Do humans hate civilization?

[DunderMifflin]

How much has the axe changed at all since then? Maybe some can be made of durable plastic instead of wood? The big change is mass producing the axe. Doesn't really make the axe better just easier to sell.

[The Mance]

1 hour ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

Besides, the axe has always been a very basic, easy to make, and effective tool. Innovation wasn't much required, it simply worked just fine as it is. It just changed over time as humanity learned new things. We weren't too stupid to update it, we never needed to update it.

Yeah i'd have to agree that "the axe" is a really poor example of a stagnant technology.  Especially if you look at it as just one subset of the larger group of edged tools, where just a few subtle changes opens up a huge variance in purpose and design.  

I mean, I could go out in the forest and chop down a tree, trim off all the smaller branches, buck the trunk into logs, split the logs into cordwood, and splinter some of the cordwood into kindling, all with the same "axe".  But there are also axes that have been designed (read: improved) for each of those specific tasks, with modifications to the shape and weight of the head, or the angle of the edge, or the length and contour of the handle.  And I would be shocked to discover that paleolithic woodcutters used the same tool for bashing up deadfall trees out in the woods as they did for breaking up kindling back in the cave.  

I could see that maybe the general purpose "axe" reached an early pinnacle of development where its all around utility couldn't really be improved or expanded upon without completely redesigning a distinct tool.  So, improving an axe meant designing a pick to break rocks, or an adz to shape planks, or a hoe to break up dirt.  But if thats the case, then virtually every edged tool with a handle is an improvement on "the axe".

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

From what I am getting from your argument about humans being simply too unintelligent or perhaps un-imaginative to improve the axe, I'd have to completely disagree.

That is exactly what I’m not saying. 

Instad, human societies have worked very hard to suppress the constant, unavoidable, intelligent, imaginative  attempts to improve the axe.

People are amazing. They are universal explainers and universal problem solvers.

Societies, on the other hand, do everything they can to prevent change. This is the point of Popper.

[DunderMifflin]

You should see the Swiss army axe, it's incredible.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

That is exactly what I’m not saying. 

Instad, human societies have worked very hard to suppress the constant, unavoidable, intelligent, imaginative  attempts to improve the axe.

People are amazing. They are universal explainers and universal problem solvers.

Societies, on the other hand, do everything they can to prevent change. This is the point of Popper.

They took are jobs!!!!!

[Magnar of Skagos]

8 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

That is exactly what I’m not saying. 

Instad, human societies have worked very hard to suppress the constant, unavoidable, intelligent, imaginative  attempts to improve the axe.

People are amazing. They are universal explainers and universal problem solvers.

Societies, on the other hand, do everything they can to prevent change. This is the point of Popper.

Okay, well I guess it depends more on the type of change you're talking about. Innovations in equipment and weaponry, like an axe? No. Nobody has tried to suppress that. (Rapid) changes in societal norms or religious elements? Often yes, sometimes no. Each case is a little bit different, depending on the society in question and the changes being proposed. I don't think it's appropriate to generalize.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

Okay, well I guess it depends more on the type of change you're talking about. Innovations in equipment and weaponry, like an axe? No. Nobody has tried to suppress that. (Rapid) changes in societal norms or religious elements? Often yes, sometimes no. Each case is a little bit different, depending on the society in question and the changes being proposed. I don't think it's appropriate to generalize.

Wasn't Disneys Paul Bunyan about that. Only in that case the axe isn't the innovation, it's the gas powered machinery and whatnot that's better than the axe.

[Happy Ent]

2 hours ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

Besides, pre-civilization, humans had many more skills and responsibilities than simply axe-using all day. 

Division of labour is one of the mind-numbingly obvious improvements that any modern human would immediately implement if placed in a pre-modern society. You and I know shit about axe-making, but we’d organise things so that the axe-experts get to level up their axe-skills, and then have yearly meetings where the axe-experts get to compare new ideas, etc. All the trappings of the open society.

In the closed society, anybody who comes up with a new idea of axe-building (or worse, for organising how the tribe is run) is killed.

That is the point I’m trying to make. People weren’t stupid back then. Their societies just chose to be stagnant. That’s how our psychology likes things. That’s the sense in which we hate civilisation. (We don’t actually. Civilisation in terms of temples and hierarchies and rules and submission we like. But we hate change, including progress. Stop making us think all the time! )

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

9 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

Division of labour is one of the mind-numbingly obvious improvements that any modern human would immediately implement if placed in a pre-modern society. You and I know shit about axe-making, but we’d organise things so that the axe-experts get to level up their axe-skills, and then have yearly meetings where the axe-experts get to compare new ideas, etc. All the trappings of the open society.

In the closed society, anybody who comes up with a new idea of axe-building (or worse, for organising how the tribe is run) is killed.

That is the point I’m trying to make. People weren’t stupid back then. Their societies just chose to be stagnant. That’s how our psychology likes things. That’s the sense in which we hate civilisation. (We don’t actually. Civilisation in terms of temples and hierarchies and rules and submission we like. But we hate change, including progress. Stop making us think all the time! )

Well its often that change has temporary negative benefits for a lot of people.The luddites were weavers who destroyed weaving equipment that would have improved productivity massively, but would have also put them out of a job. History is littered with incidents like this, especially where those in power fear change because its most likely to be a threat to them. I'm not sure people care massively about progress, because progress is often too slow to affect us in a way we can see with our short term thinking. All people care about is that they are doing ok at this very minute

Humans are very bad at forward planning.

[Magnar of Skagos]

Open question to anyone in here: In a hypothetical situation where modern society as we know it collapses for whatever reason, what is your course of action? Try to restore civilization, or move to a tribal system in its place?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

Open question to anyone in here: In a hypothetical situation where modern society as we know it collapses for whatever reason, what is your course of action? Try to restore civilization, or move to a tribal system in its place?

I'd say the only option would be survival. That would mean suddenly having to have a level of protection for your safety that was previously provided for by the state. Since that doesn't exist, the only option would be tribalism I would think, working together in small groups to protect and provide for each other. 

Without the right infrastructure in place its hard to know how long civilisation would take to come back into being again.

[Magnar of Skagos]

2 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'd say the only option would be survival. That would mean suddenly having to have a level of protection for your safety that was previously provided for by the state. Since that doesn't exist, the only option would be tribalism I would think, working together in small groups to protect and provide for each other. 

Without the right infrastructure in place its hard to know how long civilisation would take to come back into being again.

Should it? Is civilization an inevitability, or is it just one of many pathways open to us?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

Should it?

Come back? Yes almost certainly. Why wouldn't you want it?

[Happy Ent]

12 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Well its often that change has temporary negative benefits for a lot of people.

 

I still fail to make my point. Change has negative effects for those who run society, which is why they want to prevent it (in a closed society).

Luddites are the wrong thing to think about regarding my point. Instead, think of priests or kings. Think of Chinese emperors who outlaw seafaring. Or of the entire societal infrastructure devoted to the implementation of hierarchy and authority (be it tribalistic medicine men, military sergeants, youth group leaders, organised religion, etc. – entire moral codes devoted to the preservation of structure as a goal in itself). Those who run society (even if they’re just the local “teacher of axe-making”, or the shaman’s second assistant fireplace minder) don’t want it to change and will invent religion, magic, ritual, speech codes, moral codes, social ostracisation, etc. to keep society fixed. Anybody who oversteps the line (for whatever reason) is morally suspect by virtue of overstepping the line. We, as social animals, react with extreme disgust at somebody who says Jehova or Negro (depending on the societal context – or Voldemort if you want a fictional example), as if these words were magical. This kind of behaviour is natural for us.  

And we all like it that way. (As opposed to the open society, where everybody has to always make choices, choices, choices. It is very stressful. Our psychology is not built for that.) 

The best expression of our preference for the closed society is Plato’s Republic, where he clearly lays out that the only Good society is Stable. Every mechanism in the Republic is constructed to prevent change. (Among other things, democracy must be prevented at all costs.) To me, this is a totalitarian nightmare.

Luddites are not this thing. 

[Happy Ent]

13 hours ago, Maelys I Blackfyre said:

Innovations in equipment and weaponry, like an axe? No. Nobody has tried to suppress that. 

This is the truth claim that we disagree about, then. I claim that until very recently, innovations in equipment and weaponry were actively suppressed. That’s why nothing happened for so long, that is why the archeological record is such a dismal proof of centuries-long intellectual stagnation. 

But this is a cool question that is in principle worthy of scientific investigation.

You mention weapons, and this is an interesting aspect to the phenomenon. Weapons are the only thing that a society cannot afford to prevent inventing. Which is why warfare drove so much change. The society that chose to prevent better urns or better hide tanning or better fishing boats was stable, and the ruler was happy. The society that chose to prevent better weapons was killed by the neighbouring society, if there was one. So weapons are an exception, because they are used on the interface between societies (instead of within them).

A stable society next to anther stable society finds itself in a dilemma. It needs to gain knowledge (which requires an open society) to not die, yet the open society leads to internal instability. So the ruler is toppled. The technological histories of Europe versus China (or the South American civilisations) are good topics for this aspect.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

I still fail to make my point. Change has negative effects for those who run society, which is why they want to prevent it (in a closed society).

Luddites are the wrong thing to think about regarding my point. Instead, think of priests or kings. Think of Chinese emperors who outlaw seafaring. Or of the entire societal infrastructure devoted to the implementation of hierarchy and authority (be it tribalistic medicine men, military sergeants, youth group leaders, organised religion, etc. – entire moral codes devoted to the preservation of structure as a goal in itself). Those who run society (even if they’re just the local “teacher of axe-making”, or the shaman’s second assistant fireplace minder) don’t want it to change and will invent religion, magic, ritual, speech codes, moral codes, social ostracisation, etc. to keep society fixed. Anybody who oversteps the line (for whatever reason) is morally suspect by virtue of overstepping the line. We, as social animals, react with extreme disgust at somebody who says Jehova or Negro (depending on the societal context – or Voldemort if you want a fictional example), as if these words were magical. This kind of behaviour is natural for us.  

And we all like it that way. (As opposed to the open society, where everybody has to always make choices, choices, choices. It is very stressful. Our psychology is not built for that.) 

The best expression of our preference for the closed society is Plato’s Republic, where he clearly lays out that the only Good society is Stable. Every mechanism in the Republic is constructed to prevent change. (Among other things, democracy must be prevented at all costs.) To me, this is a totalitarian nightmare.

Luddites are not this thing. 

I know what you are saying and I made the same point. My other point is that we aren't always held back by those in the absolute highest authority, its not just top down. People fear change in general, they don't trust new innovations and always tend to assume that old wisdom is the best wisdom, and that they know better. Its a human trait. 

I agree with you that those in power don't like change and unpredictability because they have much to lose, but I'll also add that is a human driver that is universal.

[Jo498]

22 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

First: I do believe this. Chalk this up to my naïveté or to the depth of my reasoning. Also, don’t be rude. Spend time on presenting your own position as well as you can, instead of denigrating those of others.

Second: Neither I nor Karl Popper think that history follows any predetermined view (toward progress or anything). In fact, Popper probably is the strongest critic of that position, called historicism. He wrote the book on that. I utterly reject historicism as well. I’m not an expert on Whig history, but to the extent that it is a special case of historicism, I utterly reject it.

In particular, there is absolutely nothing inevitable about the Enlightenment, or moral and technological progress. These are societal choices and they are quite fragile. I’m quite sure I speak with Popper here. (David Deutsch’s The Beginning of Infinity has some very nice thoughts about the mystery of why it happened anyway: how can a species that is selected for preventing progress end up creating progress. It’s a very cool thing to ponder.)

I did not mean to offend but I was seriously unsure whether you were joking or serious. I know very well that Popper rejected historicism and he was right. But I think he is wrong about a lot of other things. And the naive belief in enlightenment or "open societies" you seem to favor is a very close cousin to the very kind of historicism Popper condemned. Because it claims that as soon as one hits on the right "method" (like the ominous "scientific method" or fallibilism or free markets) things will get much better.

And I am again sorry but you failed to provide *any* plausible (one should not expect anything watertight) historical example of societies preventing obviously beneficial technological or societal change by all means and therefore stagnating and failing. Except for the Easter Islanders.  Yes, they were stupid and got trapped on a tiny island.

But they are hardly comparable to civilizations and empires that eventually failed after many centuries or millenia of relative (or stunning) expansion and stability, often longer than the "enlightened" Empires of the last few centuries. Western Rome lasted almost 1000 years, Eastern Rome another 1000 afterwards, the British Empire about 200, the Soviet Union not even 80 and I would not be surprised if the US was somewhere in duration between the last two, so I expect them to crumble within the next decades (taking ca. WW I as the beginning of their dominance)

And more importantly you also failed to make a case that we, the enlightened open ones are so much better at it. In fact, the "Popperians" (or rather Hayekians) of the Mt Pelerin Society and other "think tanks" work hard to prevent  changes towards "socialism" and to keep capitalist elites in power. Because Popper also favors incremental, cautious change against revolutions (because if one gets them wrong, one is usually terribly wrong). Now don't tell me one could tell incremental change from deadly stasis except in hindsight. (We changed things! We increased thresholds for Carbon dioxide by 0.xxx %! We raised/lowered taxes/welfare by x%! We are open to change!)

We are like the Easter Islanders. We have known for 40 years or more about the limited resources and environmental damage and we are doing very little against it because it would mean that we had to change our lifestyle or maybe limit the holy open Hayekian markets too much. And this would be infringe on the "open society" and be bad.

We are like the Byzantines. We have fantastically elaborate bureaucracies that get ever more powerful and pointless. Only we do not call them bishops or masters of ceremonies but have other fancy names (commissars, consultants, professors, advisors, analysts etc.) and elaborate explanations why they are needed.

We are, not surprisingly, like humans, because we are. We are more powerful technologically but I seriously doubt that we are more moral and smarter in societal organization overall.

[Jo498]

Amost every society and every human values stability for very good reasons. This is easy to see as soon as we do not think about trivial or incremental changes but more existential ones. Look at the 1990s in the former Easter bloc (and it would be a cheap evasion to blame all this on the "closedness" of the Eastern bloc societies before that time). Popper admits this himself because he is himself supiscious about revolutionary change.

This is an important difference between science as a "marked off" secure field of very free experimentation on the one hand and engineering and organizing a society on the other. In science one can at least sometimes be a daring Popperian and go forth with bold predictions and hypotheses that gloriously go down to make room for a somewhat improved theory and than the process continues (This is an idealized and not quite realistic image of science but it is not completely off). But one cannot build a bridge like that (buying a dozen one after another and all so daring that they are an inch within collapse). On the contrary, one needs huge margins of error to secure the stability and safety in engineering and similar fields.

And it is even worse for societal changes and experiments. They are rather unpredictable compared to bridges and once let out it is often impossible to get the genie back into the bottle. Therefore it is often a very rational thing to be wary about changes. And it would be foolish to think of change as good in itself. It is all a matter of degree and this is why in practice talk about the open society and its "enemies" is often just talk and the devil is in the details. In the worse and usual case it is not just talk but propaganda by ones with an agendea (often the ones in power right now), just like historical materialism and the class enemies.

To me, historically the connection between free markets, free societies, personal liberties and the "success" of a society or culture seems far less obvious than is often claimed. Viz. contemporary China. Or even the Soviet union. To get from an agrarian feudalist backwater to Sputnik in 50 years with millions of people lost in revolutionary wars and the most horrible war in history is extremely impressive as far as I am concerned. What should count as success? How long does an Empire have to last to be seen as a success and not a failure?

[FalagarV2]

2 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I still fail to make my point. Change has negative effects for those who run society, which is why they want to prevent it (in a closed society).

Luddites are the wrong thing to think about regarding my point. Instead, think of priests or kings. Think of Chinese emperors who outlaw seafaring. Or of the entire societal infrastructure devoted to the implementation of hierarchy and authority (be it tribalistic medicine men, military sergeants, youth group leaders, organised religion, etc. – entire moral codes devoted to the preservation of structure as a goal in itself). Those who run society (even if they’re just the local “teacher of axe-making”, or the shaman’s second assistant fireplace minder) don’t want it to change and will invent religion, magic, ritual, speech codes, moral codes, social ostracisation, etc. to keep society fixed. Anybody who oversteps the line (for whatever reason) is morally suspect by virtue of overstepping the line. We, as social animals, react with extreme disgust at somebody who says Jehova or Negro (depending on the societal context – or Voldemort if you want a fictional example), as if these words were magical. This kind of behaviour is natural for us.  

And we all like it that way. (As opposed to the open society, where everybody has to always make choices, choices, choices. It is very stressful. Our psychology is not built for that.)

The best expression of our preference for the closed society is Plato’s Republic, where he clearly lays out that the only Good society is Stable. Every mechanism in the Republic is constructed to prevent change. (Among other things, democracy must be prevented at all costs.) To me, this is a totalitarian nightmare.

Luddites are not this thing. 

This is a vast simplification though, which overly emphasizes individual ingenuity as opposed to communal structures. Some change has certainly been against the wishes of rulers, but history is littered with examples of those who tried to cause change in one way or the other - because change can and often do benefit powerful people. That includes ideological and technological changes, not only in weaponry. It was the Chinese imperial government itself which organized the huge sailing expeditions for exploration in the early 1400s (which were discontinued rather than outlawed, IIRC?). Atenaten sought to change patterns of Egyptian worship (to monopolize religious power, to be sure), the Ptolemies created the Alexandrian library, Constantine I (or his immediate successors) suppressed gladiatorial games, etc. The tools imperial governments used to govern; bureaucracies, languages, roads and other communication systems -  facilitated the rapid dissemination of technologies. European science wouldn't have gotten far without Latin.

Even those who wished for control often ended abetting (yes, dialectics). Plato ended up advocating social change, an activity that got him involved in the politics of Syracuse. Static utopian visions of society have been remarkably effective in causing change and upheavals (the Levellers spring to mind). The techniques used for suppression often end up being used against the suppressor.

Lastly, preserving traditions is not necessarily a sign of stupidity, and not all innovation is for the better. On the ideological level, I'm not sure we'd be better off in Julian's neo-pagan or Mani's Manichaean world than in the 'Christian' variety which we got, warts and all. Your version of the dichotomy of 'open' vs. 'closed' societies (which I assume is from North?) strikes me as insufficient for understanding historical technological diffusion.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'm really, really struggling to think of many actual examples of social progress being consciously hampered by hidebound authority. Even the famous case of Galileo vs the Church was less about Science vs Superstition, and more about Galileo being an arrogant prat with a model whose predictions were no better than Ptolemy's.