[Atrahasis]

Oh ye great civilization. What good has not been engendered from your loins? Where would man be without you, oh great civilization. A state of anarchy is where man once resided, chaotic were their lives, with neither leaders nor government, and without those, obviously no form of protection from others. Also, no consistent source of nourishment, this meant constant foraging and hunting, which itself meant bringing yourself into a land unknown to yourself, exposing one to more dangers, be they nature's beasts, or other men searching for the same, sparse resources.

Oh ye great civilization. Where would we be, without your bountiful gifts, these necessities? A state of chaos, I assure you. Through your Western tradition, you have created men of greatness, power, and reason. Men who have conquered the wilds around them, and turned them into resources! Man, who turned barren wasteland into fields ripe for sewing and reaping. Multitudinous bounty! With this advent of agriculture, man was capable of settling down, and acquiring a stockpile of food. This stock could be accessed during winter, drought, or any other natural disaster. This would save on much time that would need be spent searching for necessities, under these harsh conditions. This allowed for man to have additional leisure time, which was negligible before agriculture.

From there on out, man's resourceful mind has invented many a thing, all for the betterment of his, of our race. Such progress had never been seen before. The plow, wheel, carriage, yoke, onward. Ruler, compass, clock, telescope. On and on ad infinitum! Never ending, always progressing, always creating something useful, necessary, demanded. There is a demand, and with these inventions man can now supply for it. Civilization, your sciences have proven to us what is real and what is not, shown man that the world is more than what it simply appears to be, but also disproven the absurdity of religions, faith based or not.

Civilization, without you and man's reason, we could never have proven wrong the illogical faiths of religions, truly exposed their fallacies. Our god has a bigger penis than that of these religions. Hell, he's so friggin' huge his penis is bigger than your god! We say it as it is, our god could kick your god's ass, and his name is Progress. Progress is true, infallible, and what life is truly about. I have disproved your gods, but reason will not allow you to disprove mine. And I thank you for this, oh, ye great civilization.

Sorry to those of you whom this makes no sense. Above is my attempt at reproducing the message of a few persons on this forum. I’ve been reading PO.com, off and on, and had recently run across a post by a person lauding, pretty much, the mass genocide of those who they believe useless, in the name of science, progress, reason. Science, progress, and reason. These three, to me, make up the tripartite manifestation of Civilization.

Now, I wish to ask a few things. Firstly, what is the necessity of civilization, and what good has it actually done, both for humans, and their surroundings? What good have the sciences done, other than one failed attempt after another, of picking up a mess that humankind has made either with a prior botched science experiment, or side effect of civilization? Also, can somebody describe progress to me, and prove to me that it is real? Stating that “well that’s obvious, just think about itâ€

[Guest]

A great deal depends on what you mean by civilisation. Your excerpt and comments essentially refer to western civilisation with the focus apparently on capitalism. The inference would appear to be that consumption, commodification, privatisation and free markets are features of civilisation. There is the further inference that some pre-agrarian era is not civilisation. I am not entirely sure what your post considers of all the other societal arrangements that have presented themselves on this planet around the consumption model. It would appear to be the case that they are either not civilisations or else imperfect forms of civilisation when compared to the consumption model.

I would venture that all forms of societal arrangement are varieties of civilisation. Some have the seeds for ultimate breakdown by virtue of the fact that they have a limited lifespan in terms of the way they husband resources for example. Others perhaps not, by virtue of an innate simplicity, communal principles or planned usage of resources.

Civilisation when stripped off all its mystique is nothing other than systems of organisation. The trick is to create the fundamentals for a reasoned choice of the most appropriate form bearing in mind what the objectives are. At present, those objectives are bountiful consumption - the dominant arrangement that has emerged to support these objectives features all the contradictions inherent in such objectives (bearing in mind the resource base of this planet) - contradictions such as war, inequity, pollution and now, resource depletion.

Consequently, it is not so much civilisation that is at fault - civilisation is a natural function of our sentient state - it is the form of arrangement that has arisen as a consequence of the socio-economic objectives that prevail at this moment in time.

[Atrahasis]

Ah yes, what I mean by civilization. I never did explain what was meant, my bad.

Civilization to me, is, if I must describe it instead of simply perceiving it, would be any society that grows large enough where a hierarchical order is established. I most definitely had The West in mind when I wrote that, but know that other parts of the world (China, India in particular) have met my definition of civilization for no small amount of time. I guess I would say also that civilization is any society that has introduced division of labor, separation by class, and where there are implied (instead of mutual) agreements (such as a "Social Contract") simply for existing in such a *cough* community. In other words, a lack of egalitarianism. Pre-agrarian or gatherer-hunter communities are not to be considered civilized by such a definition. Capital I would not say is a requisite, but is an acquired trait of any civilization that survives long enough.

The West may have been what I had in mind, but day by day the world becomes more Westernized. I traveled some of Japan five years ago, and culture shock struck me. Not by any huge difference between America and Japan, but by the great amount of similarities. The most observable differences were language, art, cuisine and humor. But all of this was becoming more westernized, which one can somewhat note just by watching older Japanese films and progressing to current times. The way the city looks, the increased amount of ‘Engrish’ used, the music, the style of food eaten, and to today, where I couldn’t stay in any sizeable city without running across at least one McDonald’s, if not other American chains.

The Journalist Spider Jerusalem of Transmetropolitan (a comic published by DC/Vertigo) writes (beware of some profanity):

We live in a monoculture.
What does that mean? Well, go out to your street corner. You’ll probably see a Long Pig stand, SPKF on a screen somewhere, an Angry Boy Dylan’s Gun Store. You’ll go into a record store and see new recordings by the usual suspects, maybe a special Space Culture display rack.
Go out onto a streetcorner in London and you’ll see the same thing. Same in Prague. Same in Sao Paulo. Same in Osaka, and Grozny, and Tehran, and Jo’burg, and Hobart.
That’s what a monoculture is. It’s everywhere, , and it’s all the same. And it takes up alien cultures and digests them and shits them out in a homogenous building-block shape that fits seamlessly into the vast blank wall of the monoculture.
This is the future. This is what we built. This is what we wanted. It must have been. Because we all had the fucking choice, didn’t we? It is only our money that allows a commercial culture to flower. If we didn’t want to live like this, we could have changed it any time, by not fucking paying for it.
So let’s celebrate by all going out and buying the same burger.

Replace Long Pig with McDonald’s, SPKF with one of your five or so corporate media conglomerates, and Angry Boy Dylan’s Gun Store with Wal-Mart, and you may have a better picture of what he speaks of. By all means call it a bit far-fetched (hey, it takes place at some point in the future), but I would not believe you if you said you disagree with what is being said, and especially if you claim that you do not see the world heading towards such existence.

Whether or not every community that grows to a considerable number becomes civilized in the sense of my definition I am far too ill informed to say definitively, but if somebody could cite any societies where such civilizing has not occurred please do. The closest I have found of any sizeable community would be that of the early Jan Hus influenced Taborites at Mount Tabor, before a hierarchy was established. Look to the Native Americans and persons once considered indigenous, before we overtook their land and usurped their resources. Look at the happiness they once had, and compare it to the materialistic monoculture we now share.

So, what are the objectives of Our Civilization, and are said objectives being accomplished? Is consumer culture something that was intended by capitalism, or is it a by-product of it’s good intentions? Can a concept even have intentions? Where has progress gotten us, and where is it getting us? The stage of PPO world is one of the nearing obvious places, but surely there are others.

[Jack]

Firstly, what is the necessity of civilization, and what good has it actually done, both for humans, and their surroundings? What good have the sciences done, other than one failed attempt after another, of picking up a mess that humankind has made either with a prior botched science experiment, or side effect of civilization? Also, can somebody describe progress to me, and prove to me that it is real?

What good has civilization done? Art, literature, mathematics, the internet, and the computer you're using among a great many other things.

What good has science done? One hardly knows where to begin. It provides a tool with which to understand the physical universe. That tool cures the sick, provides communication and transportation around the world, and relieves us of much of the drudgery we might otherwise endure. If you wish to live beyond the span of the average hunter-gatherer - i.e., more than 30 years - thank science.

Progress is simply the improvement of conditions. The proof is a simple statistical exercise - how many people wish to live a modern, U.S. style existence versus how many move to a primitive lifestyle.

If you wish confirmation, conduct an experiment. Try living a primitive existence somewhere for a year. That means no electricity, no plumbing, no firearms. You can have fire, but you have to make it without matches or other technological aids. You can wear animal skins, but that's it....since spinning wheels and looms are a product of civilization. Hunting can be done with snares, spears, and even bows - but you have to make them yourself out of local, natural materials. Yes, you have to make your own arrowheads out of flint using a deer's antler. And if you hurt yourself, you don't get to call the doctor.

After you finish the experiment, I suspect you'll see what progress is, and why it's desireable.

[Specop_007]

They finished our subdivision, and have started work on other areas. Its a fun place to go lube up the front end when it rains so we go out there every once in a while. Heres some pics. Kinda sad what they do, although I suppose its a necesary evil right?
Well, its progress. Of some type anyways.









Heres a "before" pic. Actually, we went off the beaten path and kept on goin.

[emersonbiggins]

What a shame. I can see the cedars needing to be eradicated, but they clearcut the whole damn thing.

Oh well, I guess it's just too hard to design "Maple Hill Estates" around the existing terrain and trees...

______
BTW, Spec, where is this located? Looks like OK or North Texas.

[Specop_007]

What a shame. I can see the cedars needing to be eradicated, but they clearcut the whole damn thing.

Oh well, I guess it's just too hard to design "Maple Hill Estates" around the existing terrain and trees...

______
BTW, Spec, where is this located? Looks like OK or North Texas.

Kansas. Gardner area.
If you look at the left hand side of the third pic you can see where they just pushed all the trees into a big pile. Looks like a brown pile of dirt, those are actually trees.

[emersonbiggins]

What a shame. I can see the cedars needing to be eradicated, but they clearcut the whole damn thing.

Oh well, I guess it's just too hard to design "Maple Hill Estates" around the existing terrain and trees...

______
BTW, Spec, where is this located? Looks like OK or North Texas.

Kansas. Gardner area.
If you look at the left hand side of the third pic you can see where they just pushed all the trees into a big pile. Looks like a brown pile of dirt, those are actually trees.

I've seen that scene all too often. Those trees would probably make decent mulch or firewood, but chances are they'll just burn them.

BTW, I love that stretch of 35 in the Flint Hills area. Most gorgeous place on earth. That "Cattle Pen" exit makes me smile every time I pass by it.

[Eli]

I hope these guys go under.

It's a little late in the game to be building a brand new development.

This always happens in the home building industry they always over shoot and never stop to think what if I can't sell the houses at that price.

[BigTex]

Simple question, but it's hard to provide a good answer.

It seems like many things that are traditionally considered progress are actually quite destructive and ultimately wasteful or pointless.

I suppose learning could be called progress, but the question then is learning about what?

Is learning how to make do with less progress?

Is learning how to go farther on one gallon of gasoline progress?

Are more and more complex responses to entropy progress?

Is population growth progress?

Is population decline progress?

If it is in our nature to try to dominate our environment, is it progress to suppress this urge?

If one is in balance and harmony with all things, what would progress be then?

I'm interested in what others think about what progress really is because the idea of progress seems to be deeply appealing to most people, it's just a question of how best to act on this desire.

[Alcassin]

There is simple answer:

Progress means that you define the point you are , let's call it A, and the point you want to achieve, let's call it B, - a move toward B is progress.

There isn't such a thing as linear progress ad aeterna, it's a philosophical concept of enlightment and it's repeated by European thinkers since.

[Bas]

yes, the word progress seems to be used most often in the context of economic growth and/or scientific/technological progress (can't even say it without using the word)

And indeed more and more people (especially here) seem to question that kind of"progress" more and more as it has brought and is bringing so much destruction to the natural world and that we're only setting ourselves up for a fall.

nice philosophical question

[BigTex]

There is simple answer:

Progress means that you define the point you are , let's call it A, and the point you want to achieve, let's call it B, - a move toward B is progress.

There isn't such a thing as linear progress ad aeterna, it's a philosophical concept of enlightment and it's repeated by European thinkers since.

Maybe the question I am meaning to pose is a much harder one and unlikely to be answered here: "What criteria should be used in selecting point B when defining progress?"

Stated differently, what points that we desire to achieve may be ultimately described as progress?

Although I'm not sure what the answer is, I think I know some examples of what it is not:

I don't think that depleting natural resources as quickly as possible is progress

I don't think that uncontrolled population growth because of advances in sanitation, nutrition and medicine is progress

I don't think that exporting capitalism from industrial economies to developing economies is necessarily progress

I don't think that exporting democracy to non-democratic nations is necessarily progress

More efficient methods of producing plastic crap that we don't need is not progress

Mindlessly striving to avoid or minimize physical or mental exertion is not progress

The mere increase in leisure time is not progress

[Alcassin]

Maybe the question I am meaning to pose is a much harder one and unlikely to be answered here: "What criteria should be used in selecting point B when defining progress?"

It's subjective and depends on your value system.
We make up criteria for our own - it's rather projection of our ideal vision of heaven on Earth.

Stated differently, what points that we desire to achieve may be ultimately described as progress?

It's the way you think, and when "progress" itself is perceived as a value. Maybe 'change' is better word.

Let's play the game, you made some statements, just to prove how "progress" can be defined:

Although I'm not sure what the answer is, I think I know some examples of what it is not:

I don't think that depleting natural resources as quickly as possible is progress

Natural resources are used to solve urgent needs of the people of the globe - it's progress.

I don't think that uncontrolled population growth because of advances in sanitation, nutrition and medicine is progress.

Scientific breakthrough let the people live longer with better quality of life - it's progress.

I don't think that exporting capitalism from industrial economies to developing economies is necessarily progress

Capitalism is the best of the known economic systems, and the most productive and efficient one. Therefore spreading capitalism is progress.

I don't think that exporting democracy to non-democratic nations is necessarily progress

Every human being deserves to be liberated from tyranny and under tyranny it's very unlikely to respect basic human rights and liberties. Spreading democracy is therefore progress.

More efficient methods of producing plastic crap that we don't need is not progress

You're going to be outcompeted.
You're poisoned by backwardness of mercantilism.

Mindlessly striving to avoid or minimize physical or mental exertion is not progress

Industrialization and new methods to gain efficiency is progress, because you are able to cover more needs than ever before while the man can do something else, and unleash his creative potential - it's a visible progress.

The mere increase in leisure time is not progress

People do less and get more - it's a path of our civilized projection - it's the prelude of future eudaimonia. It's the ultimate dream of human being.

______________________________________________________

Do you see what I mean?
It's the goal you want to achieve and how you want to defend your point of view
If you want to redefine what progress means just do it, feel free

[BigTex]

Maybe the question I am meaning to pose is a much harder one and unlikely to be answered here: "What criteria should be used in selecting point B when defining progress?"

It's subjective and depends on your value system.
We make up criteria for our own - it's rather projection of our ideal vision of heaven on Earth.

Stated differently, what points that we desire to achieve may be ultimately described as progress?

It's the way you think, and when "progress" itself is perceived as a value. Maybe 'change' is better word.

Let's play the game, you made some statements, just to prove how "progress" can be defined:

Although I'm not sure what the answer is, I think I know some examples of what it is not:

I don't think that depleting natural resources as quickly as possible is progress

Natural resources are used to solve urgent needs of the people of the globe - it's progress.

I don't think that uncontrolled population growth because of advances in sanitation, nutrition and medicine is progress.

Scientific breakthrough let the people live longer with better quality of life - it's progress.

I don't think that exporting capitalism from industrial economies to developing economies is necessarily progress

Capitalism is the best of the known economic systems, and the most productive and efficient one. Therefore spreading capitalism is progress.

I don't think that exporting democracy to non-democratic nations is necessarily progress

Every human being deserves to be liberated from tyranny and under tyranny it's very unlikely to respect basic human rights and liberties. Spreading democracy is therefore progress.

More efficient methods of producing plastic crap that we don't need is not progress

You're going to be outcompeted.
You're poisoned by backwardness of mercantilism.

Mindlessly striving to avoid or minimize physical or mental exertion is not progress

Industrialization and new methods to gain efficiency is progress, because you are able to cover more needs than ever before while the man can do something else, and unleash his creative potential - it's a visible progress.

The mere increase in leisure time is not progress

People do less and get more - it's a path of our civilized projection - it's the prelude of future eudaimonia. It's the ultimate dream of human being.

______________________________________________________

Do you see what I mean?
It's the goal you want to achieve and how you want to defend your point of view
If you want to redefine what progress means just do it, feel free

Great reply. Thanks.

It's kind of like what lawyers call the "crystalline nature of legal thought"; i.e., each issue has arguments that cleave in the same way that crystals do when looked at closely. There is a pro and con argument for every issue, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. You can cleave any issue as finely as you like. People who think that arguments don't cleave this way don't make good lawyers.

What I wonder, though, and this is what I was thinking when I made the initial post, is what "point Bs" really give us the feeling of progress we imagined when standing at point A? Obviously, this is personal and subjective, but we all know that the quest for material gain is a little like hitting the crack pipe--it's never enough, it's never fulfilling, pleasure is always slipping away. What point Bs, I wonder, actually deliver on the promise you felt at point A. Obviously, food, water and shelter are a form of progress, in the sense that without them we die--i.e., reasonable point Bs. The issue, though, is how much food, water and shelter can fairly be characterized as progress?

I wonder to what extent we are exactly like the rats who will press the pleasure lever until they die, except our pleasure levers are not as easily identified.

Perhaps the resolution of the issue of what the present owes to the future would go a long way toward deciding what progress is. If we don't owe jack to the future, then I suppose progress is wherever your path from A to B takes you. If the present owes something to the future, or the individual owes something to the group, then not every A-B path is progress. Some point Bs are quite destructive.

Maybe it's a dumb question, but I think a feeling that nags at many apparently successful people is whether what they achieve is really progress.

[Ludi]

I believe in Change, but not in Progress, really. So, I don't think it's that valuable to identify what is Progress. We can ask, what is useful or helpful change, and try for that. Even that is hard enough, to identify what is useful and helpful.

[dinopello]

I believe in Change, but not in Progress, really. So, I don't think it's that valuable to identify what is Progress. We can ask, what is useful or helpful change, and try for that. Even that is hard enough, to identify what is useful and helpful.

Progress is directed change. Progress only makes sense to talk about relative to a goal. Stasis is no change, therefore no progress - unless stasis is your goal (oh my, i just confused myself) - edit: no, if you are at stasis and that is your goal, you cannot make progress (directed change) toward it because you are there and could only move away from it by definition.

Some people when they use that term don't state the goal explicity but they have to have one in mind.

[Chuckmak]

...the opposite of Congress, maybe?

[Ludi]

"Progress" to me always seems like a linear concept. Perhaps that's why I don't believe in it! To reach a goal, one might not take a linear path, one may take some steps "forward" and some other steps "back" (even regards something like population - under some circumstances a larger population might be desirable, the useful and helpful thing - under other circumstances it might be less desirable. Or energy use - one might need and want to use more energy under some circumstances, less at other times. Such a wishy-washy way of going about things doesn't, and probably wouldn't to most people, seem like Progress.)

[PenultimateManStanding]

It's kind of like what lawyers call the "crystalline nature of legal thought"; i.e., each issue has arguments that cleave in the same way that crystals do when looked at closely.

Mica has only one cleavage plane. Diamonds have four. There are words that have only one meaning, but progress isn't one of them. It's not hard for a swimmer to define progress, but how does society define progress? It's like a crystal with an unknown and unknowable number of cleavage planes.