h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have read that the requirements of a civilization is any society with:

1) An orginized religion, complete with temples, priests, etc.
2) A government with a system of standardized laws
3) A written language

These seemed differend from the definition expressed in the article, and I'm wondering if there's an accepted list of things that make a civilization, or if it is more subjective.

I think this is a westernised view of civilisation in the article. Other cultures might put greater emphasis on spiritual values than the material values and protection of material goods described here. For example the Indian nations' value of the "hermits" (sorry, I can't just think what they call them) who follow a very simplified life, living on others' goodwill and have no possessions. Also the nomadic tribe cultures who live a civilised life but have very little in the way of goods or domestic animals.

I'd accept Bucephalus' definition with the comment that 1. "government" includes government by an informal group of "Elders" following tradition.
2. oral tradition might replace written language. What's important is the communication not the form of it surely?

There are civilisations not as we know them! (Jim, or was it Scotty)


Just to comment on the passing of information from parent to child. Jane Van Lawick Goodall in "In The Shadow of Man" documented fairly convincing evidence of chimpanzee mothers teaching their offspring. She watched one show a youngster how to use sticks to get ants out of anthills. The young one had no apparent instinct for this and had to practise a lot before succeeding.
She also noted the progress, or distinct lack of it, in a young chimp orphanned at an early age, who did not learn essential social skills to live sucessfully in the chimpanzee group it was born into.

sUnGoDdesS, I see in your original entry you do bring in the chimps and sticks. Its been edited out!

However I think it's more important than just sticks and ants. In the second example I gave, about the orphanned chimp, Jane Goodall showed that the orphan had real problems relating with other chimps socially. Not having a mother meant she hadn't learnt far more than the use of basic tools. She wasn't able to fit into her "chimp culture".

Thanks for expressing an interest in my entry! Sorry I haven't been able to respond, I've been gone for a while....
I see my chimp thing has been editted out...and regarding your question involving Jane Goodall, I would think she obtained those results because chimps are thought or perhaps proven to be closer to humans than most other animals. I think we can use Coco (or Koko), the gorilla who can use sign language. Animals can learn behavior from parents or whoever/whatever brings them up but what makes them different is that they cannot build up on that knowledge (or so its thought..)Yes, they can learn to do things but nothing more..
Am I confusing you, because even I'm confusing myself even though I know what I'm trying to say.. I'm sorry about that. I'll try to clear up any points I've missed so please point them out.

Those 3 requirements are thought to be the most important. The rest are things most successful civilizations have. Or might I say requirements for a larger civilization such as the Mesopotamians. actually I'll try to get back to you on that.

I'm glad you didn't mind my comments. I thought your article was interesting and it started me thinking. I think what I was getting at was that its not black and white, civilised and non civilised. I think there's the possibility of all shades of grey in between.

I take your point that animals don't appear to build on knowledge - but maybe that's just within a human timescale and within a human value system. After all our human civilisation is actually pretty destructive. We appear to be destroying much in our planet that we require to survive long term. How civilised is that? . Assuming intelligence is one of the requisites for civilisation.

Maybe some of our animal neighbours know better than we do. Maybe they don't develop as fast as humans because what we see as development has no value to them. All this stems from my feeling that not all our civilisation is a good thing, the rate at which we destroy other species is frightening and I cannot call it civilised.

You're not confusing me, I'm confusing me. A Guide article has to be relatively short and can't cover all the grey areas.