Toward a Manual for Civilization
blog.longnow.org
blog.longnow.org
A manual for civilization, if we're going to assume that our current state is civilization, can be nothing other than manuals on warfare, population control and taxation. The rest of the structure arises as a consequence of those.
If I were given the chance too bootstrap civilization, I'd definitely avoid being tainted by this trainwreck.
Didn't ancient tribes in America and in Africa always war with other tribes?
Maybe there is no such thing as civil. Maybe the closet thing is a world where every country is a true competent democracy.
I don't think every 'country' in the world being a competent democracy is that either, because a country is a spoil of war. Nations exist only in our heads - they don't exist in the physical, natural world at all. Part of my point about rebooting civilization without being tainted by our system is to eliminate such misconceptions from the social consciousness, or rather, not plant them to begin with.
Even worse the point of the comment is it seems to be a proven fact of sociology, or social engineering or whatever, that one effective way for a society to stay on track or even improve is to keep people around who serve the purpose of complaining about the level of civilization.
Its very counter intuitive... in the sciences you can whine and complain never results in much of anything, in the crafts and arts its also a waste of time, but as a social engineering technology keeping some professional complainers around is a good and effective long term strategy.
So is that enough of a proven and utilitarian argument to keep some soft sciences in the library or not?
I think it can be agreed that we[0] are slightly more civilized than we were some centuries ago? (e.g. no burning witches, no indentured servitude, no slavery, no segregation)
Then, is it crazy to think that we live in very corrupt democracies that yet _may_ possibly be better than absolute monarchy, feudalism, totalitarism and african kleptocracies ?
I'm not sure you want to throw out everything, the problem with saying "we are not civilized" is posing civilization as binary value.
Anyway I think TFA is talking more about technology than social systems.
[0] rich west, OECD, G20, G7 or whatever
Slavery still exists, it's face has just changed. The modern slavery is economic slavery - the requirement to labor, and be taxed on that labor in order to survive.
And to suggest that segregation is no longer an issue is disingenuous. Take a look at Israel for example, a great role model being "the only democracy in the middle east".
On top of not being much more civilized than our ancestors, each year, people still celebrate the life of one of them, whose work was the mass murder and torture of aboriginal Americans. Very civilized, and patriotic. Yes, patriotism! What wonderful social values we have in the civilized world.
I don't know if we should say civilization is a binary value or a spectrum, but I'm pretty sure that one which routinely conducts murder and celebrates it is definitely on the "non-civilized" side, according to my understanding of the word.
I can probably agree that democracy is slightly better than what was had in the past, but democracy no longer exists, it has been eroded now to the point where recovery is not likely.
Most people today would probably agree that mass murder and torture of aboriginal americans is bad. This was _not_ true at the time it happened.
Bartolome de Las Casas is known _because_ he was an exception, and yet he thought a perfectly legit idea to use african slaves rather than americans, until his late years.
Do bad things still happen? Yes. The difference is that more people now have a framework by which they would consider them "bad" than there were in the past.
I'm pretty sure most people would've considered the mass murder of Americans bad at the time too, since Christianity was prevalent, and we know what it says about murder. There's obviously a difference from now, in that people were more xenophobic at the time, but there are still similarities to the current day.
It seems that while most of us are civil individually, as a collective, the civility is lost, and what is manifested is the barbaric elements among us.
The framework for what people consider to be good/bad is flawed and contradictory, because while most of us agree that murder is bad, we routinely pay a hit man to conduct it. Very few people consider that's what's happening when they pay tax, but it doesn't make it any less true. Some people recognize the fact and pay tax out of fear of what the hit man may do to them if they don't pay, and many others will suffer cognitive dissonance in which they convince themselves that it's necessary for "the greater good", and downplay the mass murder and torture.
Rather than being content with what we have being better than what we had, we should consider the ways in which we haven't changed from the past and do something about them. One thing that hasn't changed is that we're still paying the hit man. Will the hit man ever stop killing people when we continue paying it? Perhaps we should be thinking how to create a different framework in which there is no hit man. Perhaps then we may be called 'civil'.
No, the problem being that non-europeans were considered less than humans even by prominent theologists. "We are all equals" is a terribly recent idea. In the same way, cat burning was considered good family fun until the 19th century, we have only started to extend basic rights to non-human sentient beings.
> Perhaps then we may be called 'civil'.
And again, you have reduced the issue to being civil yes/no.
We shouldn't be content with the way we are, but that doesn't mean we haven't improved.
You can certainly point to many areas where things are still very sub-optimal (we don't even agree on what "optimal" means). But just the fact that we have stopped waging all-out industrialized war on each other, a tradition which ended in 1945, is enough of an improvement to make it better even if there was no progress in other areas. And there has been massive progress in most other areas as well. I don't think this is a claim which needs citations.
and simple ancient things, such as what is the best form for a house under given conditions. Farming possibilities, storing, transportation..
Everything stacks, and to get to a thing like pure aluminium or plastic has taken ages. In case of a breakdown it is good to leave pointers to restarters. I understand that this is what the article talks about and not the notion of 'noble civilization' as opposed to savagery.
"There’s certainly something to be said about the assumptions, say, Civilization builds into its simulations. Look at its winstates and what they value — technological progress, military conquest, economic superiority, and cultural domination. You don’t win by eliminating hunger or poverty or by nuclear deproliferation or by having a particularly high standard of living. You get it for, for lack of a better way to phrase this, very American goals."
This was a problem for me, growing up. A lot of what should be, that left me somewhat blind and poorly prepared to deal with what is. Especially when the latter suddenly reared its head and I had to take quick action. Or, not take action and thereby let events roll over me in a less than optimal/desirable fashion.
So... write the "manual" -- or description -- of civilization as it is. Warts and all. Trust the readers, en masse if not always individually, to have good intentions moving forward -- the better informed for your efforts.
"It would be a very selective library. It would not contain the world’s great literature, or varied accounts of history, or deep knowledge of ethnic wonders, or speculations about the future. It has no records of past news, no children’s books, no tomes on philosophy. It contains only seeds. Seeds of utilitarian know-how. How to recreate the infrastructure and technology of civilization so far
"It is an interesting thought exercise to ask yourself what information you might want if you had to truly start over.
"And in our forthcoming Salon space at Fort Mason Center, we’ll house approximately 3,500 volumes in a floor-to-ceiling library featuring carefully selected books that could be used to help restart civilization. We are not trying to be apocalyptic or at all predictive, but the conversation that is inspired by this exercise seems to be endless and valuable.
"We will collaboratively curate this corpus with Long Now’s members and the public. We understand that by definition we ourselves will have a western-centric viewpoint of what might be collected, but as the project gets going we plan to seek submissions that represent views from as many cultural viewpoints as possible."
Is there any point in providing instructions to create machines for broadcasting information, ranging from printing presses to the internet, if you don't provide a source of formulaic drama (Shakespeare?) to keep it economically viable?
Can you have a broadcast TV infrastructure without something like formulaic sequels of Shakespeare to lure the people in? Or if not him, someone's work?
Its like providing blueprints, and diagrams, and videos, and textbooks describing how to make a chicken coop, and then after they finish studying and methodically replicate our work and build a million really awesome chicken coops, they ask "OK we have these very nice chicken coops as per your designs... now, tell us what exactly is a chicken?"
Trying to keep it utilitarian is going to be where most of the fuzzy lives...
For example, how to decide when a modern unifying textbook makes older books obsolete? Reaching consensus in such topics must be very difficult.
I don't think collecting books on farming or how to build a telegraph is going to do much in the way of instructing folks how to create a civilization. Sure, it might give them the technical details of how to do stuff, perhaps very important and utilitarian stuff like purify water, but a civilization does not spring from a collection of gadgets.
Put a different way, for the Romans it wasn't the fact that they could re-channel rivers, build great stadiums, or maintain public roads that made them civilized. It was the fact that over long periods of time being a Roman carried with it special privileges and obligations. Being a Roman meant something. There were shared values and ways of doing things. These shared values and ways of doing things _led_ to all that other stuff, not the other way around.
So a manual of civilization, to the degree one could be constructed, would be about priorities, principles, and attitudes. Not how to build a better spinning wheel.
I think this highlights that their project is futile. Without a population willing to follow the Manual, it's useless. E.g., the ancient greek texts were lingering for millenia in monasterys before the collective frame of mind started reading them, and yet still, they didn't follow the Manual, they altered and upgraded it.
http://www.amazon.com/Foundation-Novels-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0553...
If we don't teach children to read then the rest of the library is useless.