What constitutes an advanced civilization?, page 1

reply to post by debunky

---

Why could it not be changed into a pictorial drawing? The question for you is what would a future civilization derive from this, without a detailed explenation that may or may not be understood?

reply to post by merka

---

For example, our society now span most of the globe. No other civilizations known to us have even come close as they where all localized to specific areas (or cities). Funnily enough, not even the mythical advanced civilizations.

Funny, I know this may be an incorrect thought, but I have always considered overpopulation an example of an unadvanced civilization, damaging the very environment we need to live.

I don't believe in the advanced civilizations that sound as though they are from some comic book, like flying ships, glass domes, etc, I simply think that the term needs to be reclassified as to what constitutes and advanced civilization. In my thought process even the native americans were more advanced in that they knew how to live in harmony with the land, they spread their history through word of mouth, a verbal history, which may not sound as though it is a solid meathod for keeping a historical record, but from the recounts that I have heard it is not that far from if you would be able to read it on a cave wall painting somewhere would they have recorded their history this way.

[edit on 5/5/2009 by AlienCarnage]

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by debunky

---

Why could it not be changed into a pictorial drawing? The question for you is what would a future civilization derive from this, without a detailed explenation that may or may not be understood?

How could it be?
You can only swap out the symbols for something else. But it is an abstract idea, with no relation to realworld stuff you could depict in a naturalistic fashion.
And that even though its basic geometry! (euclidian no less) It is already too abstract to turn into a picture (you can paint the squares and the triangle, but what do you do with the + and the =?)

You need symbols to generalize and present abstract concepts, and those can be very handy! Now the meaning of symbols can get lost of course, that is an unfortunate sideeffect of time, but without symbols your vocabulary is very limited indeed!

reply to post by Harte

---

This is where I beleive that our concepts should change. The Native American people where far more than a culture to call them this is IMHO just as much an insult as calling them "savages". The whole Goth thing is a culture, even the conspiracy theroists are a culture, so how can an entire race of people be considered a culture and not a civilization, just because they have no written language?

Maybee I am talking about rewriting our textbooks on these things, but would that be such a bad thing?

If we consider that the Native Amercan people were and are a civilization, would this in turn change our view as to what constitutes an advanced civilisation as well?

Originally posted by Harte

Without a written language, they wouldn't even be considered a "civilization" at all, much less advanced or not advanced.

They were (are) a culture, not a civilization.

Harte

I'm not so sure about that.

Here is a video I uploaded a while ago.

Caral Supe Pre-writing and Pre-pottery


[edit on 5-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by AlienCarnage

---

I'm a strong advocate that 'advanced' is in the eye of the beholder.

People in the 1st world often compare other cultures to themselves as the marker for advanced. All of them are bound by their own complex traditions and moral codes.

Writing defines civilization? Up until the 20th century we had writing, but only the upper mostly male class could read and write. Does that mean that the European civilization who only had a very small percentage with the skill, were less or more civilised?
Writing knowledge is mostly a sign of prosperity (originally law keeping, lore keeping and accounting) and education. Does prosperity equate to civilization? Ones idea of gold as proseprity is anothers idea as a useless metal, instead they place 'value' on items needed for survival.When thay have items in abundance that then makes them prosperous.

Why is committing Lore to memory less of a advancement than writing it down? I actually think writing is lazier on the brain! Or is using barter for trade any less advanced than exchanging pieces of metal to which you have attributed 'made up' values? It is different way of record keeping and accounting, not less intelligent or civilized.

To a indigenous group that trades in skins, this is of more import to them to survive than a gold coin with numbers. If a society equates value to barter for essential survival instead of trading metallic values, does that make them less intelligent or civilized?...Possibly quite the opposite given today's trading scenarios.

No human group is genetically more advanced than another. So biologically we are at roughly the same level, just individuals have different IQs and different access to education. Watch Trading places.....
Where cultures had no writing, they had a strong oral and singing tradition. These ARE education and mind developing skills, just like math. A Yogi Swami is that socities version of a quantum physics professor. They've both done the learning time, just learned different facts.

Oral commitment is in itself is a great skill and a form of education: Its a learning skill committing legends, clan stories, medicines, farming skills, hunting and gathering skills or spiritual beliefs by heart. It also stands to reason that civilizations are differently developed in singing, dancing and rhythm. Why are music and physical developments less civilized?

Why is the warrior who's physical skills are incredible, less of a human development than the French Revolutionist who could trade in a shop with basic numbers and letters but also lopped off peoples heads?
Why is the Shamans skills less 'knowledge and learning' than a doctor? they have different facts to commit to mind, and different ways of learning them, but they are both skilled professionals.

Is the 'civilization' we have brought to Indigenous Australians better or worse than what they had? They had a very advanced social structure that worked for them. Our 'civlization' has forced many of them into a cycle of abject poverty, violence and alcoholism. So many are lost without the advanced traditions taught by elders (not all).

Our rules for 'civility' have helped them to lose their own.

Was taking the stolen Generation from their mothers and placing them in white familes the civilised thing to do?
Was introducing them to alcohol that they genetically have no gene to process it the civilsed thing to do.?
Was introducing them to syphlis and attempting to genocidly wipe them out with that and arsenic the civilsed thing to do?
Just because the 'Whites' could read and write didn't make them more advanced and civilized. They dessimated a 60 000 year old balanced and complex non-writing society. If it lasted that long, something must have been working? That's advanced isnt it?

My mother grew up a village peasant, with no education and so incredibly poor, and I can tell you she is far more intelligent and civilized than silly ol' me who she put through university.

Zazzy F






[edit on 6-5-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by zazzafrazz

---

Wow, that is pretty much along the lines I was thinking, but you stated it much better than I did.

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
reply to post by Harte

---

This is where I beleive that our concepts should change. The Native American people where far more than a culture to call them this is IMHO just as much an insult as calling them "savages". The whole Goth thing is a culture, even the conspiracy theroists are a culture, so how can an entire race of people be considered a culture and not a civilization, just because they have no written language?

Maybee I am talking about rewriting our textbooks on these things, but would that be such a bad thing?

If we consider that the Native Amercan people were and are a civilization, would this in turn change our view as to what constitutes an advanced civilisation as well?

Problem is, there is an anthropological definition for "civilization."

When scientists talk about different cultures from the past, they have a system for classifying the various different forms these cultures took.

It's not necessarily a hierarchy, but similar aspects evinced by different cultures place the different cultures into the same categories.

Thus, establishment of permanent towns, division of labor, agriculture, political bodies, a written language and these sorts of things must be qualities reflected by any ancient (or present-day) culture for them to be classified as a "civilization."

You propose that we change these words. I'd say it's an unlikely thing to expect. After all, what's the difference? What matters which wprd we used to name any particular classification of societal groupings?

Lastly, the word "savages" is not part of the classification system, and that word easily applies to many a past (and present) civilization, as well as past (and present) cultures.

The Mayan civilization, for example, was an extremely savage one in a great many aspects, as were the Sumerian, Egyptian, and others.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

---

Harte, that's correct, there are different classifications.
But I think Aliencarnege is hopeful they aren't classifed in a heirachy.

From what I can see AC wants to define 'advanced', not define 'civilization'...am I right or wrong AC?

There are different perceptions of 'advanced' outside anthropological circles, and I think AC is talking about those? Such as if one is more 'technologically advanced' that tends to put them into a superior heirachy compared to Hunter Gatherer societies.

Segway: Regarding Anthropological classifications, what Anthropologits state is being shunned by Indigenous Australians. Just yesterday represenation for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders came another step closer to changing the law where Anthropoligists are no longer called in to testify on ANY judicial or social welfare aspects regarding them, they are reclaiming knowledge of their own people and will only allow Indigenous people to be 'experts' on 'classifying' them.

So how Anthrolpology classifies anything regarding them will no longer matter judicially in Terra Australis when the law is passed (which its looking very likely to do ) They just dont care about being 'studied' by 'White Men' and classified anymore. Interesting I thought.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt\'s Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast
  Posted 11 days ago with 101 member flags

Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 6 days ago with 96 member flags

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 3 days ago with 80 member flags

The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 14 days ago with 70 member flags

Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 3 days ago with 45 member flags

Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 15 days ago with 29 member flags

42,000-year-old paintings : \'The oldest work of art ever\' discovered
  Posted 2 days ago with 26 member flags

R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 10 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: