Civilization - good or bad for mankind?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thank u I meant herd


Flock is used in the same meaning as herd. It was a wrong choice of word, but it should have been quite obvious what was meant with it because the words are nearly synonyms in a biological sense:

No they're not, that's what I was trying to say. In biology, the words describe different behaviours, neither of which aply to human or primate behaviour. Since some of your arguments stand on this misuse, I was trying to help you focus your thoughts. Just because your use is obvious to you, doesn't mean to say it is for others.

Wikipedia is a largely useless source in most scientific cases, since it is not properly peer reviewed. In your example, it is vague and misleading.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No they're not, that's what I was trying to say. In biology, the words describe different behaviours, neither of which aply to human or primate behaviour. Since some of your arguments stand on this misuse, I was trying to help you focus your thoughts.

My thoughts don't change because I found out that my knowledge of English vocabulary made me chose the wrong word for a concept where I knew which concept I was referring to. However it makes me change my communication. I have no need to clear up my thoughts since I don't rely on word definitions in my conclusion steps. See below.

Just because your use is obvious to you, doesn't mean to say it is for others.

Wikipedia is a largely useless source in most scientific cases, since it is not properly peer reviewed. In your example, it is vague and misleading.

Wikipedia is not scientific but since words don't matter to the actual meaning of thoughts, using it for looking up words seldom causes problems with the line of thought, but sometimes with the interaction of a discussion. If you're a biologist or native English speaking or both I take your word for the definition over what wikipedia says, otherwise I'll check a real dictionary if your way of thinking and not only the communication relies on the definitions of the words. It's a common fallacy to rely on the meaning of words when making conclusions, usually the meaning of the words are slightly altered between subsequent conclusion steps, meaning that the conclusions end up wrong. Therefore words should only be used in communication and not in thoughts, and when they're used in communication the definition should be made clear by the debaters, because since most words are learnt through listening to in which situations they appear in and not by reading the formal definition, people usually have different definitions of the words even despite scientific attempts to make formal and common definitions. In many fields, for instance, there can be up to 5 meanings of a word, but all of those definitions are scientifical formal and exact definitions - despite formal definitions it's still impossible to tell which phenomenon or thing the word refers to. The only word definitions that make sense in a philosophical discussion are those that are defined by the debaters. That's why philosophical discussions always apply the principle of discussing which own definition of the word is used by the parttakers - the definitions can be figured out either before or during the debate.

[doc_bean]

pros:

-modern medicine
-anti conception
-probably less day to day violence
-food and lots of it
-vacation days
-heating and airconditioning
-more interesting past time activities


cons

- war
- pollution
- politicians


If you don't like civilization move to Alaska, I like it just fine, now if only we could cut back on the negative things...

[Rodion Romanovich]

If you don't like civilization move to Alaska, I like it just fine, now if only we could cut back on the negative things...

You missed the point, civilization is a curse we can't escape from. It's not emotions but rationality that is the center of the discussion. I'm perfectly able to stand civilization by denial, just like everyone else. Moving to Alaska or living in a hippie reservate would work if there was an emotional concern. It's not an emotional concern, it's a rational concern. As you can see in my post above I've mentioned very little about the emotional consequences of civilization - the points are only about practical problems.

The main point of the debate is that emotions and instincts don't work in a civilization - the old well-known conclusion made by those who formulated the earliest ethics and moral systems in our history. The system that has been tried repeatedly to solve that problem is an accepted form of morality "brainwashing" by teaching people the moral values decided by a culture, and hope they'll follow those values even when they aren't benefitial or don't seem so to the individual. I'd say that method has failed, and that the only way that could work for the masses would be a system where the environment of stimuli looks very much like that of the natural setting, but that it would still be a civilization - because escaping from civilization is impossible. When society and human mind don't work together, either human mind or society form can be changed to solve the problems of that incompatibility. The method typically chosen in history has been to change humans, and kill those who don't fit into the scheme proposed. But within that system society itself also constantly changes without much deliberate control, so the selection criterion will keep changing (because the society environment changes) so that there'll always be a need to remove undesirables, if that system is kept - which is why with regular intervals large-scale murder and similar is applied within such systems. Plus there'll always be people questioning the morality brainwash and choosing something immoral because it is, or seems, more benefitial within that society system. Instead, the way to peace and stability is to adapt society after how humans work, because some things in human behavior can't be changed - for example fear and the search for maximizing the chances of survival and reproduction. Because the natural setting was compatible with the human mind (because the human mind evolved to adapt as perfectly as possible to exactly that setting), studying the natural setting is an excellent way of learning how the human mind works, and learning about how to create a system where the murdering and instability usually related to civilization is removed - while still achieving this within a system that would count as a civilization, where positive things such as technology could exist without causing the horrors typically related to civilization.

[Justiciar]

So many people squashed up together? It isn't healthy I tells thee!

[Reenk Roink]

war

War has done a lot of 'good' things for civilizations.

[doc_bean]

War has done a lot of 'good' things for civilizations.

Hey, a list like this is always going to be subjective

[Reenk Roink]

Hey, a list like this is always going to be subjective

Gah, you're right...

*don't question me; I'm not gay*

[Duke Malcolm]

War

Also on that point, War would be a con of no civilisation. People would still fight, albeit on a smaller scale, in tribes and such. They would still compete for food, water, shelter, etc...
And without civilisation they have cannot settle the matter over a game of bridge, snap, or Mornington Crescent -- violence would be the only way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, my doctorate was in zoology, and I am a native English speaker. But look it up in a scientific dictionary by all means.

Personally, I believe that useful debate requires precision in language and that one's thoughts necessarily are coloured by the language one thinks in.

However, I respect your point of view even if it makes it hard for me to follow what you are actually arguing.

I was only trying to be helpful. Now, I shall let things get back on topic.