12 ms·
You're still arguing against something that no one else is. You're viewing their arguments as "Water overtook their cities and they died because of it". Their
by reificator 7y ago
You're still arguing against something that no one else is.
You're viewing their arguments as "Water overtook their cities and they died because of it".
Their argument is that "They died out and then water overtook their cities".
- chrisco255 7y agoWell if we're still talking about "advanced civilization" like Mesopotamia, I can definitely see climate change causing a gradual collapse. I still doubt it was possible to have a large city prior to metallurgy and agriculture. Maybe megafauna was abundant enough that it could support that but it seems like a stretch.
- hinkley 7y agoAs far as I am aware, none of the civilizations in South and Central America ever had metallurgy. Having a civilization and keeping civilization are two different things. Once humans are capable of thinking of it, it would happen over and over again. But when it fails, the survivors might have a sort of cultural PTSD comparable to the Sodom and Gomorrah story in the Bible. People might resist trying again for generations (also, how many places could you found a civilization in a world without sanitation, metallurgy or medicine?)