of Lords in order to bring almost any statute onto the books.

I could go on and extol the virtues of dictatorships but then you would know I’m not taking this seriously.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 18, 2014)

> free-for-all anarchist environment with no structure except one based on
> animal hunger and lust?


sounds like Woodstock.  Back then they called it sharing. Did I skip something? Music... there was some music, too.


----------



## shedpog329 (Jun 18, 2014)

Our tax money is what 24% SSI? 22% Medicare?  6% interest on debt?  Our debt is at a high 17.6 bill?
While the creation of new jobs is on the shift and poverty is rising, the temporary seems necessary, right?  I don't think
that our tax money is thrown out by random or ransom. Individual states have their own way of dealing with our taxes determined by
when we vote.  There's a difference between the individual greed and the greed of a society.

Where we place our vote shows a lot about where our communities are on a survey scale.  You can't hurdle one jump
before you hurdle the first.


----------



## Morkonan (Jun 18, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> ...My main concerns here are to check whether we are truly civilized and moral by the dictums we use for civilization?
> 
> ( This is not a political theme and I just felt like discussing it)



Who say's "Tribalism" is not "Civilized?" And,  where in the world does any sort of moral or ethical structure dictate  terms of "civilization?" Methinks you are personally defining this word  using a very broad and unsuitable brush. In fact, it's highly likely  that you should use a word other than "civilized" in your question,  since it's so ambiguous in this context.

Just to add: Primitive societies are fierce, anarchistic places, full of  murder and appalling violence. We tend to glorify Primitivism in some  cultures because we do not truly understand it. There is nothing "noble"  about a society or culture, simply because it is "primitive." They are  no more innocent than the most ruthless dictator or most corrupt  bank-fund manager. In our early history (10,000+ years ago, before the  Great Diaspora and immediately after), mankind killed each-other off  with regularity, waging unceasing conflict and coordinated murder. (Read  "Before the Dawn: Recovering the History of Our Ancestors by Wade.) 

Primitive peoples are just as destructive as their modern and more  "civilized" counterparts. In many instances, even moreso. They do not  usually see the long-term consequences of their actions and, due to the  fragility of their own way of life, they can't be bothered with them,  even if they could. Easter Island, many other Pacific Islands, many  regions in Eurasia where early modern man found themselves, the  Americas, Eastern Europe, Norther Europe, even the British Isles,  everywhere that primitive and semi-primitive man found themselves, they  exploited and usurped nature with little regard for the consequences,  due to their ignorance. But, it's also likely that had they known the  impact they would have on the environment and native species, they would  have continued.

It hasn't been until the past century that we've taken proactive  measures to limit how much damage we do, not only to our environment,  but to each other. Keep in mind - Unrestricted Warfare was the norm for  much of the world until the ramifications of that meant that it would  produce results that hurt both sides. Unrestricted Warfare was practiced  with enthusiasm up until recent times, when economic exploitation, due  to technological and cultural achievements, made it more favorable.

In short - You are now living in the most collectively "moral" and  "ethical" society that has ever existed on Earth, as we currently judge  such things. But, it may be that other cultures and societies had their  own way of judging those qualities, don't you think? Still, by the  broadest possible measure, we are living in a moral and ethical "Golden  Age," comparatively speaking.


----------



## Morkonan (Jun 18, 2014)

(Sorry, dbl post)


----------



## Kevin (Jun 18, 2014)

The deforestation of the Americas did not begin until after the arrival of the colonials.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 19, 2014)

In fact I hear often from posters a lot about the distinction between civilization and civilized. I agree with all literally. But the meaning beyond the word or it's figurative nuance  is something different than the literal one. Of course the word civilized stands for being ethically inclined, cultured or urbane but the  message I am putting forth : civilized means  those living in modern cities enjoying all amenities who think they are superior to those who live in tribal communities, eat roots and shoots and live coarse lifestyles.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact I hear often from posters a lot about the distinction between civilization and civilized. I agree with all literally. But the meaning beyond the word or it's figurative nuance  is something different than the literal one. Of course the word civilized stands for being ethically inclined, cultured or urbane but the  message I am putting forth : civilized means  those living in modern cities enjoying all amenities who think they are superior to those who live in tribal communities, eat roots and shoots and live coarse lifestyles.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 19, 2014)

Kevin said:


> The deforestation of the Americas did not begin until after the arrival of the colonials.



True by so called civilized people who deserted the Americas.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 19, 2014)

Kevin said:


> The deforestation of the Americas did not begin until after the arrival of the colonials.



That being said there is now more forested land today than there was in the early 1800s


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 19, 2014)

Plasticweld said:


> That being said there is now more forested land today than there was in the early 1800s



I am unsure whetter this is an evidentially statiscal fact. I do not in the Americas but in most Asian countries  growing urbanization is endangering wild species and deforestation is increasing.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 19, 2014)

I've been to the 're-forested areas', 2nd or third growth tree-shrubs that can only be described as thicket. The only lumber harvested there now are select cuts: Cedar (which is a weed-tree that colonizes the resultant marsh). The thicket consists of baseball-bat sized diameter trunks, tightly packed together, impassible without a tank or a chainsaw. That was in the Midwest, 70 years after the last loggers' clear-cut . My friends from Mexico tell me much of their wilderness is now the same. That land will never grow large trees again. The final stage of use in colder climes is something called 'moors'. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html


----------



## dale (Jun 19, 2014)

moors are cool. that's where the hound of the baskervilles hangs out.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 19, 2014)

dale said:


> america is a socialist nation. it pretty much has been since FDR, although wilson had everything to do with staging it. we own nothing.
> that little thing called a "property tax" renders everyone a "permanent tenant" with the government as your landlord. you don't pay the "rent"?
> you will be evicted.



America is not a socialist country but some European countries are.


----------



## dale (Jun 19, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> America is not a socialist country but some European countries are.



america is a socialist country. the ruling elite deny it because they recognize the majority of the population still clings to the belief
that socialism is "anti-american". but in practice, america is very much socialist.


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 19, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> America is not a socialist country but some European countries are.



As Dale stated, America is very socialist. 

This is right from my paystub (which these taxes take up roughly 19% of my gross income every two weeks):

Federal Income Tax
Social Security Tax
Medicare Tax
State Income Tax
Township Income Tax
Township Local Service Tax
SUI/SDI Tax

Yeah...a Republic, which the United States' constitution declared this country, wouldn't have these taxes. Nor would it have the ever growing amount of social programs we now have. It also wouldn't adopt a socialist healthcare system if it weren't a socialist nation. 

Democracy is socialism. When majority rules, it's socialism.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 20, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> As Dale stated, America is very socialist.
> 
> This is right from my paystub (which these taxes take up roughly 19% of my gross income every two weeks):
> 
> ...



I do not know much about the United States and what I know or assume comes from what I read about it through articles written by some of the latest economists, journalists  like Paul Krugman, Noam Chomsky, Amartya Sen, Thomas Friedman. That America has democracy is debatable and if it has the public consensus for any great political decisions America would not have bombed Iraq and America did not have to face one of the biggest failures in the Vietnam wars and both led to great recessions in America. Public opinions are manufactured and consensuses are bought and the general public are in the dark. Most election campaigns are financed by big corporations . 
(I do not know whether such political discussions are allowed in a creative writing forum like this if not I apologize)


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> I do not know much about the United States and what I know or assume comes from what I read about it through articles written by some of the latest economists, journalists  like Paul Krugman, Noam Chomsky, Amartya Sen, Thomas Friedman. That America has democracy is debatable and if it has the public consensus for any great political decisions America would not have bombed Iraq and America did not have to face one of the biggest failures in the Vietnam wars and both led to great recessions in America. Public opinions are manufactured and consensuses are bought and the general public are in the dark. Most election campaigns are financed by big corporations .
> (I do not know whether such political discussions are allowed in a creative writing forum like this if not I apologize)



democracy has always been a ruse.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 20, 2014)

dale said:


> democracy has always been a ruse.



Here I agree with you 100%


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 20, 2014)

Can't figure out this negative vibe about socialism.  What's wrong with socialism?  To tell the truth, in my opinion, if we could just get the principles of communism to work and turn theory into practice it would be the perfect answer to the world's problems.  The only fly in the ointment is the selfish gene in our make up (There must be one surely!). Let's face it, we are prisoners of our own superstitious past.  Burdened with religion, tribalism, and exploitative capitalism this world is always going to be a sad and desperate place.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 20, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Can't figure out this negative vibe about socialism.  What's wrong with socialism?  To tell the truth, in my opinion, if we could just get the principles of communism to work and turn theory into practice it would be the perfect answer to the world's problems.  The only fly in the ointment is the selfish gene in our make up (There must be one surely!). Let's face it, we are prisoners of our own superstitious past.  Burdened with religion, tribalism, and exploitative capitalism this world is always going to be a sad and desperate place.



I agree with you socialism can cure the malady of the growing inequality in the world.

I like this quote beyond words:

I've inherited my  father's belief that there is much beauty in walking, in gazing upon  the ghosts of our lost martyrs, in dreaming about the big house in the  next valley where we will be accorded a warm and silver welcome and  ushered into a heaven of affection. But the beauty is in the walking. We  are betrayed by destinations.  *Gwyn Thomas*


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 20, 2014)

dale said:


> you think? do you really believe you'd be safer in a free-for-all anarchist environment with no structure except one based on
> animal hunger and lust?



I think we are much lustier and consume unethically causing imbalances and depleting resources and animals do not destroy natural forts where all can grow and do not upset ecosystems.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 20, 2014)

Kevin said:


> A civilization is just a tribe on a larger scale.  We have always organized. Even chimps organize.
> "Ignorant brute."
> "Uncivilized brute."
> "Be civil."



Chimps organize better and more  humane and urbane if the words correctly put


----------



## FleshEater (Jun 20, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Can't figure out this negative vibe about socialism. What's wrong with socialism? To tell the truth, in my opinion, if we could just get the principles of communism to work and turn theory into practice it would be the perfect answer to the world's problems. The only fly in the ointment is the selfish gene in our make up (There must be one surely!). Let's face it, we are prisoners of our own superstitious past. Burdened with religion, tribalism, and exploitative capitalism this world is always going to be a sad and desperate place.



Communism has always been perfection, in theory, and has never worked, nor will work, for the one reason you mentioned: selfishness.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 20, 2014)

FleshEater said:


> Communism has always been perfection, in theory, and has never worked, nor will work, for the one reason you mentioned: selfishness.



So has capitalism. Capitalism has got the majority,i.e. 99 % poorer and 1 % is depleting most of the natural resorces. Our opinios are manufactured by a few medias which have also been financed by capitalists. Even CNN and some other news medias have historically been mouthpieces of the few wallstreeters. I am not supporting communism however.


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> So has capitalism. Capitalism has got the majority,i.e. 99 % poorer and 1 % is depleting most of the natural resorces. Our opinios are manufactured by a few medias which have also been financed by capitalists. Even CNN and some other news medias have historically been mouthpieces of the few wallstreeters. I am not supporting communism however.



there is no true capitalism today. only crony-capitalism. socialism institutes crony-capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -



blazeofglory said:


> I think we are much lustier and consume unethically causing imbalances and depleting resources and animals do not destroy natural forts where all can grow and do not upset ecosystems.


only because they can't.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 20, 2014)

> only because they can't.


We can't either. At least, in the scale of real time, not for very long. But I've had mine, so there.


----------



## Reject (Jun 20, 2014)

Living in the country that invented the language, I find the use of a "z" instead of an "s" most uncivilised.  



I'll get me coat!


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 20, 2014)

dale said:


> there is no true capitalism today.



Don't be silly, of course there is..... and it can, has brought down governments, even societies.  Socialism is just a temporary brake the proles, occasionally successfully, apply to the absolute greed of the owners of the means of production, to even out the peaks and troughs, without which we would otherwise end up with economic multi national dictatorships.  And yes, sometimes the proles will lose and all that remains is for the unbridled avarice of the wealthy to cull, suicidally, themselves, but in a way that provides an unpleasant world of hurt for all


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Don't be silly, of course there is..... and it can, has brought down governments, even societies.  Socialism is just a temporary brake the proles, occasionally successfully, apply to the absolute greed of the owners of the means of production, to even out the peaks and troughs, without which we would otherwise end up with economic multi national dictatorships.  And yes, sometimes the proles will lose and all that remains is for the unbridled avarice of the wealthy to cull, suicidally, these same idiots, but in a way that provides an unpleasant world of hurt for all



what we have today is cronyism, not capitalism. capitalism was like the worm that morphed into this fanged and dirty moth via the cocoon of socialism.


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 20, 2014)

dale said:


> what we have today is cronyism, not capitalism. capitalism was like the worm that morphed into this fanged and dirty moth via the cocoon of socialism.



Look, I had to google this, sorry, but it seems the top 10 percent of US wealthy control 75% of available wealth.  It would appear that the bottom 90% are to blame for this situation then...I don't know, ragged trousered philanthropists abound even in the US.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 20, 2014)

The survival of the fittest means not the guy who markets the best widget, but the one who can squeeze out the other widget makers. He's the smartest. Both tactics are capitalism. The second one is the fittest.


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Look, I had to google this, sorry, but it seems the top 10 percent of US wealthy control 75% of available wealth.  It would appear that the bottom 90% are to blame for this situation then...I don't know, ragged trousered philanthropists abound even in the US.



 then you see...there's no real capitalism. that's cronyism. the top 10% control the capital. cronyism.


----------



## Blade (Jun 20, 2014)

Reject said:


> Living in the country that invented the language, I find the use of a "z" instead of an "s" most uncivilised.



People are just too lasy to do their homework.:distress:


----------



## Ariel (Jun 20, 2014)

In reply to the original question: fundamentally?  No, not so much as that we as a species are fundamentally discordant and divisive.

Civilization requires that people work together.  It won't be perfect and there will be differences as to the definition of civilized from group to group which can/has/does lead to conflict.  However, I believe that conflict is good for our mental well-being.  

Violence is a natural part of the human psyche. Violence feels good.  If we aren't making someone the enemy to fight then we'll make ourselves the enemy.


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 20, 2014)

dale said:


> then you see...there's no real capitalism. that's cronyism. the top 10% control the capital. cronyism.



No, the top 10% control the bottom 90% who produce the wealth.  It's ridiculous to suggest they circulate the wealth round robin style between themselves.  They couldn't generate it without an exploited 90%.  You suggested that socialism was the cocoon of capitalist cronyism.  That capitalists don't seek to dominate other capitalists is not due to a premeditated old boy's country club type cartel, it's because they can't.....plain and simple.  What usually stops them is, in the US, anti-trust legislation enacted by the state on behalf of it's consumer citizens i.e. the socialist body, working against corporations rather than cocooning them.


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> No, the top 10% control the bottom 90% who produce the wealth.  It's ridiculous to suggest they circulate the wealth round robin style between themselves.  They couldn't generate it without an exploited 90%.  You suggested that socialism was the cocoon of capitalist cronyism.  That capitalists don't seek to dominate other capitalists is not due to a premeditated old boy's country club type cartel, it's because they can't.....plain and simple.  What usually stops them is, in the US, anti-trust legislation enacted by the state on behalf of it's consumer citizens i.e. the socialist body, working against corporations rather than cocooning them.



lol. are you serious? you really believe that? check out the federal reserve. check out how many monsanto execs the obama admin has appointed as power players in the government. socialism has enthroned cronyism as the new king.


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 20, 2014)

I give in...back to fiction related matters


----------



## Kevin (Jun 20, 2014)

talking anti-trust, history of unions and wages are verboten in this country. Unless you want a label.


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

Kevin said:


> talking anti-trust, history of unions and wages are verboten in this country. Unless you want a label.



unions were great under the control of the mafia. it took a greater criminal enterprise to usurp the unions...that being the democratic party...to finally
make them worthless and obsolete.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 20, 2014)

Civilization is discordant with nature.


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

since this thread has spun off course anyway...i sometimes wonder if what we call "serial killers" or "psychopaths" are actually just
normal men "uncivilized" or refusing to be "civilized". i think and wonder sometimes if the inherent nature of man boils down to killing and lust
and greed. and that what we call "civilization" is really little more than flimsy construct.


----------



## aj47 (Jun 20, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> I think we are much lustier and consume unethically causing imbalances and depleting resources and animals do not destroy natural forts where all can grow and do not upset ecosystems.



Um, what about situations where organisms are introduced into biomes where they didn't originate. There are a plenitude of examples of these plants and animals wreaking havoc with their new biomes. Though humans did introduce them, the humans are not the agents of destruction in these situations.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jun 20, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> I am civilized just because I wear modern the fabrics that distinguish from those who still live in caves and tribal communities. I am civilized just because I eat different foods and  live in modern buildings and use technical gadgets, can go to theaters, can elect representatives through votes, obey civil laws and pay taxes, enter into matrimonial relationships through the institutions of marriage and vow before the God of fire to live together and not engage in distrust and infidelity.
> My sense of civilization is to distinguish myself from a world of barbarisms, ancient communities and those who live in jungles, go naked, feed on  roots and shoots and never engage in matrimonial ties.
> I am fencing myself from the rest of species through big buildings, sophisticated language devices, volumes of books and advancement of scientific materials.
> Is civilization idea of something that is ethically correct? The idea of social, economic and moral justice  is taken into consideration when we deplete some of the natural resources we exploit regardless of the consequences of our derided acts and leading them to a state of up-rootedness in their own lands like the way we made inroads into the Americas and colonized Africa and Asia?
> ...



Yeah, that seems about right. Civilization is the belief in the power of definitions. It follows, then, that the first act of Civilization is to define "civilization" as something apart from nature. The interesting thing is, it's not so much a discordant/divisive concept, as it is a nihilistic/vacuous one.

From a precisely technical standpoint, even "civilization" can not escape being a part of nature. The only reason it does, however, is because we as men and mankind have defined civilization to be otherwise. The discordant and divisive part of this stems from the tension between civilization as man has defined it, and "civilization" as recognized from within the overall system of nature.

Of course, it is precisely this tension that drives the engines of economic growth, causes the growth of cities, commerce, warfare, invention, and industry. In a sense, then, you could say that all civilization rests upon a foundation of one original, initial deceit. _*This is the "lie" that is the fruit of knowledge, without which, nothing of our modern selves can be justified.*_

In other words, the most fundamental property required for a species to invent civilization, is the ability of that species to deceive itself! Do we have a "head 'asplode" smiley? Just wondering.


----------



## dale (Jun 20, 2014)

WechtleinUns said:


> Yeah, that seems about right. Civilization is the belief in the power of definitions. It follows, then, that the first act of Civilization is to define "civilization" as something apart from nature. The interesting thing is, it's not so much a discordant/divisive concept, as it is a nihilistic/vacuous one.
> 
> From a precisely technical standpoint, even "civilization" can not escape being a part of nature. The only reason it does, however, is because we as men and mankind have defined civilization to be otherwise. The discordant and divisive part of this stems from the tension between civilization as man has defined it, and "civilization" as recognized from within the overall system of nature.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pandora (Jun 21, 2014)

I just want to add when I get the alerts emailed to me for new posts in this thread it says "Is civilization a disco . . ." makes me smile each time :-D

that's all I got.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 21, 2014)

> the inherent nature of man boils down to killing and lust
> and greed. and that what we call "civilization" is really little more than flimsy construct.


It seems to vary depending on place or culture. After the Japan tsunami, there was little or no violence, looting etc., whereas a single night's power outage in N.Y. C. resulted in the


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 21, 2014)

WechtleinUns said:


> Yeah, that seems about right. Civilization is the belief in the power of definitions. It follows, then, that the first act of Civilization is to define "civilization" as something apart from nature. The interesting thing is, it's not so much a discordant/divisive concept, as it is a nihilistic/vacuous one.
> 
> From a precisely technical standpoint, even "civilization" can not escape being a part of nature. The only reason it does, however, is because we as men and mankind have defined civilization to be otherwise. The discordant and divisive part of this stems from the tension between civilization as man has defined it, and "civilization" as recognized from within the overall system of nature.
> 
> ...



The tension between civilization is and barbarism is  civilization keeps us in skyscrapers and gives us lots of wine to drink, have sex  untimely and control births and finally have control over the rest of those weaklings through colonization or a better term brutalization.


----------



## dale (Jun 21, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> The tension between civilization is and barbarism is  civilization keeps us in skyscrapers and gives us lots of wine to drink, have sex  untimely and control births and finally have control over the rest of those weaklings through colonization or a better term brutalization.



and beer, too.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 21, 2014)

Pandora said:


> I just want to add when I get the alerts emailed to me for new posts in this thread it says "Is civilization a disco . . ." makes me smile each time :-D
> 
> that's all I got.



Interesting! Something paradoxically.  Civilization is a disco at which few performs and the rest dully participates.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 21, 2014)

Most societies which were not civilizations still had beer-like beverages. Just not made to store grain.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jun 21, 2014)

Don't forget the Schnitzel!

BIER... BIER... SCHNITZEL... JAH...


----------



## dale (Jun 21, 2014)

lol. beer is the glue that holds us all together. without it? civilization wouldn't even exist. we'd all hate eachother.


----------



## Kepharel (Jun 21, 2014)

Beer....makes us say the most inappropriate things, brings about a lack of empathy for the desperate times of others, when all we need is a civilised response what do we get instead? Some folks don't even need the beer.


----------



## aj47 (Jun 21, 2014)

dale said:


> since this thread has spun off course anyway...i sometimes wonder if what we call "serial killers" or "psychopaths" are actually just
> normal men "uncivilized" or refusing to be "civilized". i think and wonder sometimes if the inherent nature of man boils down to killing and lust
> and greed. and that what we call "civilization" is really little more than flimsy construct.



I dunno.  Put these men out in the "wild" and they wouldn't make it.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 21, 2014)

dale said:


> lol. beer is the glue that holds us all together. without it? civilization wouldn't even exist. we'd all hate eachother.


Beer is the invention of civilization and though it holds together for a while it often results in violent and destructive combats of the drinkers. It has harmed people of the countries that mimic so called civilizations.  It dulls our senses and deters our awareness of understanding one another.


----------



## dale (Jun 21, 2014)

blazeofglory said:


> Beer is the invention of civilization and though it holds together for a while it often results in violent and destructive combats of the drinkers. It has harmed people of the countries that mimic so called civilizations.  It dulls our senses and deters our awareness of understanding one another.



seriously?


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jun 21, 2014)

I also think there's a lot of unjustified cynicism with respect to civilization. The Beer and the Schnitzel aside, there seems to be some kind of nostalgic fondness for the roots of nature. Supposedly, everything was all hunky dory and flower power before man had to come in and wreck it with his "civilization".

But that doesn't really make too much sense. It has been said that we are bringing about a 4th great extinction on the planet. That means that 3 great extinctions weren't our fault. If mother nature could be so callous as to bring a giant meteor down on the yucatan, then I hardly think Mankind can be completely to blame.

Besides, it's not like being a grunting ape is inherently better than being a cultured psycopath, right? Right?

...guys? Hello?


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 21, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Beer.... folks don't even need the beer.


we ca be happy without pints of beer. Happiness is our nature and beer is an artificial stimulant.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 22, 2014)

> I dunno.  Put these men out in the "wild" and they wouldn't make it.


 In a group I tend to think that they would cause the invention of democracy. "Who says we add Glug to the cooking pot? All those in favor grunt aye."


----------



## Pandora (Jun 22, 2014)

How 'bout that naked out in the wild TV show, what is up with that?! Tough to feel vulnerable.  _"As his body became more and more defenseless, so his means of offense became steadily more frightful."_   2001 A Space Odyssey


----------



## Kevin (Jun 22, 2014)

Only watched two partials... the whimpering men I could not stand watching. I mean, Dude, you have no choice, now. Quit with the sniveling. Annnd... you're on television, fer... everyone can see. And the women, there they were stuck with these... bad partners... *thump*  into _the cooking pot... now that's making yourself useful. _


----------



## WechtleinUns (Jun 22, 2014)

_"As his body became more and more defenseless, so his means of offense became steadily more frightful."

_Interesting sentiment. This may be something like what's happening with America Today. As a nation, we're a huge mega-industrialized powerhouse, the size of a continent. In terms of technological capacity, there is really no way any other nation on earth could even think about conquering us or putting us under. But we still see a strange social psychosis, with everyone sort of becoming more and more afraid.

The government seems to be encouraging the fear of "terrorism" somewhat, or at least buying into it. Don't get me wrong, insurgents in Iraq can be pretty devastating. But there's no real way Al Qaida or anyone else could invade the United States.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 23, 2014)

The world is getting more and more divided along economic, social and cultural lines. America is indeed a powerful nation and of course it has a great amount of land and vast resources and it has the potential for doing scientific researches and invention if only the people of America can enjoy freedom. Freedom is in the speech of the leaders but any time they will be forced to fight in Afganistan or to station arm in some other nations.


----------



## helium (Jun 23, 2014)

No. But new and better powers are needed:?


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 23, 2014)

helium said:


> No. But new and better powers are needed:?



More powers with the US lead to predominance and the rest of the world will be subdued. Let some superpowers lose so that evenness and equality prevail.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 24, 2014)

dale said:


> you think? do you really believe you'd be safer in a free-for-all anarchist environment with no structure except one based on
> animal hunger and lust?



In fact if there was no civilization and no today's technological gadgets or too much formalized lifestyles or superstructure the world would have been a better place to live in.


----------



## aj47 (Jun 24, 2014)

Agriculture.  It is the innovation that "made" civilization.  Herding animals and planting grains and stuff.  That gave an unprecedented control over the environment for instead of having to chase food down or scour an area for suitable botanicals, they were all *right there* within reach.  No need to be nomadic wanderers.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 25, 2014)

Astro, your idea that civilization has given us the comfort of getting everything  effortlessly is laudable and noteworthy and yes now I am living in a comfy building and fencing myself by a big compound  wall. Everything  inside is secured. I have a granary that feeds me and my family when the rest  of my neighbors starve. The fruits in my orchard rot when the child in the next building is crying for want of foods and drinks. I have so many pairs of coats, jackets whereas the old men in my neighborhoods shiver with cold and die from pneumonia. I have a private ground inside my compound to play  a variety of sports while my brethren outside have no small piece of land to till and grow crops.  I move by a car but the old man in my neighborhood must walk for hours to go to the district   hospital. A fatherless  boy is taking care of his sick mother and has to teach his autistic sister math's tables. He has no money to buy medicines for his mother. Suddenly he thinks up something morally debasing to plunder a house for money since the hospital administration has warned that his mother would die tonight if he fails to buy  the medicines in 24 hours. There are skyscrapers in his neighborhood but his small bamboo cottage leaks when it rains. Winter approaches with cold nails to scratch his skin.    
Now who benefits from  the civilization? Only those who are crafty and muscular can from it. The cleaver rich force politically, morally and  threateningly to work for them.


----------



## aj47 (Jun 26, 2014)

These troubles are of our making and could be solved if we, as a group, chose to solve them.  We do not.


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 27, 2014)

astroannie said:


> These troubles are of our making and could be solved if we, as a group, chose to solve them.  We do not.



Astro, you are true, absolutely true. But we are not programmed to think along these lines. We are conditioned to be  more and more competitive, violent and of course ruthless focused on our own achievement at the expense of our fellow beings. We are happy to trigger deforestation, to empty the sea of aquatic animals and pollute the atmosphere by emitting toxic gases in the name of industrialization and urbanization.

- - - Updated - - -



astroannie said:


> These troubles are of our making and could be solved if we, as a group, chose to solve them.  We do not.



Astro, you are true, absolutely true. But we are not programmed to think along these lines. We are conditioned to be  more and more competitive, violent and of course ruthless focused on our own achievement at the expense of our fellow beings. We are happy to trigger deforestation, to empty the sea of aquatic animals and pollute the atmosphere by emitting toxic gases in the name of industrialization and urbanization.


----------



## aj47 (Jun 27, 2014)

Actually, no.  For example, fishers are concerned with sustainability of the industry by not overfishing. Also, there is increasing awareness of other unsustainable practices and industry is taking steps. The real issue is what economists call "externalities" which are costs not borne by the entities who incur them.  It is up to society, via representative government,  to figure out how to have those costs "internalized".   This is happening more as we "progress.


----------



## Gofa (Jun 27, 2014)

We have civilised sheep chickens cows etc etc civilised animals are kept for a purpose. Has mankind been civilised in a similar manner ? 
What if we are not the top of the food chain :clown:
PS put 50 chimps in a room and 50 humans in another.  30 minutes later you will know the difference between civilised and uncivilised


----------



## blazeofglory (Jun 27, 2014)

astroannie said:


> Actually, no.  For example, fishers are concerned with sustainability of the industry by not overfishing. Also, there is increasing awareness of other unsustainable practices and industry is taking steps. The real issue is what economists call "externalities" which are costs not borne by the entities who incur them.  It is up to society, via representative government,  to figure out how to have those costs "internalized".   This is happening more as we "progress.



Awareness is there to some extent in some developed countries and yes they conserve floras and faunas. But what is being done by a few   people is not enough to stop all that is happening. Developing countries like China and India are triggering polluting activities. You know the Himalayas are melting and the repercussion is the rivers that originate at the Himalayas are drying out and tens of thousands of farmers and peasants are being uprooted. Global warning is another great issue that demands great concerns. America has and of course is even now, polluted the earth more than any other countries and even China and India combined are outpaced in polluting the earth by America even if it is seemingly taking concerns for it. Many forests will be depleted with wild species if  our unethical behaviors of polluting the planet goes unchecked for a few more decades. The growing use of fossil fuels now even in developing countries is shortening the lifespan of our planet. Of course there is room for optimism and the only hope can be optimum activism. But there are so many happenings now that are worsening our environments.  Acid rains is a term we have heard so many times and seems to have lost the shine by now but this is true acid rains can damage the crops of our farmers and imagine when the earth will be full of ashes and only ashes like MC Carthy's the Road.


----------

