Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

GaldraChevaliere wrote

April Fools was two days ago, bub

4

thelegendarybirdmonster wrote

what's your definition of civilization?

2

earfuck69 OP wrote

Sustainable and not overbearing. Civil and evolving with time.

1

ziq wrote

That isn't a definition of civilization.

7

earfuck69 OP wrote

The question was, what is "your" definition of civilization. Not "the" definition of civilization.

Hence I listed the qualities that I think subjectively defines civilization according to the question.

And how about this? Lets stop talking to each other, I don't think we can engage in a productive discussion according to the topic.

1

ziq wrote

If you don't want your shit take on civilization getting torn apart then don't post on f/anticiv.

1

videl wrote

can we lock or delete this thread? no pro civ arguments in this forum please. get enough of that literally everywhere else

2

ziq wrote

Says in the sidebar "pro-civ arguments aren't welcome" so you're right. Locking now.

2

ziq wrote

labeling?

The problem is people can't handle power. You give them the power to destroy ecosystems and they'll use that power to destroy ecosystems.

1

earfuck69 OP wrote

Well the way an efficient system/organization operates, is that power is given according to the job function needed towards performing that duty. Nothing more and nothing less.

We could also argue about inherent power vs. implied power, but it is a longer discussion that may be a distraction towards the real solution: that every individual could have and develop inherent power but never claim or imply power over another.

Just food for thought.

0

ziq wrote

How do you "efficiently organize" 7 billion people? And this isn't a job, it's a destructive way of life that everyone on the planet is forced to live by.

1

earfuck69 OP wrote (edited )

well... How does one organize a large multi-national organization to function efficiently according to the mission statement of its purported entity? There is plenty of literature at this point to delineate functions and operational procedures for multi-level function with administrative privileges as part of the operational procedures.

"Destructive" is letting 7 billion people live according to their own dictum of procreation. That 7 billion didn't come into existence through clearly defined roles or operating procedures I don't think.

At the same time, I'm not in favor of forced tyranny of anything. I couldn't be on raddle if that was the case, I would be on voat instead.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm not in favor of forced tyranny

What do you think a "large multi-national organization" is, if not tyranny?

Destructive" is letting 7 billion people live according to their own dictum of procreation.

Only if they have access to the tools (money, property, agriculture, industry, multi-national organization) that will allow them to focus their procreation on ecocide.

1

earfuck69 OP wrote

Nah the existence of a large multi-national organization is not exactly tyranny. Tyranny is a practice on how things are conducted in an organization, not really the existence of one or how big it is. There are very many options on the table.

Well it is everyone's job to get access to those things or find access to them isn't it? At least to try? And then share it down the road?

0