Post Apocalyptic Modern Man

Is this the greatest civilization of all time?

The greatest civilization in human history is Christian Western Civilization. Western Civilization is proof Christianity’s greatness as a religion and its benefit to mankind.”—SOM. Say what??

These are mere assertions — not evidence-based facts”—Ron

Native America has been judged on its post apocalyptic nature. Bands of tribes surviving as primitive hunter gatherers and warring factions. But their ancestors did this—

And this—

estimated that prior to European contact, the Western Hemisphere supported between 90 and 112 million people. To put this already large figure into clearer perspective, the Americas’ population in the late 1400s surpassed that of Europe in the same period.LINK

At the Incan civilization’s height in the 1400s, the system of terraces covered about a million hectares (2.4 million acres) throughout Peru and fed the vast empire.

“Near the Brazilian border of north-central Bolivia, there are some 30,000 square miles of raised forested islands in a grassy floodplain. Scientists speculate an extensive human-constructed landscape optimized for managing local fisheries and the distribution of vegetation”.

It is more likely that we are still in a post apocalyptic era. Considering the ancient lost technologies and the civilizations and structures the ancestors were able to build, we are still in a rebuilding phase, albeit a quirky and destructive one.

Scientific evidence is leaning away from the old notion of the Amazon as a natural garden, but evidence suggests that nearly the entire thing was a managed farming industry supporting millions of people that once thrived, then decimated by western disease. Turns out SOM’s greatest civilization in the history of the world, is also diseased and dirty—and most murderous in history.

Do we behave like a settled society today, or more like a post-apocalyptic mess of divided people? This is not rhetorical…

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do”. Not much of this happening today, yet we are the civilizations of all time? SOM doesn’t even believe his own Bible.

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap.

39 thoughts on “Post Apocalyptic Modern Man”

  1. The Mississippian era of Native Americans was a great culture, so were other groups of Native Americans that followed. They were basically peaceful farmers, growing corn, beans, squash, and a lot of other crops. The white man came — with a religion supposedly of compassion — and via disease (intentionally spread) and superior weaponry… wiped them out.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. SOM’s attribution for Christianity should have stopped somewhere around 1700. After that? Not so much. And it’s THAT time where our civilization has demonstrable effect on improving human wellbeing globally. Why doesn’t that fact ever seem to count? Even a little?

    What bothers me is the widespread and common attitude of ungratefulness. Each of us lives lives that previous princes and princesses, kings and queens could only envy in the luxuriousness of meeting our basic needs, accumulating some wealth, some security, and having access to some services that no other advanced civilization could even dream of obtaining. But that’s not good enough for most people because it should be better. Therefore, we’re SO bad that… really… we must be the worst.

    I swear, what one of the worst vices of human beings generally – especially in the West – is spending so much time and energy and beliefs in comparing and contrasting and concluding only what ought to be in each person’s inestimable opinion to arrive at ‘the worst conclusion rather than reveling – even occasionally – in what is. That’s where gratitude lives… right here, right now. And we seem to avoid gratitude like that ‘Western’ disease called the plague. We’re all so bad, bad, bad…

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I agree with you on this! I think evolution may play a big role in this. Our radar is still scanning for danger where there is none. Life is better by every measurable metric the world over, yet they think the end is near. If it ever does happen it will be a self fulfilled prophecy.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. IMO, both of you (tildeb & Jim) have hit the proverbial nail. And further, IMO, Jim has summed things up perfectly in this last comment. Too bad more can’t see this …

        Liked by 1 person

        1. We tend to get excited and forget the underlying drive behind all this—survival. And like Dr Hoffman stated, the less we know of reality the better it is for fitness—this is why Christianity has it nailed in that regard.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Western disease? Is that like a homosexual disease?

    All of human history involves competing for scarce resources. To believe the West today is the worst of the worst can only be justified I think with a very specific bias and narrow focus. The facts demonstrate that by every metric by which any of us usually measures human well being, SOM’s point stands in regard to any fair means of comparing and contrasting this civilization to others. On the metric of human well being, please demonstrate not just a ‘greater’ one but how almost every other civilization did better in order to rank us as one of the worst of the worst. Please. Anyone. Go.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Well, all I know is what was encountered by the likes of Bartolo de las Casas and William Penn, whose descriptions of the natives depicted them as superior to the settlers and explorers in every human way. So yes, we wiped them out because we were dirtier genetically and violent. Now we judge them in their post apocalyptic and scattered forms and that is not a fair comparison at all. Civilizations that built with natural materials and supported millions of people, and in the “indies” upon Columbus arrival they encountered a human population in the tens of millions that knew no violence and submitted to murder. They had no idea what was happening, according to the best, first hand accounts. In my book, that’s a better civilization. If they had lived with their sewage and livestock like Europe, they would have been a better match for discovery.
      On the other hand, North American today are still behaving post apocalyptic. Not a settled and mature society at all. Divisive bickering and squabbling among the various tribes of belief.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Not sure what you’re getting at. The Apache as we know it was a
          Post apocalyptic group of survivors become warriors. The main dialog for centuries now of the savages is no different than what we would expect to see after a crumbled civilization attempting to survive. The fact is they were much more advanced and much older and settled than we give them credit for. In the Peruvian Andes alone 2.4 million acres of terraced farmland— and the Amazon likely was fully planned and cultivated my millions of people in a stable/cooperative society. Bolivia had 30,000 square miles of cooperative farming. That’s half the size of Washington state. And others left behind magnificent structures we cannot duplicate.
          This being the greatest society ever is more accurately stated the greatest modern society we know of. Not sure what your beef is with that.

          Like

          1. Measurement is based on comparisons. That’s why I say comparing by human wellbeing is, I think, the most fundamental measurement to use. Using this metric and on a global scale, comparing such local and mostly self-contained extinct civilizations like the Mayan and Aztecs do not compare favorably… not even in the same ballpark.

            Sure, cultivated land is a comparison because it shows a scale of cooperation. Yeah, so we cultivate ~900,000,000 acres in North America alone. So 2.4 million is not even 1% by fair comparison. Terracing increases production and requires much hand labor but why assume this means ‘better’? We have a global supply chain! We have no clue at the level of violence or authoritarian control required to carve out such ancient empires so to assume very little violence is not much of metric when the West has a population of roughly 1.5 billion but 100 times the competing ethnicities. Yet – somehow – long periods of sustained peace and prosperity and trade cooperation means little.

            So ‘my’ problem is claiming that SOM is wrong to suggest the West is the greatest civilization when, I think, there is very solid grounds to justify such a claim… by comparing and contrasting it with others by human metrics like wellbeing. A huge investment goes into that by Western civilization, an investment that I think not only yields unprecedented prosperity and improving trends for human flourishing but goes unrecognized by many who tend to select only the very worst aspects as if this suffices for comparison… even though they swim in the luxurious waters of this civilization but pay almost all of it no mind other than a hand waving kind of blanket condemnation on the flimsiest of comparisons. That’s why I mentioned the absence of gratitude which underlies true appreciation for where the baseline really is for the is/ought comparison. It starts ‘way up there’ far, far above any other civilization to date even though we recognize it could be much higher.

            Like

            1. I’m thinking…USA is second and Canada 5th in the world for antidepressant usage. In the USA alone, 3.5 billion, yearly other prescription medications, an increase of 66% over the last decade. I think you have turned a blind eye to reality, but maybe there is a medication for that too?
              With all the infighting, lack of cooperation, and division, I think we have a long way to go to become a settled society that would rival a metric of peaceful cooperation. Greed is god here in North America—and pills, but elsewhere too the level of anxiety shows our immaturity as a people.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. There’s a lot of truth to the adage, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” On the scale of ‘civilization’ it’s difficult to stand back far enough to get away from the familiar to be able to compare and contrast relatively fairly; it’s all too easy to cherry pick what we think is ‘the best’ from this one and compare it (favorably to start with) to ‘the worst’ from that one. That’s where bias can and does play an important role, familiarity being what it is.

              And that’s why I suggest that it’s difficult for a fish to appreciate the quality the role of water plays in which it swims, especially if the comparison is with some idolized version of something else. It’s obvious to me that this is what is being presented here, an idolized version of an agrarian society, and receiving much support here not because it’s true but because of bias. We don’t like this or that about our water and so this is the starting point of the comparison. That’s bias at work. The fact the civilization you raise could not survive contact demonstrates something fundamentally dysfunctional about it. That’s not much of a civilization regardless of how fantastic some architecture or farming practice might be. Surely just surviving in a competitive world should matter somewhat in this overall evaluation of comparing civilizations. If not, you’re just comparing life styles and favoring the one that disappears.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Reminds me of an old wild turkey I had in my yard a couple years ago. I wrote a poem in his remembrance.

              Familiarity breeds-
              Contempt and seeds of guile-
              Slow cooked and seething

              Like

            4. Just came across this tweet:

              “There’s some real utility in gratitude. It’s also good protection against the dangers of victimhood and resentment.”

              Might that explain the rise is anti-depressives: a pseudo-protection against our own chosen outlook?

              Liked by 1 person

      1. The fact of the matter is that Western Europe had ALREADY begun to diminish their natural resources before launching the age of “discovery”. Fish, lumber, filthy water, disgusting lack of proper sewage all contributed to Europe’s natural resources decline that they absolute need to search for more in far-off lands. Native Americans had lived in hundreds of millions throughout the two continents and managed their resources incredibly well; crops, animals, everything. They valued the Earth as they believed they were OF the Earth and never considered trashing it as Western Europeans have don be time and time again.

        A great documentary on this is “America Before Columbus”; I highly recommend it to anyone that wants to see the incredible dichotomy between the two populations.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. “Native Americans had lived in hundreds of millions throughout the two continents and managed their resources incredibly well; crops, animals, everything.”

          Ah yes. Rousseau called these marvelous beings, ‘The Noble Savage’.

          This doesn’t quite line up with evidence but, hey, why let a few facts get in the way of a good narrative?

          Like

          1. The evidence is actually becoming more and more apparent. I thought you were in favor of scientific discovery? Your are still fixated on what the second wave of explorers found post apocalyptic. How would you expect them to be? You realize in Pomata, Puno, Peru, the raised field beds for farming are 20 miles wide and 70 miles long and strong evidence of nature-centric farming (and many others) actually confirms Rousseaus noble savage. You do realize the scope of these terraces and beds each rival the Fresno valley which is 25% of US crops today? This was not done by bands of wild Indians who were fighting for their life, but massive civil societies.

            Like

            1. I certainly understand and agree with the criticism that prior to 1700 Christian Europe had no bragging rights for being ‘better’ than other civilizations. In fact, I can think of many good reasons to argue it was worse than most others. Only the inheritance of Greek/Arabic thought and Roman engineering – both predating the tremendous dampening effects of Christianity – allowed Western civilization to develop and implement the Enlightenment principles that have since translated into Western civilization rising and thriving above all others.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Go back to the OP. Jim is saying that SOM is wrong to call Christian Western civilization the greatest. Well, sure he’s wrong to attribute it to Christianity, but he’s not wrong to call Western civilization the greatest.

              Jim uses the Mayan and Incan and Aztec civilizations as a counter balance, implying that if not for the “dirtier genetically and violent” Western invaders, these would be greater today. That’s not just pure speculation; that’s intentionally framing a bad IS with an better OUGHT. Apples and oranges.

              He even goes so far as to say, ” evidence suggests that nearly the entire thing was a managed farming industry supporting millions of people that once thrived, then decimated by western disease,” as if this negates and/or refutes the original claim. It doesn’t. (It also claims these civilizations demise was caused by a civilization’s disease. That, too, is imported. Ravaging diseases has affected EVERY civilization: Jim blames Western civilization for this one. This is a narrative, as if a pre-industrial extinct agrarian society is somehow ‘better’ but destroyed by the West. This works only if the ‘West’ is equivalent to ‘disease’ and therefore responsible for exporting it without considering the same ravages by disease throughout history that has NOTHING to do with Western Civilization (in the same way a ‘gay’ disease is just a disease and not ’caused’ by the gay any more than smallpox is a disease and not ’caused’ by the West). The narrative suggests that if not for the evils of the West, such societies would be thriving today, would be better today. Jim says, “Turns out SOM’s greatest civilization in the history of the world, is also diseased and dirty—and most murderous in history.” Again, and again, always the vilification of the worst of the West and certainly not a fair compare and contrast metric. He’s assumed the conclusion and then cherrypicked elements that fit this ungrateful narrative and called it ‘evidence’ to argue against SOM’s claim.

              So I raised the notion that where in this comparison is fairness? Where is the apples-to-apples evidence in a compare and contrast consideration? Where is the scope of demonstrating how human well being flourished better in these extinct civilizations than the West today?

              It’s missing entirely. So where is the comparison coming from that only damns the West? Well, I think it comes from a hostile, evidence-denying ungrateful narrative that is all the rage these days.

              Where, in this narrative, is the evidence from right here and right now that has each of us living in what at THAT time would have been unimaginable luxury, security, and health? Because that’s where our civilization has risen. Does it have problems? Sure. But that’s not the issue; the issue is about ‘better’. Surviving and thriving is a pretty good indicator. Going extinct is another. These are not equivalent.

              You can’t cherry pick the worst of the West and hold only this part up against the imaginings of the best and then claim SOM is wrong because one has already assumed the conclusion and called this imagining ‘evidence’ because of some comparatively small farming practices (less than 1% of what we do today but significant for comparison relative to a specific previous timeframe) and higher density living than some other communities. As I pointed out, we have no clue about any level of authoritarian violence used to create this magical but oh-so-much-better garden state, so where is the evidence in comparing civilizations? The comparison lies only in ancient ruins and lives on only in the assumed potential of ‘what if’ imaginings. But to make this narrative work – damning the West and elevating the extinct – one has to FIRST focus on assuming this one IS ‘bad’ because it ‘murdered’ the other and yet OUGHT to be much ‘better’. Apples with apples, please.

              Like

            3. This is not a narrative I have gleaned from popular anti-west rhetoric, but from first hand accounts which I quoted from and the current discovery from SCIENCE of the vastness and complexities of the societies. You are still pidgin-holing the condition of Native Americans as the post apocalyptic version. Very popular to do so, btw.
              I agree SOM is wrong, but wrong on both fronts. It isn’t due to Christianity that things are great, but they’re not the greatest of all time either.
              If anything we are thriving because of Christianity and their false sense of reality which falls in line with Donald Hoffmans simulations and theory which is the exact opposite of the scientific status quo on evolution. Perceiving the most of reality goes extinct every time? While perceiving less is beneficial to fitness —every time.

              Like

            4. tildeb, you write — Ravaging diseases has affected EVERY civilization. Jim blames Western civilization for this one.

              Based on your statement that disease has affected EVERY civilization, I fail to see the error when Jim happens to blame WESTERN civilization for what happened in THIS instance. Since he’s writing primarily about the Amazon, it would seem “Western” civilization would play a major role in its demise.

              As I’ve said many times before, I’m no expert, but it seems to me you’re detouring around the point that Jim was making.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. I’m not denying diseases are carried by contact. That’s a fact of life. But I am denying the claim is that Western civilization caused the diseases. The diseases caused the rapid decline in susceptible populations, not the West.

              I’m saying Jim’s framing is like claiming ‘dirty’ homosexuality caused HIV/AIDS. That’s the wrong framing. It is used to vilify and blame people for the diseases they suffer from and survive. Western civilization suffered these diseases like any other civilization; that they weren’t wiped out doesn’t make them responsible for those who were. But it should play some factor in any fair compare and contrast metric that many of these diseases were first understood and then effectively addressed to reduce suffering by those who live and work in Western civilization. Again, solutions are not caused by the West; the conditions are such as to favor solutions arising within such a civilization. And that, too, should count for something other than blanket condemnation and ungratefulness.

              Like

            6. A truly good god (and an inspired religion) would have provided a prophylactic to the uncontacted—and a warning to his messengers of how to spread Christianity safely and effectively. God was so eager to get the word out he forgot the basic rules of first contact.
              I agree with you mostly. I feel like you and I are emphasizing different aspects of the issue. And that is a good thing. Could it be any other way than it is? Haha

              Like

            7. I don’t think we’re on the same page. From my perspective, when Jim references “Western civilization,” I don’t think he’s pinpointing individuals

              You: “I’m not denying diseases are carried by contact.” My interpretation of this is individual contact — I interpret Jim’s reference as “civilization” as a whole.

              Example and potential scenario: Amazonians lived healthy lives. “Western Civilization” (the sum total of the parts) invaded their land … and brought the susceptibility of disease with them which, up to that point, had not been a problem.

              Most likely our difference is simply a play of words.

              Liked by 2 people

        2. The evidence coming out of the Amazon, Bolivia, and Peru illustrates nature-centric farming practices completely sustainable. And a
          Massive scale rivaling or surpassing inland California, which supplies 25% of the nations food. The acreage of step farming in Peru actually surpasses the Fresno valley. Remarkable really. Bolivia has 30,000 square miles of raised beds. That half of Washington state!

          Liked by 1 person

    2. “Western disease? Is that like a homosexual disease?” ~tildeb

      It’s much, much worse. Current “progressive” thinking hold that all white people are evil and racist, and either directly or indirectly responsible for all ails within the world. Being born white is now considered the “original sin” and the only viable option (i.e. “the final solution” to the white problem) is to eradicate them entirely from the face of the planet.

      The irony here being two-fold:

      1. this critique emanates from within the same “white society” that affords everyone the opportunity to express their thoughts and opinions with impunity, and

      2. if carried to its fruition, western civilization as we know it would cease to exist, but the problems plaguing mankind would continue unabated.

      That said, my beef was mainly with SOM’s assertion that “Western Civilization is proof Christianity’s greatness as a religion and its benefit to mankind.”

      Liked by 1 person

  4. God told them to dominate the world, so they did. Now they are finding out the indigenous peoples of the world refuse to be dominated. They have to pat themselves on the back, telling each other how superior they are, when really they are falling to the bottom of the barrel.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The more I dialogue with Christians on the internet, and especially the fundamentalist US variety,the more disgusted I become.

    “Calm down, Mr. Ark. Forgive them for they are simply indoctrinated fuckwits who knoweth not what they doith.”
    Amen .
    😎

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It’s a very narrow window the believer looks through. Gods people were too dirty for the natural man to abide his germatic presence. Imagine if the role was reversed and the Europeans took an even greater disease home with them. I don’t think they’d be the hero’s they are now.

      Like

      1. Ah ..but Mister Jim, God willed it!
        Filthy rotten natives!
        Remember, if the bible was good enough for Jesus it had to good enough for a bunch of jungle savages.
        “Kill them all. God will know his own!”

        Like

        1. Better to be dead than not know Jesus I suppose.
          After a lengthy writ on the native American exceeding the Christian in every way as human beings, William Penn went on to say “meanwhile, we use the wild man for day labor and gradually acquire their language and make them acquainted with the teachings of Christ”—1687. That’s some form of arrogance.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Life may have been hard (as compared to), but I think if I had my druthers, I would rather have lived among the people of the Amazon than in the back-biting, argumentative, slop-slinging, ugliness of today’s “modern” societies.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The concept of voluntary unity is as foreign today as imagining life without greed.
      The first explorer up the Amazon documented millions of people and cities. 100 years later they were nowhere to be found, swallowed by the jungle. That original explorer was discredited as making it all up. It’s hard to imagine, but the estimates are about 90% were killed by western disease from the initial encounters. This is somehow proof though of Christian superiority— by genetic haplotype.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. In addition their knowledge of astronomy and its application now is reduced to folklore instead of a practical application. Even the astrolabe is evidence the average person of the 9th century had a better understanding than we do, minus a handful of experts. But really, all these ancient edifices were to appease gods or know when to plant crops…is quite frankly ridiculous. .

    Like

  8. Fascinating, Jim! The truth is often hidden and distorted in our current civilization’s recorded history: privilege of the conquistadores. Perhaps, this is the Great Lie that has led to humanity’s persistent destructive tendency.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: