Civilization - good or bad for mankind?

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, a debater.

We can't return, that's the sad part.

Well, the "state of nature" from the philosophies of those old English/Frenchmen does not make for any real pre-history "humans." Before we are human, we were apes, and we all know most apes have some sort of "society" developed already.

Where is this state of nature?

Besides, if we are to subscribe to Hobbes, it will simply be War against All, far worse than civilization; then, if we are to subscribe Rousseau, then we'll be blank sheets, without this awareness and unable to debate the merits of civilization together.

If we tried to go back now, yes. That's not the point of the post. The point is to realize the civilization does not make good things, but the struggle against civilization and corrupt authorities has given us a few good things in a system which is flawed and sick in it's foundations. The struggle for rationality, science and art in a world that fights against rationality, truth and beauty is one thing that keeps civilization from being a worse hell than it is.

Define "civilization." You seem to equate it with government alone. The struggle is not "against" civilization but within the confines of civilization against the state. Civilization is the entire system; state is just a part of it. Those who rebelled against governments, those who start revolutions, and those who deny the state, all (except a few 20th century anarchists, which is another topic entirely) do so in the hopes of improving civilization, revolutionizing civilization; but still do so for civilization nonetheless. Why do you think we are able to develop arts, complex science, enjoy our history (this is a semi-history forum, no?), and develop complex rationality beyond a rare individual basis? One could say I'm speaking of civilization as society.

For example, communism does not seek to destroy civilization, it seeks to establish a classless society, a civilization unlike any seen before. But still civilization: interactions, systems, all there.

Feel free to elaborate on that

Your point on sexuality seems to rely on a very primate and practical view of it: produce children, spread your genes, those kinds of things. We as humans developed a consciousness for sexuality seperated from its "natural" purpose; why do you think pills and condoms are used? I'm just surprised you keep this "natural" view, which seem to imply you do not recognize the latter.

Feel free to show any examples. Just because you don't understand the communication among chimpansees it doesn't mean they had no reason for the fight. Also, how many casualties and suffering did the chimpanzee form of fighting cause? Did you see any chimp try to beg for surrender but not being shown mercy?

The different scales does not make for different crimes. An industrial war is as much for resources as an ant invasion of another's lair.

Animals are in a perpetual state of war. In society at least there are lapses of peace. The Chinese saying: from peace comes war; from war comes peace. The animals? War of all against all.

A statement supported by neither examples nor proof is an empty statement.

Like I said, the lack of civilization does not mean the end of interaction. And what is interaction but a limitation of certain freedoms? You kill the other you deprive her life. You simply talk you deprive yourself the freedom to kill. You eat you destroy. You do not eat you lose your life.

And if there is no interaction whatsoever, that supposed ideal state of nature, then there really is no true consciousness. Is Eden that appealing?

I think not.

Go say that to third world slave workers, or the Europeans working in mines and factories during the 19th century. Just because you and I happen to be exceptions from the worst forms of excessive labor load, it doesn't mean the society form works well, or that our generations will live in that luxury always. The society system is flawed because it has always needed some people to work as slaves. Before they used peasants within the own society, now they use people abroad. If you read about the situation of peasants and workers in most historical periods I'm sure you would prefer natural setting over that. You might prefer your current life over natural setting though, but remember that your life style would be impossible unless underpayed slaves didn't produce a lot of your clothes and food abroad, which means our society systems in Europe and America are flawed too - they can't afford to support people with the products they want even though you have an excessive workload. People having acceptable workloads is a parenthesis in history - the common case is suffering and open or latent slavery.

Society is flawed = society bad in all circumstances? That does make for a logical fallacy. The specific do not apply completely to the general. And I know of the existence of "Third World Slave Workers"--I was born in "The Third World"--and I can say an existence of slavery, disgusting, cruel, evil, whatever metaphors and colorful descriptions you want, as it is, does make for a slightly better position that sheer wild lawlessness. Our goal here nonetheless covers improving, as opposed to destroying, civilization.

This is a fascistical thought directed against people who work more effectively but have limited endurance. What gives people with little strength and intelligence the right to oppress people with limited endurance?

You misunderstand me completely. My point is to demonstrate that an animal-like state--you know that animals eat a lot for only a few hours; work, if you might, and do nothing for long periods?--does not make for an appealing state. Candide expresses that wonderfully. What's worse? Being raped a hundred times by [Barbary] pirates, have your buttocks cut off, being whipped and hanged, being cheated, or sit there and do nothing all day?

And what's the solution from all this? We cultivate our garden.

You mean there would have been ozone layer holes, poisonous water, nuclear radiation at Chernobyl, global warming and eutrophication of lakes even without civilization?

Let's refer to your original point: society favors those who destroy the environment. That's not supported, the claim that "individual lobbyists" are responsible excludes thousands of years of civilization. And just because individual lobbyists favor their own interests doesn't mean out-of-civilization humans don't. We are, in fact, arguably, on the verge of a new development to reconcile society with nature. With science of course.

When did you last see a slave animal? When did you last see an animal that didn't have the freedom to leave it's group as it wished? How often do you see animals actually killing each other? They kill, but it all follows clear rules and it's obvious what you can do in each situation to avoid the killing. Carpet bombings, civilian massacres and genocide aren't possible to escape in the same manner because they're irrational and unpredictable.

Ant raids. Ant slaves: stolen from their home "lairs" and raised as slaves. Of course, they remain one step behind genocide for one little reason: further exploitation. How nice. Lion males imposing its super-duper lazy rule over female lions. Need I go on more? What about those fugitive animals that often got shunned, got hunted, got killed?