Civilization - good or bad for mankind?

[Rodion Romanovich]

I'm rather fond of modern civilisation as it means I am likely to die peacefully in my bed at the age of eighty rather than miserably in a field of a preventable disease at thirty.

Early Egyptian civilizations had almost no health care skills at all when the historically documented methods are judged after modern knowledge standards. Still, many Egyptians lived up to 100 years. Furthermore, consider that civilization has created many of the diseases that have killed many people throughout history. For each medicine developed, three new diseases evolve. While you might think it's an improvement to survive pneumonia today, consider that pneumonia hardly existed before the ancient and Medieval periods, and when flocks were isolated such diseases didn't spread or mutate as quickly, because there were less subjects and smaller chance of spread between groups. We haven't made much of a progress in medicine at all in terms relative to ourselves, mostly only relative to the diseases.

By the way, art has been a defining attribute of human beings from pre-history. Some would argue that it was the defining attribute.

Art and science are, and have always been, an expression of individuals, not of civilization - in fact civilization has always worked against art and science, to control people's minds. It's almost impossible to make a living as an artist or scientist in today's society for instance. Looking back at history and looking at the facts and not on the popular prejudice, scientists and artists have almost always had trouble surviving the regimes and the tyrannic civilization.

Your views on sex and relationships are also rather bizarre.

Feel free to elaborate

[Banquo's Ghost]

Early Egyptian civilizations had almost no health care skills at all when the historically documented methods are judged after modern knowledge standards. Still, many Egyptians lived up to 100 years. Furthermore, consider that civilization has created many of the diseases that have killed many people throughout history. For each medicine developed, three new diseases evolve. While you might think it's an improvement to survive pneumonia today, consider that pneumonia hardly existed before the ancient and Medieval periods, and when flocks were isolated such diseases didn't spread or mutate as quickly, because there were less subjects and smaller chance of spread between groups. We haven't made much of a progress in medicine at all in terms relative to ourselves, mostly only relative to the diseases.

I'm afraid this is largely nonsense. Do some reading and you will find the majority of ancient human beings died quite early from disease, burnout or warfare. The ancient Egyptians had quite an advanced medical technology for the time, but life was still brutish and hard for most people. Have a look at the studies of those few pre-civilisation societies that are left. Average life expectancy is around forty.

Art and science are, and have always been, an expression of individuals, not of civilization - in fact civilization has always worked against art and science, to control people's minds. It's almost impossible to make a living as an artist or scientist in today's society for instance. Looking back at history and looking at the facts and not on the popular prejudice, scientists and artists have almost always had trouble surviving the regimes and the tyrannic civilization.

Again, very wrong. Modern western civilisation is very supportive of artists - no longer do they need rich patrons and therefore to be reasonably good. The place is swarming with mediocre talents nowadays, usually supported on benefits by my taxes. And science is a respected and reasonably well-paid profession. Both professions may have had a hard time in the past, but at least civilisation has afforded them the privilege of time to think and create. Do you really think Aristotle or Michelangelo would have achieved anything if they had to live their lives scouring the mountains for berries and decomposing mammoth?

Feel free to elaborate

OK, I'll bite.

- women started wearing clothes instead of being naked
- sex is rare and when it comes it's dangerous - most people in civilization don't get nearly as much sex as they pretend to get. Most people in civilization when they get sex, do it with someone they don't like, but with that person because he/she was easiest to catch. It's cultural taboo and culturally shameful to not get much sex, so people are too afraid to admit to themselves or others that they don't get what they want, and when they finally get some, they enter a form of denial where they pretend that they are happy with what civilization gives. But in today's civilization, even if everyone could miraculously get as much sex as they wanted, life wouldn't be good, because civilization has led to the evolution of more and more STDs, so that people can hardly have sex without risking to get diseases such as HIV or gonorrhea or syphilis. Today we are dressed in plastic bags called condoms, covering our *****, but tomorrow we'll need plastic bags covering more parts of our body. Soon we'll have sex dressed up in all-body-covering rubber sacks. The STDs have due to oral sex trends spread to mouths too, so it's dangerous to kiss a woman too, unless you want some other guy's ***** diseases in your mouth.

Why is women wearing clothes a downside of civilisation? What about naked men?

Most civilised people have sex with someone they don't like? Nonsense. Most people I know have sex within a loving relationship - I love my wife, and I didn't choose her because she was easy to catch. You have a deeply disturbed view of relationships if you think any of what you wrote is normal. Civilisation has developed moral rules for relationships that promote stable families and economic arrangments that benefit all sides. Women particularly have benefitted by protection from laws that protect them from exploitation, rape and being treated as property. Took a long time, I agree, but it would never have happened in a palaeolithic grouping.

Again, with the STD argument. First of all, if you have a stable loving relationship, your exposure to these diseases is greatly reduced. These diseases may have not been as prevalent in prehistory (we don't know) but that would be mainly due to very low population densities. So if you're arguing that the high populations of civilised societies promote disease you may have a point to debate. But you are toying with misogyny again with the kissing statement - why do you fear women so much?