Re: Could we manage without technology?
You get a city from a sudden and rapid increase of population, mainly due to the development of mass agriculture. The surplus in food allows the population of an area to increase, resulting in the construction of a large village. This larger village (we call cities) has enough people to require a set law and government, which is yet another marker for civilization. I do not see the point you are arguing. For this argument is no longer about the survival of humanity without technology, or even civilization for that matter. It is simply three or four guys arguing about a person's sources and whether or not they are trustworthy and notable. Honestly, I recommend you all get back on the subject of whether or not humanity can survive with the absence of technology, instead of arguing many basic definitions of the word civilization, which are all right I may add.
Instead of arguing about the definition of civilization (as all of you should have learned what it meant somewhere in your education, and despite what you argue about, it has many possible variations of the same definition), maybe you should fixate on possible scenarios and what YOU would do if this event (absence of technology) actually happened (Or I will make sure this thread is locked).
(My opinion on this argument: The definition of civilization can be interpreted in many different ways. The definition also requires many different things to take place in a certain order. You need a surplus of food to get a large amount of humans to govern and actually develop architecture. So no matter how you look at it, Lusankya, Khajmer, Lucario, or Auxus, all the things you are saying need to all occur for the proper civilization to develop).
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Last edited by Teddiursa of the Sky; 12-25-2010 at 10:59 PM.