NationStates Jolt Archive

Spawned from the Oldest Civilization thread, and even using the Merkin spelling rather than my preferred civilization with an 's', I pose to thee this question. What exactly is civilization? Specifically. How do we decide that group A has it, whilst group B does not? We can discuss the historical evolution of the term, as well as what the term should mean. But mostly, I want to hear a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit because I suspect that will be the bulk of the answers:p

I would class a civilisation as a town, city, state or country that effectively defines a certain race. A society in an advanced state of social development with a culture and traits.

Well, "civilization" comes from the same root as "civitas", "civic", etc and such like Latin or some dead crap like that. In any event, it has to do with cities, with a man-made environment and social system. So as far as I'm concerned, if it has pavement and plumbing, it's a civilization. And the more stuff related to pavement and plumbing it has, the more civilized it is. So, a civilization that has escalators and pulsating massage showers is more civilized than one that has merely sidewalks and indoor plumbing. And a civilization where you can hail a cab anywhere on the paved street is more civilized than one where you have to call for a cab. And so forth. Considering how pragmatic the ancient peoples of Europe were, I'm of the opinion that this is the proper measure of relative levels of civilization. :)

Civilisation is what I live in; you live in some backwater hellhole and must be modernised, you savage*, you! :p





* This is not directed at any one. Just being right to the point. please take it in good humour.

The Definition of Civilization (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

I think it states it quite well, From the evolution of Tribal Hunting Societies to the Global Economic Superpowers of today...

I would class a civilisation as a town, city, state or country that effectively defines a certain race. A society in an advanced state of social development with a culture and traits.

Name me a single people with no culture and no traits. And what exactly constitutes 'advanced social development'? What is a town, or a city?

Telegram fromnabular to join the new empire of gallifrey.

Name me a single people with no culture and no traits.

The Antarticans...poor bastards...Africa keeps sucking up all their rice....

The Definition of Civilization (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

I think it states it quite well, From the evolution of Tribal Hunting Societies to the Global Economic Superpowers of today...

I like pie!!!!!!!!! From: Fromnabular

Considering how pragmatic the ancient peoples of Europe were, I'm of the opinion that this is the proper measure of relative levels of civilization. :)

:D
Well I did say I wanted to hear a bunch of eurocentric crap...and you my dear lady, have indeed crappified me :)

The Definition of Civilization (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

I think it states it quite well, From the evolution of Tribal Hunting Societies to the Global Economic Superpowers of today...

Thank you, that was actually giggle worthy!

Damn, I suppose I should be less honest about my intentions in future OPs...*removes the Fish in a Barrel sign*

I think Civilization is defined by a large diversity of jobs and specialization. Therefore:
Pre-Genghis Khan Mongols= Not civilized
Fuedal (Or however you spell it) Japan = Civilized.

I think 'civilization' is essentially a meaningless term, because it purports to apply a certain set of ethnocentric criteria on all people. As in, well let's see, how did we evolve...hmmm, I suppose that's the way it happens then! If you haven't done it that way, you aren't civilized. All people have used their own values to judge others by, finding 'uncivilized' those values that don't mesh. Objectively, however, none of us have had a leg to stand on.

Look at the Athenians...slave masters and pederests...'civilized'.

The 'ladder theory' of civilization as a linear, predictable and necessary path fails to take into account that fact that every people believe themselves more developed than their antecedents...yet despite this belief, it never means they have reached the 'pinnacle' of what humans can accomplish.

Civilisation is what I live in; you live in some backwater hellhole and must be modernised, you savage*, you! :p


The amusing part of this is...aren't you BOTH in canada?

as to the general concept of what is "civilization", to define what is a civilization, I think it's more proper to define that which is not a civilization will lack, or, rather, what is the fundamental principle behind an "ordered society".

Therefore, in my own interpretation, and this may be my own bias talking, that which seperates civilized societies from non civilized societies is but one thing.

Law.

as to the general concept of what is "civilization", to define what is a civilization, I think it's more proper to define that which is not a civilization will lack, or, rather, what is the fundamental principle behind an "ordered society".

Therefore, in my own interpretation, and this may be my own bias talking, that which seperates civilized societies from non civilized societies is but one thing.

Law.
Law as defined as what?

To use aboriginal people as an example...we have had complex legal orders for thousands of years. Some of us settled in permanent communities, while my own particular people remained nomadic...yet still living within those system of laws.

Law as defined as what?

an institutionalized system of forbidden and allowed acts predicated on punishment for those who step beyond the permissible. Often codified, but not necessarily.

The amusing part of this is...aren't you BOTH in canada?

It's called irony. ;)

an institutionalized system of forbidden and allowed acts predicated on punishment for those who step beyond the permissible. Often codified, but not necessarily.

Would you attach a value judgment to this institutionalized system? For example, if the laws were manifestly unjust, would that still be civilization?

The problem I see is that all too often the term 'civilization' is hugely value-laden.

an institutionalized system of forbidden and allowed acts predicated on punishment for those who step beyond the permissible. Often codified, but not necessarily.
Stupid Lawyers, with their laws. What have laws done for me? What have they saved ME from? :p

This.
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/civ1.png

It's called irony. ;)

Exactly....because you live in the T dot, and we all know how your claims to civilization thusly fail.:p

In all seriousness, I would define Civilization as when a people have achieved a Functioning Government based on the rule of Law...

Its what separates Man from the Apes...

Whether that be Nomadic, or Dictatorial, or whatever...

Its how advanced you consider the Civilization that makes all the Difference, which is Subject to the Eye of the Beholder...

Would you attach a value judgment to this institutionalized system? For example, if the laws were manifestly unjust, would that still be civilization?

The problem I see is that all too often the term 'civilization' is hugely value-laden.

Any system which requires a lable (civilized, uncivilized) will inherently be value laden. In that sense, civilized can mean two things (at least). Obtaining "a civilization", and obtaining a just, enlightened civilization.

Saudia Arabia, for instance, is certainly civilized. I just hesitate to call it "civilized"

Stupid Lawyers, with their laws. What have laws done for me? What have they saved ME from? :p

being beaten to death in your sleep by people bigger than you because they want your stuff.

*snip*You confuse me with your 19th century random capitalisation.

Would you attach a value judgment to this institutionalized system? For example, if the laws were manifestly unjust, would that still be civilization?

The problem I see is that all too often the term 'civilization' is hugely value-laden.

Only if you want it to be. I know Europeans went around the globe, claiming that they were hurting native peoples in order to "civilize" them. And they were, at least, they were making them conform to European civilization. It's just that civilization is not inherently better than pre-civilization.

I'd define a civilized group of people as opposed to a uncivilized group as one which has enough job specialization, laws, and common tradition to stay put in one place. In short, any group that isn't nomadic.

Any system which requires a lable (civilized, uncivilized) will inherently be value laden. In that sense, civilized can mean two things (at least). Obtaining "a civilization", and obtaining a just, enlightened civilization.

Saudia Arabia, for instance, is certainly civilized. I just hesitate to call it "civilized"

So small 'c' civilized (civilisation) and big 'C' civilized (just/enlightened).

But you're no fun, because I agree with you. I need some stupid racists to bash. Damnit.

This.
http://www.richleader.com/images/feature/winxp_gaming/civ3_st_1.png

Which difficulty level are you at? Recycling at 1820 is pretty impressive.

I'd define a civilized group of people as opposed to a uncivilized group as one which has enough job specialization, laws, and common tradition to stay put in one place. In short, any group that isn't nomadic.

So the Iroquois and west coast Salish were civilized, but my own people, the Cree were not...by virtue of the fact that we were nomadic?

Which difficulty level are you at? Recycling at 1820 is pretty impressive.

I changed the picture to something more...appropriate, if you care to look. After all, the question was not "What is 'civilization' 3.

You confuse me with your 19th century random capitalisation.

Cheerio, we here in the Victorian Age are Right Proud of our Vast Capitalizing, Shift button pressing Prowess...

being beaten to death in your sleep by people bigger than you because they want your stuff.
Aw, that's not too bad. It's just a few broken bones, and a missing computer. What's the harm in that? :p

But seriously, I don't think law defines civilization. Almost (or maybe even EVERY) every grouping on the planet, whether kingdom, tribe, or city-state, had laws. They may not have been written down, but I don't think there's been a time without laws of some kind, no matter how simple. I may be wrong, my knowledge of tribal societies is somewhat limited...

Exactly....because you live in the T dot, and we all know how your claims to civilization thusly fail.:p

At least I'm not stuck in redneck Canada, which is like redneck US, except everyone says "eh" at the end of every other sentence.

At least I'm not stuck in redneck Canada, which is like redneck US, except everyone says "eh" at the end of every other sentence.

Yeah but we're rolling in the dough while your manufacturing sector gets sucked into the black hole of the Merkin recession. Muahahahahahahaha!

*remembers transfer payments*

Shit.

Aw, that's not too bad. It's just a few broken bones, and a missing computer. What's the harm in that? :p

But seriously, I don't think law defines civilization. Almost (or maybe even EVERY) every grouping on the planet, whether kingdom, tribe, or city-state, had laws. They may not have been written down, but I don't think there's been a time without laws of some kind, no matter how simple. I may be wrong, my knowledge of tribal societies is somewhat limited...

Exactly, when the Concept of Law and Government was concieved, no matter how Primitive or poorly Defined, Civilization began...

Its the Advancement of Civilization that mattered after that...which, as previously stated, is Subjective...

Yeah but we're rolling in the dough while your manufacturing sector gets sucked into the black hole of the Merkin recession. Muahahahahahahaha!

*remembers transfer payments*

Shit.

Though, I get the feeling the federal government will try and punish Ontario and weasel out of those payments like a deadbeat father avoiding alimony and jetting off with his hot young wife. ;)

I think 'civilization' is essentially a meaningless term, because it purports to apply a certain set of ethnocentric criteria on all people. As in, well let's see, how did we evolve...hmmm, I suppose that's the way it happens then! If you haven't done it that way, you aren't civilized. All people have used their own values to judge others by, finding 'uncivilized' those values that don't mesh. Objectively, however, none of us have had a leg to stand on.

Look at the Athenians...slave masters and pederests...'civilized'.

The 'ladder theory' of civilization as a linear, predictable and necessary path fails to take into account that fact that every people believe themselves more developed than their antecedents...yet despite this belief, it never means they have reached the 'pinnacle' of what humans can accomplish.

/\ This /\

Thanks for typing this all out so I can just point to it and not have to do any work. :P

Almost (or maybe even EVERY) every grouping on the planet, whether kingdom, tribe, or city-state, had laws.

For the most part, yes. You are however incorrect that every society had laws. Read some Hobbes. But it's true that most societies for the last 5,000 years ago had laws. Which means civilization is a pretty broad and encompassing term.

Now whether they were just, enlightened civilizations is another question entirely, and one entirely subjective on what you consider just, and enlightened.

Civilization is a word in the English language.

At least I'm not stuck in redneck Canada, which is like redneck US, except everyone says "eh" at the end of every other sentence.

Alberta = Canada's Texas.

A place where there is a central or shared administrative system in which (usually hierarchical) systems of labour and services are created in order to achieve greater utility, resources and allocation of land or property. That's my personal definition.

I think 'civilization' is essentially a meaningless term, because it purports to apply a certain set of ethnocentric criteria on all people. As in, well let's see, how did we evolve...hmmm, I suppose that's the way it happens then! If you haven't done it that way, you aren't civilized. All people have used their own values to judge others by, finding 'uncivilized' those values that don't mesh. Objectively, however, none of us have had a leg to stand on.

Look at the Athenians...slave masters and pederests...'civilized'.

The 'ladder theory' of civilization as a linear, predictable and necessary path fails to take into account that fact that every people believe themselves more developed than their antecedents...yet despite this belief, it never means they have reached the 'pinnacle' of what humans can accomplish.

I believe you are objecting more to how the term can be falsely turned into a moral judgement rather than whether the term is meaningless or not.

Civilization is merely a society that has a basically sedentary (as opposed to nomadic) lifestyle, is based on agriculture, that builds cities and towns and lives in 'em.

In a more general sense it can mean basically "large society" or "nation" or something, but I prefer the more precise and specific meaning.

And I don't believe in using "civilized" to mean "better than non-civilized." There's that bias, sure, dating at least as far back as the old Romans vs 'Barbarians.' But I don't read it into the word.

These days, I most often see reference to how 'uncivilized' a people are, as reference to Muslims. But then again I tend to hang out on political forums, so that's hardly any sort of general indicator.

Spawned from the Oldest Civilization thread, and even using the Merkin spelling rather than my preferred civilization with an 's', I pose to thee this question. What exactly is civilization? Specifically. How do we decide that group A has it, whilst group B does not? We can discuss the historical evolution of the term, as well as what the term should mean. But mostly, I want to hear a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit because I suspect that will be the bulk of the answers:p

Civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization)

I guess that a group becomes a civilization once it reaches a certain level of complexity in both the social (as the establishment of cities, a level of cultural sophistication and the practice of agriculture) and religious (chosen religion for the society at hand accompanied by a set of defined practices) fields.

Members of a civilization tend to be organized in complex social stratas and there´s labor division and great, social hierarchy.

According to Wikipedia.org, and in accordance to your desire to, perhaps discuss the evolution of the term, let me point out that civilization, the word:
¨...comes from the Latin word civilis, the adjective form of civis, meaning a "citizen" or "townsman" governed by the law of his city.¨

This term has evolved according to the times. But I´ll let others elaborate on this topic.

Spawned from the Oldest Civilization thread, and even using the Merkin spelling rather than my preferred civilization with an 's', I pose to thee this question. What exactly is civilization? Specifically. How do we decide that group A has it, whilst group B does not? We can discuss the historical evolution of the term, as well as what the term should mean. But mostly, I want to hear a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit because I suspect that will be the bulk of the answers:p

'Civilisation' is an ideal we're collectively still working towards, with occassional gestures in the right directions.

It has nothing to do with technology or political or economic models - it's about people treating each other in a civilised manner. For the most part, the world fails at this.

So the Iroquois and west coast Salish were civilized, but my own people, the Cree were not...by virtue of the fact that we were nomadic?

I'd say yes, but that's not a bad thing. If I had a choice between being a nomadic Cree and French peasant in 1500, I'd go with the Cree. The problem with the word "civilization" is that it carries a good connotation, while there is nothing inherently good about it.

A popular computer game series.

A popular computer game series.

...which is based on an old Avalon Hill board game (which is very cool but takes forever to play).

Spawned from the Oldest Civilization thread, and even using the Merkin spelling rather than my preferred civilization with an 's', I pose to thee this question. What exactly is civilization? Specifically. How do we decide that group A has it, whilst group B does not? We can discuss the historical evolution of the term, as well as what the term should mean. But mostly, I want to hear a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit because I suspect that will be the bulk of the answers:p

Well, if you're going to post on an english speaking forum, you should expect euro-centric answers.

In my mind civilization has a few benchmarks that must be met, or at least given notice. For one thing, there must be some sort of rule of law, something must be out of bounds (normally this would take the form of no-murder, no-rape, no-stealing etc.) though what is out of bounds could be different depending on the state. Second there must be a state, or some sort of boundaries that define what the "civilization" is. A group of blond haired people aren't a civilization, but a group of blond haired people who have their own island and can be distinguished from another civilization are. Other than that...I don't know, there's other stuff, but I can't think of it right now.

It seems civilization is everything except South America and Africa according to the facts....

http://www.msxnet.org/humour/world-according-to-america.png

Civilization (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/Civilizationboxart.jpg) is characterized by the practice of agriculture, permanent settlement in cities and large villages, codified laws, and durable institutions.

A few selections include: The Inca, Bantu, Aztec, Mayan, Chinese, India, Western Europe and Eastern Europe (largely divided into nation-states), Middle Eastern, Southeast Asian (divided heavily by ethnicity), etc.

Nomads, small groups, hunter-gatherers and others are not members of the club, although members of such groups can fit within the greater civilization that they might choose to associate with.

Civilization is anything that isn't fun, but you've got to do it or else other people are likely to hit you. Wearing pants, that's civilization. Paying money for stuff, as opposed to simply grabbing and wandering off, that's civilzation.
Resisting the urge to take a fire ax to the back of someone else's skull when they say "So what are you going to do about this," knowing damn well that it isn't your responsibility to help their stupid asses out when they get into trouble because they are incapable of reading signs or thinking ahead, you bet your ass that's civilization.

Another prereq for civilization: The brewing of fine beers and ales!

The most controversial debate in foreign affairs with regards to "civilisation" in recent times is the "Clash of Civilisations" theory by American academic Samuel Huntington. He suggests that ideology has ceased to become the main causes of international conflict, capitalist democracy having triumphed over fascism and communism. The new cause of international conflict, said he, was civilisational: i.e. groups of civilisations face off each other.

He defined civilisation as "the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species." In addition, each civilisation is defined by its core and enduring "values, norms, institutions, and modes of thinking."

He then lists eight civilisations: the "West" (i.e. North America, Western Europe and ANZ), the Orthodox (i.e. Russia and Eastern Europe), Latin America, Islamic, (sub-Saharan) African, Indian, Sinic (China and environs), and Japanese, and points out that future conflict (he wrote this in 1992) would be mainly between the West against Orthodox, Sinic, and most importantly, the Islamic civilisation.

Of course, this is only a general theory - by no means proven - and has been criticised from everywhere. But there you go. Civilisation.

"civilisation"

Well, there's your problem this thread was about Civilization...:p

Well, there's your problem this thread was about Civilization...:p

American spelling is despicable. I don't know why Huntington lumped Britain and America together in the same "Western" civilisation. Clearly Britain is better than America and should be classified as something different, like "Superior European Western".

American spelling is despicable. I don't know why Huntington lumped Britain and America together in the same "Western" civilisation. Clearly Britain is better than America and should be classified as something different, like "Superior European Western".

Thanx friend...we love you too...



OH, and make sure there's still room for our Planes on the Carrier...:p

Thanx friend...we love you too...



OH, and make sure there's still room for our Planes on the Carrier...:p

EXPROPRIATION IN THE NAME OF HER MAJESTY!!

civilization is the USA and other areas measure their civilization level by how like the USA they are.

:D
Well I did say I wanted to hear a bunch of eurocentric crap...and you my dear lady, have indeed crappified me :)
Oh, I'm glad! :D

I think 'civilization' is essentially a meaningless term, because it purports to apply a certain set of ethnocentric criteria on all people. As in, well let's see, how did we evolve...hmmm, I suppose that's the way it happens then! If you haven't done it that way, you aren't civilized. All people have used their own values to judge others by, finding 'uncivilized' those values that don't mesh. Objectively, however, none of us have had a leg to stand on.

Look at the Athenians...slave masters and pederests...'civilized'.

The 'ladder theory' of civilization as a linear, predictable and necessary path fails to take into account that fact that every people believe themselves more developed than their antecedents...yet despite this belief, it never means they have reached the 'pinnacle' of what humans can accomplish.
I'm telling you, it's the amenities that matter, not the attitudes. Those slave masters and pederasts had paved streets and houses in the suburbs -- ergo, civilized. ;)

EDIT: Now take indigenous North American cultures: The plains peoples, for instance, had comfy folding and multi-purpose furniture as well as efficient storage solutions in all-mod-cons mobile homes. Ergo, civilized. :)

Civilization means sedentary populations, cities, pollution, death, destruction, disease, slavery, oppression- all for things.

Some of those things are pretty damn awesome though.

Civilization is hard to escape, as people become dependent on it.

as to the general concept of what is "civilization", to define what is a civilization, I think it's more proper to define that which is not a civilization will lack, or, rather, what is the fundamental principle behind an "ordered society".

Therefore, in my own interpretation, and this may be my own bias talking, that which seperates civilized societies from non civilized societies is but one thing.

Law.
Ha! Nice attempt to justify your paycheck. :p

It seems civilization is everything except South America and Africa according to the facts....

http://www.msxnet.org/humour/world-according-to-america.png

http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/Doodle_Earth.S.jpg

Spawned from the Oldest Civilization thread, and even using the Merkin spelling rather than my preferred civilization with an 's', I pose to thee this question. What exactly is civilization? Specifically. How do we decide that group A has it, whilst group B does not? We can discuss the historical evolution of the term, as well as what the term should mean. But mostly, I want to hear a bunch of Eurocentric bullshit because I suspect that will be the bulk of the answers:p

the basic question of civilization is "cardboard boxes, do you have them?"

The amusing part of this is...aren't you BOTH in canada?

Canada's pretty big. *shrug*

I don't really think "civilization" is a word with much objective content--at least not such that we can label any human society "uncivilized."

I don't really think "civilization" is a word with much objective content--at least not such that we can label any human society "uncivilized."

Clearly youve never heard of Central Africa...:p

Anything I can conquer.

an institutionalized system of forbidden and allowed acts predicated on punishment for those who step beyond the permissible. Often codified, but not necessarily.

Er... you do realize that pretty much all peoples across the world, either living in grand cities or the nomadic australian aboriginals, have laws in some form or another. So... every system is a civilization? Eh... no. Even the most liberal of archaeologists and anthropologists draw the line somewhere.

That said, one must be careful in how one uses civilization. Often times, it is used as to mean "better", however, in reality it should be just "different". That's the cultural relativist in me speaking, though, and that's another topic in and of itself.

civilization is the concentration of culture and knowledge at one said place

Civilization is what nomadism is not.

So the Iroquois and west coast Salish were civilized, but my own people, the Cree were not...by virtue of the fact that we were nomadic?

Awww, you're not still sore about them basing the U.S. Constitution on ours, are you? ;) <--is, like, 1/16th Mohawk

I'm telling you, it's the amenities that matter, not the attitudes. Those slave masters and pederasts had paved streets and houses in the suburbs -- ergo, civilized. ;)

EDIT: Now take indigenous North American cultures: The plains peoples, for instance, had comfy folding and multi-purpose furniture as well as efficient storage solutions in all-mod-cons mobile homes. Ergo, civilized. :)

New definition of civilized: Any area that has an IKEA.

Civilization is what nomadism is not.

But what if the nomads were incredibly good at packing and assembled complex structures every time they settled? What if they lived in mobile homes?

Hmm. I guess I just answered my own question there.

But what if the nomads were incredibly good at packing and assembled complex structures every time they settled? What if they lived in mobile homes?
You'd need some kind of civilization to make mobile homes or complex structures. You wouldn't be able to do that if you were always chasing after your food.

Haha...Civilized Red Savages...thats real funny, lol :p

<---Something like 1/6th Cherokee

You'd need some kind of civilization to make mobile homes or complex structures. You wouldn't be able to do that if you were always chasing after your food.

Native Americans....Check, and Mate...

well when rome, ancient rome, coined the term, they simply ment cities and city oriented nations. which has been pretty much backward headed ever since the invention of the air plane made them sitting targets stratigically.

when i use the term civilization, i think in terms of two things: mainly physical tecnological infrasture of transportation, communication, and electrical energy, for one, and, MUCH more importantly, culture and social organization, not dominated by aggressiveness, nor romantacizing of brutality.

by THAT standard, "civilization" is something to look forward to, that i believe whole heartedly in that it can and will, but that it hasn't quite yet, been invented.

=^^=
.../\...

<snip>

New definition of civilized: Any area that has an IKEA.

o/ I vote YES.


But what if the nomads were incredibly good at packing and assembled complex structures every time they settled? What if they lived in mobile homes?

Hmm. I guess I just answered my own question there.
What, you mean like ALL nomadic cultures? ;)

I know I said that civilization depended on pavement and plumbing, but that's only what the Romans meant by it, and since they kind of planted the concept in the collective Romanized Western imagination, I accept that as its foundation. But it doesn't take much effort (for most people) to realize that, in the broader sense of functionality, civilization is measured by relative levels of comfort and convenience. The more comfortable one's living conditions relative to one's natural environment, and the more conveniently one may carry out one's day to day affairs, the more civilized one's social environment is. It is obviously possible to have all that and be a nomad at the same time. People have been doing it that way for far longer than they've been laying pipe or mixing concrete. By applying the broader standard, we can put the Romans in their historical place and free our observations from our cultural biases.

All this shows that the term is no longer suitable for the way in which it is used. Same thing goes for primitive/technologically advanced. One of the few times when I would advocate someone inventing a new term.

I believe you are objecting more to how the term can be falsely turned into a moral judgement rather than whether the term is meaningless or not.
No, my issue is that moral judgements render the term meaningless. You cannot find an objective, amoral definition of the term, because it is inextricably linked to the value system of the person using it. It is therefore only a `what we have and others do not` kind of term, not an actual, useful reference point.

American spelling is despicable.
Agreed...but they get all confused when you spell it the proper way, and they can focus on nothing else beyond that. It's quite vexing.

the basic question of civilization is "cardboard boxes, do you have them?"

That's so weird...I actually ended up making that a random qualification of civilization somewhere in this thread...

I don't really think "civilization" is a word with much objective content--at least not such that we can label any human society "uncivilized."

Agreed. The term "uncivilized" is quite relative.

Example: To the Romans the Celts were completely uncivilized, by Roman standards, whereas to the Celts, the Romans were uncivilized by Celtic standards.

It's all in the eye of the beholder, perchance.

Civilization refers to the presence of cities, permanent settlements involving permanent shelters. Civilized is the adjective form. (There is also a second meaning of civilized, but it has an inherent value attached to it, so I find it rather useless.)

While a certain value is often ascribed to civilization and civilized, there is nothing inherent in the definition of civilization and definition one of civilized that requires that.

Edit: Holy hell I managed to use the "-ise" suffix without ever once using an s instead of a z... Oh wait I just did it in the edit thing.

Civilisation implies cities, so, any community that has settled down and founded a city.

Native Americans....Check, and Mate...
Not...really.
Those weren't complex, just some skins thrown over simple arangements of logs and sticks. I guess it qualifies as a mobile home but not a complex sturcture. And they never made wagons which is what I was thinking of as a mobile home.

I don't really think "civilization" is a word with much objective content--at least not such that we can label any human society "uncivilized."

True, it's an emotionally loaded word, though I was taught back in high school an interesting definition of civilization. There were eight criteria one had to meet to be considered a civilization, though I only remember four- urbanization, sedentary agriculture, a system of writing, and organized religion. I'm sure the other four had to do with political systems, though.

You cannot find an objective, amoral definition of the term, because it is inextricably linked to the value system of the person using it.

Not nessecerally, the word doesn't require you to attach a value to being uncivilised or a value to being civilised, they are merely 'is' statements and you can take from that what you will, regardless of how many people would view being uncivilised as negative.


It is therefore only a `what we have and others do not` kind of term, not an actual, useful reference point.

If you feel that, by the definition of civilisation, only 'we' have it, then you're going to have to live with that fact - it doesn't make the term meaningless. If on the other hand you are saying that the definition of civilisation itself is 'what we have' then I must disagree, especially considering that every country on earth has or at least had civilisation.

Those weren't complex, just some skins thrown over simple arangements of logs and sticks.
You've never tried to pitch a tepee, have you?

Native Americans....Check, and Mate...

Their situation was only such post-Collapse. Prior to that point, much of North America was populated by settled communities, with settled agriculture. Smallpox and friends, though, blasted the hell out of the population, and forced them out of their traditional ways.

That's so weird...I actually ended up making that a random qualification of civilization somewhere in this thread...

well then, it must be true

Civilization is what you get when psychopaths successfully manipulate a horde of barbarians into doing their bidding. The institution then gets successively more complex, bureaucratic, inflexible and maladjusted to reality with successive leaderships, the relatively rare leader that actually cares about the people infusing it with bursts of relative sanity and positive progress, thus prolonging its life until incompetent and/or malevolent administration and/or some sort of natural disaster finally leads to an inevitable collapse.

You've never tried to pitch a tepee, have you?
Ackchewalee I've done it. Not as easy as it looks or as easy as modern tents but in no way is it a complex structure like an RV or a house.

it occurs to me, that a two word answer would be: "mostly mythological".

(not that it says very much, but it IS absolutely true!)

=^^=
.../\...