<p>Not a real explanation of why writing or cities appeared where they appeared but by that time humans had already spread to many parts of the world so I am not sure there is any particular need to explain why they did not appear in southern Africa, specifically.</p>

<p>Also, the “cradle of humankind” in Gauteng is a large source of hominin fossils (possibly for reasons that have more to do with their preservation than anything else), not of <em>homo sapiens sapiens</em> or anatomically modern humans. We are not talking about the same periods at all (millions of years before present vs. 200 000 years for <em>homo sapiens sapiens</em> and 6000 years for writing).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T06:33:58.453Z
@what This is not “my” question but have you actually read it? It *is* about the place of origin of various things and why they appeared in some places and not in others. You might find speculation about why humans “strive for technology” interesting (I do not) but it's simply not what was asked.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T08:23:54.337Z
This is silly, except the three, rather vague, words “What drives civilization?”, the question is entirely about why it appeared in one place but not the other. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this is “secondary” and obviously no mention of the human psyche, social norms, etc.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T08:59:26.187Z
You are being disingenuous, the intent is clearly expressed by the question as a whole, if you would only read it honestly instead of trying to make a point… Why would you ignore almost all the first paragraph and the concluding question, something like 4/5 of the text? And even if you personally prefer to focus on something else, why pretend this is not, at least in part, what the question is about?
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T14:07:21.280Z
Granted the two are not in the same period. It was for illustration. If the species found subsistence in that part of the continent wouldn't they have developed near where the fossils were found till atleast some later age?
Everyone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T05:52:00.867Z
2013-08-01T05:52:00.867Z
Gala
<p>In my opinion the question is not of-topic, because of two reasons:</p>

<p>1) Scientifically, it is hard to approve or not, but Sigmund Freud wrote about it in book: Totem and Taboo wrote that civilization start when human offsprings decided not to kill father and that strongest among them become new "leadeor of herd/doggery" It could explain debate cradle of humanity - craddle of civilization.</p>

<p>2) In Social psychology it is known model of Terror management theory. In this wikipedia articles you have numerous references.</p>

<p>Why I think it is relevant for this web site is relation: neuroscience - cognitive science - social psychology and related social cognition and socila neuroscience.</p>

<p>EDIT: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory#References" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory#References</a></p>

<p>EDIT2: Answer: According to Terror management theory people are interested to maintain civilization to maintain illusion of immortality.</p>

<p>Source: Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes</p>

<p><a href="http://books.google.hr/books?id=4AVi-a7_BCAC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Blackwell+Handbook+of+Social+Psychology:+Intraindividual+Processes+terror+management+theory&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kk-BnZbm_X&amp;sig=HX6p9AjKGxjPmJMUTpGpB7Eb3Cg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8Cn6UfvqJYLLtQb89YCYDg&amp;ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Blackwell%20Handbook%20of%20Social%20Psychology%3A%20Intraindividual%20Processes%20terror%20management%20theory&amp;f=false" rel="nofollow">http://books.google.hr/books?id=4AVi-a7_BCAC&amp;pg=PA281&amp;lpg=PA281&amp;dq=Blackwell+Handbook+of+Social+Psychology:+Intraindividual+Processes+terror+management+theory&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=kk-BnZbm_X&amp;sig=HX6p9AjKGxjPmJMUTpGpB7Eb3Cg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=8Cn6UfvqJYLLtQb89YCYDg&amp;ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Blackwell%20Handbook%20of%20Social%20Psychology%3A%20Intraindividual%20Processes%20terror%20management%20theory&amp;f=false</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T09:29:55.470Z
i added in EDIT2 direct answer.
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T08:54:15.287Z
2013-08-01T09:29:12.483Z
2013-08-01T09:29:12.483Z
ICanFeelIt
<p>Fossil record indicates humanity arose on the African Continent - in/around Gauteng. Yet the oldest civilizations on record are far afield - Ebla, Mesopotamia</p>

<p><strong>What drives <em>civilization</em>?</strong> Why is the cradle of civilization not nearer the cradle of humanity?</p>

<p>In my opinion <em>civilization</em> is that state of intellect when beings of a community recognize that collaboration rather than competition for resources is feasible, and actively work in that direction (granted we humans still have competition at the level of village, town, company, &amp; nation). Unlike other contemporary civilizations (ants and bees for instance) humans are not segregated into castes such as the warrior, worker - intellect drives human civilization. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T08:30:38.070Z
Except… it did not appear everywhere and it took a long time between the appearance of anatomically modern humans and anything that could be called civilization. Any sensible explanation will need to account for that and this makes the question a lot more interesting, even from a cognitive science perspective (say about the role of context and culture as opposed to inborn capacities on cognition), than speculations about general tendencies of the human psyche.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T08:32:12.233Z
You can of course try to identify some “psychological traits” that made it possible and give them a name but, as an explanation, it's mostly empty, in effect saying something like “humans developed civilization because they strive for civilization”.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T09:57:23.973Z
You seem awfully quick in making sweeping statements about human history (here and elsewhere). There is such a thing as “cognitive anthropology” and it might provide relevant insights. Also, ever heard about “constructivism”? That humans are endowed with a universal tendency to think and socialize in certain ways and that beyond that it's all down to environmental determinism is one view but it is by no means obvious (and you seem to have your geography a little confused, Africa is/was not a desert and agriculture did exist there as well…).
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T09:58:14.023Z
I frankly don't know what could come out of the question but summarily closing it based on this sort of superficial thinking is not very useful. Besides, it's not like the question is unanswerable as such or that we have too many of them on this site, so I really don't see the practical benefit in closing it.
Gala
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T10:25:38.937Z
*civilization is that state of being where beings of a community recognize that collaboration rather than competition for resources*.  To paraphrase Ghandi (When asked what he thought of Western civilization): "I think it would be a splendid idea."
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T13:38:12.027Z
@gerrit: Fixed the incomplete sentence there; thanks for pointing it out. 

p.s. It's spelt 'Gandhi', not 'Ghandi'.
Everyone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T13:40:29.320Z
@Everyone I didn't even notice the incomplete sentence!
gerrit
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T14:01:56.880Z
@what: I beg to differ ; the question asks not why humans and human civilization appear in specific places. For instance, if one were to look at the general area of Egypt - a sensible assumption would be the ancient Egyptians (whoever they were) constructed the Pyramids, and were in charge of that region
Everyone
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T16:14:17.967Z
@Everyone Why do you think humans are not separated into castes? You mean genetically? There are classes instead of classes. In India there are also classes with hard boundaries named casta.
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-01T16:17:57.453Z
Can someone explain why this is not question for CogSci. It is question about centrifugal forces among people and places. Even Richard S. Lazarus with cognitive-mediational theory of emotion had references to teritory...
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-03T08:15:44.470Z
@ICanFeelIt There may be an underlying question that is on-topic here, but as it stands, this at present is asking a question that is more anthropological in nature, which many of us felt was off-topic for the site.  To be sure, it's an interesting question, but to veer off-scope requires some discussion on Meta and a consensus.
Chuck Sherrington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-03T08:17:33.743Z
See, for example, http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/254/is-sociology-on-topic which is something that was discussed during the early stages of the site's development.  Perhaps we need to revisit it.
Chuck Sherrington
<social-psychology><evolution><rationality>
What drives civilization?
Everyone
# What drives civilization?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-01)

Fossil record indicates humanity arose on the African Continent - in/around Gauteng. Yet the oldest civilizations on record are far afield - Ebla, Mesopotamia

**What drives *civilization*?** Why is the cradle of civilization not nearer the cradle of humanity?

In my opinion *civilization* is that state of intellect when beings of a community recognize that collaboration rather than competition for resources is feasible, and actively work in that direction (granted we humans still have competition at the level of village, town, company, & nation). Unlike other contemporary civilizations (ants and bees for instance) humans are not segregated into castes such as the warrior, worker - intellect drives human civilization.

**Tags:** social-psychology, evolution, rationality

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Except… it did not appear everywhere and it took a long time between the appearance of anatomically modern humans and anything that could be called civilization. Any sensible explanation will need to account for that and this makes the question a lot more interesting, even from a cognitive science perspective (say about the role of context and culture as opposed to inborn capacities on cognition), than speculations about general tendencies of the human psyche.  
> **username_1**: You can of course try to identify some “psychological traits” that made it possible and give them a name but, as an explanation, it's mostly empty, in effect saying something like “humans developed civilization because they strive for civilization”.  
> **username_1**: You seem awfully quick in making sweeping statements about human history (here and elsewhere). There is such a thing as “cognitive anthropology” and it might provide relevant insights. Also, ever heard about “constructivism”? That humans are endowed with a universal tendency to think and socialize in certain ways and that beyond that it's all down to environmental determinism is one view but it is by no means obvious (and you seem to have your geography a little confused, Africa is/was not a desert and agriculture did exist there as well…).  
> **username_1**: I frankly don't know what could come out of the question but summarily closing it based on this sort of superficial thinking is not very useful. Besides, it's not like the question is unanswerable as such or that we have too many of them on this site, so I really don't see the practical benefit in closing it.  
> **username_2**: *civilization is that state of being where beings of a community recognize that collaboration rather than competition for resources*.  To paraphrase Ghandi (When asked what he thought of Western civilization): "I think it would be a splendid idea."  
> **username_0**: @username_2: Fixed the incomplete sentence there; thanks for pointing it out.   p.s. It's spelt 'Gandhi', not 'Ghandi'.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I didn't even notice the incomplete sentence!  
> **username_0**: @what: I beg to differ ; the question asks not why humans and human civilization appear in specific places. For instance, if one were to look at the general area of Egypt - a sensible assumption would be the ancient Egyptians (whoever they were) constructed the Pyramids, and were in charge of that region  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Why do you think humans are not separated into castes? You mean genetically? There are classes instead of classes. In India there are also classes with hard boundaries named casta.  
> **username_3**: Can someone explain why this is not question for CogSci. It is question about centrifugal forces among people and places. Even Richard S. Lazarus with cognitive-mediational theory of emotion had references to teritory...  
> **username_4**: @username_3 There may be an underlying question that is on-topic here, but as it stands, this at present is asking a question that is more anthropological in nature, which many of us felt was off-topic for the site.  To be sure, it's an interesting question, but to veer off-scope requires some discussion on Meta and a consensus.  
> **username_4**: See, for example, http://meta.cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/254/is-sociology-on-topic which is something that was discussed during the early stages of the site's development.  Perhaps we need to revisit it.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-08-01. Score: 2

Not a real explanation of why writing or cities appeared where they appeared but by that time humans had already spread to many parts of the world so I am not sure there is any particular need to explain why they did not appear in southern Africa, specifically.

Also, the “cradle of humankind” in Gauteng is a large source of hominin fossils (possibly for reasons that have more to do with their preservation than anything else), not of *homo sapiens sapiens* or anatomically modern humans. We are not talking about the same periods at all (millions of years before present vs. 200 000 years for *homo sapiens sapiens* and 6000 years for writing).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: @what This is not “my” question but have you actually read it? It *is* about the place of origin of various things and why they appeared in some places and not in others. You might find speculation about why humans “strive for technology” interesting (I do not) but it's simply not what was asked.  
> **username_1**: This is silly, except the three, rather vague, words “What drives civilization?”, the question is entirely about why it appeared in one place but not the other. There is absolutely nothing to suggest this is “secondary” and obviously no mention of the human psyche, social norms, etc.  
> **username_1**: You are being disingenuous, the intent is clearly expressed by the question as a whole, if you would only read it honestly instead of trying to make a point… Why would you ignore almost all the first paragraph and the concluding question, something like 4/5 of the text? And even if you personally prefer to focus on something else, why pretend this is not, at least in part, what the question is about?  
> **username_0**: Granted the two are not in the same period. It was for illustration. If the species found subsistence in that part of the continent wouldn't they have developed near where the fossils were found till atleast some later age?  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-08-01. Score: 1

In my opinion the question is not of-topic, because of two reasons:

1) Scientifically, it is hard to approve or not, but Sigmund Freud wrote about it in book: Totem and Taboo wrote that civilization start when human offsprings decided not to kill father and that strongest among them become new "leadeor of herd/doggery" It could explain debate cradle of humanity - craddle of civilization.

2) In Social psychology it is known model of Terror management theory. In this wikipedia articles you have numerous references.

Why I think it is relevant for this web site is relation: neuroscience - cognitive science - social psychology and related social cognition and socila neuroscience.

EDIT: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory#References>

EDIT2: Answer: According to Terror management theory people are interested to maintain civilization to maintain illusion of immortality.

Source: Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes

<http://books.google.hr/books?id=4AVi-a7_BCAC&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=Blackwell+Handbook+of+Social+Psychology:+Intraindividual+Processes+terror+management+theory&source=bl&ots=kk-BnZbm_X&sig=HX6p9AjKGxjPmJMUTpGpB7Eb3Cg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8Cn6UfvqJYLLtQb89YCYDg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Blackwell%20Handbook%20of%20Social%20Psychology%3A%20Intraindividual%20Processes%20terror%20management%20theory&f=false>

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: i added in EDIT2 direct answer.  

---

