The Instigator
mentalist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Bogcha
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Technology does not automatically denote or prove a society of eminent civilization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 7/27/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 429 times Debate No: 78169
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

mentalist

Pro

Technolgical advancement is not an indication of civilization. Shared Bop Opponent must prove that a highly advanced technological society is, by definition, a quintessential civilization.
Bogcha

Con

Thank you instigator for this debate.

I will be representing the CON; therefore, technological advancements or in that matter, technology (1) represents an advanced civilization.

First round will be started (and finished) with the following:

1. A ant colony. based on the supplied definition below of civilization, although appearing organized, with certain hierarchical levels ranging from a brute/worker all the way to the queen, do represent a civilization, yet they lack the technology (as per technology definition);

2. When astronomers are searching for Earth like planets (such as Keplar 452-b) (4) the way they determine if that planet is habitable is by looking for oceans or much rather water. But, the way they determine if there is any intelligent life on it, the only way they currently can is by looking at what surrounds the planet. Earth is full of artificial satellites. If the same scenario exists on these planets they can conclude that intelligent life exists.

I will like to add a note for Pro and that is:
"a quintessential civilization": this, i do not agree with, since a civilization being quintessential will not need technological breakthroughs or technology at all. Each individual will be self-sufficient, not requiring any outside aid.

Definitions:
Technology: the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry (1)
Quintessential: representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class. (2)
Civilization: the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organization. (3)

References:
(1) https://www.google.ca...
(2) https://www.google.ca...
(3) https://www.google.ca...
(4) http://www.techtimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mentalist

Pro

I thank my opponent for participating.

I agree with all terms presented by my opponent except for the one given for civilization. This is not surprising as it can be a subjective term.

"The term civilization has been defined and understood in a number of ways in a situation when there is no widely accepted standard definition. Sometimes it is used synonymously with a term culture. Civilization can also refer to society as a whole."[1]

I will provide a more appropriate term for civilization that better suits the spirit or nature of this debate:

civilization - n.

highly developed culture, including its social organization, government, laws, and arts, or the culture of a social group or country at a particular time: [2]


For the purpose of this debate, I will be referring to civilization as a combination of culture, harmony, technology, and sustainability. The crux of my argument wiil be centered on the aspects of harmony and sustainability by questioning whether societies that purposely act in a manner that drastically threatens their sustainability can be considered to be advanced. In a quintessential civilization, I do not think self-destructive tendencies would be the norm.

My opponent referred to the ant. As stated, the ant colony can be viewed as a quintessential civilization for organisms of their magnitude. Ants, as well as most of the animal kingdom considered to be primitive, do not purposefully destroy their environment. Beavers do not put toxic elements into the structures they build for lodging.

Thus, my argument asks if a society uses its technology in a self destructive manner, can it truly be the most perfect or typical example of civilization. While complex technology does indicate ingenuity, using technology that can pollute or destroy your environment is not, in my opinon, illustrative of the model or ultimate civilization.

model - adj.

being someone or something that is an extremely good example of its type, exp. when the person or thing can be copied: [3]

"... determine if there is any intelligent life on it...If the same scenario exists on these planets they can conclude that intelligent life exists."

Based on these statements, I gather that my opponent considers intelligence to be synonomous with civilization. This is a flawed analysis. For example, building and using nuclear weaponry requires a high level of intelligence, however, it is not very smart. How civilized is considering the possibility of warring until extinction?



http://wmich.edu... [1]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org... [2]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org... [3]

Bogcha

Con

REBUTTALS
"The term civilization has been defined and understood in a number of ways in a situation when there is no widely accepted standard definition. Sometimes it is used synonymously with a term culture. Civilization can also refer to society as a whole."

The above quote benefits my stand, further supporting Example #1 concerning the ant colony/society/culture.

I do agree of the biased definition of the word civilization, but if we continue to debate on this term then none will have any leverage over the other.

"My opponent referred to the ant. As stated, the ant colony can be viewed as a quintessential civilization for organisms of their magnitude."

I am not referring to the ant colony as quintessential, since such a society, as implied by the definition of the word, does currently not exist. [2] You have also proven my point with the following: " Ants, as well as most of the animal kingdom considered to be primitive". Although you do not have any proof/source for this statement, I see no reason as to why not to use your own deductive reasoning as counter-arguments.

"Thus, my argument asks if a society uses its technology in a self destructive manner, can it truly be the most perfect or typical example of civilization. While complex technology does indicate ingenuity, using technology that can pollute or destroy your environment is not, in my opinion, illustrative of the model or ultimate civilization."

I'm sorry, but I believe you have changed the topic of this debate. Your arguments should not ask for a society that uses technology to be destructive, but rather you should surround your arguments around the topic of this debate (as seen in the title). "While complex technology does indicate ingenuity" - this statement, although not being supported by any source, it supports my stand and as I mentioned above I will use it.

I will also like to indicate that using the word "model" adj. in conjunction with civilization is not correct (it should be a subject). Using your definition as reference, a civilization cannot have a model (a good example of its type) since we have not yet reached the level of differentiation between different societies. Rather, a model (subj) [1] as indicated in the References section, does exist of human civilization which is primarily by researchers to catalog, document and determine the course of a civilization since its birth all the way to its current days.

"... determine if there is any intelligent life on it...If the same scenario exists on these planets they can conclude that intelligent life exists."

I see that you have taken information out of context or you have failed to copy it correctly. I will copy-paste it for your again.

"When astronomers are searching for Earth like planets (such as Keplar 452-b) (4) the way they determine if that planet is habitable is by looking for oceans or much rather water. But, the way they determine if there is any intelligent life on it, the only way they currently can is by looking at what surrounds the planet. Earth is full of artificial satellites. If the same scenario exists on these planets they can conclude that intelligent life exists."

I mentioned (mostly in the last sentences of the paragraph) that the way scientists/ astronomers are able to determine if any intelligent civilization exists on a planet is by observing its outer atmosphere. If artificial satellites or other technological devices surround the planet they can conclude (using deductive reasoning of Earths outer atmosphere being surrounded by satellites) that the planet has in fact intelligent life.

Looking forward to your response.

[1] https://journals.lib.byu.edu...
[2] http://www.tomorrowsworld.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mentalist

Pro

I thank my opponent for the response.

"... if we continue to debate on this term then none will have any leverage over the other..."

We can agree to allow the reader to decide what comprises a civilization from the arguments presented in this debate.


"I am not referring to the ant colony as quintessential, since such a society, as implied by the definition of the word, does currently not exist. [2]"

My opponent references an article that deals with the possibility or probability of a utopia. Perhaps, my opponent has assumed that by using the term quintessential I imagine a utopia. However, I simply meant that quintessential societies would share an appreciation for self preservation and harmony with their environment.


To support my usage of the term quintessential I refer the reader to the definition provided by my opponent:

Quintessential: representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class.

We can't generalize about the most perfect civilization. However, we can refer to the word typical to discuss components a model or ideal civilization would or should comprise. Indeed, the current distinction between civilization and primitiveness hinges on this notion. It should be noted, I do not necessarily agee with all of the classifications commonly accepted as to what is primitive or what is a civilization. If my opponent has an issue with the term quintessential we can focus on the term used in the argument header - "eminent".

eminent - adj.

used to emphasize the presence of a positive quality. [1]

Regarding my reference to your example about ants, I do not consider animals to be primitive. If anything, the statement supports my argument as it lllustrates how humans are not civilized enough to recognize the development or advanced sociability of different species in their own environment:

"...It pretty much goes without saying that humans don’t know how to live lightly on the planet (or at least most don’t). In the wild, animals learn to live within their means – which for the most part means their natural environment. Animals live in tune with the planet and use its resources as needed. Learning to be attuned to our surroundings and how to live without causing mass destruction to our environment would serve humans well...." [2]

"...you should surround your arguments around the topic of this debate..."

My argument applies to the topic and the title. My opponent will have to more accurately specify any cofusion they have regarding my supporting arguments if they would like me to further clarify any information I have provided.

I used the term model in the proper context for my argument. (illustrative of the model or ultimate civilization.) You are free to use the subject form in your argument. I will do the same as the term can be used in either form. I used the term in the form of being exemplary. ex:The five most exemplary cities in terms of Sustainable Building worldwide [3]
I used the term as an adjective in the same way your source references autonomous civilizations.[4] In short, the use of the term model cannot be limited to one author's desired use in a text.

model - adj.

serving as an example or model:
ex: a model home open to prospective buyers. [5]

"...cannot have a model (a good example of its type) since we have not yet reached the level of differentiation between different societies..."

My opponent has provided no proof or evidence to support this claim. I will address this issue when they provide some background.

"...the way scientists/ astronomers are able to determine if any intelligent civilization exists on a planet is by observing its outer atmosphere. If artificial satellites or other technological devices surround the planet they can conclude (using deductive reasoning of Earths outer atmosphere being surrounded by satellites) that the planet has in fact intelligent life..."

Again, we are not debating if intelligent life is a pre-requisite for civilization, we are debating if technology automatically denotes or proves a society of eminent civilization.

As stated, I do not think that a civilization that is willing or immature enough to use technology that it has developed to purposely risk causing extinction level events is civilized or advanced. Using forms of energy that are toxic when other solutions exist is not the sign of an exemplary or eminent civilization. It is likely that civilizations that think terrestrially rather than globally or universally are probably in their infancy in regard to development.

I await your reply.




https://www.google.com... [1]
http://www.onegreenplanet.org... [2]
http://www.semi.es... [3]
https://journals.lib.byu.edu... [4]
http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]
Bogcha

Con

Bogcha forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mentalist

Pro

mentalist forfeited this round.
Bogcha

Con

Bogcha forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
mentalist

Pro

mentalist forfeited this round.
Bogcha

Con

Bogcha forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bogcha 1 year ago
Bogcha
I would like to apologize for my forfeits.
No votes have been placed for this debate.