4 ms·

Doesn't any civilization-ending apocalypse, if human-precipitated, necessarily imply that any of the political and moral dimensions of other comments are a wast

Doesn't any civilization-ending apocalypse, if human-precipitated, necessarily imply that any of the political and moral dimensions of other comments are a waste of time? What good is handing down our political thinking to a new society if it failed to protect our "advanced" one? What good is handing down technology (including stuff like fire and domestication of animals) if it's going to be subject to the old-school rule 34 (if it exists, it will be weaponized)?

joeclark77 12y ago
I think you are reading "civilisation" to mean "the current way our society works" including the virtuous aspects as well as the heathen barbarity of the modern age. Let us hope instead that when the OP asks for a "civilisation cheat sheet", he means to find methods to transmit the "civilised" ideal rather than the disappointing status quo.
- gregcohn 12y ago
  What I am saying is there is no way to pry them apart. There is no lens through which you can look at any aspect of human history and disambiguate the "good civilization" from the "bad civilization" without that lens having been created by the same civilization itself, which is -- a priori based on the assumption in the question -- doomed. *I suppose you could make a case by looking at various extinct civilizations other than ours.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    This is akin to saying that reason is impossible because man is fallen. We know a great deal that we don't consistently practice about morality, justice, virtue, and so on. Our descendants may be fallen people, too, but we can certainly do our best to teach them the best that we know.
    - gregcohn 12y ago
      And what, exactly, is the best that we know? Looking at your top-level answer, without wanting to be unduly argumentative, it's certainly reasonable to argue that the classics and the Bible have -- more than most other "knowledge" -- to date failed to save us from ourselves. They've been around thousands of years, and we still have massive poverty, greed, inequality, injustice, war, exploitation of natural resources at the expense of public health, etc. etc.
      - joeclark77 12y ago
        Inanimate objects cannot "save us from ourselves" but can only provide the equipment for us to use, if we choose to use it. Do you suggest that our descendants will be better off with no knowledge of virtue, philosophy, or justice? Are you then one of those Utopians who thinks that human nature is perfect, but "society" is corrupt and to blame for all the problems? On the contrary, it is human nature itself (at least since we were kicked out of Eden) which is fallen, greedy, unjust, etc. You cannot solve mankind's problems by burning the libraries. Instead, we must look into the libraries for wisdom that may help us. For example, Federalist 51: It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        Please try to avoid obnoxious tactical argument stuff like Ah, I see now. You are one of those. They are tiresome.
        joeclark77 12y ago
        Fair point. I have changed it.

joeclark77 12y ago

I think you are reading "civilisation" to mean "the current way our society works" including the virtuous aspects as well as the heathen barbarity of the modern age. Let us hope instead that when the OP asks for a "civilisation cheat sheet", he means to find methods to transmit the "civilised" ideal rather than the disappointing status quo.

gregcohn 12y ago
What I am saying is there is no way to pry them apart. There is no lens through which you can look at any aspect of human history and disambiguate the "good civilization" from the "bad civilization" without that lens having been created by the same civilization itself, which is -- a priori based on the assumption in the question -- doomed. *I suppose you could make a case by looking at various extinct civilizations other than ours.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  This is akin to saying that reason is impossible because man is fallen. We know a great deal that we don't consistently practice about morality, justice, virtue, and so on. Our descendants may be fallen people, too, but we can certainly do our best to teach them the best that we know.
  - gregcohn 12y ago
    And what, exactly, is the best that we know? Looking at your top-level answer, without wanting to be unduly argumentative, it's certainly reasonable to argue that the classics and the Bible have -- more than most other "knowledge" -- to date failed to save us from ourselves. They've been around thousands of years, and we still have massive poverty, greed, inequality, injustice, war, exploitation of natural resources at the expense of public health, etc. etc.
    - joeclark77 12y ago
      Inanimate objects cannot "save us from ourselves" but can only provide the equipment for us to use, if we choose to use it. Do you suggest that our descendants will be better off with no knowledge of virtue, philosophy, or justice? Are you then one of those Utopians who thinks that human nature is perfect, but "society" is corrupt and to blame for all the problems? On the contrary, it is human nature itself (at least since we were kicked out of Eden) which is fallen, greedy, unjust, etc. You cannot solve mankind's problems by burning the libraries. Instead, we must look into the libraries for wisdom that may help us. For example, Federalist 51: It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Please try to avoid obnoxious tactical argument stuff like Ah, I see now. You are one of those. They are tiresome.
        joeclark77 12y ago
        Fair point. I have changed it.