Advanced civilisations

[ulrich321]

After reading another thread there was a discussion about advanced civilisations. This got me wondering if it is possible to objectively measure whether one civilisation is more advanced than another, if so what criteria does one use ? Is perhaps the only measurement how advanced a civilisation is when it comes into conflict with another civilisation ?

[MorningLightMountain]

I suppose you can base it on its energy production and efficiency of energy consumption. A more advanced civilization would be able to generate more energy and use it more efficiently than a less advanced one.

[premjan]

You mean like burning all the wood on Easter Island? Or all the oil in the ground?

[MorningLightMountain]

You mean like burning all the wood on Easter Island? Or all the oil in the ground?

But that wasn't very efficient was it.

At the moment we are at a relativity high production/consumption but low efficiency. But increasing use in renewable and nuclear ( both fusion/fission) energy sources we would increase our efficiency and probably production. This in my proposed classification would mean we've become more advanced.

[premjan]

Efficiency of energy consumption means using less energy to do the same thing. But civilizations typically don't all do the same types of things. For instance air travel. You could look at the energy required in ancient Egypt using their technology to travel to (say) Iraq. And compare it with modern modes of travel. They might take a lot longer to get there though - e.g. by horse or via the red sea.

[Yggdrasill]

This isn't political. Hmm, S&S or Misc, I wonder...

Let's say S&S.


Yggdrasill - PD Moderator

[Sarpedon]

And doing it by travel time is also problematic. Before the invention of the steam engine, it took just as long to travel from Rome to London in Caesar's time as in the 16th century.

[Rhaedas]

You'd probably have to narrow it down to each category. Imagine a totally water based intelligence, where combustion was never possible, or where no appendages were ever available to effectively make tools. You'd say they're less advanced, right? But what if they're much "superior", however you might compare that, at philosophy, art, maybe even observational sciences (ie, they have somehow acquired more scientific knowledge of the universe than us).

Who would be the "better" species?

I would hope that in meeting, we'd benefit from each other's differences, and wouldn't bring the typical human prejudices into play.

[NeverByte]

You'd probably have to narrow it down to each category. Imagine a totally water based intelligence, where combustion was never possible, or where no appendages were ever available to effectively make tools. You'd say they're less advanced, right? But what if they're much "superior", however you might compare that, at philosophy, art, maybe even observational sciences (ie, they have somehow acquired more scientific knowledge of the universe than us).

Who would be the "better" species?

I would hope that in meeting, we'd benefit from each other's differences, and wouldn't bring the typical human prejudices into play.

Without the ability to create tools, no species can become advanced in *anything*. Art? They'd be limited to arranging shells in pretty patterns, at best - I'm assuming that if they can't make tools, they can't hold them either. Observational science still requires tools - you can't observe very much of the universe without a telescope. As for philosophy, well, who knows what strange POV an undersea creature might have - but no matter how profound, they'll still not be anywhere near as advanced as humanity.

[Sarpedon]

I bet a woodpecker could make a nice totem pole.

[Marduk]

I really am glad the universe is so big and the chances of us ever encountering another civilization is quite small. I would hate to witness the total mess humans would make trying to establish a relationship with aliens, no matter what their civilization was like. We would either eat them, take over their planet and force them onto reservations or start a major war, albeit the very last war we would ever start.

[Chuck Rightmire]

It seems to me that whichever civilization was able to make slaves of the other would probably be considered more advanced. Or each civilization would consider itself more advanced if technology was equal, until one or the other melded into the other.:Cheeky:

[premjan]

So the Mongols were superior to China then. But only by the measure of enslavement as in most other respects they weren't a patch.

[Yosei]

I really am glad the universe is so big and the chances of us ever encountering another civilization is quite small. I would hate to witness the total mess humans would make trying to establish a relationship with aliens, no matter what their civilization was like. We would either eat them, take over their planet and force them onto reservations or start a major war, albeit the very last war we would ever start.

Quite depressing really. I am getting back into the Transformers phase again after watching the preview and I don't think in real life we would recognize a friendly Autobot from an evil Decepticon. We'd probably try to enslave/conquer/segregate any outsiders. Not that we would succeed because we are assuming the aliens are 1000x more powerful than us. Won't stop us from being idiots and trying though.

[FreeAtLast]

I have a question....

Why did humans decide Oil is an energy source? I meant technically anything and everything could be an energy source? A Rock, A Tree, A Computer... I mean maybe Oil is the easiest energy source.. but I am sure other energy sources can be produced..... Before the steam ships, fuel and all that.. wind was an energy source... maybe in the future, tomatoes will become an energy source...

[Dhaeron]

I have a question....

Why did humans decide Oil is an energy source?
Because it is.
I meant technically anything and everything could be an energy source?No.
A Rock, A Tree, A Computer...
Only the tree can be an energy source out of those.
I mean maybe Oil is the easiest energy source.. but I am sure other energy sources can be produced..... Before the steam ships, fuel and all that.. wind was an energy source... maybe in the future, tomatoes will become an energy source...
Tomatoes don't burn so well either.

For something to be useful as an energy source it needs a lot of stored chemical energy, unless we're using fission or fusion and then we need specific elements and isotopes. Oil contains a lot of chemical energy and rocks don't. As evidenced by the fact that oil burns and rocks don't.

[ashaktur]

I really am glad the universe is so big and the chances of us ever encountering another civilization is quite small. I would hate to witness the total mess humans would make trying to establish a relationship with aliens, no matter what their civilization was like. We would either eat them, take over their planet and force them onto reservations or start a major war, albeit the very last war we would ever start.

Well, I prefer the words of Zach de la Rocha: "We'll kill them off, take their land, and go there for vacation!"

[Yggdrasill]

For something to be useful as an energy source it needs a lot of stored chemical energy, unless we're using fission or fusion and then we need specific elements and isotopes.Not quite correct, fission/fusion will result in energy from any process that brings the resulting elements closer to 62-Ni (using stuff other than hydrogen/uranium/plutonium/others is just more difficult), and given E=MC^2, it isn't unlikely that at some point in the future, it will be possible to release the energy inherent in any matter, through some other process.

[Dhaeron]

Not quite correct, fission/fusion will result in energy from any process that brings the resulting elements closer to 62-Ni (using stuff other than hydrogen/uranium/plutonium/others is just more difficult), and given E=MC^2, it isn't unlikely that at some point in the future, it will be possible to release the energy inherent in any matter, through some other process.Only in theory. And in theory a rock has lots of chemical energy to use also.
In reality however we have to use as energy source what we can extract the potential energy from and that severely limits our choices.

[Yggdrasill]

Only in theory. And in theory a rock has lots of chemical energy to use also.
In reality however we have to use as energy source what we can extract the potential energy from and that severely limits our choices.Well, FreeAtLast did say "I meant technically anything and everything could be an energy source?" Emphasis on "technically" and "could be".

But the gist of your post was of course correct, an energy source is whatever we are able to get more energy from than we would use to extract the energy.

[Thanatoast]

It seems to me that whichever civilization was able to make slaves of the other would probably be considered more advanced. Or each civilization would consider itself more advanced if technology was equal, until one or the other melded into the other.:Cheeky:But why would you want slaves when you can build cheap, efficient, versatile robots?

[Little Billy]

I suppose you can base it on its energy production and efficiency of energy consumption. A more advanced civilization would be able to generate more energy and use it more efficiently than a less advanced one.

I disagree. I would state that the Romans had a higher level of civilization than, say, the North Koreans of the modern day.

I think the level of civilization has more to do with the cultural level attained by the civilization.

[Marduk]

I’m with Little Billy, I’d rather encounter a culture of nice peaceful Buddhist Octafish artists then some Mega Tech Nazi Lizard People who want me for lunch.

[Thanatoast]

I’m with Little Billy, I’d rather encounter a culture of nice peaceful Buddhist Octafish artists then some Mega Tech Nazi Lizard People who want me for lunch.Yeah, but they have such snappy uniforms:

http://www.mindpulse.com/users/lizlady/autographs/herdauto2.jpg

[ulrich321]

I disagree. I would state that the Romans had a higher level of civilization than, say, the North Koreans of the modern day.

I think the level of civilization has more to do with the cultural level attained by the civilization.

How would one measure the cultural level ? Would say the ottomon empire have a higher cultural level than the british empire.

[Gracchus]

But why would you want slaves when you can build cheap, efficient, versatile robots?

But humans are cheap, efficient, versatile, robots. Of course they are a bit on the stupid side ...


Why concentrate on technological advancement? I think the most advanced culture (not necessarily a civilization,) is the one where the members have the most fun. Or maybe the one that produces the best music or poetry, or ...


:wave:

[premjan]

The Romans suffered brain damage due to lead poisoning. And conducted relatively barbaric gladiatorial contests and crucifixions. And the North Koreans apparently have nuclear missiles. So it is still a moot comparison. Though Rome was supposedly a democracy of sorts (at least it had an upper house or senate). At least a republic.

[ashaktur]

The Romans suffered brain damage due to lead poisoning.

This is a myth. For starters, archaelogical excavations have demonstrated that the pipes were lined and that only trace amounts of lead would have entered the water system.

In any event, it also stands in the face of facts. Despite the so-called brain damage, the Romans managed to create one of the largest, sophisticated and long lasting empires of all time. The lead argument is only used by a few brain-damaged academics who are searching for some reason why the Roman Empire collapsed. Needless to say they did not find a good one.

[premjan]

I still question the meaning of comparing the Roman and North Korean civilizations. Didn't the Romans crucify scads of Jews among others? And devastate the ecology of North Africa through overcultivation? And I bet they weren't especially pleasant to the Europeans they colonized. And they maintained slaves. And they ate Roman fish sauce (garum) which is supposed to have been rather unpleasant if barely edible. If you consider empire as the high watermark of culture, perhaps the Romans were great. Though they themselves tended to remain culturally in awe of the Greeks IIRC. And there were other empires of comparable longevity and geographical spread, such as the Persian. I don't see what is fundamental in these kinds of comparisons. It gives the impression of historical authority for which there is no great basis. Unless you specify the criteria, the comparison of two civilizations is not very meaningful. You might of course be able to find some civilization that is superior to another in every possible way, though those would be rare cases.

Maybe you could compare civilizations based on human lifespan. That might be semi-objective. I'd be OK with that.

[enoch007]

After reading another thread there was a discussion about advanced civilisations. This got me wondering if it is possible to objectively measure whether one civilisation is more advanced than another, if so what criteria does one use ? Is perhaps the only measurement how advanced a civilisation is when it comes into conflict with another civilisation ?


it all comes down to the body count.

[Chuck Rightmire]

My first response to this was more facetious than otherwise. But it may be easier to determine the more advanced civilization by the measure of envy which one shows toward the other. The lower civilization may be the most envious. And this can be measured by the one which adopts the most from the other. When the barbarians invade and adopt the culture of the other, then who is most advanced? The one whose culture is co-opted.

[premjan]

Of course it is not culture that most people are bothered about, but standard of living or quality of life. Culture may affect that of course.

[toth8]

After reading another thread there was a discussion about advanced civilisations. This got me wondering if it is possible to objectively measure whether one civilisation is more advanced than another, if so what criteria does one use ? Is perhaps the only measurement how advanced a civilisation is when it comes into conflict with another civilisation ?

Yes, in terms of scientific advancement. It's quite clear that some parts of the world are more scientifically advanced than others.

[premjan]

Ability to gain new knowledge could be a measure of advancement. Of course modern civilization is also marked by the tendency to lose knowledge (e.g. through species extinction) irretrievably as well.

[toth8]

How would one measure the cultural level ? Would say the ottomon empire have a higher cultural level than the british empire.

Huh? The British invented economics, railways, the steam engine, harnessed electricity, discovered DNA, etc.

What did the Ottomans ever produce of scientific worth?

[premjan]

What was the quality of the scientific revolutions in the Ottoman Empire?

The Ottoman Empire was the region to bring forth most of the scientific thought for a very long period of time. In fact, Copernicus had a theory very similar to a thought of one of the Ottoman scientists previous to him. “The path leading the scientific revolution in Europe was paved most significantly by Arabic-Islamic scientists” (Huff 237). The Islamic culture produced advancements in the sciences up until about the 13th century, just like China. They also understood the concept of what they were working on when they invented it. Huff also says, in reference to the “enlightened men of medicine, philosophy and science” of the era, “They were held at bay by the religious authorities of Islam, so that in the long run, no social institutions were founded that could protect and support freethinking, a term commonly denoting heresy” (Huff 360). This hindered any scientific revolutions from coming out of the Islamic world.
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw24sciencechinaottomaneurope.htm
http://www.theottomans.org/english/art_culture/science.asp

[toth8]

Ability to gain new knowledge could be a measure of advancement. Of course modern civilization is also marked by the tendency to lose knowledge (e.g. through species extinction) irretrievably as well.

And different parts of the world differ in that respect as well.

The question remains why certain parts of the world never have contributed to any scientific, technological or social advancement.

[premjan]

My guess is that environment (and also political climate) is a primary motivator for knowledge gain. Europe is usually cited as having many nation-states so political instability and need to improve military technology. This was not the case in Japan (united and insular) or China (united and static). In India (united by culture and not in internal political conflict - more of colonization), philosophy was the primary intellectual outlet perhaps because the science needed to improve living standards in a place like India is hard to achieve incrementally from a nonindustrial base.