Hacker News Reader

Comment by sparkie | Hacker News Reader

The problem with trying to write a manual of 'civilization' is that we don't know what it means to be civilized yet. The western world assumes it is civilized, but that's only because it has no idea what it's armies are really doing in other parts of the world (ie, mass murder), it's because people have no real understanding of how their tax money is stolen by the few, and because the media is dominated by those who are complicit in covering up those crimes.

A manual for civilization, if we're going to assume that our current state is civilization, can be nothing other than manuals on warfare, population control and taxation. The rest of the structure arises as a consequence of those.

If I were given the chance too bootstrap civilization, I'd definitely avoid being tainted by this trainwreck.

View on HN

this is too reductionist, imo.

I think it can be agreed that we[0] are slightly more civilized than we were some centuries ago? (e.g. no burning witches, no indentured servitude, no slavery, no segregation)

Then, is it crazy to think that we live in very corrupt democracies that yet _may_ possibly be better than absolute monarchy, feudalism, totalitarism and african kleptocracies ?

I'm not sure you want to throw out everything, the problem with saying "we are not civilized" is posing civilization as binary value.

Anyway I think TFA is talking more about technology than social systems.

[0] rich west, OECD, G20, G7 or whatever

I'm not sure we can agree on all that. We're still burning witches (eg. Bin Laden), and figuratively (Assange, Manning, Snowden etc), steadily removing a due process that assumes innocence that was created 800 years ago. Star chambers have re-emerged to hide the crimes of oligarchs too, particularly in the UK.

Slavery still exists, it's face has just changed. The modern slavery is economic slavery - the requirement to labor, and be taxed on that labor in order to survive.

And to suggest that segregation is no longer an issue is disingenuous. Take a look at Israel for example, a great role model being "the only democracy in the middle east".

On top of not being much more civilized than our ancestors, each year, people still celebrate the life of one of them, whose work was the mass murder and torture of aboriginal Americans. Very civilized, and patriotic. Yes, patriotism! What wonderful social values we have in the civilized world.

I don't know if we should say civilization is a binary value or a spectrum, but I'm pretty sure that one which routinely conducts murder and celebrates it is definitely on the "non-civilized" side, according to my understanding of the word.

I can probably agree that democracy is slightly better than what was had in the past, but democracy no longer exists, it has been eroded now to the point where recovery is not likely.

So, let's consider the colonization of the Americas.

Most people today would probably agree that mass murder and torture of aboriginal americans is bad. This was _not_ true at the time it happened.

Bartolome de Las Casas is known _because_ he was an exception, and yet he thought a perfectly legit idea to use african slaves rather than americans, until his late years.

Do bad things still happen? Yes. The difference is that more people now have a framework by which they would consider them "bad" than there were in the past.

Most people agree that mass murder of Iraqis was bad at the time, just 10 years ago - it didn't prevent it from happening. The US drone program is still routinely murdering many, even though most people consider it bad.

I'm pretty sure most people would've considered the mass murder of Americans bad at the time too, since Christianity was prevalent, and we know what it says about murder. There's obviously a difference from now, in that people were more xenophobic at the time, but there are still similarities to the current day.

It seems that while most of us are civil individually, as a collective, the civility is lost, and what is manifested is the barbaric elements among us.

The framework for what people consider to be good/bad is flawed and contradictory, because while most of us agree that murder is bad, we routinely pay a hit man to conduct it. Very few people consider that's what's happening when they pay tax, but it doesn't make it any less true. Some people recognize the fact and pay tax out of fear of what the hit man may do to them if they don't pay, and many others will suffer cognitive dissonance in which they convince themselves that it's necessary for "the greater good", and downplay the mass murder and torture.

Rather than being content with what we have being better than what we had, we should consider the ways in which we haven't changed from the past and do something about them. One thing that hasn't changed is that we're still paying the hit man. Will the hit man ever stop killing people when we continue paying it? Perhaps we should be thinking how to create a different framework in which there is no hit man. Perhaps then we may be called 'civil'.

> I'm pretty sure most people would've considered the mass murder of Americans bad at the time too, since Christianity was prevalent, and we know what it says about murder.

No, the problem being that non-europeans were considered less than humans even by prominent theologists. "We are all equals" is a terribly recent idea. In the same way, cat burning was considered good family fun until the 19th century, we have only started to extend basic rights to non-human sentient beings.

> Perhaps then we may be called 'civil'.

And again, you have reduced the issue to being civil yes/no.

We shouldn't be content with the way we are, but that doesn't mean we haven't improved.

It is incredibly intellectually dishonest to claim that Western civilization hasn't vastly improved in its general "civilization" over the last century - respect of human rights, medical knowledge, technological capability and respect for human life and welfare.

You can certainly point to many areas where things are still very sub-optimal (we don't even agree on what "optimal" means). But just the fact that we have stopped waging all-out industrialized war on each other, a tradition which ended in 1945, is enough of an improvement to make it better even if there was no progress in other areas. And there has been massive progress in most other areas as well. I don't think this is a claim which needs citations.

We could at least preserve raw knowledge, though. "Most diseases are caused by germs, so wash your hands" could save countless lives. And some basic notions of things like force and energy could enable machines to make peoples' lives better quickly, too.

And there is so much taken for granted.. how long did it take us to get to the table of elements, their properties and the knowledge of where to find them, the knowledge of how to manipulate electricity.. the tools to regain knowledge, a microscope and a telescope..

and simple ancient things, such as what is the best form for a house under given conditions. Farming possibilities, storing, transportation..

Everything stacks, and to get to a thing like pure aluminium or plastic has taken ages. In case of a breakdown it is good to leave pointers to restarters. I understand that this is what the article talks about and not the notion of 'noble civilization' as opposed to savagery.

I think part of the problem is just being honest and complete about what is in the world. As opposed to what should be.

This was a problem for me, growing up. A lot of what should be, that left me somewhat blind and poorly prepared to deal with what is. Especially when the latter suddenly reared its head and I had to take quick action. Or, not take action and thereby let events roll over me in a less than optimal/desirable fashion.

So... write the "manual" -- or description -- of civilization as it is. Warts and all. Trust the readers, en masse if not always individually, to have good intentions moving forward -- the better informed for your efforts.

Someone supposedly asked Mahatma Gandhi “What do you think of Western civilization?” and recieved the answer “I think it would be a good idea”.

I agree, about the public not really paying attention to what we do militarily in other parts of the world. However, haven't all the big civilizations of the world done the same? Romans, Greeks, British, and the US.

Didn't ancient tribes in America and in Africa always war with other tribes?

Maybe there is no such thing as civil. Maybe the closet thing is a world where every country is a true competent democracy.

I wasn't necessarily singling out the western world as the perpetrators, but meant that the entire human history has been plagued by war, deception and control. Our current system is just a continuation of it, and until we can break free from that history, I don't think we can call ourselves civil.

I don't think every 'country' in the world being a competent democracy is that either, because a country is a spoil of war. Nations exist only in our heads - they don't exist in the physical, natural world at all. Part of my point about rebooting civilization without being tainted by our system is to eliminate such misconceptions from the social consciousness, or rather, not plant them to begin with.

Entertainment sometimes seems to present the blunt truth of our aspirations:

"There’s certainly something to be said about the assumptions, say, Civilization builds into its simulations. Look at its winstates and what they value — technological progress, military conquest, economic superiority, and cultural domination. You don’t win by eliminating hunger or poverty or by nuclear deproliferation or by having a particularly high standard of living. You get it for, for lack of a better way to phrase this, very American goals."

http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=582

I dunno about throwing away all existing civilizations as uncivilized, but you're certainly correct that we could use a lot of work.

Where do you get that civilization has to be 'civil'? One alternative definition I'm fond of (yes, admittedly only fond of) for civilization requires no such thing: The use of agriculture to supply food rather than hunting & gathering. From there future humans may or may not benefit from understanding mathematics and the like, but that is not a part of them having a civilization.

Maybe we should see civilization as a process, not as a state.

Even better, an eternal process not a historical process?

Even worse the point of the comment is it seems to be a proven fact of sociology, or social engineering or whatever, that one effective way for a society to stay on track or even improve is to keep people around who serve the purpose of complaining about the level of civilization.

Its very counter intuitive... in the sciences you can whine and complain never results in much of anything, in the crafts and arts its also a waste of time, but as a social engineering technology keeping some professional complainers around is a good and effective long term strategy.

So is that enough of a proven and utilitarian argument to keep some soft sciences in the library or not?

I think you are holding a very high bar for 'civilized'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com