advanced civilization? What signs to recognize?

[Obamot]

Completely agree, and you can add that compassion is respect for others, and it "learns" from the cradle (we have respect for the baby and he will respect those around him later, as much as he has compassion for the "old") as in some tribes mentioned above elsewhere ...
It is for example an outrage not to remove your shoes at the entrance of a house, a temple, an administration ... in many countries of Asia ...

[netshaman]

So, according to you, we were more advanced (technologically, socially ...) before the 1st industrial revolution than now since the environment was much better respected at that time?

So for sure it sounds contradictory at first sight.
But one should also not take into account the time that a civilization took to reach the "advanced" stage, and it is at this moment that one can compare.
But this notion of time is very variable, one civ can advance faster than another, it depends on multiple factors and also it is very subjective according to the dominant criterion.
I believe that the best criterion is social behavior showing the openness of individuals.
We can be very technologically advanced, but behave like oxen with this technology.
A typical example is that of the guy who does not care about tatana in his computer when he crashes, since he does not have enough intelligence to understand its operation which is quite delicate.
Note also, that a civilization can also regress ...
This happens when resources tend to be scarce, for example.
This is likely to happen to us, unless we relaunch the space conquest as quickly as possible, just to give a goal to a humanity that keeps going in circles ...

PS: What would be absolutely brilliant is to make a real meeting of the third type: the fact of having the proof that we are not alone would have the effect of a beneficial whiplash and would propel the human towards new unsuspected horizons ...
I know, I watch too much SF, but not of my own, I fell in when I was little!

[Christophe]

But this notion of time is very variable, one civ can advance faster than another, it depends on multiple factors and also it is very subjective according to the dominant criterion.

Well under penalty of passing for a rambler: the predominant factor that defines the speed of expansion of a civilization is access to the most abundant and cheapest energy possible (subject to natural resources).

Thus Rome and Ancient Egypt would never have been the empires they were without ... the free energy of their slaves !!

Closer to us: without the exploitation of fossil energy, we would never have the scientific progress of the last 200 years (I speak in all fields, not just energy) and there would surely not be 6 billion people on Earth!

I believe that the best criterion is social behavior showing the openness of individuals.

What exactly is open-mindedness for you? Compassion?

Let us take the case of the French Revolution: the declaration of human rights is a jewel of intelligence, social, compassion and respect for others (etc etc) ... and at the same time we guillotined in the public square! !

So advanced or not we were?

[Obamot]

Frankly, it is very difficult to have an objective look at your own civilization. It is as if we asked a lawyer whose beloved wife was murdered, to ensure the defense of the one who would be the author of the crime ... (I enlarge the line, but it is to understand the principle ...)

As an example, Judeo-Christian is binary (good VS bad, rich VS poor, etc.) as soon as one wishes to have a critical look, one will be tempted by a Manichean vision ... So difficult to get out of it unless you live somewhere else, in a completely different culture, at least for a while ...

Thus Rome and Ancient Egypt would never have been the empires they were without ... the free energy of their slaves !!

Closer to us: without the exploitation offossil fuels

You mean "employees", right?

Let's go on other criteria

Why did almost the whole human species lose the initial function of its hair, which was to warm / protect its body? And even among the Inuit or Siberia ...

A sign of civilization today, would it not be to recover this natural protection!

How much would we save on heating and Co2?
How much oil would be saved in synthetic clothing, or agricultural exploitation intended for clothing, such as cotton?
How much one would avoid all the pollution which ensues from it?
How much would we protect ourselves from the cold permanently and fall less sick in a less weakened body?
How much less time would we waste dressing / undressing throughout life?

Weird that our closest parents, the monkeys, are not deprived of it!
Does this mean that there is a report, and which one?

[Obamot]

Up => what are the signs of an "advanced civilization"?

The one who is able to make good political choices, despite all the pressure from the economic and industrial sector?
https://www.econologie.com/forums/sortie-du- ... 10823.html

The one that is therefore not corrupted by profit as a dogma.

[Janic]

obamot hello

As an example, Judeo-Christian is binary (good VS bad, rich VS poor, etc.) as soon as one wishes to have a critical look, one will be tempted by a Manichean vision ...

In true Judeo-Christianity the concept of good is used more in the sense of doing good, of being beneficial than of positioning oneself (this is also there but not in a dominant way) in relation to any evil.

[sen-no-sen]

obamot hello

As an example, Judeo-Christian is binary (good VS bad, rich VS poor, etc.) as soon as one wishes to have a critical look, one will be tempted by a Manichean vision ...

In true Judeo-Christianity the concept of good is used more in the sense of doing good, of being beneficial than of positioning oneself (this is also there but not in a dominant way) in relation to any evil.

Indeed Janic, but the notion of Manichaeism evoked by Obamot is based on the external feeling compared to certain religions and philosophies (Buddhism, Shintoism etc ...).

The ideas conveyed by Christ or the Buddha are similar and lead to the same "Goal", on the other hand, it is their interpretations * according to the culture and the powers in place that change the understanding of the "Initial" message.

To return to the concept of advanced civilization, it is necessary to determine the criteria:

For many people, an advanced civilization is inseparable from progress.
From this point of view, it is clear that our species very often "advances" through .... destruction:

For example, many "advances" in medicine have been made by the practice of appalling acts, especially during the Second World War (experiences of Professor Mengele, Unit 731 ...), or currently through animal vivisection. ..
It is the same for technology: atomic bomb, computer, internet, Z-machine ... all of warlike origin, civil applications are later and often have only a commercial purpose.
Democracy: The French Revolution with its 200 dead in Vendée ...
The advance of a country: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and its tens of millions of deaths ...

So for human beings, the least we can say is that this advancement is done in relation to suffering and destruction ... which rather correspond to a retreat.
Question: is this always an advancement?

In conclusion, at least for our species, the real advance will consist in evolving without relation of destruction, in a logic of compassion towards all living beings, which joins the thought of the two great Masters of Wisdom cited above.

* interpretation to be understood in the sense of: mystification, manipulation, intoxication etc ...

[Obamot]

Janic and Sen-no-Sen: always talking about interesting things!

Yes, there can be a lot of interpretations, huh ...

obamot hello

As an example, Judeo-Christian is binary (good VS bad, rich VS poor, etc.) as soon as one wishes to have a critical look, one will be tempted by a Manichean vision ...

In true Judeo-Christianity the concept of good is used more in the sense of doing good, of being beneficial than of positioning oneself (this is also there but not in a dominant way) in relation to any evil.

"In God we Trust". You're right, basically. it's not a Manichaeist, there is only one possible direction ...

In terms of the intention drawn from the writings, one could interpret it as such, if one seeks to defend its ideal (and that is what culture encourages to do in "men of good will")

Reflection made, after having collaborated in an ecumenical organization (not to say inter-religious) for two decades ... I still ask myself the question: I who "survived" so many internal changes ...! Without wanting to pass judgment on 'Judeo-Christianity', just one observation: the more they are "ultra" ... the less I want to frequent them. And so, it seems to me that their "ultra" side distance them from the "religious" in the sense of 'Religare.

In the bible, we also find those who practice "The reprehension of good" (who represses good). If I were to the end-ist, I would say that religion (under a Manichaeist practice) can quickly become a culture of life and death. It gives the idea of ​​the "program". Religious wars validate this sad fact, even today.

Ultimately it can possibly be a criterion, but Manichaeism is not the only one.

Take the laws! It is clear that they are distributed according to clear-cut positions: innocent, guilty. The symbol of innocent justice which holds in its hands the balance (which leans to the left or to the right). Rights VS duties and we could multiply the examples of the paradigm ad infinitum. Yet the law is taken from the Bible and its divine law, based on the principle of God and the devil. Besides, the notion of evil is intrinsic to good, since it does not exist one without the other (it is nevertheless the raison d'être of religion that this 'fight'). It is also found in medicine, with health VS disease ...

Manichaeism is not the only one, because the way of conciliation (the means conveys in Buddhism, but there are examples in Christianity with the 'fair price' for the grain which was paid to the peasants) middle way is that which avoids conflicts, extremes and clear-cut positions ... It is therefore the intention that takes precedence over dogma ... but we must allow the heart of each individual to do the best according to his own sensitivity. Don't we say that we can love: a little, a lot, passionately, madly? The "not at all" being another way of saying something ... ;-) In short, love your neighbor.

[Janic]

Obamot hello
I agree with you. I cannot speak of my religious experience since I come from a "pure and hard" atheism of which I have serious vestiges. In my opinion, religions are perversions of spirituality when they deviate from their reason for existing: to make humans more humanistic towards themselves and the rest of creation.

[the middle]

make humans more humanistic towards themselves and the rest of creation.

This is the result!