
Is Civilization Overrated? - indescions_2017
https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2017/12/is-civilization-overrated
======
imranq
What I thought was a retrospective game review ended up being much less
serious

------
CptFribble
A lot of the bad parts of our current version of civilization are just un-
optimized implementation details.

Isn't it our species' imperative to create as many happy and healthy humans as
we can manage? Part of the problem is that we have instead optimized most of
civilization for maximum dollar production.

When we can figure out how to build health and happiness (or rather: emotional
well-being) into the goals of our society, we will finally get past this semi-
intellectual hand-wringing about the mythical Noble Savage and his perfect
life we cast aside.

~~~
candiodari
If history has proven one thing it's that optimizing for maximum dollar
production and optimizing for the maximum number of humans is the same thing.

Also as to the basic question: having visited almost-pre-civilization villages
in Africa. Yes. No doubt whatsoever. Civilization is absolutely worth it.

~~~
sametmax
How so ?

~~~
Accipitriform
Hobbes put it best:

"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear,
and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short."

~~~
sametmax
Not that part.

The "optimizing for maximum dollar production and optimizing for the maximum
number of humans is the same thing." part.

------
ejlangev
Rousseau's work is very interesting to read even if it's a bit hyperbolic at
times. He was quite ahead of his time on a lot of issues given he was writing
in 1750. Regardless of whether you agree with his overall premise I think you
have to admit that he scores some points. Definitely worth reading some of his
work if you haven't before particularly "First Discourse" and "Discourse on
Inequality."

------
alistoriv
What a useless article; the author makes it clear that they were never
intending to properly entertain the ideas that are put forward by the
referenced authors and just go for quick "look how silly these people are"
jabs.

I was surprised when I got to the end, because I'd expected them to do a
little bit more than poorly summarize another article and make fun of
Rousseau.

------
CyberDildonics
... I think that's enough hacker news for today

------
evanlivingston
There's been a substantial amount of development in the criticism civilization
beyond Rousseau. It's sad to see this article neglect to mention contemporary
groups such as the dark mountain project or the tiqqun collective.

------
leandrod
No.

------
meric
Advances in civilisation is a consequence of ever denser population. Were it
not for the high cost of food, were fertilisers invented? Was it not because
there are many mouths to feed, we learnt to farm rather than hunt? Is it not
because we live so far apart, we must ride cars or trains rather than walk? If
we all lived next to each other, would we have built telephones?

Thus it can be said civilisation is a necessary evil - if it were not
necessary, we would not have done it - there is so much more leisure time in a
hunter gatherer’s week than in a typical city resident’s. But in most places
of the world it is no longer possible to live as a hunter gatherer. There are
too many mouths to feed!

~~~
Analemma_
You’ve got it backwards. Higher population is a result of advances in
civilization. Humans will naturally make more humans up to the carrying
capacity of the environment, and our level of development determines that
limit.

~~~
meric
Technology involved investment and investment requires a sufficient return (
even if at times slightly negative ). The return would only be sufficient if
there is sufficient demand and that means sufficient population. And what does
that mean? More people have more needs, spurring research and development.

