Redefining Civilisation

Barbarians with iPhones and etiquette

How we revel in self-aggrandisement when we utter the words “human civilisation”… Nothing could be further from the truth.

Dictionary definition

Civilisation. (noun) — the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced.

Of all the vague definitions, this one takes the cake. What does that even mean? How is “advanced” measured?

Appeal to definition fallacy

If “advanced” means per capita wealth, or technology, or art, then perhaps the USSR was the pinnacle of human civilisation. The USSR, with its beautiful subway system, ethereally stunning ballet shows, and the achievement of conquering space first among all other civilisations in history, was as “advanced” as GDP, tech, and culture can get. Yet, the gulags, mass starvation, corruption, and all those who suffered under the brutality of total totalitarianism don’t seem to fit the bill for “civilisation”.

Civilisation must be civil

If a society is not civil, it cannot be a civilisation, no matter the technological or cultural breakthroughs. There can be no civilisation without civility, no matter the technical and institutional complexities of a society. Barbarians with iPhones and etiquette are not civilised simply on the merit of appearances.

Virtue

In civility, only ethos matters, the highest ideal… Only moral principles and virtues matter first and foremost, not inferior accomplishments such as technology and culture. Without ethos, nothing matters, nothing has meaning, and there is no purpose to technology or culture other than to reduce these things to mere instruments of social engineering, manipulation, and Sisyphean purposelessness.

Uncivility

The Borg from Star Trek TNG possessed technological and biological superiority over all other species in the galaxy. All Borg were interconnected at all times, sharing a unique spiritual experience, and if one was cut off from the hive mind, it withered and died. Yet we can’t describe the Borg collective as a civilisation because it was never civil, despite its advanced technology. All the Borg did was violently enslave and assimilate other species. They were not interested in higher ideals, in morality, in virtue, in ethos. They only cared about how technology would serve their desire for power.

How can we describe barbarity as “civilisation” when there is no civility to be found?

Threat-based barbarism

And when a society relies on threats for social order, instead of incentives… when people use violence for aggression instead of only defence… then whatever such a society achieves is moot at best. Who can say what such a society could have achieved had it embraced incentive instead of threat for social order?

Is slavery of any type – be it the traditional ball-and-chain type or the modern tax-slave model – a prerequisite for “civilisation”? Not at all.

Slavery is not civil; it’s barbarism. There can be no civilisation that tolerates slavery any more than a fish climbs trees. If you imagine “civilisation” as being a threat-based social order, technology, architecture, and culture, then if it takes slavery to get there, then nothing was worth it. There is no meaning in achieving “ideals” if you have to commit atrocities to get there. Ideals that cannot emerge without violence do not deserve to emerge at all.

Slavery has been a constant in all of human history. Even today, you think you are free, yet you are taxed to the bone, and you even have to pay rent (property tax) on the property you were fooled into believing you own. You are locked down and forced to submit to experimental, ineffective, unsafe pharmaceutical injections. Your government does whatever it wants, and you are unable to hold them accountable. If you think you are free, you are wrong.

Is it worth it?

Even if authoritarian brutalism and various forms of slavery were a prerequisite for civilisation… (they aren’t — that’s why those in authority try desperately to convince us we’re free)… but let’s say authoritarianism were required for advancements in technology and culture, would it be worth it? Would you still think so if you found yourself in the group that had to suffer from this authoritarianism?

Key takeaway

The use of force cannot be the foundation for any civilisation. If you are to be moral, violence can only be used in self-defence, not for violently imposing arbitrary social engineering. Perhaps non-coercion is the only objective moral because it is the most fundamental: no moral can truly be if it cannot be adopted without the threat of violence. If it requires coercion to emerge, then it shouldn’t emerge at all.

So, no, humans have not yet achieved civilisation, with minor sporadic exceptions in all of human history. We are barbarians with iPhones and etiquette. We pat ourselves on the back for discovering the wheel as we use it to crush the bones of the weak, of the few, of the subservient.

We are not great. We are not civil. We are barbarians with delusions of virtue.

---