What the fuck is the go with us? Seriously, for approximately a million years we lived like this...

What the fuck is the go with us? Seriously, for approximately a million years we lived like this, or at least we think we did. What the fuck happened ~100k years ago which sky rocketed us 'into the future'? Why did 'civilisation' begin?

If we were able to survive for almost a million years, why did we change? Was it accidental?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilization
eh-resources.org/timeline-prehistory/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Also general Peking/Mungo/Bog Body thread.

Its called the discovery of agriculture.

Climate changed and it suddenly became possible to cultivate plants.

This is what kept us stuck in the status quo for so long, not our intellectual capabilities.

Agriculture is obviously not born of necessity otherwise people would not have been able to survive for almost 800,000 years without it.

Don't call it that. It wasn't waiting to be invented. It was waiting to be made possible by climate.

Just because we could survive without something doesn't mean that it's not borne out of necessity.

>Just because we could survive without something doesn't mean that it's not borne out of necessity.
Literally what?

psychedelic mushrooms

A bunch of niggers migrated to eurasia, then the ice age happened which greatly increased their IQ, and when the ice age receded they figured out agriculture and eventually started civilizations in the more fertile river banks.

>What the fuck happened ~100k years ago which sky rocketed us 'into the future'?
He asked a question. I answered it with what I think is th the answe

One day someone said "wouldn't it be cool if life wasn't just fucking shit?" and so began the exponential progress of humankind in the pursuit of nice things

Agriculture is obviously not the answer though. Agriculture is the answer as to why we go huge, yeah. But there are cultures out there who lack all forms of agriculture yet have technological advancements of sorts. Their society advanced still, devoid of agriculture.

Agriculture allowed us to populate.

>But there are cultures out there who lack all forms of agriculture yet have technological advancements of sorts. Their society advanced still, devoid of agriculture.

Give me an example of such a culture that doesn't get their food through imports.

>Give me an example of such a culture that doesn't get their food through imports.

?

You don't honestly believe the whole world was trading with everyone at all times?

Since when is importing related to agriculture?

It becomes necessary at higher population densities.

>What the fuck is the go with us? Seriously, for approximately 14 billion years we existed like this, or at least we think we did. What the fuck happened 4 billion years ago which sky rocketed us 'into the future'? Why did 'life' begin?

You still haven't answered my question.

You didn't answer mine. How is trade/import related to agriculture, in any way past you trade goods developed through agriculture?

Are you telling me because Aboriginal Australian (singular example) traded with one another they therefore had agriculture?

>100k years ago

This is the article you want to read, OP:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
It's also the term you're looking for.

Or if it's tl;dr:

The Late Upper Paleolithic Model, or Upper Paleolithic Revolution, refers to the idea that, though anatomically modern humans first appear around 150,000 years ago, they were not cognitively or behaviorally "modern" until around 50,000 years ago, leading to their expansion into Europe and Asia.[5][16][17] These authors note that traits used as a metric for behavioral modernity do not appear as a package until around 40–50,000 years ago. Klein (1995) specifically describes evidence of fishing, bone shaped as a tool, hearths, significant artifact diversity, and elaborate graves are all absent before this point.[5] Although assemblages before 50,000 years ago show some diversity the only distinctly modern tool assemblages appear in Europe at 48,000.[16] According to these authors, art only becomes common beyond this switching point, signifying a change from archaic to modern humans.[5] Most researchers argue that a neurological or genetic change, perhaps one enabling complex language such as FOXP2, caused this revolutionary change in our species.[5][17]

No. I never even said trade/import was related to agriculture. All I'm saying is no cultures grow that much if they are still nomadic.

Overpopulation in the Middle East and elsewhere -> Agriculture -> Labor specialization.

Look up the neolithic revolution. Arguably the biggest shock to ever happen to us. Next thing of similar impact might be outspread of automation and a majority of people 100% consuming/0% producing.

>All I'm saying is no cultures grow that much if they are still nomadic.
And?

This is not a thread about the metric at which advancement began so you can masturbate your white genes. Fuck off.

mckenna go to bed

Man you're a jerk. I wasn't even being hostile toward you. And yes this thread is about that.
>Why did 'civilisation' begin?
Agriculture is why civilization began.

That's the point, the nomadic lifestyle sustains everyone's need with minimal effort. Until there are too many people, too many conflicts, not enough exile space, not enough resources in the region, then, new problems appear, and new solutions had to be imagined.

Most ideas come in the first place to fulfill a need. Sure, when you compare to the various creativity opportunity we see in today's world, that may not seems true. But nomadic people didn't think about building foundation and ploughs and everything, because they didn't need them at that time. Perhaps some of them imagined what permanents structures would look like, or how they would go around doing it, but if they did, it just remained an idea, there was no real world application for it.

Kek, you are literally wrong though, as I said, there are cultures who do not have agriculture that still have civilisations and advanced technology.

You do not see it as advanceds because they were not white, they do not suit you /pol/-metric for advancement.

Sure you can pretend you were doing something else, you won't trick me but. Fool.

Also, I'm OP, so there is that. Agriculture was the first thing to be refuted in this thread, fuck off.

Migrations, larger populations, transfer of information as a result of migrations

>Civilization..! Ancient and wicked! Have you ever seen this before?

Me being white has nothing to do with it. I get the feeling that you're arguing and I'm discussing.

>That's the point, the nomadic lifestyle sustains everyone's need with minimal effort. Until there are too many people, too many conflicts, not enough exile space, not enough resources in the region, then, new problems appear, and new solutions had to be imagined.

Right. So then the answer would be: The reason Civilization began was because we had more needs for more people and permanent settlements became increasingly practical. Right?

Yes, civilization was launched by a bunch of problems, not out of brillance or collective desire to achieve more. It's complexity brought plenty of other problems too, some of which we are still struggling with today, like the whole share/access of the wealth and resources.

Xd nice one mang good memes

Wether a troll or an actually mentally deficient, you're a pretty sad guy.

I see. I mostly come to this board to learn, so I'm glad I know this now.

>Me being white has nothing to do with it. I get the feeling that you're arguing and I'm discussing.
What does 'nomad's don't advance MUCH' have to do with anything?

Go on, explain yourself, you brought up that point. Not me.

It's literally got nothing to do with anything. Again, Agriculture is evidently not why civilisation began as there are civilisations devoid of agriculture, funny how you don't want to discuss that right, you just want to pretend you aren't a racist.

You know what's sadder? The fact you think I care what you think of me.

>there are civilisations devoid of agriculture
Name one. By civilization, do you just mean culture? I think a civilization is bigger than that, both from the level of complexity and the size through time.

>I think a civilization is bigger than that
Then, by definition, you are wrong. And you should educate yourself, before you try to argue.

That's some more of you /pol/-influenced racism.

>you just want to pretend you aren't a racist.
You are jumping to a lot of conclusions with no evidence at all.

>What does 'nomad's don't advance MUCH' have to do with anything?

With the question > What the fuck happened ~100k years ago which sky rocketed us 'into the future'?

Nomads aren't civilizations. They're cultures.

Definition of civilization: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained

Source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

Keyword being relative.

Aboriginals did have a civilisation relative to our ancestors, that's the fucking point. Of course when you compare them to modern civilisation they lose all credibility. To say they were not a civilisation because they were not as advanced as their european counterparts is your pol/racism. I can see through your reasoning, just stop.

The only reasoning you CAN use to devalue their civilisation was others did better, that's not an argument against them.

>the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained
Notice how that's got nothing to do with Agriculture?

Did you really just call being nomadic a culture? Literally wut?

>Mongols are African Nomads

Sorry user, but are you perhaps confusing cultural regions with civilizations?

>now he's projecting
When are you going to say you were pretending to be retarded?

So you really are saying being nomadic is a cultural trait, not a societal one.

I'm not the same guy, I'm just noting your confusion.

Literally what the fuck are you trying to say, don't run away, explain yourself.

A civilization is a human culture with writing, agriculture and urban centers.

It doesn't matter how sophisticated you are, nomadic civilization is literally an oxymoron.

>Notice how that's got nothing to do with Agriculture?

Please give an example of a single nomadic group that kept written records. The whole reason that "specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained" is in the definition is to give a cutoff on what is a civilization and what isn't.

>A civilization is a human culture with writing, agriculture and urban centers.
hehehehehe now you are using your own definition, since the actual definition doesn't suit your needs.

>nomadic civilization is literally an oxymoron.
Kek. Not by your fucking definition it's not.

Mongols had writing, they had urban centers, they had agriculture. By your literal definition Mongols had a nomadic civilisation, there is no contradiction, you're simply an idiot.

PROTIP: Agriculture extends past the cultivation of farms.

What you're referring to as "civilizations" are in fact cultural regions, or super-cultures or whatever. For example, the Eurasian steppe was generally a cultural region with similar nomadic cultures that ended up being very similar to each others, either through convergent evolution or co-evolution or plain old assimilation, and often formed large tribal confederacies or "empires" with similar institutions and ways of life.
Of course these cultures have nothing to do with those nomads in Africa or Australia, the people there belonged to completely different cultural regions.
But none of the nomadic cultures were civilizations, at least until they conquered or got conquered by civilized people and acquired civilized cultural traits.

>But none of the nomadic cultures were civilizations, at least until they conquered or got conquered by civilized people and acquired civilized cultural traits.


So, you are making no actual points past your own subjective view on history.

cool, thanks for your input.

why did we change? have you heard about evolution? everything adjusts, if not, its gonna die out.

The mongols were only nomadic until around the 1200s. After they conquered parts of Asia, they became civilized. Stop trying to invalidate everyone's claims because their view is "racist". As if non-European views aren't biased either.

You know you have a poor argument when you have to restrict the argument to literally one definition of something to suit your needs.

Notice how these definitions do not restrict it solely to written records?

Notice how your argument only holds when you use that singular strict defintion?

But they had all those things which makes them a civilisation before they conquered the world.

By your definition, not mine.

Notice how that is a google definition. Merriam-Webster are the ones who "wrote" most of the widely accepted dictionaries. I was just making sure that I was using a definitive and thorough definition.

>Notice how that is a google definition.
Well you do know that google just links to other places right, they don't actually have 'their own' definitions? It's actually word-for-word the Oxford dictionaries definition.

oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/civilization


Please, continue making your points.

Here's the problem that i see. The definition you provided, the top one there, makes it so that more ancient peoples were even less of "civilizations" by comparison to modern day. You said that of course they lose credibility when compared to modern civilizations but this definition requires that they are.

Are we seriously arguing what the definition for civilisation truly means now, fuck off, you were wrong.

This is so far from the point it's not even funny. You have no argument anymore, it's been destroyed, just stop.

So you want to stop arguing because you're out of subjects to change to? Ok.

I'd argue it was the invention of language. For millions of years, Monkies sat around and grunted. They had vague understandings, but they had no way to transfer knowledge.

Once they had figured out enough grunts to transfer usable knowledge between generations (like how to hunt and make fire) then things took off.

hehe yeah man, I changed the subject to the definition of civilisation because it didn't fit your definitions. Even though by definition it has always been in my favor.

That's what happened :^).

Transferring that knowledge would probably have come about long before language and the onset of 'accepted grunts' and what they mean. But I mean grunts and language would have always been in our species since the beginning, simple tone can denote anger.

Good point though.

fuck off Mckenna, you fucking hack

So is this linked to the brain big bang or something?

White propelled the world forward

Opportunity and the needs.

Humans really only came together to congregate when their very existence was pressed to the brink. The Ice Age.

This forced tribes to meet each other as they escaped the cold. This also allowed humans to rise as the deadly predators died off to cold.

As the meetings took place, they learned new skills on how to socialize with large groups. Then how to defend and how to advance those. Things progressed after that.

I'm not saying it was psychedelic mushrooms, but. It was psychedelic mushrooms.

DUDE

user, that's when The Fall happened. Mankind ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and gained sapience. He became as a god.

probably a celestial event like tiamat

something crashing into earth creating pacific basin
remnants thrown askew the world
moon falls into orbit
mass extinction
earth gains a tilt
seasonal variance created
variance gives rise to greater change out of necessity
i might be out by a factor of 10 or so on 100 000 ybp

agri revo 14000 odd ybp started coincidedly with ice age ending creating same requirement through necessity & pressure from migrating peoples & animals into the combination of scaled returns on open source where the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts

eh-resources.org/timeline-prehistory/

definitely +1 for drugs

Someone has to post it; guess it's me.

Here's your (You)s, now shut the fuck up.

atlantis, pangaea, mu, hyperboria, etruscan, minoan, crete, mayan, aztec, egyptian, african, tarim, siberian, british, american, western, eastern

That's because of the exponential growth of human progress. If you were to chart human prograss it would be very sluggish line that barely rose above 0 for the first 900,000 years and then slowly started rising every few 10,000 years and then few 1,000 years and then few centuries and then decades and nowadays it's every few years. And in the future it might even be as little as days meaning we might see real scientific and technological progress on a daily basis.

As for why the growth looks like that instead of something more consistent. Fuck if anyone knows. Perhaps the accumulation of knowledge and the increase in population that follows it and the increase in stability that precede it all contribute.

I dont know why you bothered making this thread. People made suggestions that you disagreed with, and you immediately resorted to name calling and race baiting? People suggested Agriculture which to me makes a lot of sense, as Agriculture is what enabled, a large sustainable food source resulting people being able to settle down and create towns, cities, and things progressed from there and so on so fourth. You went into some rant about trade for some reason, never really answered the user's question, then went full retard with"" AHAHA RACIST BTFO ::)))) I HAVE WON THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE I USED A DIFFERENT DEFINITION ;"))) Why even bring race into the argument?

>It becomes necessary at higher population densities.
No it's the other way around, agriculture is necessary for higher population density.

In fact you can determine how advanced a civilization is based on how populous it is and what is its pop density. Because having a large population is the end result of whole series of advancements in society, agriculture, social hierarchy, science, technology that all combine to make possible to have majority of the population be non food producing and to have them all live near each other and for there to be enough food and jobs for all of them and for all of them to not die from disease that naturally occur more frequently when you have higher population density.