Do humans hate civilization?

[OldGimletEye]

Well, I won't presume to speak for the rest of humanity.
But, this particular human doesn't hate it. I like hot food, Coca-Cola, and showers too much to hate it, particularly having experienced long stretches of time without those things. Also, clean socks, even if I can't match them well, are cool too.
I can rough it if I have to. I'd just rather not.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well, I won't presume to speak for the rest of humanity.
But, this particular human doesn't hate it. I like hot food, Coca-Cola, and showers too much to hate it, particularly having experienced long stretches of time without those things. Also, clean socks, even if I can't match them well, are cool too.
I can rough it if I have to. I'd just rather not.

Seconded. I don't think I'd last 10 minutes in even our fairly recent past. 

I'd say it's not that we hate it so much as it is we're not that good at it yet. It's still a fairly recent part of our evolution, after all. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Seconded. I don't think I'd last 10 minutes in even our fairly recent past. 

I'd say it's not that we hate it so much as it is we're not that good at it yet. It's still a fairly recent part of our evolution, after all. 

After a rough adjustment period, you would probably be fine. 

That was how it was for me and all the other guys when I did military service. It's funny how adaptable the human brain is. 

That said, you definitely learn to appreciate the basic comforts of civilization afterwards. 

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

That was how it was for me and all the other guys when I did military service. It's funny how adaptable the human brain is. 

As somebody that spent long stretches in the field, I'm not sure I adjusted to it so much, as I just sucked it up and dealt with it.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

As somebody that spent long stretches in the field, I'm not sure I adjusted to it so much, as I just sucked it up and dealt with it.

Yeah well, I'm not claiming that it is pleasant. But at least it becomes bearable. 

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

But, this particular human doesn't hate it. I like hot food, Coca-Cola, and showers too much to hate it, particularly having experienced long stretches of time without those things. Also, clean socks, even if I can't match them well, are cool too.

11 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Seconded. I don't think I'd last 10 minutes in even our fairly recent past.

Guys, you do realize that for many of us in Western societies, such hatred would be so repressed that it would only appear in some of our nightmares, right? And then, not necessarily nightmares that you'd even remember.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Guys, you do realize that for many of us in Western societies, such hatred would be so repressed that it would only appear in some of our nightmares, right? And then, not necessarily nightmares that you'd even remember.

Oh yeah, I'm not poo-pooing your point at all, I just think that when you look at it as a whole, you'd have to be pretty short-sighted to hate it in an overall sense. Resent bits and pieces of it, for sure, but when you seriously weigh what the alternative would look like, I think you have to admit that civilization is the way to go.

[Theda Baratheon]

Should this thread be called subconsciously hate civilisation in stead if it's nightmares and suppressed emotions you want to discuss 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Freud was arguably the most important psychologist ever. He was also wrong about basically everything. I like this quote:

Quote

In 1996, Psychological Science reached the conclusion that “[T]here is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." As a research paradigm, it’s pretty much dead.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815

[Rippounet]

42 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Oh yeah, I'm not poo-pooing your point at all, I just think that when you look at it as a whole, you'd have to be pretty short-sighted to hate it in an overall sense. Resent bits and pieces of it, for sure, but when you seriously weigh what the alternative would look like, I think you have to admit that civilization is the way to go.

Of course. You'd have to be crazy to reject or weaken civilization. On the other hand, it is not that easy to wholeheartly embrace it and dedicate some of your time to the greater good either.
There is a limit to how much empathy and abnegation you can expect from humans. Therein lies the issue.

39 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Should this thread be called subconsciously hate civilisation instead

I considered doing just that but the hatred often becomes conscious in some form or the other, although of course in that case it is almost always directed at "others."

[.H.]

32 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Should this thread be called subconsciously hate civilisation in stead if it's nightmares and suppressed emotions you want to discuss 

Should probably be titled, "Do (some) humans find that civilization (and it's related cultures) sometimes fail to support their psychological well-being, while often doing a relatively good job making their life physically more comfortable and secure?"  That probably isn't really going to all fit.

While Freud was often off-base, I think the something of the assumption that begins it all, that "civilized" life doesn't necessarily provide the psychological needs of it's adherents nearly as well as it does the physical and material needs is still a valid conversation to have.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

6 minutes ago, .H. said:

Should probably be titled, "Do (some) humans find that civilization (and it's related cultures) sometimes fail to support their psychological well-being, while often doing a relatively good job making their life physically more comfortable and secure?"  That probably isn't really going to all fit.

While Freud was often off-base, I think the something of the assumption that begins it all, that "civilized" life doesn't necessarily provide the psychological needs of it's adherents nearly as well as it does the physical and material needs is still a valid conversation to have.

Good posts. I personally think that no form of society will meet the psychological needs of everyone. We're just built in a way that means it's too easy to be unhappy if you look at things in the wrong way. At the same time it's perfectly possible to be happy in the worst kind of situations.

[Ice Queen]

Cities are stressful and IMO unnatural. That's why camping is so popular. We NEED to be surrounded by greenery, trees and nature for our psychological well-being. Having even one houseplant helps us feel better. Over the last 10-15,000 years, we invented cities and agriculture--and that hasn't been good for us, either. Our metabolisms still haven't adjusted to the change, and we've gotten fat and lazy as a result of our sedentary lifestyle in which we consume far too many calories. Electric lights have thrown off our natural circadian rhythms. And now we've added 24/7 technology to the mix. Our brains are shrinking, too. Whether that means we're getting dumber or if our brains are just firing more efficiently is up for debate.

During a blackout in LA in the 1990's, people started calling 911 because they were terrifiedof a bright cloud in the sky. It was the Milky Way--they'd never seen stars before. For thousands upon thousands of years, it was a matter of life and death to our ancestors to understand the movements of the sun and stars. And now we can't even see them. To me, that's sad. 

I think it's safe to say I'd be perfectly happy in the middle of nowhere living in a shack.  

It's not all bad, though. Our modern technology and advances in medicine couldn't have existed without the benefits of civilization, after all. 

 

[.H.]

30 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Good posts. I personally think that no form of society will meet the psychological needs of everyone. We're just built in a way that means it's too easy to be unhappy if you look at things in the wrong way. At the same time it's perfectly possible to be happy in the worst kind of situations.

Absolutely true, with the variance of human psychology, it is doubtful that any "culture" could provide 100% of the needs of 100% of the people (psychologically).

However, it is my belief (note, a belief, I have no empirical evidence) that per-civilized culture would probably do a better job at fulfilling the psychological needs of their constituents, in general.

Why?  Well, first, because the groups would be smaller, ergo, there would be more variance in each group's "culture" that would, in theory, be tailored to the group's particular needs.  Two, life is just simpler meaning an overall lessened psychological burden (note, simpler doesn't mean easier, per se, just literally comprised of less disparate concerns).  Three, groups are smaller, therefore, in general, closer which provides a larger social "support group" of sorts, meaning less people are going to feel marginalized or isolated.

I think reducing it to something along the lines of, "well, shoes are great, I like shoes, I'll take civilization" is a little narrow sighted.  Of course leaving civilization at this moment is nearly impossible, since the conditions under which humans lived via hunting and gathering are basically non-existent any more.  Of course civilization would be preferable to living in an impoverished wilderness where you'd likely starve.

I think the real crux of this though is to ask yourself though, if civilization doesn't provide for the psychological needs of it's inhabitants, what can we do to improve that?  I mean, that kind of is the point of psychology.  The first step, of course, is realizing how deficient civilized culture can be, in order to address it's shortfalls.

To say, "hey, I get along fine" doesn't really prove much.  Just because you have learned to cope with many things, doesn't make them all healthy or good.

[Magnar of Skagos]

Civilization has its uses, I think, but it has a lot of pitfalls. For something like 99% of humanity's existence we have been some form of tribal state of some kind - it's ingrained in our blood. I think in some part, we all know this to be true. People are afraid to admit it because they like their comfort, they like their McDonalds, because they're lazy. Civilization and the domestication of man are not the best system for humans, nor for planet earth for that matter. We were far better off back in the Stone Age than we are now with globalism and multiculturalism... or monoculturalism, to be more precise.

We are weak, we are malleable, and little better than slaves as far as I can see.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

12 hours ago, .H. said:

Absolutely true, with the variance of human psychology, it is doubtful that any "culture" could provide 100% of the needs of 100% of the people (psychologically).

However, it is my belief (note, a belief, I have no empirical evidence) that per-civilized culture would probably do a better job at fulfilling the psychological needs of their constituents, in general.

Why?  Well, first, because the groups would be smaller, ergo, there would be more variance in each group's "culture" that would, in theory, be tailored to the group's particular needs.  Two, life is just simpler meaning an overall lessened psychological burden (note, simpler doesn't mean easier, per se, just literally comprised of less disparate concerns).  Three, groups are smaller, therefore, in general, closer which provides a larger social "support group" of sorts, meaning less people are going to feel marginalized or isolated.

I think reducing it to something along the lines of, "well, shoes are great, I like shoes, I'll take civilization" is a little narrow sighted.  Of course leaving civilization at this moment is nearly impossible, since the conditions under which humans lived via hunting and gathering are basically non-existent any more.  Of course civilization would be preferable to living in an impoverished wilderness where you'd likely starve.

I think the real crux of this though is to ask yourself though, if civilization doesn't provide for the psychological needs of it's inhabitants, what can we do to improve that?  I mean, that kind of is the point of psychology.  The first step, of course, is realizing how deficient civilized culture can be, in order to address it's shortfalls.

To say, "hey, I get along fine" doesn't really prove much.  Just because you have learned to cope with many things, doesn't make them all healthy or good.

I don't know. I've thought about this but I feel like its all swings and roundabouts. Pre-Civilised society might be smaller and less complicated but at the same time each individual decision and event has FAR more impact on your health and survival. 

In civil society if you are ostracised from a group due to some incident and you are shamed, then you can pretty much go and live somewhere else and meet a whole new group of people (internet makes this harder now though). Pre-civ that would maybe mean your death. 

The stress of not having food or fear of brutal attacks would be far greater than any stress we encounter today. The difference is some people treat events like losing their job or breaking up with an ex in the same way as if someone had just wiped out their village. 

I agree with you though, our society currently does a bad job of addressing psychological health, we don't really have strong support groups and families are breaking apart. But the problem is its not really seen as a priority. Society now = The Economy and we are really all just little ants running around trying to maintain it.

 

[.H.]

3 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I don't know. I've thought about this but I feel like its all swings and roundabouts. Pre-Civilised society might be smaller and less complicated but at the same time each individual decision and event has FAR more impact on your health and survival. 

In civil society if you are ostracised from a group due to some incident and you are shamed, then you can pretty much go and live somewhere else and meet a whole new group of people (internet makes this harder now though). Pre-civ that would maybe mean your death. 

The stress of not having food or fear of brutal attacks would be far greater than any stress we encounter today. The difference is some people treat events like losing their job or breaking up with an ex in the same way as if someone had just wiped out their village. 

I agree with you though, our society currently does a bad job of addressing psychological health, we don't really have strong support groups and families are breaking apart. But the problem is its not really seen as a priority. Society now = The Economy and we are really all just little ants running around trying to maintain it.

That's a fair point, the consequences are far more dire when most decisions come down to life or death.  However, I'm uncertain that this would lead to a more stressful life.  It certainly stands to reason that it could, but I'm genuinely unsure if it actually would.  I can imagine that it ends up like driving a car, in the sense that it often just takes on a routine aspect, you don't really consider much of how precarious your safety is considering other driver, road conditions, and so on.  Your life is in jeopardy the whole time, but I don't know that most would actively consider it. 

There is really no way to prove it one way or another, but I think dismissing some of the perks of the pre-civilized life immediately is probably about as wrong glorifying all of them as well.  In reality, the chances are that there are some things pre-civ provided better and (obviously) some things civilization provides better.

The key, I think, is to strike a better balance.  Like you said, we are all "slaves" to an economy that cares about us as individuals not at all.  In a pre-civilized society, everyone is much more of a resource and chances are more "related" which means, in general, they are less expendable, less likely to be exploited.  I would venture to guess even less likely to be rejected, since there is considerable energy, time and resources put into raising a child, but that doesn't preclude it happening.  Now-a-days ostracizing people can often be as easy as a click of a button.

Considering how fractious society (seems) to be getting lately, how insular in-groups (seem) to be constructing themselves and how vilifying of out-groups people are apt to be, I think that we are far closer to our pre-civilized roots than we are often apt to acknowledge.  As such, the thought that we are beyond the "trivialities" that pre-civ life provided better is probably a contributing factor to why life, now, can be often be unfulfilling to some people.

[Cas Stark]

No, humans don't hate civilization but we are a brutal, violent, savage species, hence, why the veneer of civilization is always stripped away so quickly and easily when the conventions and status quo are shaken.  Also why we have historically created elaborate rules and mythologies to contain the tendency toward savagery and violence.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

 Also why we have historically created elaborate rules and mythologies to contain the tendency toward savagery and violence.

/Obligatory

[Ormond]

On 5/3/2017 at 0:15 PM, Rippounet said:

Guys, you do realize that for many of us in Western societies, such hatred would be so repressed that it would only appear in some of our nightmares, right? And then, not necessarily nightmares that you'd even remember.

And do you realize that the idea of "repression" in the way Freud conceived of it is one of the parts of his theory that today's psychologists find least convincing and least backed up by scientific evidence? 

I think the idea that humans in general "hate civilization" is way over-simplistic. There would be huge individual differences in this based on personality and values, and "civilization" itself is such a broad concept that hating or loving the entire thing would seem rare to me. Most people will dislike some aspects of "civilization" while heartily approving of others.