Is civilisation linear or cyclical

a reply to: strongfp

No one is dismissing these sorts of people's ability to convey their message, or speak, go ahead, but when they get called out for being wrong then they can't complain. Graham Hancock is a prime example.

People dismiss him outright now because he's been proven wrong on many occasions, and it's not like he's just hammering out posts on a forum like here and it's mostly bants, he's publishing things and then attacking people with credentials saying they're trying to cancel him and such, and then continues on to talk about whatever pseudo history he comes up with next.

Academia (those with impeccable credentials) does the same thing. I gave a few examples earlier, but any quick search on google for something like..."things science was wrong about" will net you article after article of blunders from the last 20 years on up to more than a century ago, yet their hubris is more in your face than ever.
Things science got wrong

J. Allen Hynek once said, "Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.”

I think more academics could stand to read that quote daily.

But, if they don't have credentials and speak as is they absolutely know, then you better have some solid homework done. That's all.

I feel this way whether or not they have credentials. I don't think we're so far off from one another. The only difference I really see is, I don't cut academics any slack because they have a doctorate. I hold them to the same standard as I do the so-called pseudo-scientists. Especially after the last few years.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Klassified

" Rejecting or accepting information based solely on credentials is foolish."

That is Exactly what the " Scientific Community " does . Control the Narrative by Disclaiming the Messenger .

Their actions often seem to reflect such an attitude.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Byrd

And apparently he's not real good with hunting up information. Or math. Gobekli Tepi was 8,000 years ago which puts a "reset" at 1000 BC (and you can clearly see from what civilizations around the world were doing and writing that this is not true).

Located in the Germuş mountains of south-eastern Anatolia, this property presents monumental round-oval and rectangular megalithic structures erected by hunter-gatherers in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic age between 9,600 and 8,200 BCE. These monuments were probably used in connection with rituals, most likely of a funerary nature. Distinctive T-shaped pillars are carved with images of wild animals, providing insight into the way of life and beliefs of people living in Upper Mesopotamia about 11,500 years ago.

UNESCO

Thank you. I couldn't remember if it was 8,000 years ago or 8,000 BCE. Brain picked the wrong one.

However, it does show that things aren't cyclical. There's no drop back in that area to wandering tiny groups that live in small caves and brush shelters. Instead the area continues to progress, with villages springing up and later cities and city states. We see local "dark ages" (think Greece from 1100 BC to 700 BC (en.wikipedia.org...)) but the rest of the world isn't much affected by this. The Sea Peoples do invade but don't cause Egypt to crumble back into an age of wandering bands of humans living in brush huts.

Both, but not in the way you might think. More cyclical than anything, but on macro planetary levels and also on the universal scale. It just goes round. However there are linear threads running through it all too.

a reply to: Byrd

However, it does show that things aren't cyclical. There's no drop back in that area to wandering tiny groups that live in small caves and brush shelters. Instead the area continues to progress, with villages springing up and later cities and city states. We see local "dark ages" (think Greece from 1100 BC to 700 BC (en.wikipedia.org...)) but the rest of the world isn't much affected by this. The Sea Peoples do invade but don't cause Egypt to crumble back into an age of wandering bands of humans living in brush huts.

At least not for the last 11,000 to 12,000 years anyway.

Civilization is like flushing a turd.

It circles around for a while and then goes under.

But every now and then you get one that floats.

a reply to: Byrd

Thank you. I couldn't remember if it was 8,000 years ago or 8,000 BCE. Brain picked the wrong one.

It’s approx 11,500 years ago or 9,500 BCE so 8,000 years ago or BCE is still making it seem much younger than it really is. By that time it was deliberately covered.

As for civilisation being cyclical, it seems most probable that certain events, such as a big meteor impact would have a destructive consequence on civilisations.

This Universe is a SIMULATION:

going back to OP
I think civilization runs like a sine wave, up and down and back up

China is a great example. they have successful dynasties that fall and the new one takes over.
I'm told this matches with weather events; every 200 years or so they get floods/droughts that bring starvation that brings revolution that brings a new dynasty. the weather settles and things get better.

Western civ reached a peak in the Roman empire, declined to the dark ages, and renaissanced. I wonder if we're due for a fall.
(btw the similarities between Rome and USA are troubling)

a reply to: ElGoobero


In 536 AD it looks like when Krakatoa went off a decline was so absolute that it changed everything all over the world. In Mexico, it appears that a thirty-year drought occurred. This is a well-thought-out theory .

a reply to: anonentity

The Hidden Truth is revealed: Grandpa Dreamed of Heavenly Rest: He Got Demonic Hell and Forced Reincarnation:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: anonentity

Linear, but a little sawtoothed. Think how far we have advanced in the last six thousand years. And think how far back we have found fossil remains, tools, and other hominem-made materials. If there was a widespread, advanced civilization, we would've found evidence of it by now. We don't even find cycles in pre-historic artifacts. Globekli Tepe and places like it -- all of which seem to be in Asia Minor -- appear to be the forerunners of what we know as ancient civilization, i.e. post Neolithic. Now were there "islands" or areas of relatively advanced civilization (but that's a relative term) that most likely have not withstood time? Sure.


Don't know what the guy in the video, Braden, means by composite material. Something besides stone??? Perhaps is a composite rock, which has several lairs of material, but not buying that it was created rock.

And having a BS in Geology and possibly some work in the field doesn't a geologist make.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ElGoobero


In 536 AD it looks like when Krakatoa went off a decline was so absolute that it changed everything all over the world. In Mexico, it appears that a thirty-year drought occurred. This is a well-thought-out theory.

That period certainly saw disruptions in societies, but everything didn't collapse completely. We didn't go back to reinventing the wheel, let alone forgetting how to forge iron. Agrarian societies remained. There was not a world-wide reversion to hunter-gatherer society. Society changed after the Black Death too, i.e. it spawned the Renaissance, which a growth spurt in civilization. That is why my answer to your original question is that civilization's development is linear, but sawtoothed. One can make a similar case that it is linear with a sinusoid superimposed on it.

And contrary to popular understanding, the Dark Ages weren't as dark as they are made out to be. The supposed Dark Ages lasted some 900 years in European history, between the 5th and 14th century, yet there were plenty of advancements during that time.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

If we can't replicate some of the ancient stonework it means that that piece of knowledge has completely gone. So it is reasonable to assume something halted its progression down to us. So it would have had to be something big because this stonework was everywhere. Polygonal that is, if it was common then it should have been easy to make as it popped up everywhere on earth. Independently according to some thinkers. I think we are about to find out what a large disruption looks like, and since it seems to be affecting the whole solar system, I would agree saw-toothed and linear until it is not. This is from the suspicious observer. Which does suggest both linear and cyclical. www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: MrInquisitive

If we can't replicate some of the ancient stonework it means that that piece of knowledge has completely gone. So it is reasonable to assume something halted its progression down to us. So it would have had to be something big because this stonework was everywhere. Polygonal that is, if it was common then it should have been easy to make as it popped up everywhere on earth. Independently according to some thinkers. I think we are about to find out what a large disruption looks like, and since it seems to be affecting the whole solar system, I would agree saw-toothed and linear until it is not. This is from the suspicious observer. Which does suggest both linear and cyclical. www.youtube.com...

Braden is claiming there is some plastic epoxy used in conjunction with ground stone, but provides no evidence of it. What's the composition of this "plastic" epoxy. Claims there was hair in the material. Needs to provide some evidence, otherwise it is an unsubstantiated claim. Limestone doesn't necessarily show lamination; it can, but doesn't have to. If it was created mostly by precipitation, it wouldn't necessarily have laminae.

My understanding is that the methodologies for ancient stonework are understood. I could be wrong. I have seen explanations for the creation of the pyramid stones.

Don't know what polygonal rocks you are referring to. Didn't catch it in the Braden video.

Braden claims there was a previously existing "highly advanced technological society", or at least hypothesizes that there was. Extraordinary claims require very good evidence. He claims some film crew from LA went to Antartica, and that they "disappeared". He makes all kinds of far-fetched claims and provides no evidence. As said by at least one other poster, he is a snake oil salesman.

As for the second video, I agree that major geological catastrophes can greatly affect civilization, not to mention threats from space -- asteroids, comets and massive solar flare. However, at this point, the next great catastrophe affecting civilization will likely be human caused.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

If ever there was a red alert for a former worldwide civilization. It would be the worldwide distribution of polygonal blocks. They can't be replicated today, which means that they are hard to make, so the chance of this building technique being developed independently is remote.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: MrInquisitive

If ever there was a red alert for a former worldwide civilization. It would be the worldwide distribution of polygonal blocks. They can't be replicated today, which means that they are hard to make, so the chance of this building technique being developed independently is remote.

There are different types of pyramids throughout the world, but it doesn't mean that they came about through a worldwide civilization. Seems reasonable that separate stone-masonry civilizations came up with polygonal blocks independently. Looked at some sources on polygonal blocks, some text and some video, and I didn't find anywhere that said it not understood how they were fashioned. Did find that they are more complicated to make and required special tools and expert craftsmen; hence, later walls were make with square or rectangular blocks that can be built with unskilled labor, i.e. more quickly and cheaper.

Also found that the polygonal stones are arranged so that their irregular faces are concealed within the wall, while their regular faces are carefully arranged to form the outer surface of the wall. Also learned that these walls are not free standing, but act as retaining walls as well as defensive purposes.

Here's one video I found on the subject (see explanation beginning at 11:07):



Part of the explanation is that these ancient civilizations were well versed with stone usage, so they certainly knew more about how to do it than we do, as we don't use such technology anymore. The Egyptian mummification process and Greek fire technologies have also been lost, but it is not a matter of them being more advanced; they just did things with the materials and technologies available to them. China at one point had a great sailing ship fleet and technology, but one emperor, for political reasons decided to erase that technology, which set China back. Similarly, modern people would have a hard time making sailing ships to match those made in the 18th and 19th century, but that is because better technologies have come along, so very few retain the older technological know-how.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Yes it is reasonable that if you only worked stone, you would get better at it, but the polygonal walls seem to appear in the ice-free areas of the last glaciation. They appear from Easter Island to Ireland and all the other well-known sites. Then like a lot of the other sites appears to have been built on again using a simpler technique

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Yes it is reasonable that if you only worked stone, you would get better at it, but the polygonal walls seem to appear in the ice-free areas of the last glaciation. They appear from Easter Island to Ireland and all the other well-known sites. Then like a lot of the other sites appears to have been built on again using a simpler technique

My understanding is that the walls of Cuzco Peru are one of the famous polygonal wall sites. That place is at an elevation of 11,152 ft in the Andes. It had to be glaciated during the Ice age. Out of curiosity looked into Ireland and found that most of it was under iced from 30k to 14k years ago.

Sure, there are also polygonal walls in the Mediterranean, which wasn't covered by ice, but said area was also long settled by civilized cultures.

As I said before, the polygonal walls required more technical expertise, as well as needed to be built along hillsides as a sort of retaining wall. So square blocks, which could be used to build free-standing walls and which could be built with unskilled, hence cheaper, labor were more advantageous. Polygonal walls fell out of use on account of this, or so the explanations I found say. Modern house construction, for example, sure shows that people migrate to simpler and cheaper construction techniques. I once lived in a house made with stone and bricks and had leaded windows. It was built in 1928, and had a rolling cedar shake roof (looked like a gingerbread house). Good luck finding craftsmen to do that in this age. But you wouldn't say the 1920's were more advanced than the 2020's, would you?

And where is evidence of other coincident advanced technologies at the polygonal wall sites? I don't see this one technology, which was more advanced, but also much more expensive and time consuming than later wall-building technology as being evidence of a prior, more advanced civilization. One would need more archeological evidence to confirm this hypothesis before it makes for a working theory.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

That's if it was that height during the ice age. As far as finding more advanced tech it all depends on your definition of advanced tech.