I have a theory of civilization

 

It goes like this.

 

We start in a primordial state, as individuals

 

We face a choice.

 

Say, for instance - I have a nice sharp sea-shell knife (Properly flaked these can be sharp indeed.)

 

And you have a hand axe.

 

I would like your hand axe.

 

Right there I face a choice.

 

Which is an easier way to acquire your axe?

 

I can steal it from you. But then you'll be angry and try to take back your axe. I have a hand axe, but everyone has to sleep some time.

 

I can kill you and take your hand axe

 

That will eliminate you as a future source of good things. It may aggravate your friends and family to seek revenge.

 

I can lie to you and scam you out of your axe, but eventually you're going to realize that what I said isn't true and we wind up with the same resulkt as having outright stolen it.

 

Or

 

I can trade. I can offer you my knife. Or I can offer some service. I can help you hunt or gather.

 

You'll then have to decide if you want to sell your axe, and for how much.

 

Or if you want to make me one like it, and for how much.

 

-*-

 

Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard extend this into a theory of economics.

 

If you value a sharp knife more than a hand axe, and I value a hand axe more than a sharp knife

 

then we have a mutual coincidence of wants.

 

Either one of us would be more wealthy with both the axe and the knife - but under uncomfortable and possibly dangerous conditions

 

being able to sleep without fear of vengeance is worth something.

 

-*-

 

My theory of civilization is this - it evolves from settling disputes. Trade is a way of expressing my desire for you axe without violence, theft or otherwise treating your poorly.

 

It's a voluntary interaction.

 

but it is aimed at solving my inner conflict that I want an axe and you have one.

 

Similarly you're going to have your own wants, needs and desires which could result in internal conflict if unfullfilled or external conflict if fullfilled poorly or thoughtlessly.

 

conflict costs energy, resources and opportunities.

 

Trade costs less of these and handled with care, trading for needs is far less dangerous.

 

So we aim, in our imperfect, narrow and short sighted ways in the direction of attaining wants with less energy outlay.

 

-*-

 

From this we develop more and more complex interactions. They solve needs and wants in progressively more and more long range and clever ways.

 

-*-

 

You can tell how effective this is by the fact that most of us live in cities.

 

Each of the things that makes our lives better is the result of a long chain of trades, exchanges and action intended to arrive at a better result than was present when it started.

 

Think about that. Your house. The electrical grid. Water treatment. Modern food production and distribution methods. All grow out of a desire to peacefully and efficient gain benefit.

 

Then think of all the unwritten rules we have as a society. Politeness. How we treat each other.

 

Law and the expectation that we should all adhere as closely as possible to it.

 

All Stem from finding clever and efficient ways to resolve conflict.

 

The world around us reflects our desires, I think. Most of us have open, flat, durable streets. COnvinient and sturdy homes. Chairs. Tables.

 

We work. We exchange our labor and effort with others. The specialization has become so intense that many of us participating in it can't track it in any detail.

 

But there's always Cheese Nips and Steaks in the Grocery store.

 

-*-

 

My theory is this

 

All of civilization is an increasingly complex alternative to "Give me what I want, or I'll hurt you."

 

I think it is a proper and good thing to have these alternatives.

 

We see that people who lose sight of this idea beng suffering and chaos to themselves and people around them.

 

I think that much of this was built into us before we were ever human. Pre-humans has hand axes and lived in tribes.

 

-*-

 

However, i think that like any human artifact, we can work it better when we understand why it's there and why it works the way it does.

 

So the goal of Civilization is to provide you and I with an opportunity to fill our needs and wants to the degree possible without having to hurt anyone else to do so.

 

I think that coercion, defaulting to violence is uncivilized. it's anti-Civilization.

 

Worse, foiling this emergent, complex feature of humanity creates imbalances.

 

-*-

 

I was reading Jared Diamond's "Blood, Germs and Steel"

 

He points out that in a primoridal state the worst thing a human tribe could see was another tribe of humans moving into their territory. Under such conditions (Pre-agricultural Revolution) the land had a natural carrying capacity.

 

So new humans would be competitors for finite set of resources.

 

Worse. Human have this wonderful tendency to divide people into in-groups (us) and out-groups (them)

 

In an primordial state, this could be a cruel and vile survival mechanism. A tribe that could shut off it's empathy with people in another tribe could exterminate members of that other tribe more efficiently and proposer on the conquered resources.

 

-*-

 

We humans have never lost this tendency to band into various groups of "Us" and "Them"

 

The sad thing is that largely, it's unecessary and even dangerous.

 

So we're caught in a tension between our social, cooperative nature and our xenophobic, parochial nature.

 

-*-

 

History and current events show preetty clearly that when people let the xenophobic point of view control their image of the world and act out violence against "The Other" - the chaos, death and destruction are the result.

 

The goals are almost never worth it, especially when you consider that there are less costly alternatives.

 

I think any large city shows that we're willing and able to get along, trade and make a mind boggingly complex system to fill our needs.

 

And any given war shows that we're prone to destroy it, when the wrong buttons are pressed.

 

-*-

 

That's my theory of civilization. It'a an alternative to "Or else I'll shoot you."

 

We want it. We like it. When we don't have one, we make it.

 

But there are people who see an opportunity to control, rob and steal and not have to pay the commesurate consequences.

 

These folks are a minority, but we should stay vigilant.

 

Maybe we can teach these folks that even if the front end pay day isn't as high, treating people properly has a really high pay off on the back end.

 

Jay ~Meow!~