Do humans hate civilization?

[Rippounet]

42 minutes ago, Ormond said:

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. 

Sure. Like any abstract theory or concept, the 'raw' version can be detailed and refined.
I don't think anyone here really took the idea of "hating civilization" at face value. I certainly didn't (the title was meant as clickbait tbh ), I merely suggest that the many small frustrations and alienations coming from civilization can become social or political movements.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Eh.  Sometimes.  I mean I hate waiting in line.

[Happy Ent]

On 03/05/2017 at 7:02 PM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

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

Let me disagree with this sentiment in an interesting way.

Most of us would do just fine in a pre-modern society. One of the big problems are glasses, which keep defectives like me pretty functional, but apart from that? We’re fine. 

But let me put it stronger: For most of human existence, we’ve been mind-numblingly stupid. Our ancestors should have their asses kicked. It has been an embarrassment. If you think back to your forefather 5 or 10 thousand years ago, you should do so with scorn. Had they gotten their act together, you’d be immortal.

Look at the excruciatingly slow pace that utterly obvious advances in technology developed. Look at axes, or pottery, or agricultural tools. Sometimes, the archeological record shows hundreds or thousands of years of lack of improvement, until finally an trivial improvement that every modern human would immediately suggest takes root.

What was the reason for the monumental lack of technological and moral progress through thousands of years of history and pre-history? We don’t really know, but to me, the explanations from magical thinking seem plausible. (Bronze Age Bob did of course think of a better idea to improve axe-making or marriage, but was immediately killed for it. Because Closed Society. Read Popper or David Deutsch for a longer exposition.)

It took several attempts before the European Enlightenment finally made us be not stupid (as societies – human individuals aren’t any more or less stupid.) And then, boom!, finally we improved morally and technologically.

So, Manhole, you’d do just fine in a pre-modern society provided you kept your mouth shut. And if we transported all of General Chatter (or any other group of modern humans that tolerated progress) back in time, we’d simply win Earth. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

5 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

 

Look at the excruciatingly slow pace that utterly obvious advances in technology developed. Look at axes, or pottery, or agricultural tools. Sometimes, the archeological record shows hundreds or thousands of years of lack of improvement, until finally an trivial improvement that every modern human would immediately suggest takes root.

What was the reason for the monumental lack of technological and moral progress through thousands of years of history and pre-history? We don’t really know, but to me, the explanations from magical thinking seem plausible. (Bronze Age Bob did of course think of a better idea to improve axe-making or marriage, but was immediately killed for it. Because Closed Society. Read Popper or David Deutsch for a longer exposition.)

It took several attempts before the European Enlightenment finally made us be not stupid (as societies – human individuals aren’t any more or less stupid.) And then, boom!, finally we improved morally and technologically.

 

I would suggest that the slow progress was due to the tiny percentage of people involved in intellectual pursuits and education. I guess its a sort of snowball effect. The majority of people in the past were involved in simply producing the materials we need to survive, like food. There was very little time for thinking about scientific progress for the majority of people. 

These days, due to efficiency of production we have far more time and wealth to concentrate on coming up with new ideas, reading, learning. 

We also now live in a democratic society where intellectual property doesn't automatically go to the king, which would discourage innovation. Of course theres also the silly religious ideas which held people back too. 

My view of history is that it wasn't the savage wilderness we imagine, its just a lot more like.. chav society in the UK. Thats how I imagine it.

[Happy Ent]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I would suggest that the slow progress was due to the tiny percentage of people involved in intellectual pursuits and education. I guess its a sort of snowball effect. The majority of people in the past were involved in simply producing the materials we need to survive, like food. There was very little time for thinking about scientific progress for the majority of people. 

This is indeed the default explanation, which is why I provided the other viewpoint (which I find interesting).

The observation is that the default explanation holds no water. Somebody who spent all their life working, say, with an axe is the right person to invent a better axe. No leisure-time thinking is involved, just axe-making and -using. Ideas for better axes have probably occurred at all times (how could it not, when people basically devoted their life to the construction and use of axes), yet sometimes there are dozens of generation of axe-users who stick to the same model. Not because the old model worked, but because of closed-society thinking: change was immediately quenched.

Remember that we are the species that made the Moai on the Easter Islands. A more monumental example of human stupidity can not be imagined. Just think of the toil needed to produce copies of the same fucking shape, in stone, generation after generation, for hundreds of years. Imagine the societal control that this takes, imagine the fetters on creativity and expression that are required to shackle invention and the spread of new ideas. That is the mark of our species, which we finally were able to delete with modernity.

Any of us would immediately set to revolutionise the pre-modern society in which we were placed. (Lots of bad, modern fantasy is exactly that: A modern person placed in a pre-modern society.) We’d change now work is organised, invent division of labour, meritocracy, use lots of clever-but-obvious ideas to solve problems, etc. But we would be killed for it, because the resistance to change is so ingrained in humanity. (Look at Plato for an erudite exposition of the “I hate change and it is evil”-mentality.)

[Happy Ent]

In particular, the pre-modern role of education is exactly the prevention of change. So it is not for lack of education that there was no progress. 

Education used to prevent progress.

Also, free time was plentiful in pre-modern times. The Moai are proof of that, and proof of the necessity to force people to waste that free time producing grotesquely stupid, forced cultural artefacts. Society was constructed so as to prevent people from using their free time to get, test, and spread ideas.

We simply sucked. We were not some wonderfully efficient, optimally adapted people toiling hard and intelligent. We sucked. And I take it personally, because imagine our world if we hadn’t sucked for so long.

—

I find this position really illuminating and surprising. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I dunno, if worked with an axe all day, firstly when do you have time to invent a better axe? What is the financial incentive to take time out of 'real' work to go and do that.
If your knowledge is limited to just making the axes you already produce and you don't have access to any new revelations to do with working processes, materials, mathematics because your circle of information is small.. then you are unlikely to be making any huge changes to that axe. 

I'd say the lack of ability to spread information and communicate new ideas was a big problem in holding people back.

But then I think of things in terms of the Civilisation Games tech trees.. I can't research Iron Working until I researched Mining! ( and in Civ 6 its easier to research Iron Working if you are near some iron! )

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

It took several attempts before the European Enlightenment finally made us be not stupid (as societies – human individuals aren’t any more or less stupid.) And then, boom!, finally we improved morally and technologically.

I'm detecting a fair amount of Whiggishness going on here. If you think we have improved morally, I'd refer you to the fact that European jurisdictions abolished legal torture by the middle of the nineteenth century. Then the twentieth century happened, and frankly, the twenty first has not got off to a good start.

[The Marquis de Leech]

14 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

In particular, the pre-modern role of education is exactly the prevention of change. So it is not for lack of education that there was no progress. 

Education used to prevent progress.

No, the pre modern role of education was to fulfil particular social needs (training for clergy, lawyers, doctors). No one was sitting down, twirling their moustaches, plotting how to derail humanity.

[Isalie]

I think there something to the idea of conformity, look at cave paintings for instance, and lots of other art that has appeared in different places across millenia. 

That said, at times when game was plenty and the climate kind, striving for an agricultural society where you work the plow seems like the dumb decision.

Also, this idea that we are all savages ect, where's the evidence? The books I've read about early man and pre civilisation man all emphasize our ability to cooperate, not to wage war. I read somewhere that the murder rates in pre civilisation societies is similar to to the murder rate in the US, which of course isn't civilised, but not Central American either.

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, Mikael said:

Also, this idea that we are all savages ect, where's the evidence? The books I've read about early man and pre civilisation man all emphasize our ability to cooperate, not to wage war. I read somewhere that the murder rates in pre civilisation societies is similar to to the murder rate in the US, which of course isn't civilised, but not Central American either.

Similar to the "wild west". Anytime anybody wants to imply something is savage and barbaric due to lack of rules and control they just say "the internet is like the wild west", but the actual wild west wasnt that violent. There weren't cowboys shooting each other in saloons all day. People pretty much had to be nice to each other because they needed help forming these new communities.

[Liver and Onions]

Well, civilization is a human invention, so if we secretly hate it, I guess that's on us.

When it comes to the true nature of people, I'd say we're capable of the highest highs and the lowest lows. I think of murder-mystery procedurals that have some serial killer bragging about how he's better than "civilized" people because he can hunt and kill them. And I think, "no, you suck because you FAILED at civilization."

Yeah, tribalism and fear of the "other" seems natural. Because they're easy. But some people probably find them more "natural" than others. I read somewhere that humanity's greatest invention is language, giving one person the ability to warn another of a predator, spread knowledge of that fancy wheel, or teach kids how to make fire. In other words, communication is at the roots of civilization. 

[Rippounet]

23 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Eh.  Sometimes.  I mean I hate waiting in line.

You joke, but I honestly believe such small frustrations do add up. I remember several articles a few years ago pointing out that customer service (especially after-sales service in IT companies) was repeatedly mentioned as a source of frustration and anger in political meetings and discussions. This idea of "poor service" because of outsourcing is quite common in today's populism. Having to queue for public services was also mentioned repeatedly. Working class people often describe such frequent frustrations as "humiliations."
Of course, the n°1 source of alienation remains one's job, when the task and/or the colleagues are particularly hateful, combined with an unfastisfying pay. I think people hating their job is the primary source of what I would call "the politics of resentment" because such anger needs some kind of outlet. Also, people who hate their own social status will naturally tend to favor violent upheavals of society and/or weakening the established order.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

So, Manhole, you’d do just fine in a pre-modern society provided you kept your mouth shut. And if we transported all of General Chatter (or any other group of modern humans that tolerated progress) back in time, we’d simply win Earth. 

You know, that is an interesting angle. Going back with the knowledge and expertise we have now? I could get behind that. Reminds me of that Orson Scott Card novel, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. Send me back in a group, with a plan. Fuck yes, sign me up.

[Jo498]

On 3.5.2017 at 4:55 PM, Iskaral Pust said:

You won the thread.  I still play Civ2 and overlook my later versions.

Happy Ent reminded me that I wanted to read Popper.  I need to put it back on my list.

I thought in 2008 or so that I was the last person on earth still playing Civ2... I switched to CivIV in 2010 (and a year or two later to the "Beyond the Sword" version) and it was worth it. I never played 3 or 5 or 6 and still retain fondness for 1 and 2 (and my ideal version would probably incorporate some features of 2 into 4...)

[Jo498]

On 5.5.2017 at 11:08 AM, Happy Ent said:

But let me put it stronger: For most of human existence, we’ve been mind-numblingly stupid. Our ancestors should have their asses kicked. It has been an embarrassment. If you think back to your forefather 5 or 10 thousand years ago, you should do so with scorn. Had they gotten their act together, you’d be immortal.

Look at the excruciatingly slow pace that utterly obvious advances in technology developed. Look at axes, or pottery, or agricultural tools. Sometimes, the archeological record shows hundreds or thousands of years of lack of improvement, until finally an trivial improvement that every modern human would immediately suggest takes root.

What was the reason for the monumental lack of technological and moral progress through thousands of years of history and pre-history? We don’t really know, but to me, the explanations from magical thinking seem plausible. (Bronze Age Bob did of course think of a better idea to improve axe-making or marriage, but was immediately killed for it. Because Closed Society. Read Popper or David Deutsch for a longer exposition.)

It took several attempts before the European Enlightenment finally made us be not stupid (as societies – human individuals aren’t any more or less stupid.) And then, boom!, finally we improved morally and technologically.

You cannot be so utterly naive to really believe this. Shallow as he often tends to be, I do not think that Popper believed in such an extremely whiggish view of history. It reads more like Carl Sagan or rather a simplicist version of Sagan, say Kurzweil or one of these clowns.

What is an actual example of a "trivial improvement every modern human would immediately suggest"? And I mean not suggest because he simply knew of a better version that had been developed in the millenia in between. As for anything pre-historic (say before the Pyramids or so) I'd suspect that we simply do not have sufficient data to know enough about "axe improvements" etc. And I think your optimism is clearly misplaced when looking at the stupidities (and atrocities) that took place since the so-called "enlightenment". Witch hunts mostly did not take place in the middle ages but in early modernity. And modern medicine (or basic hygiene) did not take off until the mid-19th century despite almost 300 years of Baconian-Cartesian smart scientific thinking.

In any case, I tend to very different view. First of all, I am constantly awed by ancient technology, most obviously in architecture but also military technology, shipbuilding etc. But mainly, I think that because humans are obviously very good at making the best of circumstances, this is usually what they did. Times often were incredibly hard, some slight climate change 1000s of miles away would set the Huns (or the Visigoths or another tribe) in motion and than  the continuation or destruction of a developed culture would be very suddenly down to marginal but decisive differences in military tech and not who was closer to Copernican astronomy or algebra. And it is really difficult to find out some things (see above), so we will settle for the "good enough". We still use the calendars that were developed using Ptolemaic astronomy and they are still good enough for most terrestrian purposes.

Anyway, I am far more puzzled by how stupid we are acting here and now in spite of our superior science and technology than be the relative technological stasis in the bronze age.

[Happy Ent]

21 hours ago, Jo498 said:

You cannot be so utterly naive to really believe this. Shallow as he often tends to be, I do not think that Popper believed in such an extremely whiggish view of history.

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.)

[Happy Ent]

On 05/05/2017 at 1:41 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But then I think of things in terms of the Civilisation Games tech trees.. I can't research Iron Working until I researched Mining! ( and in Civ 6 its easier to research Iron Working if you are near some iron! )

This is the pedagogical problem with the Civ games. They get progress wrong. Pre-modern societies weren’t organised so as to produce progress. They were organised so as to prevent it. There should be an Inverse Civ game, where you are the Priest or King and have to invent societal mechanisms to prevent people from inventing so many damn new ideas. Stability should be your incentive, not change.

Spell of Plato. In stores late 2017. Order now and get 20% off.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Happy Ent said:

This is the pedagogical problem with the Civ games. They get progress wrong. Pre-modern societies weren’t organised so as to produce progress. They were organised so as to prevent it. There should be an Inverse Civ game, where you are the Priest or King and have to invent societal mechanisms to prevent people from inventing so many damn new ideas. Stability should be your incentive, not change.

Spell of Plato. In stores late 2017. Order now and get 20% off.

Good idea, I'd play 200 hours of 'luddites IV'  if given the opportunity. 

[Magnar of Skagos]

Happy Ent,

could you clarify a little bit about what you mean? As in are you speaking about all of pre-modern human history, the Stone Age, the Paleolithic Age, etc, when you speak about how humans refrained from improving the axe as your example?

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. We crushed things with stones, then we sharpened the stones and chopped things with it in our hands, then we fastened handles to them with branches and grass, then we replaced the stone with bronze, then iron, then steel, etc. We did improve the axe. For many years we simply didn't have the knowledge of other disciplines to improve the axe, but we did over time. 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.

Besides, pre-civilization, humans had many more skills and responsibilities than simply axe-using all day. They were builders, hunters, foragers, all at the same time. There were no axe-specialists. Nobody just cut wood for the tribe and that was his career. It was only with the coming of civilization that humans began to specialize. So, primitive men had many many more things to spend time on and think about and concern himself with than consciously trying to revolutionize a tool that was already working for them completely fine.