Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

12

Dumai wrote

i'd say the most dangerous thing about civilization is how it basically needs to assume a teleological metanarrative of technological growth to function as a game

i say this is dangerous because it's pratically impossible to tell that story without being horribly racist! or at the very least eurocentric! which is especially a problem in a game that has to represent cultures outside of europe. plus the assumption that technological progress can be quantified leads to historical nonsense like this

3

selver wrote

The most dangerous thing about Civilization is how addicting it is. Hours fucking evaporate playing that. I can binge it once every few months and that's it.

3

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

It probably falls into the same trap that all discussions on civilization fall into. If you define civilization as "a group of people possessing a shared view of how the world works and the raising of children," then nearly every group, even tribes, qualifies.

It's not that simple though. The term "civilization" has been so used, abused, and misused by a wide variety of groups, all wanting to promote their (usually) racist, paternalistic, sexist ideology. Regardless of the various trappings, the accepted definition of civilization used in the general culture, is a massive far-reaching empire with extensive hierarchy and infrastructure.

With that as the definition, it's no surprise that whenever a major power came across a civilization without any of those things, they leapt to the conclusion that those civilizations (and by extension, their peoples), were weak and stupid. And from there, the same atrocities are committed over and over.

We make the assumption that since this indigenous group doesn't have computers, that must mean they are stupid. It couldn't possibly be a case that they never developed them, simply because they didn't feel a need to: life was good and the way they were living, worked for them, so why change?

There will be those who are like, "But art and music and literature!" Thing is, all civilizations, great and small, have the arts. Humans are wired for story-telling and creative pursuits. We'll do what we can with whatever materials available.

0

_ziq_ wrote

It's the sane argument libs make - thinking anarchism means no more movies and songs.

2

RedEmmaSpeaks wrote

Agreed. The idea that people will have more time to create art, since they are constantly struggling to feed and shelter themselves due to an artificial scarcity, never seems to occur to anyone who uses that argument.

In any case, if I had to give up my computer and modern tech to save the world, I would. The safety of the world matters more than my ability to look things up via Google or whatever.