Philosophical Questions: Civilization

[ysabetwordsmith]

People have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.

Was the agricultural revolution and the explosion of civilizations that came from it an overall good thing for humans or a negative? In other words, would it have been better or worse for people to stay in small tribes?


Bear in mind that "agricultural revolution" is a very western conceptualization. People were purposely managing plants and animals long before anyone started monocropping in rows. But most white folks can walk right past a food forest or clam garden and not even recognize it as a type of agriculture.

So, monocrop fields? That's a bad idea. It led to a lot of other ideas, some good, some bad -- but unquestionably it's wrecking the biosphere. That is a problem. That is potentially a species-ending problem.

There's also the fact that, while humans are generally good at tribalism, they haven't actually come up with anything that works better. They've made society bigger. They've accomplished a lot of big things along the way, some good, some bad. But they are just not great at managing society en masse. That is also a problem. Especially when one of the big things they've built are bombs capable of wiping out most of the biosphere.

It's not that humanity doesn't have good ideas. It's that the bad ones are really prone to spreading, and thus wiping out healthier societies. Given the previous damage to the biosphere, and the current threats which humanity is, on the whole, choosing not to address, I have to rule that civilization was a poor life choice for which the whole planet is paying the price.
 

Comments

[siliconshaman]

Unfortunately going back isn't an option, we've burned those boats long ago. I guess we need to come up with something better than what we've got presently. At a guess, something that looks little like today, because what we have is really good at some things, like mass production... but at the same time acknowledges we're still the same tribal apes we were millennia ago.

Not sure what that would look like. Probably something based on the concept of a distributed network of villages rather than a vast metropolis with centralized services. Something like a 15 minute, walk-everywhere city, which certain groups seem to hate with unreasoning passion. (which is a one hell of an example of maladaptive tribalism)

[(Anonymous)]

*....most white folks can walk right past a food forest or clam garden and not even recognize it as a type of agriculture.*

Also, there's the semi-nomadic herding cultures, like the sami. It's definitely husbandry, but people tend not to classify them as agriculture.


re: The Question
From a purely species selfishness:
hm.

Healthwise, not very good for us. We're more susceptible to diseases, individually and collectively.
Populationwise, we spread out more and reached more of the globe (or did we? not sure, actually). Our numbers increased as well (a lot!). This would, theoretically, make us harder to wipe out (unless we do it ourselves?).

We probably managed to store knowledge for longer (monuments more lasting than bronze...) and some things (mathematics?chemistry?) probably wouldn't have gotten as far without larger dwellings (=at least townships).

Also, while writing could be used by smaller, semi-nomadic groups (think of hobo signs and similar), pretty sure that books can't be. Means that the majority of the culture would be oral. That...has drawbacks. Please see Alexander von Humbolts parrot.

[(Anonymous)]

...so honestly, it feels to me like good idea that we're just not bright enough to use the right way. Like someone picking up a violin and using it as a hammer.

Sigh.

[(Anonymous)]

*a* good idea. (mumble grumble spellcheck..)

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Pretty much. Humans manage tribes well, and small villages almost as well. But when you get up to clan or city-state level, you start having problems -- conflicts over territory get big enough to do a lot of damage quickly. Some societies manage to solve these problems at that level. The problem is they tend to get overrun by more violent societies, which as we've seen, is not sustainable over the long term.

Really, I have to rule bonobos the most civilized of the apes. Everyone else, confronted with a scarce resource like food, tends to fight over it and the strongest or most socially connected individual gets most or all of it. Bonobos notice the stress rising, throw a quick orgy, then calmly distribute things more-or-less equally.

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Also, there's the semi-nomadic herding cultures, like the sami. It's definitely husbandry, but people tend not to classify them as agriculture. <<

It's often classed as pastoralism. What modern white folks tend to overlook is just how much management that can entail. Take the African statement, "Elephants grow grass, cattle grow trees." Because they eat opposite things, the two groups of animals can move in very wide paths over the same landscape, maintaining a balanced savanna, without allowing either grass or trees to dominate. And the humans, going along with them, would likewise note where edible plants could be found and encourage their growth along the circuit for future use. That can include pulling up unwanted plants or distributing seeds for wanted ones. It just doesn't look the same as monocropping.

>>Also, while writing could be used by smaller, semi-nomadic groups (think of hobo signs and similar), pretty sure that books can't be. Means that the majority of the culture would be oral. That...has drawbacks. Please see Alexander von Humbolts parrot.<<

Oral culture can maintain accurate information over thousands of years. But it is limited to personal contact. Writing solves that problem but introduces different ones -- it is hard to learn, and if nobody remembers what it means, then deriving the meaning is difficult or impossible.