What constitutes an advanced civilization?

reply to post by Inkrinhuminge


Yes I noticed, but do not have the edit button available to edit it. I type with two fingers and never have been even a decent speller.

[edit on 5/11/2009 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Should have used cave paintings to illustrate this thread, then I wouldn't have needed spell check . . . . But seriously why is spell check not an option when posting?

[edit on 5/11/2009 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by AlienCarnage


I use Firefox as my browser it has a basic spell check built in, just a heads up.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I am stuck with IE, it is what my work uses.

< - - Now back to the thread - - >

Here is a thought I had this morning, if our current civilization was involved in the third world war often talked about in which H-bombs, or whatever them weapon of mass destruction of choice may be, are used, what if all cities and towns are pretty much destroyed by this, what would survive? Anything written on paper would be gone, most computer drives if not melted would be wiped, CD and DVD's melted. So what of our written language would be left? It was stated that written language constitutes a civilization, so would such a war decimate most of our written langauge?
What would future civilizations, about 3 - 5000 years removed, think about ours then if they could not find any writen language, about all of our art that would remain would be statues. Would they think we worshiped the figures in these statues?

[edit on 5/11/2009 by AlienCarnage]

reply to post by AlienCarnage


What they'd find would be a whole lotta cars. A WHOLE lotta cars.

We've produced too much crap for it all to just vaporize or disappear. They'd find all this junk and realize we were a mass-consumerism materialistic culture, with little thought of preserving nature or conserving resources - making us, in their opinions, far from being an advanced civilization.

This does bring to mind one aspect of an advanced civilization over looked in this thread, and that is ART. We'd leave behind numerous art museums, filled with incredible artifacts of our devotion to the creative aspects of art.

Let me ask you, which do you consider to be the more advanced civilization - Athens or Sparta? One devoted itself to art and the other almost solely to militarism. Because so much art was preserved from Athens we have a good idea of how their culture existed. But precious little exists from Sparta, beyond the heroic deeds committed by some of their leaders. Does Art trump Military and weapons technology (which goes hand in hand with all technology advances) as a sign of a higher civilization?

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Does Art trump Military and weapons technology (which goes hand in hand with all technology advances) as a sign of a higher civilization?

In my opinion it does not, particularly the spartan military training schools. Again its years of training and learing but just a different human skill. Jst as for a martial artist or Yogi Samii its years of training, and really you do have to be quite clever (in a way) and committed to master them.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Would automobiles realy survive 2 - 5000 years? Wouldn't The become pretty much unrecognizable pieces of scrap? Would our museums survive such a war, let alone the peices of art inside? I can see statues possiby surviving, but art on canvas, as well as other pieces of art, I am not positive would survive. If artwork does not survive, what kind of civilization would we seem to have been?

This is mearly a question not trying to be argumentitive.

Most of our information and images are digital now. They'd need a playback machine with a compatible operating system to see it. That is if things like CDs survived.

Paper weirdly can have a long life when stored properly. Old CDs from the 90s have the metal peeling from them. Videotapes from the 80s have to be viewed by players that have disappeared.

It's estimated that only 5% of photographs taken these days exist as hard copy.

Much of what's on the Internet just disappears every year with sites no paid for or servers going out of business.

More of our cultural artifacts from the 90s will be around in 1000 years than what's been generated in the last decade.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


If there were a nuclear war, would any of our media and media players survive? I suppose not all cities would be targeted, mainly the major cities, but how far would the radius of the blasts be, I have heard and read varying numbers depending upon the weapons used, so there might be some remote towns that survive in some countries but in my scenario I am supposing that the blasts are such that these towns would not be left. In that much destruction what could really survive to show who our civilization was or how we lived, based on a few statues and other remnants that may have survived?

The following is along the same lines of thought with a different catastrophe in place of war.
This is an improbable situation but please humor me.

A flash freeze came across the land and froze everything, the whole world. Another Ice age came, The are a few surviving settlements here and there, cut off from their technology they revert back into hunters, looking for any prey that might have escaped the freeze as well in order to keep themselves and their families alive.
Out of the ice age comes violent volcanic activity bringing up a layer of soot across the land old cities and towns disappear and are swallowed by earthquakes and whatever. The land is now transformed over much time back into a wilderness world with jungles and such.
Some of the tribes had evolved over the millennia that followed the Ice Age, almost back to where they had previously been technologically. They have archeological digs all over.
One archeologist uncovers what appears to be a sacrificial chamber with person on a flat sacrificial table. There is an adjacent chamber where there appears to be someone praying to a small oval alter. In fact the archeologist had discovered a bedroom with one person laying down and with a bathroom adjoined and a person that was getting sick in a toilet, this scene was frozen in time during the flash freezenad later during the defrost covered in layers of soot that filled in the ice layers. But with nothing to go on this whole scene was misinterpreted.

The reason for this thought process, is could this have ever happened in the past, where a civilization was so "advanced" that they wiped themselves out so severely that only a few remnants of their civilization was left, or possibly a natural catastrophe destroying pretty much everything of a past civilization? If they did have a written language and it was destroyed, would we misinterpret who their civilization was or how they lived?

I think this relates back into my OP

[edit on 5/12/2009 by AlienCarnage]

I actually don't think that our modern civilization is any more advanced than previous ones, regardless of all of our technology. All of our fancy electronics and hi-tech science comes from the genius of only a handful of individuals; the general population doesn't know how to replicate any of these items, we simply learn with our basic intelligence how to use them. If you picked a human out of history from...hell, even ten thousand years ago, they could probably quickly adapt to our so called "advanced" civilization.

When every member of the population can derive complex functions and utilize indepth knowledge of technology just from their own intelligence, then I would consider us more advanced than our predecessors, but until then, we're still pretty much the Geico Cavemen.

Originally posted by crimson616
I actually don't think that our modern civilization is any more advanced than previous ones, regardless of all of our technology. All of our fancy electronics and hi-tech science comes from the genius of only a handful of individuals; the general population doesn't know how to replicate any of these items, we simply learn with our basic intelligence how to use them. If you picked a human out of history from...hell, even ten thousand years ago, they could probably quickly adapt to our so called "advanced" civilization.

When every member of the population can derive complex functions and utilize indepth knowledge of technology just from their own intelligence, then I would consider us more advanced than our predecessors, but until then, we're still pretty much the Geico Cavemen.

Technology is just one of many manifestations of advancement. We have developed in our philosophy, knowledge of how the body and mind function,
our knowledge of the physical universe, macroscopic and microscopic. Then there's mathematics, the laws of physics, genetics, plant culture, micro-organisms, micro-technologies, and on and on.

We have amassed phenomenal amounts of knowledge and understanding that are applied to our day to day quality of life.

I'm not so romantic about earlier man. Brilliant given the limited amounts of information he had to work with. Probably much lost.

We're not superior. We're the same people, just born so much later and able to build on what came before.

Guns and CD players can be made again with our acquired technological
skills. The knowledge and understanding are the most valuable things ever acquired.


Mike

Originally posted by mmiichael

Technology is just one of many manifestations of advancement. We have developed in our philosophy, knowledge of how the body and mind function,
our knowledge of the physical universe, macroscopic and microscopic. Then there's mathematics, the laws of physics, genetics, plant culture, micro-organisms, micro-technologies, and on and on.

I would like to state something about what this person said. I colored it pink. First off that is a statement that should not be said because it is not true. We do NOT know more then the ancient civilizations did. The Mayan's for example knew how the body and mind were far superior to the way C.E. man knows it. Another example is from the Rama nation from India in scriptures called Ramayana and Mahabharata that state that the speed of light is 99% accurate to the common numbers. But there is an equation that eludes me that actually shows that time which influences the spped of light is speeding up the more the universe expands.

reply to post by VenomR

We do NOT know more then the ancient civilizations did.

You make a number of bold claims, but this one is a stinker. Have a look at it. You're looking at the words on a monitor that's powered by a national power grid. You're sitting on a chair that was possibly manufactured as far away as China and imported through an international infrastructure. At the same time thousands of artificial objects are orbiting the Earth along with half a dozen humans.

Within ten miles of you is a hospital containing hundreds of patients and staff. Mortality rates have declined markedly since the ancient civilizations of Indus, Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia etc. It's possible I've misunderstood your interpretation of 'know more?'

Mortality rates have declined sure but your looking at it the wrong way. Look at the birth to death ratio. Every minute a child is born yet i believe its every 10 minutes someone dies around the earth. That means its a 10:1 ratio. Had the ancient civilizations gone and done this what would be left of earth? Just because a civilization didn't go and manufacture hospital's to save a life that wasn't meant to be saved doesn't mean we are logical. We are in a society that supports life and living rather then survival of the fittest which sounds harsh but its the best way for us as a species to survive.

Also when I said that I didn't just mean in a physical way but rather a spiritual way. They knew more about the human life then we do now. They did not just spend there life warring and wasting away as a culture. The Mayan's lived 1000 years in peace. This is something that is incompressible to the current human race. People tell me constantly that humans can't coexist with each other because of ego's but proof happened over 2000 years ago. They believed in human life AFTER they went about there sacrifical time period. After that they lived 1000 years in harmony before vanishing. Followed by the Aztec's.

There are other things that could be said but they elude me at the current time.

Just because we have accomplished these things you state like say a national power grid or a chair made in china (mine was) does not answer the question we should be asking. SHOULD we have created these things? Are they a necessity?

[edit on 6/22/2009 by VenomR]

reply to post by VenomR

Just because we have accomplished these things you state like say a national power grid or a chair made in china (mine was) does not answer the question we should be asking. SHOULD we have created these things? Are they a necessity?

No they are not a necesity, but they do add to the quality of life you lead.

Try standing up and typing at your computer for about 2 hours, or even better sitting on a rock or a tree stump, you would surly be sore in that amount of time.
Imagine now you lived without the world wide web, or television news, or any other form of comunication other than messenger, by the time a messenger brought you the latest news from around the world there would already be new news waiting to come to you. Could you live this way, yes you could however it would not be as convenient as what you have today.

This does not mean that we are necessarily more advanced, but we are potentially more aware of what is happening in the world around us as is reported to us on a most convienient manner. We are comfortable in our chirs while obtaining this information as well.

It does not mean we are more advanced but rather we are more needed on wanting to know whats happening around the world. I actually don't mind sitting on a rock because I go camping every couple weeks. The fact that you bring up again is stating that we are advanced because of this but what if the cultures before us saw this as just an idiotic idea because we are destroying the world around us to accomplish it for the "Quality of Life". They had a great quality of life yet they did not have our destructive power that is causing us to destroy the world we live in. And further more we don't need the net anymore because if you can use the Noah Sphere (The sphere that actually holds your thought waves) then we could be telepathic. You think I am probably was over my head yet the brain is capable of more then current human's can understand. Yet children now are capable of doing more with there mental mind then rather there physical bodies. We only use at most 10% of our brain but you can through practice you can increase your intelligence because the brain is a muscle. Just like male work-out enthusiasts are able to move there pecks up in down you can increase your brain's potential.

But I got off topic. Anyway I never said we weren't an advanced civilization but I don't feel that we are more intelligent then our predecessor's because in 2000 years if humanity is gone and a new civilization appears there temples will probably be around were as our concrete structures will have been destroyed.

reply to post by VenomR

I actually don't mind sitting on a rock because I go camping every couple weeks.

I usually just bring some camping chairs when I bring my camping equipment or sit on the ground/tree stump when I feel like totally living off the land with no equipment, rocks are the last thing I would sit on but to each thier own.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing with you just answering your question to another poster.

It is my belief, and just to emphesise; I have no proof of this other than reading and listening to stories, that the native cultures of Central America, Austalia and South America just to name a few, were advanced in many ways compared to modern day man. They had a verbal history which was passed down from generation, there was no interpreting the stories by reading in to them, they were what they were. There were cave paintings, which cave paintings have been known to last for a much longer time than copies of some of these, and will continue on even after traces of our modern society is wiped from existence. (found this while watching life after people I think on the science chanel.) The question is wether they knew these paintings would survive far in to the future or if the just happen to have painted these with a type of lasting paint in a great location by chance.

It is a matter of perception I guess. Each one choses what to believe based on what they believe is true and false. I personally believe some of the caving paintings were placed there for a reason that would make them last were others didn't but it also has to do with the cultures of the location rather then just the people at the time. Babylon for example was superior to the location in which they were located yet they collapsed for w/e reason. But we still know of them through textures. I believe in our current state of affairs that will look like a primitive culture to future cultures because we rely on the internet. Once computers are gone the question is whether we could be stated as a intelligent race.

An advanced civilization can be measured by its simplicity of life. When I say simplicity I mean in all aspects of life. Culture, language, values, leisure, arts, spirituality, religion, knowledge, truth, etc.

All these become uniform in an advanced civilization, there are no two religions, or two languages, etc. Just one, which is the best, most eficient, the true one.

Take cars for example, we have dozens of brands, and in each brand dozens of car models. In an advanced society, first of all we wound not use cars, but for the sake of out discussion lets say they do use cars. If yes, then there would be just one car, which would be the best in terms of security, maintanence, efficiency, beauty, etc.

From our prespective the life of an advanced civilization would be a very boring one. But this just goes to show how primitive we are in awareness.

We are a primitive society or civilization. We are divided by so many things: religion, nations, states, ethnicity, language, color, sex, money, etc. Diversity is interesting and worth exploring, but it just shows a lack of spiritual and technological development, it is just a primordial stage. Since an advanced civilization will realize that spirituality and technology are also the same thing and not separate.

Actually all things are one, but until we discover this truth we will continue to debate who or what God is and kill each other because we live in different states and we don't speak the same language.

I would say that our current civilization is more primitive than many previous ones. We lack so much in spiritual development while we advance in technology, this will have bad outcomes to us all. Some societies are very advances spiritualy but not so much technologicaly, these ones I believe are supperior compared to us.

We are more likely to kill ourselves with nukes than to live a ballanced life because of technological advancements.

We have a long road ahead of us before we can even call ourselves civilized. If you think we are civilized then you lie to yourself, which is another clear sign of primitive behaviour. Our current society is defined by war, war is an early stage in civilization development, once we go past that stage we will begin to enlighten.