Sure, so you agree then that we need to do all of the above, yes? — universeness

The first is essential. The second is desirable and possible. The third is provisional: depends on which way "progress" leads us.

No god has contacted me, protesting the idea, how about you? — universeness

So, if it can't fight back, it's yours to plunder by definition.

I have no choice but to interpret your meaning if I find it unclear or ambiguous. — universeness

It's neither, as a rule. But if it is, clarification seems to me more appropriate than translation into a language I don't wish to speak.

If you suggest that your personal level of enlightenment has no more value than that demonstrated by an octopus or a crow, then yes, I do find that to be a very low bar. — universeness

I didn't suggest it: I stated it quite distinctly. I learned what is necessary to know in my life, as other creatures also learn what is necessary to know in their lives. I do not acknowledge a "bar" or any standard of relative valuation, let alone your authority to set such a bar for anyone other than yourself.

If you disagree then that's ok. I assume you remain open to discussing your position? — universeness

Of values, what for? Both yours and mine are pretty solid; they won't change via argument.

Are woodcut home impervious to such as is underlined in your quote, or a myriad of other happenings? — universeness

Not sure what a woodcut home is. Most human shelters currently are constructed of some combination of concrete, steel, lumber and brick. We could compare earthquake and flood casualties casualties in various structures. I don't know what the tally would be, but I know what I would prefer to be inside when a disaster struck - which happens and will happen with increasing frequency and severity - and it's not a highrise.

I do not dispute that, but I disagree that the general direction and desire for human progress, is destructive and malevolent. — universeness

Then you need to take a better look around.

Yes, I only mentioned this as an example of technology that’s at least trying to deal with climate change. — 0 thru 9

I know. It's not a bad idea. There are other examples that appear more homey Check out the solar panels! And some are quite attractive. A low-tech option for Luddites, and one with a personal modern touch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El6AU3riRI8 (I don't know whether the link will work)
Guess which is my favourite.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me, somewhere in my exchanges here. Where did I suggest that science or tech or knowledge from any indigenous people was in some way inferior or not worth investigating? — universeness

But you suggest that the Octopus and the Crow have no such goals, so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts for fear that our Miami apartments may fall on our heads. :yikes: I say no, no, no, no, no chicken licken/little! — universeness

That sounds very much as if adobe villages showed no 'progress' since a crow's nest and collapsible tipis were no improvement on the first octopus carrying a coconut shell to hide under, while a concrete high-rise were vastly superior to all of them.

[Compare the religiosity of primitive Native Americans to advanced European - then, or now.]

Both seem quite bad to me! — universeness

Equally? How familiar are you with Native American theology?

The floating city looks nice, but I have to wonder 1. where all the produce on those tables came from and 2. what percent of the urban population can afford to live there?
There are lots of excellent proposed arrangements for survivors - but no way any of them will work for the number of people in the world today. We already have over 6 million people in refugee camps, more an route, 150 million, and rising, homeless, as well as an uncountable number living hand-to-mouth in precarious conditions. That's simply unsustainable. And we haven't begun to account for the destruction of this pandemic of violence sweeping over the world.

Better yet… can we use our minds to devise a way to stop the flooding? — 0 thru 9

Not at this point. It would help to shut down the fossil fuel use and trans-ocean shipping. Unfortunately, we have no intelligent organization to move all those people out of the danger zone or relocate them in a safer place - assuming there are any safe places outside the billionnares' compounds.
Much could still be done to mitigate the inevitable damage - if the responsible agencies were given the resources and the power.

I tend to agree with this point, how it is emphasizing the long history of humanity. — 0 thru 9

It's not a very long history compared to dinosaurs. And anyway, doesn't consider the lifestyle of humans before European colonization worthy of notice, except with scorn. That makes the history of scientific progress very short indeed.

I thought I already told you! To do more from gen to gen than just exist and survive — universeness

Why? If you don't survive, you sure can't thrive, evolve or progress.

Humans can progress in ways that no other species in history has demonstrated. — universeness

Progress means to move in a designated direction. Choose the wrong direction and progress leads to a horrific demise. I think our forebears choose the wrong direction.

Our solar system — universeness

What god made it for your exclusive use?

Humans have the potential to change that, and bring fantastic new purpose, to this currently lifeless domain. — universeness

Their own. Yours. What for?

But you suggest that the Octopus and the Crow have no such goals, so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts for fear that our Miami apartments may fall on our heads. — universeness

I didn't say we should be more like them. I said:

I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow, — Vera Mont

I feel it is unnecessary for you to keep 'interpreting' my statements for me , as I usually know what I mean when I type them. *

so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts — universeness

You do understand that many animals (not crows or octopi) live in caves, fissures and burrows, while others construct elaborated homes and colonies. Humans learned construction from birds, insects, apes and the rodents

If you could see inside a woodrat’s house, you’d find a tidy little home: a nest bedroom or two lined with grasses and shredded bark; a pantry full of acorns and other seeds, leaves, and twigs for food; and several latrines for waste (a woodrat poops over 100 pellets a day!). The nests might have a few scattered California bay leaves to repel fleas. Food items that can be toxic when fresh (such as toyon leaves) are kept in a separate room to age before the rats move them to the pantry. When the latrines get full, woodrats clean house, shoving the pellets out into the forest, where they fertilize the soil.”

And all other construction, including the ones that keep falling on heads when the wind blows, when our lovely fellow hominids lob bombs or whole airplanes at them, when the earth shakes, when a river floods, when fracking creates a sinkhole under them, evolved from those early, safe and durable structures - because some of us keep wanting bigger, instead of more sensible.

I say no, no, no, no, no chicken licken/litte! — universeness

Suit yourself. As you are among the privileged who have choices.

The number of households that became homeless this year rose by 10% compared to the year before.

I don't believe any pre-Columbian American ever was.

For me, your status — universeness

I have more respect for individuals than to assign you a status.

The solar system will remain insignificant, if we optimists are too small in number and too low in volume to be heard above the din of despair. — universeness

I'm fine with the solar system being insignificant. I'm not despairing; I'm describing what I witness, articulating what I believe and expressing what I think. Quietly.

*or at least on the second or third edit. Occupational hazard, that.

Textbooks and encyclopedias are not influenced by the student. The data in them is collected, organized, elucidated, presented and footnoted in an integrated body of information, rather than snippets to answer limited, possibly disorganized or even incoherent questions.

Chat GPT is an expert knowledge databased system, — universeness

designed, built and programmed by techies.

Can a crow or an octopus demonstrate its ability to create meaning in the way you can? — universeness

Why would it need to? They're not required to live my life - and it's just as well I don't have to attempt living theirs.

You live in a cave, teepee or mud hut [ this one? ] for a year — universeness

The reason for the popularity of adobe homes is that they are incredibly durable in harsh, dry climates. They are impressively resilient against earthquakes (when properly reinforced) and other natural disasters, and for those reasons, some of the oldest buildings in the world are made from adobe mud and are still standing.

and I will live in a nice apartment [this one? in Miami.

Both seem quite bad to me! — universeness

So, no progress, then?

So I typed species instead of genus — universeness

You corrected my accurate term with an inaccurate one, and attributed the age of the genus to the species. Tacking on an extinct related species that might have used fire still won't bring the longevity of the Homos anywhere close to that of dinosaurs, which are extinct, but their reptilian descendants are still around, still managing their affairs better than we are.

Again, let's try Chat GPT as an arbiter: — universeness

Or we could try my sock-puppet as an arbiter. Too bad I don't have one. But it really makes no impression on me that you have like-minded allies: I'll just have to disagree with them, too, even the robots.
This being the operative phrase:

in terms of — universeness

this being the down-side:

impact on their environment — universeness

The chatty pre-trained performer shares your value system - I don't.

I know, that's why I tried to correct you. Do you not agree that such as homo erectus, achieved more than the dinos? — universeness

You mixed up genus and species. But that's okay, because, no, I don't agree that any of the hominids 'achieved' anything more remarkable than species that reached environmental equilibrium and thus assured themselves of a long, stable existence. Aspiring to much and burning out fast doesn't count as an achievement in my book. Especially if it involves an increased portion of the human population forced to live miserable lives.

Not all scientific advances are technological. Would you call personal advances in personal enlightenment or at least your personal width and breadth of knowledge, a technological advancement? — universeness

No. I'm unconvinced that science has, in a cost/harm - gain/benefit balance has been a net gain. I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow, and I would certainly not acquire it at the price of all that suffering. I know things they don't and they know things I don't. I have learned what I need to live my life. That's a happenstance, not a virtue.

Without progressive knowledge, our species would still be living in caves, worshiping the big lights in the sky and fearing all the noises coming from outside the caves at night. — universeness

How is that different from an apartment in Miami?

Would homo sapiens who decided to reject scientific/ technological progression and had remained in their small, disparate, tribal, nomadic communities, living in caves, teepees, or perhaps even mud huts, have more or less need of theism, — universeness

Compare the religiosity of primitive Native Americans to advanced European - then, or now.

Is the fact that theism is under pressure today, almost everywhere, due to the scientific progress we have made? — universeness

By 'almost everywhere', I assume you mean northern Europe.
No, that is not a fact; that is wishful thinking that the trend of the first half of the 20th century would continue uninterrupted. That is not the case.

Religious fundamentalism has risen to worldwide prominence since the 1970s. We review research on fundamentalist movements to learn what religious fundamentalisms are, if and
why they appear to be resurging, their characteristics, their possible links to violence, and their relation to modernity.

I am unsure whether or not you advocate for a political, economic, social global unity of culturally disparate and physically separated 'tribal' sized or 'nation' sized groups or you advocate for disparate but cooperative (rather than warring) groups of human settlements who have no sense of a global identity or sense of 'human race,' as of greater importance than their own 'tribal' or 'national' cultural identity. — universeness

I would advocate now the same arrangement I advocated all along: discreet, peacefully coexisting tribal units, with a global police force that they all support. We can't co-operate without being aware that we're the same species, but I would quite emphatically prefer we were less anthropocentric in our world-view.
But I won't be around to advocate anything, as it can't happen until long after the collapse of this civilization.

Do you think, being a 'Virginian,' should be more important than being an American,' for example? — universeness

They don't care what I think: to many if not most Virginians, that is already a fact. The Trumpites and fellow traveller contingents are hell-bent on dismantling the federal government and tearing up constitution.

Did you not read my response? — universeness

Yes, I got that piece of irrelevancy, but didn't comment on it. I chose only to compare the success of two organic species.

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line. — universeness

Homo is the genus, and it descended directly from a line of apes, monkeys and lemurs, which descended from a direct line... etc, etc. I specified H. sapiens. If it's any consolation, some estimates of its presence stretch to 300,000 years.

Even that early group achieved more than the dinos. Their use of base tools and fire are two valid examples.

Tool use is considerably older and more widespread than humans generally acknowledge. So, you're down to the use of fire for 2.7 of those trifling 3 million years. All the spectacular advancements that are killing everything now were made in the blink of a few thousand years. If you consider rushing to self-immolation an achievement, I allowed for it - while disagreeing with the basic tenet that technology is the only valid measure of a species' success.

Now, that's humour! — universeness

:lol:

Mere existence and survival is not enough imo. — universeness

Did you gloss over the bit where

They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement — 180 Proof

They throve and sustained their ecosystem, then were killed by an unpreventable cosmic event. This overachieving H. sapiens, in a mere 200,000 years has trashed its environment, destroyed much of its fauna and flora and put itself in an existential crisis?

Yes, it is possible to stop an asteroid from hitting Earth and causing destruction. — universeness

Well, why did the dinosaurs not make use of those technologies? They deserved to die!
Now, you just need to invent a deflector shield for human insanity.

I’d love to get some solar energy going on here, even though we’re not in the sunbelt — 0 thru 9

We're in Ontario, Canada. Five-month winter, rainy spring and fall It's raining now, and all week, so we need to conserve energy (no laundry; kitchen appliances only in the off-hours) and charge the batteries off hydro overnight. Also, get a kill-a-watt and lots of power cords with a switch to minimize your energy drain.

Given the knowledge that a particular action is good, — Jerry

You're not given that knowledge; you have to learn it. From some source(s).

I believe that one who can do the action without deliberation may be acting well, but not virtuously,

So what? The outcome is still good.

whereas one who must deliberate on the action (because of qualms or circumstances that make the action undesirable) is acting virtuously.

Fine. To whom/what does this hesitation make a difference? Does a Cancer Society volunteer do less good if their life is generally comfortable and prosperous? It may be less virtuous to help out at the food bank if you are not hungry yourself, or maybe it's more virtuous if there is no self-interest involved - who can tell? It makes no difference to the clients.

To return to your questions, this would be a display of stronger "character", because the actor must overcome the harm/adversity to do the right thing.

Now, you've substituted 'strong' for 'true', so you're not answering my question at all. Why is a 'strong' character superior to a 'decent' or 'compassionate' character, and what way does 'strong' correlate to 'true'?

Again, assuming we already have an idea of what the right thing is to do; I don't at the moment have a good answer for where that knowledge comes from.

I see. Then how do you know it's correct?

I don't understand the cynicism, your aversion to the concept of resiliency. Is it not better to confront a problem despite discomfort rather than avoid the problem entirely? — Jerry

I should think an intelligent species would attempt both. If the problem were foreseen, we could have averted the bad outcome. If it was not foreseeable, we would have contingency plans. But there is really very little you can do to prepare a baby to cope with its birth defect; however, you can do something to minimize its suffering. The right thing for a society to do is reduce the chances of bad things happening to its members, prepare to meet whatever emergencies may arise, and alleviate the suffering of individual victims.

I don't know Ayn Rand, and I don't think I'm saying people's values are unique, only that, whatever values one has, they should be followed with conviction. — Jerry

No problem with that. Problem with separating the individual from his/her culture and environment, emotional attachments and human network. Life doesn't work that way. We may not always like it, but we are connected.

Okay, but why? — 180 Proof

I like the world.

I'm not a believer in formal philosophical systems. I've read haphazardly through some of the philosophical big noises and have been largely unimpressed. I realize that some of the most revered are simply outdated and irrelevant.

If I had to summarize a world-view, it's something like : Try to get through life as joyfully as possible while doing others and the planet as little harm as possible.

I could argue, and shall, that the true character of a person, and truly good deeds occur only when faced with adversity and harm. — Jerry

What the heck is 'true character'? How are good deeds designated true or false? Adversity and harm to whom is required to prompt those good deeds?

To minimize suffering is analogous to a child never leaving their room for fear of danger from the outside world. — Jerry

No, it isn't. There is no harm to minimize when there is no risk. The concept of minimizing harm has meaning only in the context of life in the world - a world full of potential hazards.

Rather than minimize suffering, we ought learn how to best equip ourselves to become resilient to harm. — Jerry

Let's all become yogis - yes, even the tiny tots with fetal alcohol syndrome! There is nothing virtuous in being tough; that's a survival strategy, not a moral precept.

The other aspect is why human flourishing for the species as a whole is desirable. — Jerry

Moral systems were not set up or imagined as inclusive of the whole species, until very recently, when some of us began to think in global terms. The flourishing of a society, a nation or tribe is desired by those of its members who understand that divided, we fall.

Flourishing for society? Flourishing for the individual? — Jerry

Yes.

Does flourishing mean a life without harm, or building resiliency towards harm? — Jerry

It means living as near as possible to our potential of health, individual liberty, security, fulfillment and happiness as we can, in our given environment and era. That includes co-operating to build defenses against external harm and organizing internally to minimize conflict, mitigate physical dangers and provide support for the victims of harm, whether from natural causes or fellow citizens.

As an example, to me, virtue ethics is about the individual "flourishing" where flourishing means to act in accordance with one's own values. — Jerry

Sounds a bit Randish. Some people like to imagine they have their very own, original, self-created values, instead of the mish-mash of inherited, learned and recombined ideas we all accumulate in the first 18 years of life.

I’m just being a smartass / dumbass. :blush: — 0 thru 9

I'm a huge fan of solar energy. In bad weather, of which we've had lots and expect considerably more - there are many power outages in the boonies. We don't notice, unless we go to the the other wing of the house and try to turn on a light. We still need Hydro backup, since we only have 8 batteries. Our electricity use last month cost $13; the delivery charge, taxes and surcharges were an additional $50. Highway (literally) robbery, but it's still way less than other people are paying.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have to make an emergency landing because it’s nighttime and this is a solar airplane. — 0 thru 9

Did you see the videos? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=solar+plane+video+#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:07024ebe,vid:i_QUPJZMAb4,st:0
My tv and computer work at night, too.

The reason I say "We are no longer the same agents we were a hundred thousand years ago" is because we have different, perhaps more evolved ideas of morality. — Jerry

I don't see that in action.

That's shown by how I can undermine the usual story of the origins of morality by questioning those values and proposing alternatives. — Jerry

What makes you think people didn't question and propose 100,000 years ago - and always?

The purpose of a shared morality is always to maximize the chances for the members and thereby the group surviving and thriving. Different cultures had and have different ideas on how that can be accomplished, according to their beliefs about what causes harm and how it can be mitigated by human behaviour. If a generally understood principle is to be successfully challenged and alternatives considered, they must be presented in that context. Not "You're wrong to want that outcome." but "I can think of a better way to achieve the desired outcome." Even then it's long, slow argument before people are convinced to change strategy.

I missed your post and duplicated it all unwitting witlessly.

The dinos had between 165 and 177 million years of existence on the Earth. What did they achieve? — universeness

165 and 177 million years of existence. We are unlikely to make 1 million.

They also had no chance at all of preventing their own extinction. — universeness

Against a meteor strike, I very much doubt even the cleverest humans have an adequate defence, however the movies like to mess around with the idea of long-range nuclear missiles.

I would suggest we have more chance of preventing our own extinction, compared to any other species that has ever existed on this planet, so far. — universeness

Against us, no other species has a chance. Against us, neither have we.

We are no longer the same agents we were a hundred thousand years ago. — Jerry

Sez who?

I'm more concerned with moral systems as they take place now. — Jerry

Everything is a result of what went before. Our religions grew out of our relation to the environment and the organization of our societies. Those religions, as they solidified into doctrines, set forth the moral framework our systems of governance, commerce and foreign relations. Those religious doctrines informed our secular legal codes. Although each of its tenets comes into question and is sometimes amended, western legal practice is still based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Yes, some animals engage in behaviors that could be described as a form of warfare or intergroup conflict. — universeness

Any conflict is war if you want to call it war. I prefer Webster:

a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

Car companies really have to up their game… how about solar panels on the top of the vehicle? — 0 thru 9

I'm still waiting for my solar-powered car. The one I want
. There are quite a few in development, and the airplane works pretty well, though neither, I think will serve so many people over such distances as we are wont to travel now. Me, I hate speed. I hate having to drive on the highway. But country living means we do have the solar array for our house, and a wood-burning stove and room to grow some vegetables.

All animals fight their own species over food, territory etc. A lion pride will war with another lion pride trying to enter their territory, or steal their kills. same with wolf packs to groups of meerkats. They will also fight, even to the death, over such as exclusive access to females etc, just like early humans and even some modern ones. — universeness

Okay, if you want to call every form of conflict "war". My definition of war is less comprehensive.

Do animal groups not war with each other to gain control over an area of land/resources? — universeness

Chimpanzees are the only animals I know that fight their own species for resources. Predatory ants attacking a termite colony does not constitute a war: they're hunting for food, not fighting over contested territory. Some kinds of food can defend themselves better than other kinds of food.

Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world. — 0 thru 9

I wholly agree with this. The sane species get what they need - if they can - and then rest or play. They migrate when they need to, arrive at summer or winter feeding ground, and stay there. Man, I think, is the only animal (besides a few of our pets) that can't quite grasp the concept of "enough".

This sounds like a fine assessment of the fact of the matter, but this doesn't address the foundations for the moral system. For example, are you saying this from an individualistic perspective, where what matters is one's own survival, and the rest of the group is just a means to that end? Or do we intrinsically value other members of our group? Also, why is survival, either as a group or an individual, desirable? — Jerry

There are no conscious, deliberate foundations. Humans evolved from previous social species. There were no 'perspectives'; only needs, instincts, feelings and desires. Every organism is driven by a need for survival - whether desirable or not, it's intrinsic to life. Self-aware organisms are also connected to others of their kind by kinship, affection, interdependence and rivalry. Long before human groups - clans or tribes - developed language sophisticated enough to articulate their beliefs and the rules of behaviour, they had a system of interactions in place; they had a relationship to the environment and to other species. These were givens, long before humans formulated the concept of right and wrong.

Moral systems are very old. They come from humans living together and depending on one another. For the group's and the individual's long-term survival, it is necessary to establish trust among the members of the group. You establish trust by sharing the same values and goals; by being available to help when another member is in trouble; by living up to your obligations and keeping your promises. It's not all that complicated: people need other people, but the only way they count on other people is by proving that other people can count on them.

I read a couple of his books, some time ago, so the memory is hazy. I did like them. The story you cite touches on some aspects of the Genesis story, but I think he's overcomplicated it. I think it was a fairly straightforward myth (originating possibly in Ur, as an exercise in nostalgia) of how change from a diverse nature-based economy to a solidly agricultural one came about, and what was lost thereby.
The same sentiment is echoed in the story of Cain and Abel: the conflict between settled farmers and nomadic herders. The early Hebrews were nomadic herders, but all the great nations around them were fortified cities surrounded by agricultural lands where they and their herds were unwelcome. At that point, they felt marginalized, perhaps persecuted. The god that would eventually choose them demanded sacrifices of animal blood and burned fat, but that wasn't documented until much later... oddly enough after they had taken Jericho and its fertile farmlands.

I started to read it earlier this year. Didn’t finish it then, but now I’m tempted to try again, maybe with an audiobook version from the library. — 0 thru 9

I haven't finished it either. There is a lot of material to digest. I have it on my kindle and read a section between lighter fare, novels and proofreading. (That's done now, thank whomever! But I'm vaguely contemplating a new project.)

It seems like something went askew with civilization at some early juncture. — 0 thru 9

The first thing that went wrong was commercial agriculture. That is, previously, people had cultivated some crops alongside their hunting, fishing, trading and gathering activities. They grew enough food for the tribe, plus a little extra to preserve for winter.
Once urbanization and social stratification came into effect, the peasant class had to produce a huge amount of surplus, to feed the urban population of non-producers. Increasingly, too, the people who worked the land did not own the land. And so, very quickly (over a short period as prehistoric time is reckoned), the urban people were alienated from the land and the rural people became the enemies of nature. That's the day humanity lost its innocence, fell from grace, or however you word it: the parable of Eden.

The best of Civilizational knowledge joined with the core of Indigenous knowledge might be the general direction to proceed. — 0 thru 9

Yes, that's about the size of it. I'm not sure enough of an effort is being made to preserve tribal wisdom, but there are many books and videos on living in and with nature, most of them safely archived for an unforeseen future.

Can we discover a way to go along with the ways of nature AND have continue to have large cities? — 0 thru 9

Probably not so large as New York and Tokyo. But the early and very idea-fertile city states only had populations of 10-30,000. That size is sustainable, I think, especially if the construction is designed properly, along the lines of the Venus Project, Earthship neighbourhoods or co-housing units, that incorporate independent home workshops, educational facilities and urban farming. I think it's important to be within walking distance of all one's basic necessities and social interactions.

I warmly recommend this book The Dawn of Everything. Very well researched, packed with information and pleasant to read.

With all the references, like it's some kind of cultural icon, I almost wish I had seen that show. Unfortunately, ever since the travesty of Merlin, the trailer of every new midievaly, magicky tv series breaks me out in hives.
Best joke of the gods: they make us special, choosing us and placing us at the tippy-top of [their] creation... and then plop a naked emperor down on our heads. The Klingons did one intelligent thing: killing their gods - not that it seems to have profited them any.
I

Upon maturity, it is easy to see it was asking for a lot, maybe asking for easy answers. — 0 thru 9

To your credit, you didn't fall back on religion as so many do. That's the main draw of religion: absolute certainty; simple answers to hard questions like "How should we live?" "What are right and wrong?" "What do owe one another and our society?" "What is the purpose of life?"
Contrary to what many atheists like to repeat, religion was not the answer to "How did the world begin?" or "What causes thunder?" - those questions either do no arise of their own accord, or are dealt-with in myth, legend and folklore - no gods required. Gods were invented to hand down commandments and to favour us with supernatural power if we please them. That is: they command us and we manipulate them.
Thence comes also the divine right of kings and infallibility of popes and evangelists, and of political dogma and the rise of dictators. They give us rules, solidarity, certainty and purpose - "something greater than myself" to belong to. (For me, clan, tribe and biota are bigger enough.)

I imagine that maybe some power brokers wouldn’t want to show their cards.
It might reflect badly on them, or give their opponents / victims an advantage.
Or maybe the concept to too difficult to pin down?
Or maybe it is just a ‘work in progress’? — 0 thru 9

Make that all power-brokers and all of the above. Having an edge, an advantage is all. What to do with the advantage is to be decided, one win at a time.

and Big History was not yet ‘a thing’. :nerd: — 0 thru 9

Thanks, I'll look into that my next month or so of lunches by the stove.

These, combined with the eventual more formal education, instill in the child a general picture of the world and what goals are considered most important.
Whatever ’level’ or ‘class’ one may happen to identify with doesn’t alter the overall story that the child is told. — 0 thru 9

Yes!! [vintage reference]Romper Room may teach the little tykes about responsibility and good citizenship, but it's immediately followed by Tom and Jerry or Buggs Bunny. [/vintage reference] So the children internalize, before they have the remotest chance of being able to analyze it, that we have to pretend civility while preying on others and doing them down; that ultimately, all conflict must be resolved with fists or guns. We have to be charitable, but only tough guys get any respect. Plus the prettiest/richest girl, who will thenceforward meekly do his bidding.

I think the word ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ is appropriate here... any teaching about meaning, purpose, destiny, etc is in the realm of story, myth, and shared wisdom.
I use these terms neutrally and without any negative connotations (ie myth = untrue). — 0 thru 9

:clap: :clap: :clap:
That's an idea I have been largely unable to convey. One of the perversions of 20th century American English (I've been making an informal study of this phenomenon for decades now) has been to equate mythology (the story of a people's origin, identity and relationships) with specific small-scale lies; i.e. to cheapen mythology, in the same way that art is debased by printing copies of famous paintings on neckties and coffee mugs. That is part of the homogenization of cultures to which you referred earlier (becoming one global civilization) - by the simplest, easiest method: bring everything down to a mass-produced commodity.

oppressive, they almost always appreciated a metal axe or a glass bottle. — 0 thru 9

So, you have seen The Gods Must Be Crazy
Some good lessons there!

Cultures (small to medium sized)…
Civilization (large with cities, division of labor etc)… — 0 thru 9

Empires - civilization that expands aggressively

Global Civilization (the whole ball of wax).

The logical end-game of imperialism.

Early human states had purposes? — 0 thru 9

Day-to-day, year-to-year purposes. Fortify the walls. Deepen the irrigation canals. Raid Nubia for more slaves to build a road. Open a new trading route to the Occident.
That's not the same as an overarching long-term plan. 5th century Gaul didn't plot its way to 21st century EU any more than evolution had Mighty Man in Mind when it preserved the more efficient mosquito or longer-tailed lyre bird. Civilizations are no more intelligent or aware than is nature.

These 'low population' early hunter gatherer communities you cite, did not have reproductive directives that prevented their group growing significantly in population size. — universeness

I didn't cite early hunter-gatherers. I specifically referred to mixed economy cultures. They certainly had some reproductive regulation, but nature mostly prevented overpopulation; one severe winter could take a third of the tribe.

The land they occupied could become no longer tenable for their needs, for many reasons, — universeness

There was no evidence of this in North Amerca when the white settlers began to "tame" all that vast empty wilderness in which the native peoples were spread quite thinly.

A point is reached where they needed more than the land they were on provided.

There was occasional expansion of territory and clashes between neighbouring tribes, but for the most part, nobody 'provided' anybody with land; the people moved about freely from summer to winter settlements or seasonal hunting grounds.

Humans when faced with problems, especially existential ones, try to find a better solution. Hence such inventions as agriculture and farming etc and 'cities' and 'civilisations.' — universeness

Yes, that experiment was very successfully tried by several societies, resulting in the big, unhappy, unhealthy, oppressive, self-congratulatory and aggressive nation-states.

What are you suggesting could have been done, to prevent the nasty sides of human 'civilisation,' happening? — universeness

Nothing, obviously. It happened.

How could we maintain small bands of nomadic tribes, who were all able to feed, water, clothe and provide secure warm shelter for everyone in each group, without encroaching on each others territory or resources?

Next time? If there are human survivors, with the lessons learned from the past and the technology we preserve from the present.

There are earlier settlements, but an early city style human civilisation has a cut off population size, for it to be considered a 'civilisation.' — universeness

That's how I've been calling it, too, when I say civilization was where the human race went drastically wrong. But, in fact, the previous, low-density cultures were not quite so haphazard as you depict them here. Many were settled in one place, or migrated back and forth between winter and summer residences, had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and farming, had complex language and folklore, advanced handicrafts, knowledge of their environment and resources and extensive networks of commerce and social interaction, alliances and treaties, as well as border disputes, with other tribes.

He, it seems, wanted to 'conquer the world' and impose the Macedonian/Greek notion of what civilisation was and create a human world that lived the way dictated by Alex and his cronies. — universeness

I don't think he cared how anybody chose to live. What he set out to conquer were actually more sophisticated civilizations than the Macedonian backwater. I think he just wanted, first to outdo his old man and smash the ascendancy of Greece, then dominion and tribute. Lots of lovely loot during the conquest itself and lots more from vassal states thereafter. Plus his name all over everything - like other megalomaniacs we've known.

Before Rome, all the civilizations were stratified and specialized, with strict legal codes, tithing and citizens', subject people's and slaves' obligations, but if the scattered writings are anything to go by, the religious beliefs and family relations of vassal states were not regulated by the conqueror. Even the Roman policy was tolerant of other cultures until Constantine's conversion. I think, though I haven't researched it so can't be sure, that one-god, one church, everything else must be destroyed BS is the Christian influence.

’ve probably stretched the metaphor to its breaking point — 0 thru 9

Yeah... I was referring human civilization. There have been lots of plans and schemes and strategies and agendas, but always short term - a couple of decades, max. The overall tendency of all city-states have been to subsume their neighbours and become nation-states, and from there, empires, bigger and bigger empires, as transport and weapon technology advanced. I don't think anyone in the steering elite of Athens or Kashi or Zanzibar sat down and worked out a timetable of imperialism - it's just that the pressures of growing population and the prospect of increasing wealth tend to escalate aggressive trade to open intimidation and finally conquest.
Power goes to men's heads; it's addictive; as long as they're successful, they can't stop. And their people - the peasants and artisans whose sons are pressed into the armies, have little say in the matter. If the emperor is savvy, he actively promotes his adventuring as "the glory of Rome" or wherever and persuade the population that his success is their success; his power over another nation is their individual power over the men of that nation. People who are perfectly competent to design a barn or calculate the number of horseshoes they can make from a 10 lira load of iron turn their brains off and start waving flags. Women, too, when the fever spreads wide enough. The very people called upon to make the greatest sacrifices take pride in their nation, their empire (I'm sure there are still a few old Brits who indulge in that nostalgia), their mighty sovereign.
Now, it's done mostly with money, but the troops still troop dutifully off to foreign lands.

Ah-yup!

Let's imagine someone waking up from a coma or a long deep sleep. They would be confused about why they are in a confined space with walls and silence. In this situation, they wouldn't even be able to guess the time. — Corvus

They would not be able to guess the position of the planet in relation to the sun, or how much time had elapsed while they experienced nothing. They would not, however infer a concept of 'nothingness' from the walls: they would, instead, experience it as confinement: my body in an enclosed space. Their thought process would be a continuation of whatever their circumstances were before the coma. Therefore, from waking onward, they would estimate the passage of time in the units of measurement they had been accustomed to: minutes, hours and days, most commonly.

They might try to remember what happened before they went into the deep sleep, but what if their mind is blank and they can't recall anything? — Corvus

Then they would be as a newborn babe, in urgent need of nourishment and stimulation. Without memories or current events, language or objects on which to focus attention, their mind would have no material to work on. Time would hardly be of any concern - except that the more of it passed in isolation, the more of the mind would be lost. It would be an interesting horror experiment to see how soon the subject becomes catatonic.

If time exists in the universe, — Corvus

Nobody's ever even faked a blurry picture of it. Of course it doesn't 'exist', any more than colour, size and speed exist: these are attributes of material entities.

If one is put into a room with no windows, but just 4 walls, floor and ceiling, and he has been kept in the space for few days, he will never have a single clue on the amount of time passed — Corvus

If he has a body, he experiences time through the changes in his body. Most urgently, increasing thirst, and by the end of five or six days, dying. If he were fed and watered at intervals, he could experience less significant changes: sleep and waking, boredom and terror, beard and fingernails growing, the arrival of food and need to eliminate. That's how you generally mark the passage of time in solitary confinement, hospital or long train rides: mealtimes.

But then walls and a body are something. Even a disembodied consciousness is something. The problem here is not with time - which you're absolutely right has no autonomous existence - but the concept of "nothing".

Scandinavian countries are not really socialist in principle, they've just been more democratic than the US - no classes of citizen excluded from the political system, no concerted effort to squash trade unions, and therefore more of the services and social welfare programs that working people want. There is a further advantage of monolithic populations (until recently, and look what happens when a different ethnic element is added) They've also had excellent education, resulting in well-informed, liberal-minded and enterprising citizenry - until recently.
Remember, the USA has been governed by plutocrats from its inception. It has always had a diverse, mutually hostile and ruthlessly stratified population and very spotty record in public information. Add the aggressive religious movements and a culture of hero-worship and factional scapegoating - how can democracy stand a chance?
Social progress is made for disenfranchised segments of society only when there is a major shock to the economic and political elite.

Sometimes I admire ants and bees for their seemingly high-functioning societies. — 0 thru 9

It's no accident that these are some of the longest-surviving species - ants go back 150+ million years, fundamentally unchanged, while constantly adapting to changed environments and conditions. Their organization works for creatures of their brain-size and requirements.
It wouldn't work for us in the same way, because of the big brain, but enhanced communication among the workers should certainly help us figure out what does work. Horizontal communication, not having the same big mouth at the top dictate what everyone should think.