Interesting Civilization Discriptions...

[onlyone]

China is called as the world's oldest continuous civilization because of the strength of lineage one can trace from the pre-imperial Zhou Dynasty in the 10th cen. B.C., all the way to the end of the Qing in 1911. There are still strong cultural elements that persist in China today. That's why it is called the "oldest".

On the topic of modern power... the grass is almost never greener on the other side (of the Pacific, in this case). China has enormous problems of its own, including "demographics problems" that many in this thread have labeled as the reason for Europe's "decline". Democracy is still a long time coming, and the fight will continue. Corruption akin to what Russia experiences is not unknown. And combine all that with the fact that over half of China's 1.3 billion people are still illiterate peasants with no skills other than farming.

China has an enormous, willing, strong workforce, yes - almost too large of one. The disproportionately large numbers of young Chinese men seeking work has created an overflow. That overflow throws themselves into jobs that are far below the level of what the U.N. would call "humane", and as long as that lack of respect for workers exists, the middle and lower portions of Chinese society will remain a burden to its overall economic development. Plus, you still have a large number of young, single men wandering between jobs with little else to do - that's a dangerous demographic for a government to handle, if history is any indicator.

To put it bluntly, China is not a superpower. It is rising, yes, but it has a ways to go before it comes close to anything like Western-style superiority.

Some of your arguments seem to be alright until you actually check the facts. Things like "...combine all that with the fact that over half of China's 1.3 billion people are still illiterate peasants with no skills other than farming..." are completely baseless. China's literacy rate in 2002 was actually about 90% which means there were roughly 10% or 0.13 billion "illiterate peasants" overthere, far from half of 1.3 billion. You probably confused India with China.

 

[falconne]

I wasn't forgetting it. I could be remembering wrong, but I thought the Indus Valley first started having agriculture about 7000 BC. Mesopotamia is often quoted as 10-12,000 BC. China is a bit less known, but I usually see 9,000 BC. I've heard some people say it's the same age as Mesopotamia, but it's hard to say.

As per my previous post, I'd disagree that the first use of agriculture counts as the beginning of "civilization". There's no clear distinction of course, but you can't just keep going back until the first time humans arrived somewhere and call that the beginning of their civilization. I suppose you can call it the beginning of their culture, but it wouldn't be very complex at that point.

I think you have to consider the Bronze Age, when people started building cities and specialisation began... it's at that point that a people started to form complex cultures that they can pass on to future generations. From the point of view of entry in to the Bronze Age, the Indus Valley starts at 3300BC and China at 2100BC.

 

[Bibor]

As per my previous post, I'd disagree that the first use of agriculture counts as the beginning of "civilization". There's no clear distinction of course, but you can't just keep going back until the first time humans arrived somewhere and call that the beginning of their civilization. I suppose you can call it the beginning of their culture, but it wouldn't be very complex at that point.

I think you have to consider the Bronze Age, when people started building cities and specialisation began... it's at that point that a people started to form complex cultures that they can pass on to future generations. From the point of view of entry in to the Bronze Age, the Indus Valley starts at 3300BC and China at 2100BC.

Actually, the developes got this one right. Farming was the basis of civilization as we know it because it meant creating static settlements instead of wandering tribes. Since there are no "mobile capitals" in any CIV, starting from CIV1, I completely agree with CIV5 developers in this.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

^^Agree.


Demographics aren't every thing. But if your pop is shrinking while foreign nationals who would like to change the fundamentals of your government outnumber you, your in a spot of trouble. Russia will get stronger for a while but if Putin can't bring the population up then eventually there will not be enough Russians.

C'mon the Native Americans were not genocide we came close but didn't do it. Besides I should rephrase I don't want genocide associated with the modern US.

Also were not a bunch of nutters over here. If China became a superpower it would be a cold war at best, if they became a democracy we would be there ally.

Europe I fear is no longer powerful nor does it have the ability to return to it's former glory any time in the near future without large amounts of violence.

It's not like we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for fun. Afghanistan was full of Al-Queada, and Saddam needed to be removed, which honestly was a great excuse to try and set up a western style democracy in the mideast. How would you responded to nine eleven? By leaving the terrorists alone? I vote that anyone who funds the terrorists should sit uneasily on his throne.

Finally, stop victimizing the terrorists, they have set out deliberately to spread Islam throughout the world and what does it matter if a few million innocents die to do Allah's holy work? I mean Jihadi literally means a holy war, a crusade.

 

[landlord]

Moving towards democracy? They just banned a norweegian (?) cyrcus from china because the noble price was given to somebody they don't like. And thats what I remember, they are doing more things like that

Since you mention that, let me say something regarding that "somebody they don't like".

That guy certainly is NOT a fan of civilization, at least not a fan of his own civilization. His most famous quota:"The only hope for China is to be colonized by West for 300 years and 300 years might not even be enough." That's why his nickname is China is "Colonized LIU".

I guess those "Noble gentlemen" in Norway might be fans of Colonization, in fact, I'm also a fan. But like most of my countrymen, I just do NOT like to BE colonized.

 

[Tee Kay]

C'mon the Native Americans were not genocide we came close but didn't do it. Besides I should rephrase I don't want genocide associated with the modern US.

As I said way back in the thread: too late.

Europe I fear is no longer powerful nor does it have the ability to return to it's former glory any time in the near future without large amounts of violence.

Taken as a whole, the European Union has a larger economy than the United States and its citizens are probably doing better, on a per capita basis.

It's not like we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for fun. Afghanistan was full of Al-Queada, and Saddam needed to be removed, which honestly was a great excuse to try and set up a western style democracy in the mideast.

Oh wow, how did that turned out?

How would you responded to nine eleven? By leaving the terrorists alone? I vote that anyone who funds the terrorists should sit uneasily on his throne.

9-11 hijackers are criminals. Treat them like criminals. Giving them the status of war combatants raises their status unnecessarily.

Finally, stop victimizing the terrorists, they have set out deliberately to spread Islam throughout the world and what does it matter if a few million innocents die to do Allah's holy work?

Far more Muslims have died as a result of their activities than Westerners.

I mean Jihadi literally means a holy war, a crusade.

No it doesn't.

 

[TheDanish]

Some of your arguments seem to be alright until you actually check the facts. Things like "...combine all that with the fact that over half of China's 1.3 billion people are still illiterate peasants with no skills other than farming..." are completely baseless. China's literacy rate in 2002 was actually about 90% which means there were roughly 10% or 0.13 billion "illiterate peasants" overthere, far from half of 1.3 billion. You probably confused India with China.

After double checking, my quoted illiteracy rate was indeed off - I probably should have said something closer to "poor literacy," though even that term is relative. The PRC itself defines literacy for a farmer at ~1500 characters.

But the number of peasants is accurate. The urban population of China accounts for something like 40-45% of its total population (CIA World Factbook lists it as 43%), and beyond China's urban areas there is truly little other than small villages or farms. There are very few "suburbs" like we see in the United States, and those that exist reside almost exclusively outside of major cities - Beijing, for example. Various sources list China's rural numbers as anywhere from 55% to 70% of the total pop, so my main point remains valid: China has a long way to go and a lot of people to educate before it can be considered a modern superpower.

 

[Louis XXIV]

As per my previous post, I'd disagree that the first use of agriculture counts as the beginning of "civilization". There's no clear distinction of course, but you can't just keep going back until the first time humans arrived somewhere and call that the beginning of their civilization. I suppose you can call it the beginning of their culture, but it wouldn't be very complex at that point.

I think you have to consider the Bronze Age, when people started building cities and specialisation began... it's at that point that a people started to form complex cultures that they can pass on to future generations. From the point of view of entry in to the Bronze Age, the Indus Valley starts at 3300BC and China at 2100BC.

That's a fair point. I just figured it's all vague and agriculture is a good point when you're talking about pioneers in the area (although the Indus Valley civilization actually learned agriculture from the Middle East). When I read your first sentence, I thought you were going to go the opposite direction. Cities like Jericho were large, complex cities with walls (meaning conducting warfare) before agriculture was invented.

 

[Bibor]

That's a fair point. I just figured it's all vague and agriculture is a good point when you're talking about pioneers in the area (although the Indus Valley civilization actually learned agriculture from the Middle East). When I read your first sentence, I thought you were going to go the opposite direction. Cities like Jericho were large, complex cities with walls (meaning conducting warfare) before agriculture was invented.

Jericho is a really poor example, being probably the only known settlement that pre-dates agriculture. It had to have some continuous source of food however, and I doubt they just had a lot of berry bushes outside of city walls .

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Some of your arguments seem to be alright until you actually check the facts. Things like "...combine all that with the fact that over half of China's 1.3 billion people are still illiterate peasants with no skills other than farming..." are completely baseless. China's literacy rate in 2002 was actually about 90% which means there were roughly 10% or 0.13 billion "illiterate peasants" overthere, far from half of 1.3 billion. You probably confused India with China.

Doubt that he did, think it was just a silly knee-jerk. Overall, the CIA has Indian literacy as 61%, with a strong male bias (73.4 male vs 47.8 female). Other sources are in broad agreement. Now while that isn't spectacular, it obviously does not amount to more than half the general population.

Obligatory chime-in - I think India can - and I hope will - do better than this, and very soon. And actually, I think they are a great power in the making - 'superpower' is so 20th century, IMO. But only if they fix that female illiteracy figure, I'd say. Anyway, what we should be applauding is that they are hacking it without resorting to a totalitarian command economy like China's.

 

[falconne]

Actually, the developes got this one right. Farming was the basis of civilization as we know it because it meant creating static settlements instead of wandering tribes. Since there are no "mobile capitals" in any CIV, starting from CIV1, I completely agree with CIV5 developers in this.

That's true as far as the game is concerned. My argument was specifically in the context of the Indus Valley culture and the Neolithic Chinese culture. Just arguing from the point of "at what stage did the cultures start becoming what we'd call Indian and Chinese, as opposed to being generic representations of agrarian humans". The entry in to the Bronze Age seemed like a good point.

The point is quite arguable of course and mine is just an opinion.

 

[Centurio]

No matter what you think of the Chinese government, I can assure you its pretty hard to micromanage 1.3 billion people that speak different languages, have various customs, beliefs and lifestyles. Considering we have no clue (or at least most of us) what's really going on in China (and saying "China" is like saying "Europafrica" or "Americas" in terms of population) I'd say they did pretty well. At least they didn't do deliberate damage to the outside world like some other countries *cough* are doing all the time.

The Roman Empire had a much better system of managing its provincials than the Chinese, and they didn't find it arousing to break women's feet...

 

[tom2050]

Taken as a whole, the European Union has a larger economy than the United States and its citizens are probably doing better, on a per capita basis.

Now, I don't know the exact current data, and really don't care... but U.S. living standards are more than one-third higher than those in Europe.

Great argument... the whole world has a larger economy than <insert a single country here>. Well, we all certainly hope so.

 

[Disgustipated]

Umm, I'm pretty sure European living standards are higher than the U.S. Sure we have more money, but we don't exactly have any social benefits like healthcare, pensions, letting terrorism thrive within their borders (I'm kidding- it's a joke)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Jericho is a really poor example, being probably the only known settlement that pre-dates agriculture. It had to have some continuous source of food however, and I doubt they just had a lot of berry bushes outside of city walls .

It's the only one, I thought it was just the most well know. Either way, your point stands. And, yeah, they did have steady food supplies outside of the city. It's probably somewhat related to how agriculture developed, I would think (people would gather wild grains and store them in the city. Some of the seeds would grow into new plants. They could also manage the wild grains even if they didn't plant them by weeding, etc).

 

[tom2050]

Umm, I'm pretty sure European living standards are higher than the U.S. Sure we have more money, but we don't exactly have any social benefits like healthcare, pensions, letting terrorism thrive within their borders (I'm kidding- it's a joke)

Unions do... and in fact they get so much pension that they are bankrupting almost every state in the union. Thanks Unions. Who wants to wait forever to see a doctor? I don't exactly see these things equating to a higher standard of living.

It's funny how people think they are 'owed something'. Get a job and you get health insurance. If job doesn't offer it, buy it. If it's too expensive, get catastrophic only. If your older, use medicare and medicaid. If you are not responsible for your finances, then that person will have to deal with it.

As Mankiw notes, average income in the U.S. is around $47,000. Adjusting for purchasing power, in Britain and Germany it is around $36,000; in France, $34,000; in Italy, $31,000.

 

[Reginleif]

The problem with many of these assumption about furture global superpowers is that they rarley take into account climate change. China and India may be on the verge of of future stardom, but these areas and other less developed nations will suffer the most from rising sea levels, droughts, etc, than established first world nations like U.S.A., Canada, and Russia (Most of Europe is crewed though )

 

[tom2050]

@Reginleif: Did you miss the whole Climate scandal? Scientists were skewing scientific data to make global warming seem like it was happening, when it is not. It was being done so they could claim that developed nations are destroying the world, and to force some kind of global re-distribution of wealth.

The same thing happened in recent history where the same type of people claimed global cooling was going to destroy life forever with another ice age, and they wanted similar wealth re-distributions.

For being in the age of information, I don't see how people ignore looking up basic facts for themselves... everyone should know you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

 

[stii]

@Reginleif: Did you miss the whole Climate scandal? Scientists were skewing scientific data to make global warming seem like it was happening, when it is not. It was being done so they could claim that developed nations are destroying the world, and to force some kind of global re-distribution of wealth.

The same thing happened in recent history where the same type of people claimed global cooling was going to destroy life forever with another ice age, and they wanted similar wealth re-distributions.

For being in the age of information, I don't see how people ignore looking up basic facts for themselves... everyone should know you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

But we should listen to your random bar graph?

 

[Tee Kay]

Unions do... and in fact they get so much pension that they are bankrupting almost every state in the union. Thanks Unions. Who wants to wait forever to see a doctor? I don't exactly see these things equating to a higher standard of living.

Do you know anything about the world outside the USA?

@Reginleif: Did you miss the whole Climate scandal? Scientists were skewing scientific data to make global warming seem like it was happening, when it is not.

A set of scientist screwed around with a set of climate data, which of course invalidates all climate data and research made over the past 30 odd years by thousands of scientists around the world.

The same thing happened in recent history where the same type of people claimed global cooling was going to destroy life forever with another ice age, and they wanted similar wealth re-distributions.

Turned out that this is happening too, sort of.

For being in the age of information, I don't see how people ignore looking up basic facts for themselves... everyone should know you shouldn't believe everything you hear.