The Instigator
Sickles
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mino
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Civilization (towns, cities, settlements) is the proper way for man to live.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 32451
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Sickles

Con

I argue that Civilizations are not the proper way for man to live. The birth of civilization was in the fertile crescent about 11,000 years ago. During an event called the "agricultural revolution". I will argue that before this revolution mankind lived in peace and harmony with each other and his environment. I will also argue that the agricultural revolution never ended at all, with hardship and division as well as innovation and power being things intrinsic due to the nature of the revolution. Not only was man not naturally inclined to build civilization, it has widely been regarded as a bad move.
Mino

Pro

I have to disagree, because civilization is exactly what brought to where it is today. Yes, there are a lot of negative effects of this, yet humans are now thriving, we live longer and feel better because of medicine. 10,000 years ago, we turned to the gods to heal ourselves. Now we turn to science. (I want to clear something however, I do believe in God. I just think that advances in science have created a better lifestyle for us and a species.)

Also, I'd like to put something else here. We adapted. We didn't evolve, we adapted and used our environment to our use to help ourselves survive.
Debate Round No. 1
Sickles

Con

I would like to begin by thanking Pro for accepting the debate.

My arguement does take some mechanics from the theory of natural selection and applies them to this arguement. If there is some aspect of evolution and the theory of natural selection that you do not agree with, then we may become derailed inside another debate. So let it be.

Through fossils and artifacts, we have found human beings have lived for at least 200,000 years. Through most of these thousands of years mankind has lived without civilization and all that comes will it. He lacked currency, basic economics, division of labor, and all the rest. And yet, throughout these thousands of years mankind lived in a way that was successful. And not only successful, but he did so in a way that did not destroy his environment, nor take undue advantage of others. Niether other humans nor the natural order of things. The proof of this success is in our existance. The agricultural revolution that started 11,000 years ago could not have taken place if the then-humans had not been in a position of success and stability. This stability was granted through living in harmony with thier environment. If they had not been successful, we would not be here to talk about them.

The agricultural revolution started about 11,000 years ago in the middle east. Recorded history starts at around 4500 bc. Throughout recorded history we find nothing but famine, war, division, depreciation of human rights, poverty. We look before recorded history and we find scant evidence of full on war. Most human on human violence that occured was tribal conflict. Skirmishes, with an occasional wounded or fatality. After 4500 bc we find war after war, becoming more and more frequent as we draw closer to the current day. The same can be said to be true of famine. Poverty. Disease. The destruction of the village and the family. This frightening trend is due to cultural changes we all adopted after the agricultural revolution and that still carry on to this day.

Before the agricultural revolution, there were a million different ways to live and a seperate culture for each of them. After the agricultural revolution, One culture emerged , ours. And this culture began to convert or crush each nieghboring culture until we get to the present day. And this is the effects of such a conquest.
Mino

Pro

Your first argument, that for most of the last 200,000 years, mankind lived with no order yet successfully, is not true. Yes, we survived. But we did not thrive. Our population was kept in check by nature. When disease struck(which is much more often and severe than it was today, due to the lack of medicine.), millions of people died. And around those times, millions of people could have been a fifth or a fourth of the worlds population. Then, during the industrial revolution, technology advanced at a more rapid rate than any other time in human history. So more serious and effective medicine emerged, making life better for mankind as a whole. Also, we didn't exactly live in harmony with nature. We fought and killed off many animals for food. We cleared away forests for shelter and space to make shelters. What we did then is exactly what were doing now, except now we do it more mechanicalized, and at a higher rate to support our growing population.

As for your second argument, "...we find nothing but famine, war, division, depreciation of human rights, and poverty." There were time periods such as the Rennasiance. And something else. Please do not use the European Dark Ages in your next argument. Because during the "Dark Ages", in the Middle East, it was the Golden Age. It's technological level advancement rate was at least equal to that of the Rennasiance, and at some points in history, even higher. There is an event that occurred that showed exactly how earth-shattering this Golden Age was. One of the leaders of the Middle East, during the Dark Ages of Europe, sent a clock to a king in Europe. The king did not know what it was, and thought it a plot to kill him, so he had soldiers destroy it. Many of today's commodities such as aircraft, cameras, and surgery equipment were made during this Golden Age.

Finally, you say that, before the agricultural revolution, there were a million ways to live and a separate culture for each of us. Today, we a have a billion different ways. What with new movements ideas, all being sparked by the industrial and agricultural revolutions, there are so many different kinds of people and cultures out there, it would take 7 billion minutes to describe them all.
Debate Round No. 2
Sickles

Con

Mankind 200,000 years ago had religion, art, and culture. We can imagine that those people lived like the handful of untouched tribes today live. Each survived and prospered as each other thing in nature prospers. Pro seems to think that human population control, done by natural forces, is a frightful thing. Something to be avoided. But this is how every other population in nature is kept in check, and each thing in nature thrives, if left alone. Yes, we thrived 200,000 years ago. If we hadn't, as has been stated before, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Millions of people did not die of disease in the older epochs. People were spread too far apart to spread any contagions. People would simply die before the reached their neighbor to pass along the disease. I don't think Pro has any evidence for such events occurring. The human population of the earth was rather small at these times. perhaps 500,000 individuals spread across the continents. It took along time to get into the millions.

Yes during the industrial revolution we experienced a rush of innovation in technology , medicine and all the rest. Since the industrial revolution the destruction upon our environment, our very life support system, has never been greater nor more widespread. We see the consequences of those actions today. Mankind is part of a living community. The community of life. And mankind is utterly dependant upon that community for survival. So how wondrous are policies that put us at odds with everything in the community of life? We have killed all our competitors for food, space, and resources. We cleared land, as pro mentions, for our homes and livestock, thinking this must be the right way to do things. For 11,000 years we have lived this way, and for 11,000 years things have been getting worse and worse. Slowly but surely, more population, more mouths to feed, more food needed to be grown, more space for that food, and on and on for 11,000 years.

I have no need to highlight the dark ages. Human history is full of famines, wars, tyrannies, and destruction of the environment. Statistically speaking, Modern times are the most peaceful in history. How many wars are going on right now? 5 or 6 wars that I know of. And yet, most believe this is the correct way to live. Press ahead and try for more power, more resources, more food, and more people. More people will solve all our problems. In the future, well have technologies that grow a whole field of corn in a square inch, and we will all be immortal, and poverty will be solved. We will control the weather of the whole planet and hold the life of the planet in our hands. That's our destiny. But those things always come tomorrow, and today we are destroying our selves with how we live as a culture and as a species. Who knows if tomorrow will come?

Today we have only one way to live. One culture. The culture that says humans are the paragon of life on this planet , and that this planet belongs to us and we can do what we damn well please with it. This is fallacy.
Mino

Pro

Mino forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mino 3 years ago
Mino
Actually, if we took the full ones, we'd die. The Black Death, smallpox, all of them. If we took full strength viruses for vaccines, we wouldn't live long enough to be immune.
Posted by totenkreiger 3 years ago
totenkreiger
we may be living long because of medicine (which is actually technology) but our immune systems are crap now, being that we use medicine for everything and don't take the full doses which makes it so we have to take more
Posted by BrooklynHaze 3 years ago
BrooklynHaze
I like how pro implied that "today" is anywhere near acceptable means of living.
Posted by Sickles 3 years ago
Sickles
Well that is the question of the day, isnt it? I dont have an alternative lifestyle. There is not many ways to live without complete isolation from the rest of the species, at least on my continent.. We are social animals after all. Compound that with having schoolage children and child truancy laws here in the us, well , living in a way that is not in line with the civilization system can even be , and often is , illegal. That way of life has no traces within 2000 miles of me. So, no I dont have any alternative suggestions, with perhaps a suggestion on where to look to find an alternative.
Posted by Mino 3 years ago
Mino
I also have a question: What do you propose as an alternative lifestyle to civilization?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Pennington likely wishes the word government removed from the question. As in arguing in favor of cities and towns, but not in favor of government.
Posted by Sickles 3 years ago
Sickles
what do you mean the governmental stipulation?
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Pennington
Also GL, very interesting topic. I am declined to accept because of the governmental stipulation.
Posted by Sickles 3 years ago
Sickles
thanks
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Good luck on your first debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.