08-29-2010, 06:51 PM
Outside of advancing technologically, how much is civilization actually advancing right now? Socially I don't think humans have advanced in ages, except as a reaction to laws and culture, but I don't think those areas have really advanced, only changed as societal structure has changed, mainly from dictatorships to democracies since the enlightenment. So, I mean, until a new groundbreaking political/societal philosophy causes an incredible shift in thought (for instance, the idea that the people should have the power, or whatever spurred this idea democracy and democratic republics and republics and whatnot) then nothing will change how we view each other socially or whatever, and civilization, for the most part, will not advance.
So, the biggest variable for me would be technological advancement, which has been the only actual cause of civilizational advancement, in my opinion, in a long time. The bomb changed everything, then the internet changed everything, and now everything is becoming an offshoot of the direct, immediate gratification that the internet allowed. What would it take to stop that advancement? A massive, global tragedy that finally shed light on the idea that technology is a very, very dangerous double edged sword. As we advance, we also advance the capabilities of everyone to kill anyone, and as that technology becomes more available, it becomes increasingly dangerous. So sometime, maybe not to far off, something terrible is going to happen. Perhaps terrorists will ascertain nuclear weapons from a country, perhaps Pakistan, when that government collapses and warlords seize control (ala Somalia and, recently, Uzbekistan, though that may have been fixed) and then they will do something terrible with those weapons, and, as a reaction, governments will hold all technology deemed dangerous incredibly close to their chests, which will slow the advancement of technology for the masses. Either that or such an attack will trigger a mass anti-technology sentiment among the public, which won't happen because we are spoiled, selfish creatures, and then I'm not sure what will happen.
Something terrible would need to happen.
So, the biggest variable for me would be technological advancement, which has been the only actual cause of civilizational advancement, in my opinion, in a long time. The bomb changed everything, then the internet changed everything, and now everything is becoming an offshoot of the direct, immediate gratification that the internet allowed. What would it take to stop that advancement? A massive, global tragedy that finally shed light on the idea that technology is a very, very dangerous double edged sword. As we advance, we also advance the capabilities of everyone to kill anyone, and as that technology becomes more available, it becomes increasingly dangerous. So sometime, maybe not to far off, something terrible is going to happen. Perhaps terrorists will ascertain nuclear weapons from a country, perhaps Pakistan, when that government collapses and warlords seize control (ala Somalia and, recently, Uzbekistan, though that may have been fixed) and then they will do something terrible with those weapons, and, as a reaction, governments will hold all technology deemed dangerous incredibly close to their chests, which will slow the advancement of technology for the masses. Either that or such an attack will trigger a mass anti-technology sentiment among the public, which won't happen because we are spoiled, selfish creatures, and then I'm not sure what will happen.
Something terrible would need to happen.
![[Image: alext.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v234/waffuru/alext.jpg)