How Should We Define Civilisation In 2013?

Well we are still here, the World did not end in 2012, so perhaps we should rejoice and move on. It might be a good idea to decide what we are moving on from. If you like a reappraisal of our success, progress to date.

Inconveniently, economically and practically worldwide, things are not exactly rosy right now, but this is but a blip, something that will change, sooner or later.

Perhaps the first question should be what does civilisation, democracy, our way of life in 2013 mean to you? A sense of feeling safe, secure and hopeful, will I suspect be near the top of the list, but for all?

Sadly across the World right now those presumptions, that we in the west assume as a given remain but as hopes and dreams. Should we define our evolutionary gains as selective and based on the accident of birth? Those born within certain countries can reap the rewards of our progress and the others, should suffer an unlucky roll of the dice?

Sorry, call me picky, but to me that is not any meaningful definition of an evolutionary definition of progress. No, it is but a continuation of a system whereby the war lords rule supreme.

In life, some have lucky breaks, not that any of the lucky ones would admit to that. They were born with the right looks, ambition and determination to climb to the top. Do not misunderstand me, good luck to them, but they tend to be in the minority. What of the rest, if you like the normal or little guys?

Do they deserve a life of dignity, hope and a future? It seems to me that any soceity upon this planet, any soceity worthy of that definition, should be judged by its weakest, not strongest members.

Have we gotten there, do we truly care about the unfortunates? I’m afraid in general no, we regard them as losers, wasters and hopeless much of the time. OK, if we are in a good mood, we might flip a coin into whatever receptacle they sit behind.

From my limited understanding of the indigenous tribes of the America’s, the ones termed as savages, they were in many ways more civilised than us. The definition of a mighty warrior was based in part upon how many he could and did support. To me, that seems a reasonable definition, today, how do we define the mighty?

In many ways we seem to have regressed. We judge the famous and the mighty not upon what they do, but what they have, is that not a little sad? No, now it is the biggest mansion, yacht, bank balance, or ego, that defines the mighty.

Is this not how it has always been, where is the evolutionary advance. OK, some subtle changes, but are they so great? Previously it was the size of Genghis Khans army that wowed the masses, now the size of Mr Microsoft’s yacht.

Surely the definition of a meaningful and advanced civilisation must be its attitude towards its weakest members, no? So how should we define civilisation in 2013? Work in progress would be a diplomatic definition.