Civilisation- the biggest rip-off? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Civilisation- the biggest rip-off?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Civilisation- the biggest rip-off?

Trappist posted 06-20-99 04:17 PM ET
Civilisation- is it worth it?
Around 10,000 BC man gets the hang of planting crops and turns away from the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. There is a profound move away from the small tribal communities (often nomadic) and the first towns and cities form (Jericho around 9000AD). This spreads outwards from Mesopotamia (and later, China) and the lifestyle of man changes forever.
This leaves us packed together in cities of millions. The human population of earth soars, our lifespans extend and we crowd out the planet. We get conceptual art, Beethoven, literature, porn on the internet, Pizza Hut, Chicken Jalfrezi with Pilau rice, Tarkha Dhal and a Keem Nan, Beer, TV, TV evangelism, the self-help generation, politics, air travel, holidays in Goa, PC games, the Monarchy, guns, "Le Figaro", Opera , bubble-wrap and Pamela gobbling Tommy.
Was it actually worth it? Do you get the distinct impression that man's natural condition is as that hunter-gatherer and that every further development just takes us further away from what we should be?
Do you ever find yourself walking through town very late at night, convinced that every half-heard sound is a barely veiled threat against your life, and convinced that danger lurks in every shadow. Do you find yourself thinking "We are not meant to live like this"?
A hunter-gatherer would work, on average, 20 hours a week to satisfy his modest needs. The rest would be spent at leisure with your family or tribe. Telling stories, singing , dancing, having sex...whatever.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm working 50-hour weeks. Would I swap this civilised lifestyle with all my toys, for a shorter but possibly happier and richer one? Away from the city that just makes me paranoid?
I think I would.

Hugo Rune posted 06-20-99 04:28 PM ET
The hunter-gatherer would starve to death in times of drought, die of diseases at an early age, and get eaten by wild animals. It's Definately worth it.
Stasis Archon posted 06-20-99 05:43 PM ET
Perhaps it was a mistake to come down from the trees in the first place. Why not start living in the trees, grow tails and never shave? Don't you think that man's natural condition is as an ape and that every further development just takes us further away from what we should be? Or perhaps it was a mistake to come out from the sea a few billion years ago. If we hadn't done that we propably wouldn't even have tried to evolve and we would be living in the sea. No, maybe it was a mistake for the one-celled organism to become a two-celled organism. Maybe we're in fact supposed to be one-celled organisms and maybe every further development just takes us further away from what we should be. That's (not) all I have to say about it.
Spoe posted 06-21-99 12:05 AM ET
Let's see, just off your list:
Pro:
conceptual art
Beethoven
literature
Chicken Jalfrezi with Pilau rice
Tarkha Dhal and a Keem Nan
Beer
Opera
bubble wrap(this alone makes it worth it to me)
PC games
Con:
Pizza Hut
TV evangelism
Pamela gobbling Tommy
politics
porn on the internet
The rest are more or less neutral to me.
Let me add:
Pro:
health care
legos
Cajun/Creole cuisine(gotta love that Jambalaya and Gumbo )
communities that are generally more survivable
J.S. Bach fugues
Con:
Luddites
War
OhWell posted 06-21-99 08:28 AM ET
I would have to say that �civilization� was worth it. I think that it is an evolutionary survival mechanism. It helps the human species survive (Ok, so maybe a little too good sometimes). Further, I think that �civilization� itself is evolving to better forms.
Multi-cellular organisms, that�s where we screwed up. Yea! Should have stayed single cell! Then we can all reproduce by fission!
Raven of Despair posted 06-21-99 11:19 AM ET
This thread reminds me of a passage from "Good Omens" by Neil Gaiman and Terry Practhett. This character's mother had formed a commune with her friends and "gone back to nature." Over the course of the next year they found out why humanity has spent so long trying to get AWAY from nature.
Trappist posted 06-21-99 01:43 PM ET
Spoe.
Interested to see your inclusion of Luddites on your list of "cons". I've always had a lot of sympathy with them.
The original Luddites were desperate men, who smashed the new mechanised looms in an attempt to save their way of life. The alternative was to uproot their community or starve. Many did starve, while others hanged or were transported. It was a last-ditch struggle in one of the worst periods in British history.
To fear new technology is, to some extent, a natural reaction to many. It doesn't deserve condemnation or ridicule, particularly when the Luddite in question assert that his/her life would suffer as a result.
10 years ago I became unemployed as a result of a technology-driven "rationalisation". 6 months on the dole is a sobering experience and I treat the new of new technology in my workplace with great suspicion. I'd call myself a Luddite as a result.
JohnIII posted 06-21-99 01:54 PM ET
Getting back to nature? Who was that?
John III
JohnIII posted 06-21-99 02:01 PM ET
Anathema?
Adam?
Newt?
I don't remember that at all
John III
Spoe posted 06-21-99 02:17 PM ET
I don't condemn Luddites and I do sympathize with them. I just consider that some people are made to feel that way to be one of the drawbacks to civilization. But I also think that in most cases that if new technology is not adapted you are in for much bigger trouble down the road; look at the US steel and auto industries in the 70s and 80s.
DanS posted 06-21-99 02:19 PM ET
I think the Unabomber in his manifesto was right on so many things, except his ultimate conclusion on the necessity of armed conflict. For those who haven't read it, the main point of the manifesto was that modern life is very abstract, especially the work that we do. For instance, no longer do we hunt & gather or sow and reap (clear connection with what we do and the food we eat), but rather we work in these glass manageries talking about things like derivates (very abstract). In these circumstances it is difficult to live a virtuous life.
I agree with this assessment, but I am too much of the modern world to turn back. As an example, most of my activities end when I do not have access to electricity. I spend 12-14 hours each day using a computer, most doing very abstract things. I don't like this fact, but it is necessary. This is my life and I know no other.
OhWell posted 06-21-99 03:02 PM ET
There seems to be a paradox in modern life: The more complex things become, the simpler they are to use. Take computers for example. They are much more complex than 50 years ago, both in hardware and software, but they are much easier to use. But the task of making things �easy to use� is getting harder and harder from a knowledge standpoint. There is just too much to learn. You could easily spend all of your time just learning new stuff and never actually do anything! This is becoming the dividing line; People who know and people who don�t know. The people who don�t know are being left behind and they are not going to be too happy about it.
Stop the world, I want to get off? The Amish (sp?) people have rejected the technological treadmill in their way of life. Although, it would be much harder for someone already on the �treadmill� to get off. Would you really want to give up all of the �conveniences� of �modern� life to go push a plow behind a horse for 10 or 12 hours a day?
SnowFire posted 06-21-99 07:40 PM ET
Yeah, and being a snapshot of the way things used to was, the Amish are another good reason why we came down from the trees. Rampant alcoholism in the young, constant abuse of wives and children by fathers (who teach it to their sons), poverty, 8th grade educations, and an overbearing religious theocracy... definitely not much fun stuff.
MikeH II posted 06-22-99 06:08 AM ET
I don't remember the back to nature thing either. Actually we had to choose 3 books to study for our GCSE English project and one of mine was Good Omens. Mind you knowing that book the 'passage' could be a couple of lines.
Hugo Rune posted 06-22-99 08:11 AM ET
The "passage" was about one of Adam's friends' mother, who was a hippie. I think it was the girl's (kate?) mom.
JohnIII posted 06-22-99 01:12 PM ET
I remember, she lectured at Norton Polytechnic, didn't she?
John III
Raven of Despair posted 06-22-99 02:24 PM ET
Sorry. It was the mother of Adam's friend, the one unfortunately named "Galadriel."
JohnIII posted 06-22-99 02:25 PM ET
Pepper?
John III
Galen posted 06-24-99 12:02 AM ET
Well, the game is worth it!
Provost Harrison posted 06-24-99 01:29 PM ET
The problem with modern society is that it is oriented around a very rich elite, this is why there is no progress. We need change, and it will come. I am all in favour of civilisation, and it should make our life easier, but the fruits of our own labour and our abilities are being abused. And there is certainly no evidence that technology is reaching an upper limit. Humans seem to be very adaptable to these huge increases in knowledge. It has to be made more accessible to all.
JohnIII posted 06-24-99 01:30 PM ET
OK, I remember now, after rereading it. Wow, what a book!
John III
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Civilisation- the biggest rip-off?
Trappist	posted 06-20-99 04:17 PM ET Civilisation- is it worth it? Around 10,000 BC man gets the hang of planting crops and turns away from the hunter/gatherer lifestyle. There is a profound move away from the small tribal communities (often nomadic) and the first towns and cities form (Jericho around 9000AD). This spreads outwards from Mesopotamia (and later, China) and the lifestyle of man changes forever. This leaves us packed together in cities of millions. The human population of earth soars, our lifespans extend and we crowd out the planet. We get conceptual art, Beethoven, literature, porn on the internet, Pizza Hut, Chicken Jalfrezi with Pilau rice, Tarkha Dhal and a Keem Nan, Beer, TV, TV evangelism, the self-help generation, politics, air travel, holidays in Goa, PC games, the Monarchy, guns, "Le Figaro", Opera , bubble-wrap and Pamela gobbling Tommy. Was it actually worth it? Do you get the distinct impression that man's natural condition is as that hunter-gatherer and that every further development just takes us further away from what we should be? Do you ever find yourself walking through town very late at night, convinced that every half-heard sound is a barely veiled threat against your life, and convinced that danger lurks in every shadow. Do you find yourself thinking "We are not meant to live like this"? A hunter-gatherer would work, on average, 20 hours a week to satisfy his modest needs. The rest would be spent at leisure with your family or tribe. Telling stories, singing , dancing, having sex...whatever. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm working 50-hour weeks. Would I swap this civilised lifestyle with all my toys, for a shorter but possibly happier and richer one? Away from the city that just makes me paranoid? I think I would.
Hugo Rune	posted 06-20-99 04:28 PM ET The hunter-gatherer would starve to death in times of drought, die of diseases at an early age, and get eaten by wild animals. It's Definately worth it.
Stasis Archon	posted 06-20-99 05:43 PM ET Perhaps it was a mistake to come down from the trees in the first place. Why not start living in the trees, grow tails and never shave? Don't you think that man's natural condition is as an ape and that every further development just takes us further away from what we should be? Or perhaps it was a mistake to come out from the sea a few billion years ago. If we hadn't done that we propably wouldn't even have tried to evolve and we would be living in the sea. No, maybe it was a mistake for the one-celled organism to become a two-celled organism. Maybe we're in fact supposed to be one-celled organisms and maybe every further development just takes us further away from what we should be. That's (not) all I have to say about it.
Spoe	posted 06-21-99 12:05 AM ET Let's see, just off your list: Pro: conceptual art Beethoven literature Chicken Jalfrezi with Pilau rice Tarkha Dhal and a Keem Nan Beer Opera bubble wrap(this alone makes it worth it to me) PC games Con: Pizza Hut TV evangelism Pamela gobbling Tommy politics porn on the internet The rest are more or less neutral to me. Let me add: Pro: health care legos Cajun/Creole cuisine(gotta love that Jambalaya and Gumbo ) communities that are generally more survivable J.S. Bach fugues Con: Luddites War
OhWell	posted 06-21-99 08:28 AM ET I would have to say that �civilization� was worth it. I think that it is an evolutionary survival mechanism. It helps the human species survive (Ok, so maybe a little too good sometimes). Further, I think that �civilization� itself is evolving to better forms. Multi-cellular organisms, that�s where we screwed up. Yea! Should have stayed single cell! Then we can all reproduce by fission!
Raven of Despair	posted 06-21-99 11:19 AM ET This thread reminds me of a passage from "Good Omens" by Neil Gaiman and Terry Practhett. This character's mother had formed a commune with her friends and "gone back to nature." Over the course of the next year they found out why humanity has spent so long trying to get AWAY from nature.
Trappist	posted 06-21-99 01:43 PM ET Spoe. Interested to see your inclusion of Luddites on your list of "cons". I've always had a lot of sympathy with them. The original Luddites were desperate men, who smashed the new mechanised looms in an attempt to save their way of life. The alternative was to uproot their community or starve. Many did starve, while others hanged or were transported. It was a last-ditch struggle in one of the worst periods in British history. To fear new technology is, to some extent, a natural reaction to many. It doesn't deserve condemnation or ridicule, particularly when the Luddite in question assert that his/her life would suffer as a result. 10 years ago I became unemployed as a result of a technology-driven "rationalisation". 6 months on the dole is a sobering experience and I treat the new of new technology in my workplace with great suspicion. I'd call myself a Luddite as a result.
JohnIII	posted 06-21-99 01:54 PM ET Getting back to nature? Who was that? John III
JohnIII	posted 06-21-99 02:01 PM ET Anathema? Adam? Newt? I don't remember that at all John III
Spoe	posted 06-21-99 02:17 PM ET I don't condemn Luddites and I do sympathize with them. I just consider that some people are made to feel that way to be one of the drawbacks to civilization. But I also think that in most cases that if new technology is not adapted you are in for much bigger trouble down the road; look at the US steel and auto industries in the 70s and 80s.
DanS	posted 06-21-99 02:19 PM ET I think the Unabomber in his manifesto was right on so many things, except his ultimate conclusion on the necessity of armed conflict. For those who haven't read it, the main point of the manifesto was that modern life is very abstract, especially the work that we do. For instance, no longer do we hunt & gather or sow and reap (clear connection with what we do and the food we eat), but rather we work in these glass manageries talking about things like derivates (very abstract). In these circumstances it is difficult to live a virtuous life. I agree with this assessment, but I am too much of the modern world to turn back. As an example, most of my activities end when I do not have access to electricity. I spend 12-14 hours each day using a computer, most doing very abstract things. I don't like this fact, but it is necessary. This is my life and I know no other.
OhWell	posted 06-21-99 03:02 PM ET There seems to be a paradox in modern life: The more complex things become, the simpler they are to use. Take computers for example. They are much more complex than 50 years ago, both in hardware and software, but they are much easier to use. But the task of making things �easy to use� is getting harder and harder from a knowledge standpoint. There is just too much to learn. You could easily spend all of your time just learning new stuff and never actually do anything! This is becoming the dividing line; People who know and people who don�t know. The people who don�t know are being left behind and they are not going to be too happy about it. Stop the world, I want to get off? The Amish (sp?) people have rejected the technological treadmill in their way of life. Although, it would be much harder for someone already on the �treadmill� to get off. Would you really want to give up all of the �conveniences� of �modern� life to go push a plow behind a horse for 10 or 12 hours a day?
SnowFire	posted 06-21-99 07:40 PM ET Yeah, and being a snapshot of the way things used to was, the Amish are another good reason why we came down from the trees. Rampant alcoholism in the young, constant abuse of wives and children by fathers (who teach it to their sons), poverty, 8th grade educations, and an overbearing religious theocracy... definitely not much fun stuff.
MikeH II	posted 06-22-99 06:08 AM ET I don't remember the back to nature thing either. Actually we had to choose 3 books to study for our GCSE English project and one of mine was Good Omens. Mind you knowing that book the 'passage' could be a couple of lines.
Hugo Rune	posted 06-22-99 08:11 AM ET The "passage" was about one of Adam's friends' mother, who was a hippie. I think it was the girl's (kate?) mom.
JohnIII	posted 06-22-99 01:12 PM ET I remember, she lectured at Norton Polytechnic, didn't she? John III
Raven of Despair	posted 06-22-99 02:24 PM ET Sorry. It was the mother of Adam's friend, the one unfortunately named "Galadriel."
JohnIII	posted 06-22-99 02:25 PM ET Pepper? John III
Galen	posted 06-24-99 12:02 AM ET Well, the game is worth it!
Provost Harrison	posted 06-24-99 01:29 PM ET The problem with modern society is that it is oriented around a very rich elite, this is why there is no progress. We need change, and it will come. I am all in favour of civilisation, and it should make our life easier, but the fruits of our own labour and our abilities are being abused. And there is certainly no evidence that technology is reaching an upper limit. Humans seem to be very adaptable to these huge increases in knowledge. It has to be made more accessible to all.
JohnIII	posted 06-24-99 01:30 PM ET OK, I remember now, after rereading it. Wow, what a book! John III