Are civilizations and empires inevitable?

>>1683408
With high population, yes. And as soon our ancestors had enough intelligence and material culture to be in the high ranks of the food chain, high population was a matter of time.

The neolithic revolution came because the pressure on the middle-east region's was too high. The calories it could supply without any transformation were insufficient for the amount of mouths living on its soil.

>>1683408
Yes, it is the imperative of every people/nation to rule and conquer. Read Spengler sometime

>>1683408
Pretty much. Organised hierarchical societies tend to beat freer less organised ones

>>1683408
Survival of the fittest and all that, and it's hard for hunter gatherers to compete against civilization.

>>1683408

When two entities(human, country, etc) meet each other they must establish which is the strongest and which is the weakest.

It can result in an annexation, as it can result in a vassalization, this is the law of nature.

Yeah, the benefits of living collectively vastly outweigh living alone or in tiny groups. And certain people always come along to make sure they're on the top.

>>1683408
no. long term incentive structures are determined by initial conditions.

it's highly likely that if our geography didn't have icy areas, genetic cooperation would never have been incentivized on a genetic level, and the entire world would be filled with, at its highest level, middle eastern style clan warfare tribes who reached their malthusian limit very early, thus were always killing each other.

>>1683461
organized and heirarchal society is not the same as "civilization" as we like to think of it. incentive strutures can very easily trap people in low level equilibriums, such as saudi arabia, or in high level equilibriums, such as china.

there is no guarantee that people will ever move beyond feudalism. after afeudal environment takes hold, it's very easy for things to more or less never change. ever.

imagine how stupid the chinese mihgt have become if they were never freed from the mongols, if they started inbreeding like the arabs did to avoid control from the saracens.

>>1683408
or, alternatively, imagine what would have happened to europe if it fell to turks and northern africans.

europe would have remained persistently shitty for another 3k years, with no recovery in sight.

so you need to clairify whether by civilization you mean large groups of people killing each other endlessly, or civilization in the sense that "this person is civilized, and will not behead me for having a different religion."

the nice version is not inevitable

>>1683408

You lose some perspective when you approach history from the viewpoint that civilization is inherently good. It isn't. It isn't necessarily bad either. It simply happens.

File: calathuyuk.png (373KB, 2070x914px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 2070x914px

>>1683408

Maybe u can read about the "zoon politikon", its an aristotelic concept which Marx recovers and it says, basically, that humans eventually lost their capability of moving in packs and organizing in a "natutal" way, so they usually strive to "build" their own nature. Civilization and complex hierarchyc organizations are the "form" of that "second nature" humans need to build for survival.

Maybe you can read "Ideological State Apparatus" from Louis Althusser. It says that complex social organizations, division of labour, means of production and relations of production, need to be "reproduced" by the State (government and such) in order to let a way of production sustain the needs of the market.

The point is: civilization, as a distinct cultural development, requires also an economic system to sustain itself (regardless the civ is eastern or western) because, at its core, a nation, for example, is built within two bounded structures: Infrastructure and Superstructure. The first one implies every single economic process like production. The second one implies the cultural behaviour, politics, ideology etc.

If a group of people reproduce their economy, the culture (symbolic systems, language, customs, tradition) also is reproduced. Since civilization is often thought as a distinct cultural development, then, civilization requires not just a common cultural (symbolic) background to all the ppl that forms it but needs a common economical background that function as the base of that "congregation" as well.

>>1683408
>History
>Inevitability
Already you destroyed your argument.

The answer is no. And there are plenty of Hunter Gatherer tribalniggers around the world to testify that.

>>1684652
top fucking kek