Thread: What distinguishes Civilization and Wilderness?

civ·i·li·za·tion

noun /ˌsivələˈzāSHən/ 
civilisations, plural; civilizations, plural

The stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced
- they equated the railroad with progress and civilization

The process by which a society or place reaches this stage

The society, culture, and way of life of a particular area
- the great books of Western civilization
- the early civilizations of Mesopotamia and Egypt

The comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities
- the fur traders moved further and further from civilization

Source: Civilization definitions

Well if it's a simple matter of definitions than what is the purpose of asking the question?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Well if it's a simple matter of definitions than what is the purpose of asking the question?

Accumulating consensus on said definitions.

Nah, PS is sort of right, if I believe the dictionary had a complete understanding of these concepts I would not have made a thread.

But he's wrong in saying there's absolutely no difference. There is no hard line between the two, but there is definitely a process. Still, I would expect this process to be described or argued better than by simply referring to the dictionary. Then again I didn't read the last page of this thread so I don't how the conversation arrived there.

It's not just a simple matter of definitions - the thread is meant to go beyond that, but you made definitions an issue. (@ PS)

The definitions you propose we use for the words Civilization, Wilderness and Monkey are all the broadest possible definitions for those words - colloquialisms that no serious person would use when making important distinctions. If you're going to use such loose definitions, then you can make just about anything mean just about anything - defeating the purpose of trying to talk about distinctions.

Also, you don't seem to live by these definitions. You say there's no difference between the woods and a Holiday Inn, and yet to make this statement you used a computer, electricity and an internet connection...

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

It's not just a simple matter of definitions - the thread is meant to go beyond that, but you made definitions an issue. (@ PS)

The definitions you propose we use for the words Civilization, Wilderness and Monkey are all the broadest possible definitions for those words

I cannot believe there are people alive today who believe we are not monkeys.
But then again you demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge of evolution before, so....

PS' definition of monkey is not "broad".
If you can show me any major difference between what you call monkeys and humans I will declare you correct.
By major difference I mean like the difference between lizards and birds.

* Is shown there are 2 very different definitions of the term Monkey

* Uses one and claims anyone who uses the other is stupid

When did I demonstrate a lack of understanding of evolution? I mean yeah, I only have a layman's understanding of it, but obviously I know we're primates and have a common ancestor with the other primates.

Something in me is saying the scientific definition trumps the laymen "definition".
I dunno why.... must have something to do with all that evidence stuffz.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nah, PS is sort of right, if I believe the dictionary had a complete understanding of these concepts I would not have made a thread.

Alright. Still, I simply intend to provide a reminder as to who authored the dictionary.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

It's not just a simple matter of definitions - the thread is meant to go beyond that

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'm not interested in a list of attributes, but rather your philosophy on the nature of Civilization and Wilderness. How are they different? How are they similar? How do they relate?

We are ever pretentious.

Originally Posted by tommo

Something in me is saying the scientific definition trumps the laymen "definition".
I dunno why.... must have something to do with all that evidence stuffz.

Wait - of the 2 definitions posted, the more 'scientific' is the one that says monkeys are small to medium primates with tails that mostly live in trees. The other one is a colloquialism. Can you show me a link to this scientific definition of monkey that includes humans?

Somebody already posted this on the last page, but here it is again:


There are old world monkeys, new world monkeys, then there are apes and humans. Completely separate classifications.

A comparison of DNA nucleotide sequences of living primate species show that humans are most closely related to the African apes. Next in descending order of genetic closeness to us come the Asian apes, Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, tarsiers, and finally the lemurs and lorises. This genetic comparison corresponds exactly with a comparison of homologous primate physical traits. It also fits nicely with what we know from the fossil record. The prosimians were the first to evolve. Next came the monkeys, then the apes, and finally humans.

Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

I didn't see any definitions, I just assumed.

Scientific classifications are now more often based on monophyletic groups, that is groups consisting of all the descendants of a common ancestor. The New World monkeys and the Old World monkeys are each monophyletic groups, but their combination is not, since it excludes hominoids (apes and humans). Thus the term "monkey" no longer refers to a recognized scientific taxon. The smallest accepted taxon which contains all the monkeys is the infraorder Simiiformes, or simians. However this also contains the hominoids (apes and humans), so that monkeys are, in terms of currently recognized taxa, non-hominoid simians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian
Basically, that^, is the closest to what we used to use the word "monkey" for.

I read that article, and it seems to back up what the image I posted shows - that new world monkeys and old world monkeys are separate from apes and humans. All simians, of course, but distinct sub groups.

Are you suggesting that in scientific circles the word Monkey is interchangeable with Simian? That would be very confusing considering it would mean Monkey includes New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys as well as Apes and Humans. Nothing in that article suggested that all simians can also simply be called monkeys. I still think you're talking about a very non-scientific definition of the word monkey.

But all this monkey business is completely beside the point!

Regardless of naming conventions, civilization and wilderness are two things considered distinct by most (if not all) people. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that most people, given the opportunity, choose to live in houses or apartments or dwellings of human construction rather than living naked in the woods using nothing but sticks and rocks for tools. Of course there are people who choose to live somewhat wild for a time, such as Yogis. Even these people partake of some benefits of human civilization, such as language, and generally clothing.

So, where do we draw the line? What is the dividing line between civilized human existence and wild human existence? If you do live naked in a cave eating only food you can gather with your bare hands and never having learned human language, would that be considered completely wild?

What about a monk who lives in a cave but wears handmade clothing and has cooked food brought to him by people living in a nearby town? What if that monk also has a laptop and uses it to post to his blog every night?

What about homeless people who live in the marginalized area of the outskirts of a city, eating scraps taken from dumpsters? Wild, civilized, or something else?

Depends on how you define it. I usually define "wilderness" as nature unmanipulated by man, and civilization as the opposite. Although I suppose you could use wilderness as a synonome for nature and thus a synonome for everything, including humans and their creations.

Another way to approach the question (which might help us to refine it or understand it better): At what point did civilization come into existence?

Humans evolved from animals that at some point were completely wild. Would nomadic tribes of mastodon hunters be considered civilized? I suppose a better question - did they have a concept of "civilized"? Probably. I'm sure they didn't consider themselves as wild as the animals they hunted.

Farther back then - the first toolmakers. They surely understood that toolmaking set them apart from those tribes who didn't make tools, and gave them a clear advantage.

Could the concept of civilization have arisen simultaneously with human thought/language itself? Could the first truly human thought have been something along the lines of "We're different from the wild animals - we're human and therefore civilized"?

Or does it have more to do with civility vs barbarity? Advanced vs primitive?

It's a pretty hard concept to pin down. Seems like a rather arbitrary distinction.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Depends on how you define it. I usually define "wilderness" as nature unmanipulated by man, and civilization as the opposite. Although I suppose you could use wilderness as a synonome for nature and thus a synonome for everything, including humans and their creations.

Though it can be made into a synonym, that changes the definition of nature as wilderness is used to refer to, as you described it, the unmanipulated aspects of nature. If an advanced alien species were to see earth, they may consider wilderness to be anything they aren't colonizing, whether or not humans make their habitat there.

Habitat is an important concept. We call the habitat of our species civilization. Although there are still various cultures that live in greater harmony with the wilds and would be considered part of the wilderness, someone raised in our technological level of habitat would not be able to survive there.

I don't think we have seen true civilization yet. Civilization is where people work together to create a better existence for everyone. We still live in the world where people kill eachother for something as lame as what religon they have. It's pathetic, low and beastly. Therefore my answer is that the entire world as we know it is a wilderness, with a slow start of civilization beginning to shine through.

hmm, i always operated under the definition that monkeys were primates with tails and apes were without. But I guess it doesnt matter that much, we are all primates anyways.

As for the question at hand. I think civilization at its base is when you are settled with a group of humans (or whatever your species is) and can have your basic needs met. To me, it seems like any survival guide or show I have ever seen implies that you are effectively in the wilderness until you are with more of your own kind and are capable of meeting your basic life needs. For example, a group of humans could still be lost in the wilderness, but if that group has the ability to settle an area and meet basic life needs, they can create a civilization.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

What distinguishes Civilization and Wilderness?

Art.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Wait - of the 2 definitions posted, the more 'scientific' is the one that says monkeys are small to medium primates with tails that mostly live in trees. The other one is a colloquialism. Can you show me a link to this scientific definition of monkey that includes humans?

As Tommo pointed out, go monophyletic or go home. This is the cleanest way to do things and it is sweeping taxonomy since the seventies. The fact that it has not yet been applied to humans is just evidence of the "Magic Monkey" syndrome. This is the same reason that it took sooooo long to get people (even scientists) to admit that humans were even apes.

The smallest monophyletic grouping that contains everything we want to call a monkey also contains us. The split between the apes and the old world monkeys occured after the split between that line and the new world monkeys.

This quite unambiguosly places us in the monkey clade.

At any rate, nobody (worth conversing with) will question that we're apes. My point stands.

The smallest monophyletic grouping that contains everything we want to call a monkey also contains us.

.. And you're saying the accepted scientific name for that group is "monkeys"? That wasn't indicated anywhere on any of the taxonomic charts I looked at. I think the grouping was called simians? Not sure, I was looking for the word monkey and wasn't finding it, except in relation to old world and new world monkeys. Apes and humans are shown as separate groups.

Ok, so Spyguy believes the word civilization is an ideal representing perfect harmony. I haven't heard it used that way before, generally people will use it to refer to groupings of humans providing the necessities and comforts we desire, as in "This is the last outpost of civilization for 30 miles on this road".

tdkyo - sounds like we're in agreement on the issues.

Izrail - I agree art is a good indicator. Possibly the best one we have. Animals that create art can be called civilized, ones that don't generally aren't.

I think the whole monkey discussion really belongs on another thread, because if we accept that humans can be called monkeys, it doesn't change the fact that wild monkeys are not civilized by anyone's definition (except apparently PhilosopherStoned's). And again, if you believe monkeys (wild ones) truly have civilization, I invite you to live with a bunch of spider monkeys - the way they live - and see how comfortable it is.

Originally Posted by Izrail

Art.

nature has inspired every idea man has ever had, though.
man imitates the naturally occurring patterns of the wilderness from which he came, and hopefully will return. he then dyes it a new color, wraps it in a bow and renames it.

also, there's this: Birds of Paradise

If Art distinguishes civilization, then civilization is just synonymous with Human.

If people are monkeys, then sparrows are chickens. They're both birds, obviously, but they're two different kinds of birds. I'd be pretty pissed if I ordered some fried chicken and got fried sparrow instead.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Spoiler for greenhavoc's artwork:

nature has inspired every idea man has ever had, though.
man imitates the naturally occurring patterns of the wilderness from which he came, and hopefully will return. he then dyes it a new color, wraps it in a bow and renames it.

How poetic of you.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

If Art distinguishes civilization, then civilization is just synonymous with Human.

If people are monkeys, then sparrows are chickens. They're both birds, obviously, but they're two different kinds of birds. I'd be pretty pissed if I ordered some fried chicken and got fried sparrow instead.

Wouldn't monkeys (just as birds) be the umbrella term, here? "Sparrows are chickens" doesn't follow.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

also, there's this: Birds of Paradise

It takes you, greenhavoc, to acknowledge this bird as artful. If you were to mutilate it and tear it to microscopic shreds, you wouldn't find any art molecules... Not only are we inclined to identify beauty (art) outside ourselves, we're innately impelled to produce it--or rather, reproduce it, as you noted.

This being said, if

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

man imitates the naturally occurring patterns of the wilderness from which he came, and hopefully will return

then does our very existence reflect a natural instance of art and our essence an artistic production of Nature, of the Universe?


And you know what they say about beauty...

Originally Posted by Izrail

Wouldn't monkeys (just as birds) be the umbrella term, here? "Sparrows are chickens" doesn't follow.

Only if someone can show me some kind of citation that there actually is a group called monkeys of which humans are a part, and so far nobody has done that. The closest I've found yet is this:

Consider the superfamily Hominoidea. In terms of the common names on the right, this group consists of apes and humans, and there is no single common name for all the members of the group. One possibility is to create a new common name, in this case "hominoids". Another possibility is to expand the use of one of the traditional terms. For example, in a 2005 book, the vertebrate palaeontologist Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans",[10] thereby using "apes" to mean "hominoids". The group traditionally called "apes" must then be called the "nonhuman apes".

Source: Primate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... that suggests grouping humans with the apes, not with monkeys. And it isn't accepted, just a suggestion.