Civilization is a function of population density.

[LeBrok]

I was contemplating a reason behind why hunter-gatherer societies never amounted to civilization status. it never happened although their cultures existed for few hundred thousand years. Civilization was the feat which was quickly achieved by agriculturalists within few thousands of years of extensive farming. I don't only mean just building the cities, but mostly the creative side and progressive accumulation of any knowledge and skills in short time frame, plus invention of economic and political systems relevant for keeping order in big social groups, and schools and forums as knowledge transmitting-emitting medium.

But why only farmers could achieve it? Were the farmers so much smarter than hunter-gatherers? Was it about smarts, or the high carb diet, or extraterrestrial help, or were there other forces in play?

It dawned on me that any civilizations, either Chinese, Indian, Babylonian, Egyptian or Greco-Roman happened exactly where the population density was the highest on Earth. Even within farmers’ demographics, the biggest creativity happened in their densest areas, the cities.
The cities are the prerequisite for every civilization. From history we gather that there is no civilization without cities, but what is so special about them?
I think it works this way; the biggest population density the easier is to share the knowledge, to put together expert minds to invent new technologies, to build schools for retention and propagation of knowledge in society, where their achievements could be sheltered and defended against invaders, and where the biggest capital wealth is available for monumental works. More importantly, in cities the critical mass for knowledge retention and knowledge creation took place. By this I mean that knowledge accumulates faster than being lost.

These above mentioned qualities never happened in hunter-gatherers communities. They lived in sparsely populated, low density settlements. Newly invented things were lost with demise of a group itself. Small group could easily be wiped out by disease or by attack of other group before invented knowledge was propagated to other populations. On top of it fewer hunter-gatherers had fewer ideas than populous farmers, mathematically and statistically speaking.
Technological progress is a function of knowledge retention in population and cumulative creativity of a group. In small communities creation and retention of knowledge is low. In big centers like cities it is high. Therefore more densely populated areas always develop into civilization. It is a natural process and destiny, if you will, of densely populated human groups. This has happened on every continent where agriculture was embraced and weather conditions permitted crops.

Greco-Roman civilization started with rise of city-states. It ended when cold climate and barbarians depopulated and destroyed big cities. Almost all the knowledge of Greco-Roman civilization got lost culminating with Dark Ages.
Similar process started and finished many civilizations; others got took over by conquerors of more advanced ones.

We are living now in interesting times where the whole world is populated way denser than ever, and human creativity is in hyper-drive. On top of human creativity computers start helping us solve problems and invent more things, in faster and faster pace. It is almost scary…

Will we get to limits of human knowledge retention and more knowledge will be useless?
Will government have to step in and declare “no more inventions”?

 

[ElHorsto]

I was contemplating a reason behind why hunter-gatherer societies never amounted to civilization status. it never happened although their cultures existed for few hundred thousand years. Civilization was the feat which was quickly achieved by agriculturalists within few thousands of years of extensive farming. I don't only mean just building the cities, but mostly the creative side and progressive accumulation of any knowledge and skills in short time frame, plus invention of economic and political systems relevant for keeping order in big social groups, and schools and forums as knowledge transmitting-emitting medium.

But why only farmers could achieve it? Were the farmers so much smarter than hunter-gatherers? Was it about smarts, or the high carb diet, or extraterrestrial help, or were there other forces in play?

It dawned on me that any civilizations, either Chinese, Indian, Babylonian, Egyptian or Greco-Roman happened exactly where the population density was the highest on Earth. Even within farmers’ demographics, the biggest creativity happened in their densest areas, the cities.
The cities are the prerequisite for every civilization. From history we gather that there is no civilization without cities, but what is so special about them?
I think it works this way; the biggest population density the easier is to share the knowledge, to put together expert minds to invent new technologies, to build schools for retention and propagation of knowledge in society, where their achievements could be sheltered and defended against invaders, and where the biggest capital wealth is available for monumental works. More importantly, in cities the critical mass for knowledge retention and knowledge creation took place. By this I mean that knowledge accumulates faster than being lost.

These above mentioned qualities never happened in hunter-gatherers communities. They lived in sparsely populated, low density settlements. Newly invented things were lost with demise of a group itself. Small group could easily be wiped out by disease or by attack of other group before invented knowledge was propagated to other populations. On top of it fewer hunter-gatherers had fewer ideas than populous farmers, mathematically and statistically speaking.
Technological progress is a function of knowledge retention in population and cumulative creativity of a group. In small communities creation and retention of knowledge is low. In big centers like cities it is high. Therefore more densely populated areas always develop into civilization. It is a natural process and destiny, if you will, of densely populated human groups. This has happened on every continent where agriculture was embraced and weather conditions permitted crops.

Greco-Roman civilization started with rise of city-states. It ended when cold climate and barbarians depopulated and destroyed big cities. Almost all the knowledge of Greco-Roman civilization got lost culminating with Dark Ages.
Similar process started and finished many civilizations; others got took over by conquerors of more advanced ones.

We are living now in interesting times where the whole world is populated way denser than ever, and human creativity is in hyper-drive. On top of human creativity computers start helping us solve problems and invent more things, in faster and faster pace. It is almost scary…

Will we get to limits of human knowledge retention and more knowledge will be useless?
Will government have to step in and declare “no more inventions”?

My theory is that farming for the first time was an act of hoarding land and cattle as a measure to accumulate power upon nature to ensure food supply. This lead to overproduction which caused even more hoarding. Hoarding represents accumulation of wealth and power and boosted trade. The concentration of power made great achievements possible. I think the high population density is a consequence rather than the cause.

 

[hope]

I think your assessment is quite accurate LeBrok.
Mobility was the main thing in the hunter-gather communities. They wold follow the animals and knew where to go next for seasonal foodstuffs. This lifestyle would have likely kept the group to a manageable size. The possessions they had would I think, been only those things that were essential, and easy to pack up and carry on when required. Skills they developed would have been those needed for their particular way of life, and passed on orally within the group. Owning a piece of land was unknown to them.

Of course with farming it was a different matter. Farming, would have meant staying permanently on a piece of land, for growing and harvesting, tending animals and also upkeep of pasture land for stock. Owning a piece of land was then essential. With this type of lifestyle would have came the need for stronger, permanent housing and storage, the laying out of fields for livestock etc. There would have been a need for new tools and technology specifically suited. Family size would have grown also. And of course with so much invested and ownership, you had to then defend it. It would have made sense that a small community would begin, based first on your relatives and then grown children settling nearby. A larger group would be stronger and more able as a collective to defend against attack from another group. Ideas and technology gets passed round the bigger group. Certain craftsmen are needed to bring the ideas into being.
A shared religion, based on what was important, nature, helped bind the group. Special places for worship and burial of the dead are allocated, further binding to the one particular area, and in due course a spokesperson or head family.
As these groups grew, so would have the skills and creative influences. With this, others from outside the established community would wish to come in, probably with some ideas of their own. Sooner or later you end up with a village, then a town, and as you have already said schools and industry. At some point you may even have a civilization such as that of Rome etc.

I don`t think we will get to the point when more knowledge will be useless, if it does I don`t think that will stop humans wanting to acquire it. I think the type of knowledge we might require will and has change/changed. As it does so will technology again change. I think our farmers these days can be found in the fields of science.

 

[Fire Haired]

The reason Romans and other iron age Italians(and Etruscans in Italy) made civilizations is they learned it from Greeks. And the knowledge of the Greco Roman age I doubt was completely lost. Christianity spread to Europe through Rome without Rome the Irish, Picts, and most Germanic tribes would not have become Christian. And Christianity became the religion of the Roman empire and Europe became completely Christian after Rome so that knowledge definitely was not lost. Modern France, Spain-Portugal, Italy, most of central Europe, England, Balkans, southeast Europe, and Greece were all apart of the Roman empire. The French and Iberians probably thought of themselves as Romans not Gauls or CeltIberians. Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian are all from Latin. I don't know that much but in the dark ages it seems like Europeans tried to be like Rome for example the Franks and the Holy Roman empire. Rome brought civilization to Europe I get sick of the name dark ages because I think that was the begging of modern western civilization and culture. Christianity is maybe the biggest part of western culture and the ancient Greeks were not Christian. Greek and Roman civilization lead up to western civilization but the middle ages was really when it was born. It is Europeans in the 1400's probably mostly in former areas of the Roman empire like France and Italy who gave the name dark ages to the middle ages and fell in love with ancient Rome and Greece.

 

[Fire Haired]

I think the fall of Rome is a lot more complicated than cold climate and invasion by barbarians meaning Huns and Germanic tribes.

 

[Fire Haired]

I totally agree with pretty much everything you are saying. People miss use the word civilization so much it really gets annoying I guess there is no exact definition though. I have heard people say the civilization of Native Americans when almost all were hunter gathers and even the few that farmed that doesn't make them civilized. Also there were so many different Native Americans 1,000's and 1,000's of tribes 1,000's of miles away from each other. There is no such thing as native American culture either because there are so many different ones. For some people civilization stands for just a tribe of people. For example I have heard people call the Nordic bronze age culture(3,700-2,500ybp) the first Germanic civilization when they definitely were not a civilization. The first Germanic civilizations were in the middle ages pretty much all of western Europe was controlled by Germanic kingdoms.

 

[LeBrok]

My theory is that farming for the first time was an act of hoarding land and cattle as a measure to accumulate power upon nature to ensure food supply.

I agree that progress into civilization had a lot to do with controlling natural resources. I would reserve word "power" for social settings however, as upper hand of chieftains over populous, or one group over other. "To have power over nature" doesn't sit with me well, but maybe only because I've never used it in this setting.

This lead to overproduction which caused even more hoarding. Hoarding represents accumulation of wealth and power and boosted trade. The concentration of power made great achievements possible.

Yes, production of food made groups more populous, therefore undoubtedly lead to civilization.

I think the high population density is a consequence rather than the cause.

In this exercise I didn't care much what had led, and was the cause, to higher population density. I mentioned farming, because in every civilization case it was a prerequisite. Obviously farming denotes a big and steady food supply and cause of higher population density. We must also remember that farming lead to creation of villages (as oppose to nomadic life style), but there had to be one more step when villagers decided to build first city. Either it was a natural process of village becoming so big that it turned into a city, or it was a political process of one leader deciding to settle in one village, and this gave it a fast growth into a city, a capitol of a region.

However we look at this, high population density is a consequence of farming, but it is also the cause of faster knowledge creation and accumulation.

 

[LeBrok]

I think your assessment is quite accurate LeBrok.
Mobility was the main thing in the hunter-gather communities. They wold follow the animals and knew where to go next for seasonal foodstuffs. This lifestyle would have likely kept the group to a manageable size. The possessions they had would I think, been only those things that were essential, and easy to pack up and carry on when required. Skills they developed would have been those needed for their particular way of life, and passed on orally within the group. Owning a piece of land was unknown to them.

Excellent observation hope. Mobility of hunter-gatherer was a hindrance to knowledge accumulation. Obviously it is hard to move library around, especially when books are made of stone. :shocked::grin:

As these groups grew, so would have the skills and creative influences. With this, others from outside the established community would wish to come in, probably with some ideas of their own. Sooner or later you end up with a village, then a town, and as you have already said schools and industry. At some point you may even have a civilization such as that of Rome etc.

The fall of Rome and Dark Ages were my starting point in this hypothesis of population density. When I learned how depopulated Europe became at the end of Rom era with collapse of cities, I had a thought that maybe the main cause of lost Greco-Roman knowledge was low (brain) density, especially in cities where knowledge is mostly cultivated.

I don`t think we will get to the point when more knowledge will be useless, if it does I don`t think that will stop humans wanting to acquire it.

What I meant was that we won't be able to use all the knowledge and inventions in the future, from let's say "overload" or pure limitation of human brain. Even today it takes a doctor specialist to learn 7-10 years to become specialist in narrow field. There is already so much medical knowledge that one smart human being is not able to learn it in life time, thus we have narrow specializations. 500 years ago one person could learn all the scientific knowledge in few years. 500 years from now we'll might have 100 times more material to learn on every scientific subject. Can we manage it, or even make use of it?

I think our farmers these days can be found in the fields of science.

Cultivation of knowledge.

 

[LeBrok]

I totally agree with pretty much everything you are saying. People miss use the word civilization so much it really gets annoying I guess there is no exact definition though. I have heard people say the civilization of Native Americans when almost all were hunter gathers and even the few that farmed that doesn't make them civilized. Also there were so many different Native Americans 1,000's and 1,000's of tribes 1,000's of miles away from each other. There is no such thing as native American culture either because there are so many different ones. For some people civilization stands for just a tribe of people. For example I have heard people call the Nordic bronze age culture(3,700-2,500ybp) the first Germanic civilization when they definitely were not a civilization. The first Germanic civilizations were in the middle ages pretty much all of western Europe was controlled by Germanic kingdoms.

Here is a nice definition:

Civilization or civilisation generally refers to state polities which combine three basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements, characterized by a ruling elite, and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending man's control over both nature, and over other human beings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
The rest are just Cultures.

 

[LeBrok]

The reason Romans and other iron age Italians(and Etruscans in Italy) made civilizations is they learned it from Greeks. And the knowledge of the Greco Roman age I doubt was completely lost.

Probably you are right that in most of the cases knowledge is not completely lost. Unfortunately I don't have time to do a detailed analyzes of all known civilizations, causes of their fall and what survived afterwards. In case of Greece, all their knowledge was acquired by Rome. In case of Holly Roman Empire, yes they've aquired lots of religious knowledge, but they lost information how to build roads, how to make concrete, that earth is round and how calculate size of globe, lost trade connections, how to make baths, heating and plumbing, navigation instruments etc, etc.
I don't mean to insinuate that Germanics were stupid enough not to learn these things. I'm actually trying to prove by this population density article that Rom was pretty much done and knowledge lost already by cold weather, poverty and famine, before Goths got there. Obviously sucking Rome by barbarians few times didn't help either.
Angela did a nice summary of big changes that happened in standard of living and literacy at that times, in other thread.
By the way, even during Dark Ages there was a civilization in Europe. Just a far cry from Roman times.

Rome brought civilization to Europe I get sick of the name dark ages because I think that was the begging of modern western civilization and culture. Christianity is maybe the biggest part of western culture and the ancient Greeks were not Christian. Greek and Roman civilization lead up to western civilization but the middle ages was really when it was born. It is Europeans in the 1400's probably mostly in former areas of the Roman empire like France and Italy who gave the name dark ages to the middle ages and fell in love with ancient Rome and Greece.

I would say that modern times started in Renaissance, and it were the times when humanism took prime place over Religion. For example, try to find freedom of speech, equality of people on earth, democracy, beauty of human mind in the Bible?

 

[Fire Haired]

I would say that modern times started in Renaissance, and it were the times when humanism took prime place over Religion. For example, try to find freedom of speech, equality of people on earth, democracy, beauty of human mind in the Bible?

I doubt people in the Renaissance thought about it exactly like modern people do. You know that American Evangelicals are probably the biggest supporters of all of what you just said and so many of America's founding fathers were Evangelical. In the gospel Jesus makes the point clear God Loves us all equally. The biggest part of the New testament. Is that Jesus is the messiah we don't have to go by all of those rules like u cant eat certain meat. That all you have to do is repent nd believe Jesus is the son of God that he is the only way to the father and it is for everyone you don't have to be a rabbi or high ranking person no matter what sin you have committed you can be forgiven. Another big part is that in Gods eyes the most low ranking people are equal to Rabbi's or whatever if you read stories in the new testament so many of them have that theme of the outcasts and losers being the better followers of God. Like with the Prostitute women who cried at Jesus feet and was forgiven and everyone else was disgusted by her.Early Christians were the low ranking people in society who would be seen as unequal and were persecuted terribly. And it was a big conflict on wither non Jews could be saved at first and it is said so many times in the new testament spread to the word to all tribes and nations not just Jews. The Bible mentions many times gifts of God like the Human mind. And also they were not living in our modern political world so democracy and freedom of speech wasn't really something they would talk about. I don't think Democracy was even a big issue in the Renaissance it was the age of Enlightenment in the 1700 and 1800's I just learned about it in history class.

 

[Fire Haired]

I would say that modern times started in Renaissance, and it were the times when humanism took prime place over Religion. For example, try to find freedom of speech, equality of people on earth, democracy, beauty of human mind in the Bible?

The start of modern Europe aka western World(America comes from Europe) was the middle ages. Even the royalty system goes back to like the 500's. The whole thing with the crowns and robes and those big shiny rodes and the big chairs kings and queens sit in goes back to the middle ages. I know very little about the history of the middle ages and the Renaissance but for you it is obvious your idea of the begging modern world only fits your liberal 1900's opinion. So if most of the knowledge of Rome was lost does that mean the "primitive" Germanic tribes created civilizations on their own. I always assumed the Germans became civilized right after they became Christian and kind of Romanized and if it wasn't for Rome today they would be at the same state they were over 2,000 years ago. Would that also mean in many ways modern European civilization which became by far the most powerful civilization in human history was started by Germanic tribes or just by western Europeans pretty much on their own. I need to learn more about he middle ages then after that because what about eastern Europe(Balto Slavs).

 

[Leon Pagliuca]

My theory is that farming for the first time was an act of hoarding land and cattle as a measure to accumulate power upon nature to ensure food supply. This lead to overproduction which caused even more hoarding. Hoarding represents accumulation of wealth and power and boosted trade. The concentration of power made great achievements possible. I think the high population density is a consequence rather than the cause.

I agree with your statement. Population density cannot be the cause of civilization. It depends upon the other factors like socialism , ethic behaviors of people in a society. Wealth has also caused a great change in the civilization of the society.