Gladiators

[thir]

That was pretty much the definition I came up with last time the question arose. "Civilised" is used as a moral description meaning "better behaved," but that's because it's the "civilised" people using it. Same way "urbane" (from a word original meaning "from the town") is used to mean "refined, sophisticated,", because the townies wrote the books.

Quite!

On the other hand, civilisations support (among other specialised types) thinkers, who can be racist, warmongering and repressive, but on average, over time, historically seem to converge towards such things as equality and respect for life; and being a part of a civilisation, rather than a hunter-gatherer tribe, means that their ideas get spread widely. So though on the face of it there's nothing morally good about the practical functions of civilisation, it does seem to work out for the better in the long run.

But when discussing civilisation in the sense of 'more complicated' you also have to count in all the infectious illnesses that so many people in small (relatively speaking) area makes, more big and more destructive wars, more oppression as in few (or one) person making all the decision and so on. The more you make complex and centralize, the bigger catastropies you can unleash.

Also, I am not so sure that equality and respect for life is the dominating factor of our time, in spite of all our complex societies?

I find that the question whether the good outweighs the bad rather complicated, but incredibly important with a view to the future. There has to be better ways than what we have now, and maybe the first step is to put a question mark on the concept of 'progress', and be more critical of what happens.

[Thorne]

There has to be better ways than what we have now

There probably are, but people tend to resist them when tried, or those who benefit most from the status quo find ways to corrupt the better ways. It's human nature, I suppose.

and maybe the first step is to put a question mark on the concept of 'progress', and be more critical of what happens.

Which tends to put a full-stop period on progress. How can you know beforehand which new development will be absolutely good and which will be absolutely bad? And when has there ever been a development which has been absolutely good for everyone?

Computers have been a major force of progress for decades, bringing knowledge right to your fingertips, allowing virtual face-to-face meetings between people on opposite sides of the world, spreading information to everyone at the speed of light. Shall we toss them on the trash heap of progress because they can also be used for identity theft, fraud and spreading hate?

Trying to control progress only results in stagnation. Which, admittedly, is a good thing for those who benefit from the way things are. Not so good for those who would benefit from change.