The EBC just wrapped up its first ever "EBC Talks", a series of mixlr discussions on real world discssion topics. I listened to it (you can listen to it here) and took notes on what each person said throughout the show. This is as close as we can get to an "official transcript", so for all of you who don't have time to listen, missed a part, etc, this is for you. Here we go:
EBC Talks: What makes a civilization?Featuring: Deputy Communications Minister Marnip (Moderator), Vice-President Trinnien, Assemblymember Rose Peak, and Culture Minister Netz.
Marnip: Let’s begin by asking what started civilization.
Rose: Domesticated animals, having a large social structure based on the amount of resources.
Trinn: Agriculture, large groups of people, especially for the hunter-gatherer groups, is very important. Especially when you can grow from hundreds of people to thousands of people. That's how civilization got started.
Netz: I wasn't listening, there were questions about cake. I have no opinions.
Marnip: We're talking about agriculture, and its role in society.
Netz: I agree it is important. Not having to travel from place to place, having the stability that food brings is very important.
Marnip: Scholars typically have seven areas they focus on when talking about civilizations. Culture, or shared beliefs in values is a big one, what do you guys think? Which came first: Culture or civilization?
Netz: A product. People don't have the culture until they have a group of people.
Rose: People develop their origins from society, not the other way around. Interestingly, different groups had different structures. Look at the Incans, they were isolated in the mountains, but they sent people out to indoctrinate others about their way of life. This isn't restricted to numbers, either, just once you're larger than a village, you see this start to take off.
Netz: People and their families have a family culture, so families are different than groups. Each family had their own culture, and when they came together to form a group, we got society's culture.
Marnip: Can you guys point to a place in society that makes a group a society? Belief system, etc? What makes them civilized?
Netz: What everybody considers civilized differs from person to person.
Trinn: There are tribes isolated in Papua New Guinea or the Amazon, but I wouldn't call them civilized because they don't have a real impact on the world around them, or those they come into contact with. The Romans on the other hand are obviously civilized because they influenced everyone they come into contact with.
Marnip: Good point. Looking at the way we connect now: internet, can we say that since we all can come into contact with each other, is the world one large civilization? We all have our different cultures, America is loud, Germans have something, and Chinese save face, etc, but are we all one big group?
Rose: I believe Earth is a planet of many different civilizations, and it all comes back to the pillars of civilization. Urbanization, for instance is a key pillar. There are not different types of civilization, but there are different civilizations. Remote areas lack key infrastructure and technology, they're a difficult group.
Trinn: Building off that, Western civilization, America, Western Europe, Japan , though Japan is a unique case, you can see in their writing that they think of the world as one big civilization. They are their own civilization, I think, but there are key groups: Asia, Middle East, Africa. How they all approach problems is different, and I think that is enough to separate them. We can all come to a similar conclusion on things if we are from a similar civilization. Look at Europeia, we have a predominantly American base, with some other countries represented (shoutout to Drecq in Germany), but we all come together.
Marnip: Today, in 2016, do you think we can all assimilate into one global people, with the technology we have? In our lifetime, maybe 200 years down the road, what do you think?
Rose: I think there will always be cultural differences. Assimilation is different from culture. There will always be borders, where one culture starts and another begins. We have pride, and we like to protect our cultures before letting others into our lives. I think even down the road we will have this world. We will have a multicultural world, but there will be cultural individualism to a large extent.
Trinn: I think since the fall of communism in Soviet Russia, there has been, in the secular world, there has been many developments. English has become the lingua franca of the world, even though there are other large languages just based on numbers, like Mandarin. China actually has embraced today's technology and world, without losing a lot its own cultural ideas. If we look at the Middle East there are these huge cities being made, but their culture is very much in opposition to how the world is being brought about. Rose is right, we won't have a borderless world, certainly not in our lives, people are too proud of their culture. We will, however, move towards a place where certain operating standards become the norm, how a city is made, knowledge is shared, etc. It's hard for anything to be unique anymore, when you can just build off others.
Netz: I agree.
Marnip: Do you believe civilizations rise because we, as humans, feel we have to band together to make civilizations? Is this human nature?
Rose: I think it comes back to consolidation of resources. Nations can consolidate them a lot easier than people on their own, which is why I think this is innate. Touching on globalization, morals also get passed around, and people become nicer because they have to be sensitive to other groups that might not agree with them.
Trinn: I would say that there is an innate need for protection among people. However, I am a cynical optimist when it comes to people. I expect the worst, but hope for a middling ground. We're lucky to live in nations of abundance, but I think if society really broke down, I don't think we would see a push for the nations that we have once again. We likely would not form another U.S., or Russia, or China. I think if the issue is survival, that comes before being nice, or caring for your neighbors. The hope is that once abundance is established, nations can rise again. Look at Somalia. They don't have abundance, so they have a series of competing warlords and everyone else is caught in between. I foresee that future if we ever lose our resources as a world.
Marnip: I like to be positive, but I see your point. Society is an avenue for the weak to survive with the strong. Flight or fight is ingrained in us for a reason, so I agree with you Trinn, about what would happen in that scenario. For most individuals, at least. When there's a shortage of resources, we revert back to our animal natures. Civilization is a way to demonstrate that we've risen above this, using thought to better ourselves. Why do you guys think some civilizations have fallen in the past? Not because of a lack of money, though, another reason. Too big, like the Romans?
Rose: There are a lot of possibilities. If it is newly annexed, there will be strife, for instance. Talking about Rome, though, it comes back to consolidation of resources. Some group will always consolidate power, but the fall comes through the failure to administer resources properly. If resources are disorganized, civilization will fall.
Netz: He took my answer.
Trinn: Looking at a more recent fall, the Soviet Union had a problem with money, but more with administration. They funneled their money into military, not agriculture or infrastructure, and that was a problem. Weapons don't build societies. That's not sustainable. China ran into a similar scenario, with Mao's Cultural Revolution, old culture was destroyed, and things were falling apart. If Mao didn't die before this was done, it would have likely ruined China. The next Chair did not follow these policies, became social capitalist, and developed infrastructure, and did that for thirty years, like Japan did, and it worked for them. Within two generations they went from an agrarian society to what they became today. So, it comes down to using your resources wisely.
Marnip: I think the fall of society comes down to greed, and the way to mismanage this. One of my favorite quotes holds true here: “If the agricultural economy collapses, the other economy will, too.” JFK said that in the 60s, and it works well here, a point made by this panel. There a lot of different factors, for sure, but you must learn from history. Let's talk about the combining of civilization. For instance, the EU is an economic union, what do you think about those kind of mergers?
Trinn: I think they hurt societies. The idea of an economic union cannot work unless you have an equal system of development and infrastructure of all countries involved. If the U.S. Wanted to do this with Mexico, more than NAFTA has us do now, the industrial capacity of Mexico does not match up with us, and that makes us unequal partners. We can't have this growth with this inequality. The EU has been dealing with this in Greece, Ireland, and Spain, who are so different from Germany, France, and the U.K. They have become a drag on the E.U., because they are still sovereign. It can be argued that the American Southern states are also dragging down the U.S. Nothing is stopping this growth other than the states, really, but there is a federal power to regulate this, that the EU could learn from.
Rose: It's like if two companies merge, but don't actually become one compan. Countries have to be equal for this to work.
Marnip: I agree with you both. The EU is an overall positive because the countries can help the other countries out, and eventually things will even out, but these are different cultures of people, so it's difficult to really change things. The implementation is flawed. How do you guys define a “great civilization”?
Trinn: There are three civilizations I am interested in for this. Only one still exists, but they are the Egyptians, the Romans, and the Chinese. With Egypt, they took over the Nile and that was it. They could have expanded further, but they didn't. They stopped and built up. Rome was all about expansion, whereas Egypt was more about domestic culture, but Rome was conquest. Rome was about bringing order and law, and the right of being an individual of this ideal state, but their desire for power was their downfall. China combined the Roman idea of conquest, but they built up this idea of their culture, too, and I think that's why they are the one that still exists. A great civilization should maintain and promote your objectives, and to maintain your people.
Rose: A society should protect their people, make sure they don't die. They should find that sweet spot for their citizens to have free will and are cared for. Religion is great for morality and charity, can be open minded. A country should have this mentality, too. Further society, not just watch it exist. Work in one direction at a time, not expand too far. Hold your society to a standard, and preserve it. A country is all of its people, not just the government. Preserve the ideals of your people, and make an attempt to preserve society.
Netz: One characteristic would be that countries take care of their people, not just tossing them out there.
Marnip: I agree, and I feel like sustainability is a good marker of a great civilization. If you last for 1000 years, you are great. People don't realize how hard it is to maintain a civilization that long. Any final thoughts?
Rose: In conclu, we discussed how society moved from agriculture, to get infrastructure, then the growth of the state, get morals and beliefs, and then make a society from there. Our world society has been built off this legacy that we've discussed. There are good and bad ones out there, but what makes a civilization is it's people, developing and improving its nation.
Marnip: To wrap up, what makes a civilization in three words?
Trinn: Growth, order, and vision.
Rose: Growth, sustainability, and brilliance.
Netz: Sustainability, strength, and consistency.
Marnip: Progress, sustainability, and outlook. It's been great discussing this with you all.