Thread: What distinguishes Civilization and Wilderness?

Originally Posted by Izrail

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

I believe it does.

And you know what they say about beauty...

I do, this is why art isn't a valid argument for or against.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

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

This is the crux of my argument, not that art distinguishes civilization, but that civilization is synonymous with human, or rather human habitat.

I'd like someone to give information on the Genetic and even to the Biochemical level on similarities with humans and how they relate to one species or is a variant of one species etc.

All of this "Hey-I'm-Going-To-Be-A-Condescending-Orator-And-If-You-Don't-Agree-To-My-Narrow-minded-perspective-based-on-jumping-on-the-band-wagon-you're-wrong" mentality, we're not going to get anywhere with this thread.

If some percentages where to show up on....I don't know...Amino Acid Sequences...maybe people can see that similarities in physical compositions do not fully count as merit when it is compared genetically, molecular, or biochemically.

When people compare us with other species, they might use primates, and then use monkeys (a more complex variant) from the general overview with comparisons.

When I said that we aren't a species of monkey, but rather a species of the common ancestor, I get trolled (well my definition of trolling without giving decent evidence) is that we are species of monkeys, when those are declaring that are just saying it as a broader term.

Monkey DNA Points to Common Human Ancestor | LiveScience

If you look quickly at the link (if you give a crap about seeing other evidences), Rhesus monkeys are 93% related to the common Human ancestor.

(I admit, there are sites that are claiming to us to being species of monkeys, but if you keep looking more and more and more and more, it becomes false).

If you actually read the whole article, you'll find that chimpanzees diverged from our lineage a while back (like millions of years back) while the Rhesus monkeys diverged from human beings WAY back before chimpanzees.

The fact that rhesus monkeys are further away from humans in evolution will help illuminate what makes humans different from other apes in ways that chimps, which are so closely related to us, could not, Gibbs said. (Rhesus monkey ancestors diverged from those of humans roughly 25 million years ago, while chimpanzees diverged from our lineage 6 million years ago.)

In addition, the researchers identified roughly 200 genes that appear to be key players "in defining the shapes of species, in what makes the primates different from us and each other," Gibbs said. These include genes involved in hair formation, sperm-egg fusion, immune response and cell membrane proteins, findings detailed in the April 13 issue of the journal Science.

There is a difference between a Monkey and a Chimpanzee. If Chimpanzees are similar by ~98-99% based on Genome while Rhesus Monkeys are 93-95% similar in amino acid sequence.

We're a species of monkey? Are we using this as "primates?" Similar structure sure, but functions are completely different due to geographical isolation (that can somewhat relate to our term as "wilderness" or "civilization")

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

(Source Here)

But to say we're a species of monkeys is saying we evolved from monkeys.

But it's clear that we didn't evolve from them, so how can we be a species of monkey when we didn't evolve from them?

Why can't we just say we're a species of the common human ancestor? Why can't we go back a few millions of years instead of what we're seeing now as some misconception?

So those who are saying we're a species of monkey, are you saying that we diverged from that when clearly it's not that? Are you also saying that even though a monkey like the Rhesus monkey, which is ~93-95% similar to human genome structure while chimpanzees (completely different) match to 98-99% of the human genome.

The percentages may be small, but it what sets us apart from them. But we are all part of the common ancestor before it branched off. And those percentages may think that we're still a species of monkeys, but when compared genetically and going towards the whole microbiology thing, there's a HUGE difference.

But before someone uses intelligent words or laconic prose, if you're agreeing that we're a species of monkeys, can you give percentages relating to that? Are you using monkeys rather than primates as a general and broad basis to extend on similarities?

I know some of you are itching to prove that your point is right, but I just want to see someone show facts from decent basis to show their point is right that we are a species of monkeys instead of using hearsay, and then using biological terms to change it around to just complicate things more because we're not comparing it genetically.

I'm not trying to prove anything, but from the information I've seen (this isn't all of it, I didn't want to post 20+ sites showing similarities with common human ancestors that had traits before monkeys, which would make one believe that we're a species of monkeys, and are essentially monkeys. But we're species of the common ancestor, not the monkey.

Show me evidence that humans are a species of monkeys, and not confuse the term between primates (a more broader term to compare rather than "monkeys."

mon·keynoun /ˈməNGkē/ 
monkeys, plural
A small to medium-sized primate that typically has a long tail, most kinds of which live in trees in tropical countries

https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...w=1525&bih=677

pri·matenoun /ˈprīˌmāt/  /ˈprīmət/ 
primates, plural

1. The chief bishop or archbishop of a province
   
   • - Cardinal Glemp, the primate of Poland
   
   
   
   

noun /ˈprīˌmāt/ 
primates, plural
A mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bush babies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, handlike feet, and forward-facing eyes, and, with the exception of humans, are typically agile tree-dwellers

https://www.google.com/search?q=defi...w=1525&bih=677

If you can show evidence rather than spilling your "infinite knowledge that is absolute and "you're still wrong mentality." I can be convinced. It doesn't mean I'm still going to whine and say what I think is right, but I think we're confusing the terms.

Please, if you really deem that you shouldn't bother to do so because you deem one as incompetent and horseshit, then you don't really care to see if your point is really right based on evidence.

I'll assume (I don't know what goes on in your mind) that you're just augmenting your brief moment of slight rage over the terms and trying to use a condescending tone to prove yours is right without something to back it up.

Inb4 getting laughed at the sources I decided to pick.

The point I'm trying to make is that we're not a species of monkeys. They are primates, just like us, but we didn't diverge from the monkeys to make us a species of monkeys. Primates cover the broader term of variants of it (humans, apes, monkeys, etc.).

If you still think I'm an incompetent, then portray what you think with some evidence. Just saying "you're still wrong and you're just an idiot that isn't worth my time because I'm far more competent than you" isn't going to convince me.

Which makes me believe that geographic isolation contributes to how certain civilizations of organisms are similar in concepts, but not in activities. But everyone seems to be comparing things based on only 30,000 years instead of millions of years.

*hides in the corner*

I'm not trying to prove anything, it's from information I've gathered not only online, but from professors who devote their life on evolution, plants, etc. (and from a University that has a reputation).

If they are false to you, then I guess I'm pooping this information and throwing it at you (hahah *cough* *cough* not a monkey reference *cough* *cough*

(And if you do prove that the information I was given is wrong, at least explain it rather than just saying "You're still bloody wrong you child" and give me the right information with some sources without altering the wording from the sources to your own schemata that continually accepts we're a species of monkeys)

We all make mistakes, but at least know that if I made a mistake, correct it instead of labeling me as a piece of shit. Please, I'm here to see what's accepted, I don't want to be narrow-minded (how can I become a scientist, Biochemistry for that matter with the possibility of being a Geneticist if I double major in it in four years, if I did?)

And it's these "tl; dr" that are ignored that can actually clear some thoughts from this.

Saying that art distinguishes civilization is an interesting point. Everything can be considered art, so that makes everything civilization. There are also people who dislike everything, which makes nothing civilization. So by that definition everyone can still fill it in the way they like it. It's quite nice

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

.. 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.

Simian comes from latin for "monkey". Simian or monkey, whatever.

Apes and humans are shown as separate groups.

You're wrong. Even wikipedia gets that right in terms of calling humans apes. Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you need to update your sources? Also, I forgot to list Orangutans as Hominids earlier.

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).

I didn't say that wild monkeys are civilized. I just said that the whole civilization thing is a crock of shit. If you want to have some "humans are great" wankfest, then I'll stay out of it. If you want to look at reality, then I'm in.

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.

If you believe that humans have civilization then I invite you to try living with some and also start reading history books and a good daily newspaper. We're not only just as savage as any other creature, we're more so.

Originally Posted by Spyguy

Saying that art distinguishes civilization is an interesting point. Everything can be considered art, so that makes everything civilization. There are also people who dislike everything, which makes nothing civilization. So by that definition everyone can still fill it in the way they like it. It's quite nice

Thanks. I do it for us.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I believe it does.

I do, this is why art isn't a valid argument for or against.

All beauty must die.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

I'd like someone to give information on the Genetic and even to the Biochemical level on similarities with humans and how they relate to one species or is a variant of one species etc.
ngiwebgaerr

Ok, first off, you repeated yourself ove r and over again and I barely got through it (sorry if this is all fucked up, my space abr is sticking and I cbf fixing it)

Second, you use d genetic evidence to prove your point and then you say it's just the percentages that say we are monkeys.


However, what I think you trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong, is that people think we actually evolved from the modern monkeys, and some of them stayed the same. Is that what you think we are saying?
If so, nobody here is saying that.

Originally Posted by tommo

Ok, first off, you repeated yourself ove r and over again and I barely got through it (sorry if this is all fucked up, my space abr is sticking and I cbf fixing it)

Second, you use d genetic evidence to prove your point and then you say it's just the percentages that say we are monkeys.


However, what I think you trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong, is that people think we actually evolved from the modern monkeys, and some of them stayed the same. Is that what you think we are saying?
If so, nobody here is saying that.

That was to drill it inside people's brains. Some people read in once, then they're like "DURP"

I didn't use it to say we were monkeys. I meant it that we're related, but we didn't evolve from them.

If you saw the percentages, you would see that I say that even though we're related, the small percentage makes a huge difference because just a few changes in the amino acid sequences can make something completely different.

If you read the quotes, I tried to show that it wasn't us diverging or being a species of monkeys, but rather them diverging from a human ancestor, meaning we can't be a species of them when they were a species of something that we had in common (but NOT DIVERGED from monkeys, the ANCESTOR)

I kept repeating it, because people don't understand until you keep drilling it until it annoys them to just prove me wrong.

Percentages were for similarities in the genetic perspective. Even though the percentage rates would be high on similarity on genetic structure, the small gap (5-7% on Rhesus monkeys and 1-2% on Chimpanzees makes a difference)

I've also said that people keep using "monkeys" rather than "primates" to be the broader term in branching out the more complex variants.

That's what annoyed me, that's what I was trying to prove wrong. That we're primates at least (if the definition is right), not monkeys. Primates covers a wider range.

EDIT: On your last question.

If someone says that we're a species of monkey, that means we had to evolve from them right? We're not evolved from them, so you can't use that we're a species of monkey.

It's the fact that some said we're a species of monkey, which means they were assuming we were derived from them and evolved from them. If not, they were using the wrong context.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

If you read the quotes, I tried to show that it wasn't us diverging or being a species of monkeys, but rather them diverging from a human ancestor, meaning we can't be a species of them when they were a species of something that we had in common (but NOT DIVERGED from monkeys, the ANCESTOR)

Yes, but I just said no one was arguing that point.
You're trying to convince people to hold a different view to one they never had.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

If you saw the percentages, you would see that I say that even though we're related, the small percentage makes a huge difference because just a few changes in the amino acid sequences can make something completely different.

Percentages were for similarities in the genetic perspective. Even though the percentage rates would be high on similarity on genetic structure, the small gap (5-7% on Rhesus monkeys and 1-2% on Chimpanzees makes a difference)

Yes, but we're NOT hugely different, are we?
We're almost identical to chimps for example. Slightly modified hips, larger areas of some of our brain, slightly modified feet... a few other things but nothing dramatic.

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

If someone says that we're a species of monkey, that means we had to evolve from them right? We're not evolved from them, so you can't use that we're a species of monkey.

It's the fact that some said we're a species of monkey, which means they were assuming we were derived from them and evolved from them.

Ok, we covered this. Simian. Look it up.

Okay.

Anyway,

I agree with art being a medium for distinguishing civilizations. Sometimes our whole mind is a universe itself, and going into other people's and organisms minds is going into their "universes" or "wilderness" because your trying to see things at infinite dimensions; it's like going through the looking glass that would define things as objects to us if we didn't.

By that, I mean trying to look at things in the other organism's perspective (even though we cannot embrace all of it ourselves), and try to define how it can interpret art or what is soothing to them.

Like how we still have a natural instinct to admire things on the horizons (the trees, plants, etc., because it normally brings a sense of tranquility and calmness, and during more aggressive time when Nature made itself more apparent than it is now, that experience that initiated the calmness would be appealing.

I find that when I look at buildings and skyscrapers, it just makes me confused and feel rushed. I look at natural habitats like a city garden that's highly maintained, and I think of peacefulness, and seeing the different flowers as a work of art.

I think when you use the definition of garden, that can be used as some support as to why art can distinguish civilizations. (Wikipedia does a pretty decent definition that covers most aspects of it)

A garden is a planned space, usually outdoors, set aside for the display, cultivation, and enjoyment of plants and other forms of nature. The garden can incorporate both natural and man-made materials.

And of course, you need a gardener for that. If humans can create a plot that can be filled with flowers, vegetables, whatever, that be a work of art since they took the time and effort to create something that would be appealing to them.

And growing vegetables for survival can considered "art" because like the definition below, it involved human creation (at least that's the general belief, art can have many more definitions, but this can be one).

art/ärt/
Noun:

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
Works produced by such skill and imagination.

You don't really see any other organisms with a higher level of thinking devoting that much time just for leisure, stress-reducing, or enjoyment. (most just "garden" by instinct...ants,hummingbirds, bees, etc. when we can apply it both ways).

Originally Posted by Linkzelda41

It's the fact that some said we're a species of monkey, which means they were assuming we were derived from them and evolved from them. If not, they were using the wrong context.

When you learn about evolution, then you can talk to me about evolution. Until then, you're only confusing yourself. This has been cleared up several times.

Let me make it big and red for you:


MONKEY IS NOT A SPECIES!

The clue is the form of the sentence "X is a species of Y". If X is a species of Y then Y must not be a species but some collection of species.

In this case, the last common ancestor of both the new and old world monkeys is also the last common anscestor of the apes. These are the monkeys (or simians if you'd prefer to protect your delicate human sensibilities. Like when you were adamant that monkeys diverged from the human line and not the other way around: It's arbitrary!)

Hence the last common ancestor of all of them was not just a monkey but the prototypical monkey. All its descendents, including us, can be viewed as specializations of the basic monkey form.

I already came off the topic with the evolution. I am clearly confused no matter what conclusion I'll come to since it won't fit what you think anyway. It's a good thing I'm not going to make a difference to society anyway when I finally come to your level of thinking. It would just make me feel like I wasted more time trying to understand anyway. But I get it now. Thank you.

To add on with garden being a form of art in distinguishing civilizations, we normally see cities and towns that rarely have any kind of plant life. Most of them are just saturated with metal, etc. Normally when communities get together to put plants, flowers, etc together, it eventually allows them to socialize with each other. The more they do that, the less likely crimes will initiate because they will know the person more.

This tempts them to not try and steal from the person, and it creates a positive feeling for the community, and it makes the citizens within the community want to make their area better. There can also be an increase in the amount of pride for their community, which will attract others from other cities to see what they have in store for them.

Even using gardens as competition can be another way that we're different than things occurring in the Wilderness, like "The Biggest Pumpkin" contest. Sure it may seem that when competition is involved, we might think of the reward more than the experience, but before that, the responsibility of making sure that the seed grows more and more teaches us to appreciate nature in general. To see something as small and delicate as a feather grow into something big and prominent.

And when that happens, one will eventually reach a different state of consciousness of appreciating other organisms within their range, instead of just focusing on making their "civilization" better. To see how things can go into sync with each other without interruption can create more tranquility.

And because of our ability to think more and more, we have the potential of bringing things back together in nature by using what we have now and making the best of it. It's just that we're so used to our own creation that makes it harder to revert back to going through the glass and seeing things at infinite dimensions. To see that everything around us is a natural collaboration with other life on this planet and beyond.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

You're wrong. Even wikipedia gets that right in terms of calling humans apes. Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you need to update your sources? Also, I forgot to list Orangutans as Hominids earlier.

Ok, I checked that link, and found the same info I've seen everywhere else:


Again, it shows homo (humans) as a separate genera. They all evolved form the same common ancestor, of course, but all different groups. In fact the word monkeys isn't even MENTIONED anywhere!! So it's a real head-scratcher how you think this backs up your case. The names of the larger groups are Hominini, Homininae, Hominidae and Hominoidea. No Monkey. I'm starting to think you just have a monkey fetish and see monkeys everywhere.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I didn't say that wild monkeys are civilized. I just said that the whole civilization thing is a crock of shit. If you want to have some "humans are great" wankfest, then I'll stay out of it. If you want to look at reality, then I'm in.

Oh - crock of shit and wankfest! Good scientific terms there!! And who said anything about humans being great? I only said that according to the definitions I know the term civilization refers to human habitations and human society. Whether it's a great thing or not is a different discussion.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

If you believe that humans have civilization then I invite you to try living with some and also start reading history books and a good daily newspaper. We're not only just as savage as any other creature, we're more so.

Um... I DO live with humans, and so do you!! Which proves that you believe as well as I do that this is what civilization means. If civilization to you meant monkey tribes, then that's where you'd be living.

civ·i·li·za·tion
   [siv-uh-luh-zey-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.
6.
cities or populated areas in general, as opposed to unpopulated or wilderness areas: The plane crashed in the jungle, hundreds of miles from civilization.
7.
modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology: After a week in the woods, without television or even running water, the campers looked forward to civilization again.

Source: Civilization | Define Civilization at Dictionary.com

It sounds like you're arguing that the term Civilization means perfection or nirvana. Read the top definition : culture, science, industry, and government - not spirituality or moral/ethical perfection.

Civil - adequate in courtesy and politeness
This does not describe any human civilisation I've come across.

But the point is PS was taking issue with your " go live with monkeys" comment.
When humans are obviously no better, and almost definitely worse.

Ok, I concede that. There's Civility as well as Civil Engineering, so it does imply politeness and good manners.

He did bring monkeys up first though - I only said "Try living with monkeys" because he said "People are monkeys".

(I still think PS has a monkey fetish - I noticed he posted on another thread about monkeys today too, and just look at his avatar! )

Well, monkeys are awesome.
Except for humans.

Hmmm... a person who hates other races is a Racist, so does that attitude make you a Humanist?

Also, I'd like to just point out that we inherited our aggression from our ancestors as well as everything else. We just raised it to a new level (like we did everything else). Chimps - and especially Bonobos, fuck everything that moves - male or female they don't care, and are known for beating babies to death for no apparent reason. All we did was add human technology and politics to the equation.

Yeah but we also know better. Who knows why some animals kill their babies. Some of our species do that too, and we don't even really know why most of the time. And I'm sure every male human would fuck anything that moves too, if rape wasn't considered bad or all the females were willing.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Ok, I checked that link, and found the same info I've seen everywhere else:


Again, it shows homo (humans) as a separate genera. They all evolved form the same common ancestor, of course, but all different groups.

Yes, you've seen the same information as everywhere else. The problem is that you don't know how to interpret it. This is why I asked you to study cladistic taxonomy before continuing the debate. Here's the link: Cladistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . They all evolved from what would be the species Hominoidea if it had been classified at the time that it existed. 'Ape' is the same word. Now, it and all it's descendents form the 'superfamily' Hominoidea (distinct levels of the "tree of life" having distinct names is futile by now with cladistics: Like a proper tree, it can expand arbitrarily deep.)

I never said that humans were the same genus as monkeys or apes any more than I said that they were the same species. You're making the same mistake as linkzeldamario3209432 (with genera instead of species) and that's pretty embarrassing. I expected more of you being a moderator.

In fact the word monkeys isn't even MENTIONED anywhere!! So it's a real head-scratcher how you think this backs up your case.

That's because with that link I was establishing that at the least, humans are apes. You had been contesting that. Remember? Did that link not back that up?

The names of the larger groups are Hominini, Homininae, Hominidae and Hominoidea. No Monkey. I'm starting to think you just have a monkey fetish and see monkeys everywhere.

Wrong! Look over on the right under the heading "scientific classification". The "infraorder" (again, new words keep having to be made up to refer to various levels of depth. Why not just "n-level" or something of the type?) "Simiiformes" quite clearly appears and this is just as clearly rooted in the latin word
simia. Don't let the online definitions fool you It means "monkey" not "ape". The romans had no true exposure to
any other ape at the time that that word was coined. They only knew about non-ape monkeysand that'swhat it means. Translating as "ape" is just some linguist not knowing the difference
between the two words.

Add to this that two of three branches that the species (again, at the time that it existed)
simiiformes split into are now called "monkey".

Add to this the fact that monophyletic classifications (once established) are objective and impartial.
Everything else is based on what we think is important.

We're monkeys. (fine. simiiformes if you insist)

When you disagree with someone that outclasses you in a subject, it's best to frame things in the
form of questions. Did I really just not edit that out?

Oh - crock of shit and wankfest! Good scientific terms there!! And who said anything about humans being great? I only said that according to the definitions I know the term civilization refers to human habitations and human society. Whether it's a great thing or not is a different discussion.

It wasn't meant to be a scientific statement, those obviously being lost in this context.

And again, what's the point of asking the question if it's based on defintions. Defining civilization in that manner is clear cut and unambiguous. There's no room for discussion and the definition is the answer.

So the question becomes "what is civilization"?

I see that the answer "art" has become fashionable but I prefer "bread". It's so soft and fuzzy. And when it's warm, it's a delight to eat. Maybe butter is required for civilization too. I haven't decided yet. Fuck the calves. They're just gonna end up as veal anyways.

Um... I DO live with humans, and so do you!! Which proves that you believe as well as I do that this is what civilization means. If civilization to you meant monkey tribes, then that's where you'd be living.

You're assuming both that I think that "civilization" (however you want to define it) is a good thing and that I would be able to live with a tribe of monkeys. Otherwise your statement makes no sense.

Source: Civilization | Define Civilization at Dictionary.com

It sounds like you're arguing that the term Civilization means perfection or nirvana. Read the top definition : culture, science, industry, and government - not spirituality or moral/ethical perfection.

Again, as already backed up by OP, dictionary definitions of civilization do not answer the question. Also, I'm not arguing in terms of "perfection". Perfection in regards to what? And nirvana means nirvana. If civilization is to mean anything, it could only mean civilizaion.

I guess it's a toss up between "art" and "bread".

Something just occurred to me - and I'm only offering this up for people to think about.

civility [sɪˈvɪlɪtɪ]
n pl -ties
1. politeness or courtesy, esp when formal
2. (often plural) an act of politeness

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Noun 1. civility - formal or perfunctory politenesscivility - formal or perfunctory politeness
good manners, courtesy - a courteous manner
incivility - deliberate discourtesy
2. civility - the act of showing regard for others
politeness
action - something done (usually as opposed to something said); "there were stories of murders and other unnatural actions"
courtesy - a courteous or respectful or considerate act
deference, respect - a courteous expression (by word or deed) of esteem or regard; "his deference to her wishes was very flattering"; "be sure to give my respects to the dean"
devoir - formal expression of respect
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2011 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
civility
noun politeness, consideration, courtesy, tact, good manners, graciousness, cordiality, affability, amiability, politesse, complaisance, courteousness Most people treat each other with at least some civility.
Quotations
"Civility costs nothing and buys everything" [Mary Wortley Montagu Letter to her daughter]
Proverbs
"A civil question deserves a civil answer"

So basically it says polite and courteous - but not necessarily moral or ethical. I mean, this could describe any Bond villain, right? They're extremely civil, its just that they're murdering, government-overthrowing heartless bastards. But they're always civil (at least up through the Roger Moore period - they seem to have changed in more recent years). So I'm wondering if Civil really implies moral as well? Lol if not, then there's no contradiction at all - humans can definitely be civil (well some can anyway).

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

(I still think PS has a monkey fetish - I noticed he posted on another thread about monkeys today too, and just look at his avatar! )

Wait! My avatar is a chimp. A chimp is an ape! Are apes monkeys or aren't they?!

How inconsistant can you get? Are you trolling me?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Lol if not, then there's no contradiction at all - humans can definitely be civil (well some can anyway).

civility being so much higher valued than clarity or compassion.

Wait! My avatar is a chimp. A chimp is an ape! Are apes monkeys or aren't they?!

How inconsistant can you get? Are you trolling me?

Wow way to be nitpicky!! Can you tell when somebody is joking?

civility being so much higher valued than clarity or compassion.

But what does value have to do with it? The question is "What distinguishes Civilization and Wilderness?" - not "Which has higher moral value?"

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Wait! My avatar is a chimp. A chimp is an ape! Are apes monkeys or aren't they?!

How inconsistant can you get? Are you trolling me?

Haha!, I was waiting for that.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Something just occurred to me - and I'm only offering this up for people to think about.

So basically it says polite and courteous - but not necessarily moral or ethical. I mean, this could describe any Bond villain, right? They're extremely civil, its just that they're murdering, government-overthrowing heartless bastards. But they're always civil (at least up through the Roger Moore period - they seem to have changed in more recent years). So I'm wondering if Civil really implies moral as well? Lol if not, then there's no contradiction at all - humans can definitely be civil (well some can anyway).

If you just want to ignore some of your quote, then yeah. On the other hand, "2. civility - the act of showing regard for others"