Why are there 'more advance' and less 'advance' civilizations?

[Aziel]

Why are there 'more advance' and less 'advance' civilizations? Well, before we will be able to discuss the reason(s), we'll need to define somethings.

What is a civilization?
1 a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b: the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
Civilization

What is an 'advanced civilization'?
An advanced civilization is a civilization that has a relatively 'better' - more advanced - technological level (weapons, architecture etcetera), intellectual level (philosophy for example).

If you don't agree with my definition(s), bring another one and explain why your's is better and more presice.

In my opinion, the main reason Sub-Saharan people and Alaskans, for example, were not very advanced because the conditions they lived in: a lack of resources, a very extreme temperature conditions and other things preventing them to advance. In the ancient and medieval times almost all great civilizations assembled mostly near a water resource. For example, in the Middle-East the civilizations emerged near the Euphrates river and the Tigris river. The ancient Egyptian civilization was mostly near the Nile river. In Europe there are the Danube river and the Rhine river. For having an 'advanced' civilization, you'll have to have resources, and a lot.

In Eurasia the climates are similar speaking of parallels of latitude in the area, thus allowing different species of animals and plants being trade from west to east without being harmed. The Asians and Europeans were just lucky for living in such good geographical areas. The sub-Saharan people and Indigenous Australians did not fail to create a very advanced civilizations because of their genes, but because of 'Bad Luck' and other factors.

Links relating my opinion:
Environmental determinism
Climatic determinism
Geographic determinism
Guns, Germs, and Steel

I am sorry if that is the wrong forum.

[johnny5000]

I think it all comes back to availability of plants and animals available to domesticate initially, and then the availability of raw materials like stone, wood, copper, iron, etc.

If you can't create a large surplus of food, and everyone has to provide their own food, then you can't have the division of labor necessary for civilization. And you need the other stuff to support the civilization- tools, weapons, raw materials for building, etc.

Some places are missing the first- a lack of plants and animals that could be domesticated, and some are missing the second.

[christof139]

Simple answer: Because some people enjoy just exisiting, and some people exist and enjoy putting everything and everyone in order as only they see it fit.

Chris

[LoZz]

i have always belived it is about food.

if a society has alot of food, or food is more easly available they can devote time to other things. its call the hierarchy of needs.



you can't build a massive civilization if your constantly battleing to get food. this is why in the oldern days, all the major civilizations that where miles ahead of everyone else lived in area where food was plentyful. (around the med).
thats why the romans where building with concrete and the britions where building with mud. the romans had the time because food was easy to come by to invent concrete and build a soceity. every soceity is only 3 meals away from collapse

however, these new civilized powers often feel the urge to take over all the others around them and thus what they have learnt (such as better ways of gathering food) they pass on to there new subjects. this enabled the britions to build there houses out of concrete rather then mud and they too where then able to become "advance" and its just a cycle.

[Aziel]

Another reason Africa never sustained development and its empires were born and died alone is the rivers. Except for the Nile, Africa's rivers lead away from European Civilization. In the East, Islam brought contact and limited trade but not real technology sharing.The trade was mostly raw materials and slaves heading out of Africa not in. Plus the very low incidence of sickle cell anemia in persons of non African decent meant very little in the way of penetration into Africa by no Africans. Malaria requires healthy human cells and people with sickle anemia are immune. Up to 1/4 of the African population in parts of Africa has this painful but it the right situation life saving disease. Thus sub-Saharan Africa remained isolated from the bulk of international trade.

Not being astride or at either end of the silk road meant the world went flying past them. From the fall of Rome, through the rise of Islam right into the birth of the industrial age- Africa missed out.

For those areas in Africa that did have contact with the wider world, they did not have contact with the rest of Africa. Rivers in Africa do not form a great continental trade net the way they do in Europe, the Americas, or Asia. Instead they tend to be short and run to the coast and not linked to each other.

Compare-

Europe's Rivers- www.graphicmaps.com/webimage/countrys/euriv.htm
Africa's Rivers- http://www.enchantedlearning.com/afr...inemaplabeled/

[Valentin the II]

One of the main resons many civilizations stragnated and decays is becaws of a superiority complex. For instance: the chinese civilization was the most advanced in its region for eons, they knew they were the best and didnt consider it nacesary to enteract with the non-chinese barbarians.
They became conservative and xenophbic, this prevented them from aquiering new ideas and advancing.
On the other hand the barbarians that settled in in urope lived like ***t.
The comon man strived for a better life, for change, thats why urope advanced.
The desire for change is the thing that ultimately drives civilastions to greatness.

[Pivra]

I think i have the Guns Germs and Steel book somewhere, got it from Barns and Nobles ages ago

[boofhead]

The whole concept annoys me somewhat. I was recently reading an introduction to a book on 'Everyday Life in Ancient Egypt', first published in the 60s, and the guy stated that Egyptians were doing great things when the rest of the world 'knew nothing more than how to kill to eat' or something similar.

Now that is just absolute rubbish. If you take a look at any Untouched people, they are extremely sophisticated in what they do and know. Their philosophies, religion, world-view, knowledge of the environment, social structures etc. They are not B-movie Neanderthals with clubs spouting animalistic gibberish.

The question relates to what you deem as 'advanced'. Technologically the West is 'advanced' for having flown to the moon, but significantly more than retarded for destroying the planet. Whereas so-called primitive man can't fly to the moon, he could at least exist at one with the planet for millenia more than we techno-wizards.

It's all related to perspective, and all completely relative.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

It's all related to perspective, and all completely relative.

QFT, brother, qft.

[Valentin the II]

It's all related to perspective, and all completely relative.

So..... The beduins can in some way be considered more advanced than their wester relatives? Rubish!
You cant be advanced culturaly or religiously, every group of people has its own uniqe culture, the thing that makes a civilization advanced are: Social, economic and political structures and their technology level.

Becaws no matter what you say: Stone henge just cant compare to an atom colider.

[Pivra]

what does QFT mean???

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Quoted for truth.

[Pivra]

ah, i thought it was like Quit Effing Things..

[Captain Arrrgh!]

No worries. Where I'm from 'FTW' is a punk rock acronym that means "Fub the World". I only just learned a couple of weeks ago that it means "For the Win" on the net.

[boofhead]

May I also just comment on the idea that 'writing' is indicative of 'civilization'. To me, this is doubtful. Primitive man didn't need writing, so why waste time inventing it? When people lived in family/clan/tribal communities individuals were multiskilled. They could attain knowledge in almost every discipline needed to survive. Literacy becomes necessary only when specialization occurs, and when not one man could retain enough knowledge to impart to others by word of mouth or physical example how to attain a certain result.

So again, it comes back to a very relative definition. 95% of Western people would die quite quickly if thrown into the wild, and 'literacy' could be seen as a major indicator of this utter failure in modern man (generally). And yet survival is mere child's play to our ancestors. Our extreme specialization in some fields is our individual downfall in others.

[Каие]

Whether or not a nation is advanced depends on God.

[wilting]

Whether or not a nation is advanced depends on God.

Ha, a civilisation that behaves based upon this assumption won't get very far.

All of the posts in this thread have emphasised structural factors and whilst they are of course extremely significant I would like to break with my usual approach to things and suggest another factor: individual agency.

A major decision by a powerful individual within a society can mean a lot. Granted, an individual only affects a brief period of history. But the difference between a succesful and unsuccesful democracy, for example, can often be such decisions. The decisions made by leaders over the course of history should not be underestimated as force in shaping civilisation. We are a sum of those decisions, good, bad or what have you.

[Каие]

Ha, a civilisation that behaves based upon this assumption won't get very far.

All of the posts in this thread have emphasised structural factors and whilst they are of course extremely significant I would like to break with my usual approach to things and suggest another factor: individual agency.

A major decision by a powerful individual within a society can mean a lot. Granted, an individual only affects a brief period of history. But the difference between a succesful and unsuccesful democracy, for example, can often be such decisions. The decisions made by leaders over the course of history should not be underestimated as force in shaping civilisation. We are a sum of those decisions, good, bad or what have you.

dude i was being sarcastic.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Azael33, good post. Yeah, I agree that when the basic needs were met, civilizations started thinking about other things such as their existential problems, the physical world, the spiritual, etc. That's why the fertile crescent became "civilized' thousands of years before everyone else - they had everything from food and water to a high population.

LoZz, when I was done with my management courses, I thought I'd never see another one of those Maslov's pyramids again! But yeah, it makes a lot of sense regarding the topic at hand.

ЯoMe kb8, I'm not gonna disregard your post. God says that if a society establishes real justice, He will Help them.

[Axeman]

Simple: Paradox needed to balance out the Qing Chineese so thier massive manpower doesn't overwhelm those German Colonies. This way the game is far more balanced.