Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: Defining civilization

    How can we create a new concept of civilization?

    Started by: Cheshrkat Raves:3

    Subscribe » RSS

    As I have seeing disagreement on this and other boards, I think that in order to even attempt to solve a global problem we have to first come up with a new concept of "civilization". 1. What is civilization as it affects the human race? Since the concept of civilization as realized by an indigenous Australian is vastly different from the concept of a native New Yorker can we even attempt to create a global civilization? How can we incorporate various individual, tribal and cultural values and needs into this new definition? 2. How can we re-define wealth as a global construct? Is it even possible to re-define it? Why should a retail stocker at a Michigan Wal-Mart care about a farmer in India? As recent events have shown a simple rise in gas prices causes enormous changes in people's lives as it affects not only their driving habits but the cost of food and services as well. Can we even begin to create global concept of wealth. 3. How do we govern this new civilization in a way that everyone's basic needs are met? Is this even possible? Consider the pro's and con's of the various government types; Socialism, Democratic, Fascist, etc. as it affects all levels of society 4. What can we do about dwindling natural resources as it affects our civilization? Its okay for the suburbanite to "buy" a few acres of rainforest, but what about the rancher in Brazil thats trying to feed his family? If cattle ranches in the U.S. were replaced with soybean farms, global hunger could be wiped out in a few years, but what about the impact that has on the people \who depend on those cattle ranches? (including fast-food employees). 5. How can we get people to think ahead...not just for next week or even next year, but next decade? 6. Having survived Katrina, I have seen first-hand what happens to "civilized" people in the event of disruption of services. Imagine this on a global scale. How can we get people to think likewise? 7. Is the re-distribution of wealth necessary? Is it possible? A new concept of civilization is vital if we are to survive and thrive in the future. But in order for that new definition to actually be adopted there will have to be massive changes in the concepts of wealth, "basic" human needs, even borders. Can we do this?

    Civilization is all about sharing the resources and the benefit of a place together. In 2019 we cannnot rely on a civilization concept based on language and heritage, unless it would be impossible to share any civil value. Civilization is something that people has to build day by day, staying together and collaborating to overcome the tasks that this stressed world present to us. Being civilized in the past meant "to be a resident of a city", a particular city, now in 2019 civilization has to integrate alll the past with a genneral tendency to openess and integration. No more tolerance, which means that one of the two part involved has to "tolerate the different", and so he considers himself superior to that person.

    I think having a truly global civilization like the one Cheshrkat envisions requires more than just a redistribution of wealth and a rethinking of the "economics" of survival and our political structures. Most important, I believe, is the breaking down of the many walls that separate us from one another. I'm not just talking about language and cultural barriers here. We desperately need for people to drop their prejudices and learn to see each other as truly equal fellow humans. This means the realization of many cultures inherent biases as they relate to gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. We need a wiping out of sexism, racism, ableism, and many of other "-isms." We will never be able to work together to solve problems on this scale if we cannot see beyond our own narrow views of one another.

    Civilization depends on a striving for improvement in the human species. I cannot bring myself to give the dignity of that name to any conception which is willing to simply accept our faults and our vices as "natural" and not combat them. The problem with 'tolerance' as a solution, is that every time I hear us urged to be 'tolerant' it seems to be a codeword for 'ignore evil when you see it, and simply accept it into your midst'. In order to have a civilization, we need to have a common vision of what a meaningful human life would look like, and then structure a society that helps us all to achieve that. In this sense, it is possible to have a German civilization, a socialist civilization, or an Islamic civilization. It is not possible to have a 'tolerant', classically liberal civilization.

    It seems as though the issue of power is what defines most epochs, most civilizations and the lives of the citizens within them. Who has power and how is power communicated throughout a society? Who is bound by it? Who is outside of it? Who determines the methods of power's enforcement? In advanced capitalism, wealth is often a stand in for what used to be physical power or social power (men owning women, their families, etc.). As has been suggested, it isn't enough to make someone in Michigan care about someone in India. We need to turn the notion of wealth=power (and thus the drive to accumulate such power) on its head. Rampant materialism is what got us into this mess and it certainly isn't going to get us out. I think part of the solution is actually decoupling the Michigan Wal Mart employee from the Indian. The Indian shouldn't rely on someone in Michigan for power and the person in Michigan shouldn't be able to exercise power in a way that effects the Indian. This means a return to local farming and a transcendence of multinational capitalism as is defined by corporations like McDonals, Starbucks, Wal Mart, etc. The exchange of resources should be an actual exchange, not one based on power (wealth). We cannot address any notion of civilization could be until we actually change what our current civilization is based on. Currency should no longer equal wealth. Multinationals should no longer have access to resources that should belong to sovereign entities- not governments, but people. The people of the world should be sovereign (as is suggested in the US Constitution) and should control the rights to their resources. This will create more problems for the Western world than for the Indian, but both will need to adapt to a new paradigm where wealth cannot equal power and where local groups will again have sovereignty over their own land.




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL