Civilization is good for survival


Regular Member
Reaction score
Ethnic group
southern EUROPEAN
We know that civilization is the key aspect of humanity. But, do we?You see, I've noticed that civilization and all the conventions, customs... it comprises; is the only way that humanity has set for humanity, even to the smallest detail.

Particularly I want to show you how essential is for the survival of peoples.
Lets start with a people whose history has experienced a 180° turn in the Modern Era, until the point that now they are for the most part other race, the 'mestizos'.

The Amerindians in their old form no longer have countries of their own, basically cause they're not even numerical majorities.
In the mestizos, native American genes survive alongside that of mediterranean Europeans. But as a single race they barely exist any longer, and they usually do isolated, marginalized and with strong external pressures.But, who of them actually survive? Where are the biggest focus of natives today?
Peru and Mexico. That is, the areas nearby(the capitals were taken by the conquistadors) the ancient Aztec, Maya and Inca empires.Take a look at the US, Colombia, the Caribbean, Argentina and you will find their 'indigenous' have basically dissapeared. Only the ones that developed civilizations survived. In the fringes of their former lands, but survived.

Other example, the Australian Aboriginals. They are thought to have existed for all the Upper Paleolithic (I think is kind of an exagerated way of saying it, because they must evolve in some way) as a distinct culture.
If you see, their males carry mostly haplogroup C, which I made a post on. It's basically one of the first differentiated population from everybody else in Eurasia.But other Aborigines, particularly in the Northern Territories are like half of MS haplogroup. Closest to P(Q & R), also grouped with NO and LT in Macrohaplogroup K.
This MS population, thought to have come in migrations in the Late Paleolithic survives in the Australian state with the most Aboriginals.They also are thought to have received their animal, the dingo like 4000 years ago (prove they're not isolated completely).And lets focus in the fact that they're K haplogroup.
Maciamo made a post where he suggested that only those who carry it, are truly equiped to build civilizations, empires in the way we know them today...And he gave the example of how the fully MS Papuans developed agriculture.
And the half MS northern Aboriginals almost, but finally didn't. Papuans have their own country, we don't know how much more they will survive, but they stay alive.

Other. In this site we have already discussed the great population turnovers that Europe suffered during the Neolithic and then in the Bronze Age. Well, in Europe...

Ask that to dalits in India, non Bantu speakers in Africa. See the progression of O3 haplogroup in China, I already commented that it wasn't the dominant until dinastic times. Or the Semitic languages, I don't think that those areas were unpopulated before their arrival...

I think we could say the same for the inhabitants of the Roman Empire that migrated collectively into villas, even though for that isolation outside the cities we paid a price for centuries. Or maybe for the people that refuge in big castles and cities during the Late Middle Ages, they had an advantage over the others.You may refuge a bit far away, but you have to be near certain places, be informed, study... In order to thrive.
I don't believe civilization is essential to human survival, humans are perfectly capable of surviving without civilization...I think civilization is essential for technological advancement of the species but it could also be a double edged sword, that advancement might lead to our undoing just as much as mother nature...Take a look at those tribes in the Andaman jungles They are probably the best example of our earliest ancestor in terms of surviving and thriving in a true hunter gatherer existence. They are now recently being exposed to civilized man and it is just now destroying their culture. They look a lot more healthy than any average civilized man I've seen. Unfortunately eventually a more civilized man is going to want to own your resources and land so it is inevitable that uncivilized man is disappearing but it is not due to them no longer being able to survive on their own. So you could almost argue that civilization is like a plague, no matter how far in the jungle you are it will get you... :D

But if your argument is only that being civilized is better for survival of your culture when facing another civilized people than yes definitely an advantage there...
When you're handy, own property, have a family, take pride in your home, build equity, and security for the future, have dreams of expanding outward; you don't mailgn civilization and think it I'd better to live in a jungle with a bone through your nose. Many HGs had to change their lifestyle to become agrarian and pastoralists, because they overhunted and exterminated the mega fauna. Or/and climate change disrupted it and forced change.

Someone could probably survive as a bum on the street, but living in a house would be more optimal.
By all means I would much rather be civilized but I'm not going to say it isn't without it's problems where will it all lead as it advances will we lose our humanity in the end? I don't look at my fellow bushman and consider him inferior to civilized man I've seen enough videos to see their ingenuity when it comes to survival understanding the relationship of the animals and fauna around them.
Is that a worse existence than living in the metaverse and being implanted with neural chips while ai and machines do all our work in the future? I hear ai can even create art now why will humans need to exist anymore?
Last edited:
There was a problem, the simplest problem.
There was a way to solve the problem.
The motivation for solving the problem was some purpose.
Because there was a goal this problem arose, so for the first time there was a goal.
The problem and the goal were literally formed very quickly and it was difficult for a person to determine it's primacy.
Both of these tasks were solved by one person at a primitive level.
As the problem grew the goal grew too and vice versa.

It all evolved with the motivation for survival, comfort and power.
When the main weapon, the idea, emerged, then it began to develop on a particularly large scale.

Most ideologues have the ambition and desire to witness its implementation in their lifetime.

A new problem and enemy has arisen. Time.

I already think that civilization is a project to speed up and subjugate time by this method.

Otherwise the peace, water and bread would be enough for a person only for self-preservation.
Well my only complaint with civilization is it allows man the ability to acquire control of natural resources in an effort to accumulate vast wealth which then grants enormous power... Now the optimist still believes this is the best path we are on and eventually we will have synthetic food, cheap housing, and perhaps will unlock immortality itself...The universe left on its own will keep expanding and is capable of becoming cold and lifeless perhaps if we do reach our potential as a species we could keep the universe alive indefinitely :)

<font style="vertical-align: inherit;"><font style="vertical-align: inherit;">
But if your argument is only that being civilized is better for survival of your culture when facing another civilized people than yes definitely an advantage there...

That was what I was talking about.
I think that it's possible to live and survive without civilization, but just imagine that tomorrow everything will disappear.
People will go crazy, and it will take time to get used to new life.
The big part of people will just die or I don't know

This thread has been viewed 3124 times.