4A Chalk Talk by Scott Wissocki

yeah

2025-09-08 17:46:39 UTC

I think this is true; most if not all large civilizations today have some form of a class system. While equal treatment of all would be great, in practice it never seems to be actually feasible.

2025-09-08 17:47:06 UTC

I think class divisions are necessary because they create structure in society, with each group contributing in different ways to keep things running smoothly. Without them I think chaos would happen since not everyone would know their role or responsibilities.

Agree

2025-09-08 17:47:32 UTC

Having different classes results in many people assuming different specializations or jobs, depending on their status. For example the wealthy may become leaders and scholars, while the poor may work more manual labor jobs. Overall, many different jobs is important in a functional civilization, and I believe that class divisions causes more people to take jobs they otherwise would not.

2025-09-08 17:48:00 UTC

I disagree with that idea because I think people outside of major civilizations still have rich histories than can be seen through oral traditions, cultural practices, and community memory.

2025-09-08 17:48:03 UTC

While class divisions are not necessary for a healthy civilization, they definitely help in some areas. Especially for a new civilization, people may not know what to do in a civilization and a system like this can help keep them organized.

no

2025-09-08 17:48:33 UTC

Just because people live outside civilizations does not mean that they have no history: they can still interact with other civilizations and make an effect. For example, pastoral societies consisted of people living outside civilizations, and they still interacted with the civilizations around them and became a part of history.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 17:48:40 UTC

Class divisions are necessary and healthy for a civilization because they allow for a society and civilization to half a certain hierarchal structure. However, if this leads to discriminatory practices it is not good as that can lead to civil unrest and discrimination.

Yes

2025-09-08 17:48:42 UTC

I think this statement is true- having class divisions allows individuals to understand where they are on the social ladder and maintains a pecking order.

Disagree

2025-09-08 17:49:01 UTC

Humans have had an extremely long history and a massive proportion of it has been without civilization in hunting and gathering communities. Many of these people outside of civilization may not have been documented as well, but they still did have a rich culture.

100210741 — 2025-09-08 17:49:01 UTC

I disagree. Although people outside of civilization may have a harder time being documented, they still have some form of history (just like all humans do). History can be upheld through culture and tradition, which doesn't have to exist strictly in a civilization.

Disagree

2025-09-08 17:49:06 UTC

I disagree with this statement. People who live outside of civilization have a unique history because they represent alternative forms of living compared to those living in civilizations. It is essential to comprehend how other humans lived during this period and their own beliefs and practices beyond these civilizations. People who live outside of civilizations have their own way of life, their own religious beliefs, and their own culture, and it is essential to recognize this.

2025-09-08 17:49:12 UTC

I disagree with this statement because civilization is always changing. What might be defined as a proper "civilization" some centuries ago may certainly not be regarded as one in the far future due to changing social norms and the progression of human society. For example, while any sort of government authority may have been fit for a civilization many years ago, some people today may argue that societies without a democratic government are not a civilization by itself. The meaning changes as time pasts.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 17:49:18 UTC

Class divisions are necessary and healthy for a civilization because it creates a social hierarchy that gives structure to society. Without them, there would be a lot of confusion because everyone would be at the same level and different roles would not be filled.

2025-09-08 17:49:20 UTC

While class divisions may occur naturally within a civilization, they are not a requirement for a healthy civilization and are by no means necessary. A perfect civilization where everyone is equal can exist and thrive. Social classes are also subject to frequent change, which means that there is no single, necessary system. Some people will steal power for themselves and assert control over others, but that is not a requirement for a civilization. Social hierarchies based on jobs or titles are often difficult to define; most of them are subjective, based on what people in a particular society consider to be more prestigious or valued professions or ways of living. Many people may hold the same view, but that does not make any way of living less than another. People are still people. There is no one definition for how society should operate. Class divisions are not a requirement for a healthy civilization.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 17:49:45 UTC

I disagree with the statement that class divisions are necessary and healthy for civilization due to the fact that it causes a greater separating among the people in the civilization. This also created inequality among people and concentrates all the wealth in the hands of some people while others are not as lucky. This weakens the civilization as it can cause many rivalries, revolutions, and chaos in society.

2025-09-08 17:50:02 UTC

I disagree with this statement. While civilizations may appear to have more or "real" history compared to non-civilizations, since most often form a writing system or a language, it is easier for civilizations to record their history. Despite this, non-civilizations do still have real history but it likely is not recorded as well as civilizations do, but it is still present. Their histories are just as real with their own traditions, customs, and more.

Agree

2025-09-08 17:50:04 UTC

I believe that a Civilization does require a strong state because without a strong central government or power ruling the people tyranny will cause the swift end, or another more organized nation would overtake them.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 17:50:07 UTC

I disagree with this statement because class divisions create more of a divide in a civilization rather than bringing people together. Instead of fostering unity, they end up leading to inequality and conflict between groups. Having cooperation within a civilization also helps a civilization to function rather than having class divisions.

2025-09-08 17:50:26 UTC

I agree that civilizations require a strong state because it provides stability, protection, and organization for the people. Without a central authority to enforce laws and defend community, I think a civilization would quickly fall apart into conflict and disorder.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 17:50:27 UTC

I think people outside of a civilization still have history because many civilizations came to be from indigenous groups, and despite the group's ability to become a civilization shouldn't diminish the history of groups that remained indigenous. They might have their own language, class system, culture, etc., and just because there may not be any written records of the groups, it doesn't mean they don't have a history.

2025-09-08 17:50:28 UTC

Class divisions are necessary in a way for civilization. They provide structure and organization. However, they should not be used to restrict people.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 17:50:38 UTC

I disagree with this statement due to the fact that minor civilizations or just in general, people all have different roots and can have the same history as a much more known and larger civilization.

Yes

100210741 — 2025-09-08 17:50:43 UTC

Class divisions are nessecary as they make sure that the economy stays stable/fit, and keeps society structurally adept. Although this is true, I do believe class distinctions shouldn't be super strong/specific, but should still exist to keep the civilization stable.

Agree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 17:51:03 UTC

Naturally, people must take different roles in society. These occupations are undeniably imbalanced with some being more important or productive for the society than others. With class divisions, the inclination to work hard and produce good work for the society is higher. If all people were given the same benefits for different productivity levels of work, those doing harder work would be less inclined to want to work hard, harming the society overall.

no

2025-09-08 17:51:03 UTC

The concept of a civilization as a whole is a really abstract idea, and limiting it to a specific definition would really just hinder its meaning. Civilizations are complex and, like the human mind, not very well defined: trying to force a strict systematic definition would not help, and it is better to let the concept of a civilization stay abstract.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 17:51:05 UTC

Just because someone lives outside of a civilization this does not mean they have no real history. History is just a memorable event in time, and these memorable events can happen to anyone. Even if someone is not a part of a society they can have traditions that are important.

2025-09-08 17:51:37 UTC

No, since many civilizations are impacted by people who live outside of civilizations. Many conflicts or interactions that happen between these groups are essential to note when understanding history, and therefore should be a part of it. History is about trying to understand all that had happened in the past and not ommitting certain groups of people.

Agree

2025-09-08 17:51:44 UTC

Even though class divisions can be unfair, there must be a group of leaders whose job is to lead the country/region, and there must be people who run the country through everyday life. Some people may be born in more advantageous positions, but everyone has their own part to play in making civilization last as long as possible.

Yes

100210741 — 2025-09-08 17:52:09 UTC

I agree since civilizations need a central power to keep its citizens safe. I believe a social contract should be upheld so that the citizens follow the rules and the government acts fair. This way, citizens will have freedom while also keeping society safe.

2025-09-08 17:52:18 UTC

I don’t think it’s possible to create one universal definition of civilization because every society develops differently with values and traditions. What one culture sees important for civilization, like writing or cities might not apply to another, but both are important in their own ways.

2025-09-08 17:52:21 UTC

Class divisions are necessary because they create a system in society which everyone can follow. Although equality is not present in most or all civilizations today, it is important to note that it is impossible to bring equality to every class.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 17:52:32 UTC

I agree with this statement because which a strong state or central power, there would not be accountability for any laws made and the civilization would be left in chaos. A strong state allows for accountability and a safer place for citizens or people.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 17:52:32 UTC

Class divisions may not be necessary, but they could be healthy. Some class divisions are harsh or include mistreatment and eventually cause civil unrest, and this would be considered unhealthy for a civilization. Some class divisions, if done right, can be healthy in that they help the civilization grow without causing conflict. I would say class divisions are more useful than they aren't, just because they can create a more stable civilization in some cases.

2025-09-08 17:52:36 UTC

I agree that civilizations require a strong state. Civilizations cannot truly function for a long time without having a strong state, meaning that they need a government, an overall organized structure, and a way to keep people safe. Without one, it would be complete chaos, making a civilization be filled with conflict and would eventually decline.

2025-09-08 17:52:45 UTC

I disagree with this because people who live outside of civilization still have a history. Even though they do not traditionally document their history like others in civilizations, they still have their own culture and identity.

Disagree

2025-09-08 17:52:45 UTC

I believe that there is no one definition of civilization as every civilization will differ from one another weather it be their culture, their government, their beliefs, etc. However, even with these vast differences they are all still considered civilizations. The textbook definition of civilization may also change overtime.

yeah

2025-09-08 17:52:57 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state: without a strong state, the civilization can quickly fall into disarray and fall apart. Monarchies and dictatorships likely lasted so long for this reason: although not the fairest, their strong state allowed them to keep their civilizations together. On the other hand, experiments like the Articles of Confederation did not pan out so well.

2025-09-08 17:53:06 UTC

Class Divisions aren't necessarily needed within a healthy civilization. People can still create a prospering civilization with new innovations and agriculture without the existence of a higher class.

No

2025-09-08 17:53:08 UTC

I disagree with this statement because civilizations only came about after the experiences and breakthroughs made by hunting and gathering societies which most often than not lived outside of civilization. Their discoveries permitted the formation of civilization and allowed for groups of people to advance in different aspects of life including agriculture and technology.

Disagree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 17:53:09 UTC

Those who live outside of typical civilization have history, even if it is undocumented or unknown to some. History contains all knowledge of the past and can teach lessons about the future, and people living outside of civilization have their own experiences which shape their view for the future.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 17:53:11 UTC

Civilizations must have a strong state to be stable. Without a proper power leading the civilization, it is bound to fail. There is no one dividing up tasks between individuals. These civilizations are not organized enough to be strong.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 17:53:18 UTC

I disagree with this statement because even people who live outside of civilizations have their own history. They pass down tradition, culture, and stories in a different way than is not just through writing. The history of people who live outside of civilization is just recorded differently than those who live inside of civilization.

2025-09-08 17:53:28 UTC

I disagree with this statement in many ways due to the fact that the creation of civilizations in the broad scheme of things is very recent. While it is true that it may be difficult to study history before civilizations were created as there are not many written texts to teach us the history, the things that happened before civilizations have still shaped our world to what it has become today. Imagine if nobody ever wanted to study the dinosaurs. In the same way, there may be monumental events or progressions in our worlds history that may be ancient, but also truly significant and interesting. Therefore, while civilizations should be taught thoroughly, world history should not primarily focus on it; there are far too many other things that should be studied as well.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 17:53:28 UTC

I disagree with the statement that people who live outside of civilization have no real history because history is not limited to just these civilizations or urban societies. Many others have contributed to our traditions, cultural practices, and architecture long before formal civilizations were even established. To say those individuals "have no real history" disregards their contributions.

Agree

2025-09-08 17:53:29 UTC

I believe that civilizations require a strong state because, for them to last and preserve their own language, culture, and history, they must be able to defend themselves against other regions that want to conquer them.

Chandra V

2025-09-08 17:54:07 UTC

I believe that this statement has many sides to it, and it is up to the perception of the person analyzing this statement. This statement can be false in the sense that living in civilizations means putting down roots and creating communities where people find a way to govern themselves, and it means creating an environment that calls for collaboration on a larger scale to ensure human survival. However, this statement could be supported by saying that civilizations tend to pull humans away from the natural world and results in detrimental environmental impact at times. However, I believe that civilization has more positive aspects, and as these large communities evolve, we can work together to ensure the creation of a more positive environment, where we work towards resolving conflicts and having less negative impact on the natural world.

2025-09-08 17:54:39 UTC

I don’t agree with this statement. Every group of people has a history, even if it’s not written down. For example, many Indigenous communities pass their history through stories and traditions. Just because something isn’t recorded in books doesn’t mean it isn’t real history.

Agree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 17:54:42 UTC

A strong state is important for a civilization to thrive. In a world where many different groups exist and all search for land and power, a civilization must know how to come together and defend itself from outside threats if it wants to last.

2025-09-08 17:54:48 UTC

I disagree with this statement. Class divisions definitely create order and structure within a civilization, I do not think it is entirely necessary. Strict class divisions are not necessary as well as many often form naturally. Without class divisions, a sense of unity can be created among the civilization.

2025-09-08 17:54:53 UTC

I agree that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership because it motivates people to work harder and take care of what they have. When individuals can own land or resources, they feel more responsible and invested

2025-09-08 17:54:59 UTC

Yes, a strong central power is essential for civilizations. One of the largest dangers of civilizations is conflict, whether it be between other civilizations or caused by the people within. Having the ability to suppress these dangers is what makes a civilization last for a long time.

No

100210741 — 2025-09-08 17:55:03 UTC

I disagree since it is very hard to define what exactly a civilization is. Throughout history, humans have changed a lot which means the way of life back then is extremely different from now. This means that defining what a civilization was back then is a hard task as many of those civilizations were quite different and had many different forms of government, society, and culture. This applies modernly, too, as many areas of the world are disputed on whether they are a civilization or not.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 17:55:08 UTC

I do not think that it is possible to develop a universal, systematic definition of civilization because different civilizations have different ways of running them. This can be in government, cultural norms, and even their beliefs. This makes the definition of every civilization unique and personalized to its own way of life.

2025-09-08 17:55:27 UTC

People who live outside of civilizations do have history. The impact they have on civilizations never goes unnoticed. Many groups that did not initially have permanent civilizations formed civilizations later and had a profound impact on world geography.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 17:55:30 UTC

I believe class divisions are necessary and healthy for a civilization because they are the only way for things to remain regulated within a society, as it's the best way for jobs to be distributed and maintain a hierarchy.

2025-09-08 17:55:37 UTC

People who live outside of civilization would probably have less records about them but they have definitely made history on the world. History doesn't have to be made in civilizations for it to count because history can be almost anything and happen to anyone.

2025-09-08 17:55:40 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state because in order to be successful, they need to have a central power that takes care of citizens. A strong state would keep citizens accountable and safe. It will also provide structure. Without this, civilization can fall apart.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 17:55:40 UTC

I agree with this statement because civilizations need a strong state to remain stable and organized. Without strong leadership and structure, it would be hard to keep things in order, and it would be harder to protect people. A strong state helps guide a civilization and keeps it from falling apart.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 17:55:42 UTC

This statement is false because there is no way to define a civilization, so that everyone will agree. A civilization changes over time and a civilization is more of an abstract idea. Each civilization is different and unique creating different definitions that can not be agreed upon.

Yes

2025-09-08 17:55:46 UTC

I agree with this statement because without the formation, structure, and support of a strong state, it is unlikely that a civilization will survive on its own. Having a strong state allows for populations to maintain order and prevent absolute monarchy, conflict, and destruction.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 17:55:51 UTC

I agree with the statement that civilizations require a strong state because without a strong central government or control over the civilization, the civilization would be left uncontrolled. This is dangerous because no one would be able to protect the people, keep order, and keep organized. It would be extremely chaotic without rules being placed.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 17:56:37 UTC

I disagree! People who live in a civilization have as much history as those who don't. The only big difference is that it's easier for civilizations to record their history because of the multiple occupations that can form in one. It might be harder for those who don't live in a civilization to record their history because they are more focused on finding food to survive, for example. Everyone still has their own culture, traditions, ideologies, etc., and the lack of a civilization or written evidence does not change that.

Disagree

2025-09-08 17:56:47 UTC

It is not possible to develop a universal definition of the word civilization. This is because the concept of civilization can be observed through different groups of people and their practices. There are no step-by-step instructions on how to establish a civilization, and every civilization differs in its culture, beliefs, and day-to-day life.

2025-09-08 17:56:57 UTC

I disagree and it is not possible to develop a universal definition of a civilization. This is because civilizations and what makes up one always changes. A definition for a civilization thousands of years ago is not the same as one today. With too much constant change and how people act within a civilization, it is impossible to come up with a single and permanent definition.

No

2025-09-08 17:57:13 UTC

I disagree with this statement because having a universal, systematic statement that encompasses all civilizations throughout history is unfeasible and does not accurately depict or describe the experiences, hardships, and advancements made by each individual civilization.

Disagree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 17:57:21 UTC

The difference between civilized and uncivilized people is hard to determine and it seems to exist as more of a spectrum rather than a clear definition. The term civilized seems to describe the development of a society rather than a specific defining trait, which can be subjective in many cases.

2025-09-08 17:57:21 UTC

No, since back then there were many groups of people, each with a different lifestyle. They varied in their advancement of technology, beliefs, and methods of survival. There are so many factors in civilizations that it would not be possible to have a straightforward definition to civilizations.

Yes

100210741 — 2025-09-08 17:57:23 UTC

I agree since granting individuals the right to own private property allows them to have more freedom and incentive to work harder. If currency and private ownership were not in a civilization, most individuals won't have incentive to work harder and the civilization will have a lack of freedom.

Disagree

2025-09-08 17:58:09 UTC

I think that while it is a beneficial thing it is not required and would be possible for a civilizations people to not have ownership of any property. However, I think that even though the people do not actually own anything they will gain a sense of ownership the longer they have the given property.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 17:58:31 UTC

I disagree with this statement because each civilization develops in its own way. Each civilization is unique. It is not possible to develop a universal definition of a civilization because of the fact that each civilization has its own traditions, culture, and values.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 17:58:32 UTC

I disagree with this statement because all civilizations are diverse and were shaped by unique cultural, environment, and historical contexts. Every society is complex and what one society may think something is essential, others may not.

Agree

2025-09-08 17:58:43 UTC

I agree that civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership because it gives the people more individuality and freedom within the civilization to own things and call it theirs.

Yes

2025-09-08 17:58:47 UTC

I agree with this statement because private propery and ownership signifies structure and organization among populations. Without it, groups of people would be severly disorganized and fail to maintain a civilization due to a lack of social organization.

2025-09-08 17:58:59 UTC

Civilizations do require a strong state in order to deal with conflict. There are many ways the civilization can address conflicts (negotiations, compromises, persecuting the minority, etc.), but it must be dealt with in some way. In order to protect the civilization from external and internal threats, there needs to be a strong state. A strong state does not act as a qualifier for a civilization, though. Something can be a civilization and not have a strong state, and it will just not last very long.

yes

2025-09-08 17:59:03 UTC

I do think private property and ownership is necessary for civilizations to work. Communism tries to remove private ownership and bring equality: however, most large communist countries (like China) still retain private ownership, and are unable to move past it to true communism.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 17:59:13 UTC

I believe civilizations require a strong state because you wouldn't be able to survive and thrive as a civilization without one. If you don't have a strong government, it is a direct reflection of the level of order and stability in the society. It shows the level of strength and dedication of military forces as well, which are needed to protect the civilization from possible threats.

2025-09-08 17:59:14 UTC

I do not think it is possible to develop a universal, systematic definition of civilization because each civilization is unique. They follow their own customs, beliefs, and traditions which is hard to simplify into a definition. If there was to be a definition, it would be able to cover all the different aspects of a civilization.

Agree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 17:59:19 UTC

Without private property and ownership, the same issue arises as if a society had no class division where people feel less inclined to work in order to keep what they have. Private property and ownership allow for one to have something to work towards or to maintain.

2025-09-08 17:59:27 UTC

I think this means that a civilization needs a powerful government or leadership to stay organized and stable. I mostly agree, since laws and order help large groups of people live together. But I also think culture, trade, and cooperation are just as important as strength in building a civilization.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 17:59:30 UTC

I think that civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership because it motivates people Knowing that they own the land they live on gives them motivation to work harder and work for their civilziation to make it better.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 17:59:44 UTC

I agree with this statement because allowing individuals to be able to own their own property and be owners make them feel respected and actually apart of the civilization.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 17:59:57 UTC

A strong state is integral to a strong civilization. Without a strong governing power, there is no order in a civilization, and it could also lead to conflicts when a civilization has to come up with solutions to internal or external issues. Generally, more rules, order, and a strong power will help stabilize a civilization.

2025-09-08 17:59:57 UTC

I don’t think there can be one perfect definition of civilization because every culture has different values and ways of life. What one society sees as “civilized” might not match another’s view. Trying to make a universal definition could leave out important parts of human history and culture.

Disagree

2025-09-08 18:00:17 UTC

I believe that humans are very social creatures and therefore they naturally form communities of vast sizes. On top of this humans have been living in communal groups (Just smaller) for hundreds of thousands of years, so I do not thing it is unnatural.

2025-09-08 18:00:34 UTC

I think living in a civilization is not unnatural because humans have always formed groups to survive and thrive. Creating rules, sharing resources, and building communities feels like a natural extension

2025-09-08 18:00:50 UTC

Yes, civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership. The people in the civilization need to feel a sense of control over themselves, not just having a central power forcing them to do certain tasks, or else they would not cooperate with each other. One way to achieve this sense of control is to own property.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 18:01:00 UTC

I agree with this statement because a sense of private property and ownership in a civilization creates stability and organization in society. When individuals or groups are in charge of their own land, it allows them to act responsibility and think critically which is crucial for society to thrive.

2025-09-08 18:01:08 UTC

I disagree with this statement because I believe it is important to know everything that happened and how the world was before civilizations were created, to understand how civilizations were created. The past influences the present, and I believe that without knowing what happened in the past, our knowledge about civilizations becomes limited. Although it is difficult to learn about the times before languages and communities and governments were created, it is still important to learn about them, to see how those practices are still prevalent in today's world.

yes

2025-09-08 18:01:08 UTC

People are not born equal: because of this, and equal society really is not possible. Eventually, certain disparities will arise, and people will ultimately be sorted into some form of a system, either due to their own actions or because of something out of their control.

2025-09-08 18:01:09 UTC

I disagree with this statement. While much of world history is comprised of civilizations, how they worked, how they fell, and more all leading up to present times, there was still so much time prior to civilizations that involve important events significant to the world. There is not much record of the periods before civlizations, but using what is available to us is important to understand how civlizations developed in the first place and how those ideas contributed to the history that follows.

Disagree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 18:01:32 UTC

Civilizations are a natural progression of an intelligent life form like humans. Progression is an undeniable and inevitable process especially when it comes to the human race since we have the capabilities to benefit ourselves with civilization. While it is important to embrace nature, it is unnatural to deny progression and change.

2025-09-08 18:01:35 UTC

I think this means that civilizations are built on the idea that people own land or goods. I partly agree, since ownership creates structure in society and encourages trade. But many cultures have shared property or communal land and still developed complex civilizations, so private ownership isn’t the only way.

2025-09-08 18:01:56 UTC

There is no one definition for a civilization. History is filled with exceptions and special cases, and it is impossible to account for all of these using one definition. The flexibility of a definition is important, especially in the context of history. Therefore, there is no real, systematic definition for what a civilization should look like.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 18:02:00 UTC

I agree with this statement because civilizations need a sense of private property and ownership to stay organized. When people own land or resources, they have a reason to take care of them and work harder. It also helps create rules and systems that keep order in a society.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 18:02:05 UTC

I don't think it is possible to develop a universal, systematic definition of civilization because each one differs from the other in terms of their style of rule, currency and trade, and practicing/spread of culture. Though some basic defining factors can aid in classifying a specific group as being a civilization, I don't believe there can be one hard definition that describes a civilization as actually being one or not.

No

100210741 — 2025-09-08 18:02:08 UTC

I disagree for the most part. Humans are naturally social animals, meaning that human collaboration usually carries benefits. Additionally, human civilization has boosted humanity by an extreme amount in technological terms and societal terms, as we are now far more advanced than in previous times, which shows living in civilization is probably a natural state of humanity. Though this is true, I do thing that living in isolation can also be considered a "natural state of humanity" since humans can succesfuly live lives alone and together.

Yes and No

2025-09-08 18:02:11 UTC

The statement above has both some valid and invalid points. First, the idea that civilization must always lead to social stratification is more or less true. Unfortunately, I believe this is due to a natural tendency of humans to compete against each other and put themselves first. In order for a civilization to never develop distinct classes or a social hierarchy, there must be full cooperation with every person within the nation to simply live equally with each other, to put others before themselves in every day life, and that is simply not realistic. There have been a multitude of attempts to create a society where the government is set up in a way where social stratifications are abolished. As expected, these societies typically do not end with the results intended. In the same way, social stratifications can enter a civilization naturally as well. Even if the American government does not define social classes in its laws, there is evidently wealth disparity in this country, with the richest rich living much different lives from the poorest poor. This is clear example of how social classes are inventible a part of every civilization. However, this does not always have to end in injustice. I believe that it is possible for a nation to have social classes while still being just. While these different tiers may play a big role in one's life, it does not always have to be unfair. There are many people who are technically in a "lower" level of society who are much happier and live much more fulfilling lives than those who are "higher". With these several instances, it is shown that while civilizations may always mean social stratification, social stratification does not mean an unfair nation.

Disagree

2025-09-08 18:02:33 UTC

I disagree that living in a civilization is an unnatural state of humanity, because this statement implies that humans are more likely to prefer being separated from each other. In civilizations, like-minded people are grouped and live under their own beliefs, which is a state of natural humanity. People like to be grouped with like-minded people.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 18:03:06 UTC

I think living in a civilization is a natural state of humanity because humans are highly intelligent creates that require a civilization to be social as well as develop their intellects. Humans are just developing and civilizations is a natural part of that.

2025-09-08 18:03:16 UTC

No, it is simply just a more advanced state of humanity. Just like any other animal, the goal for humans is to get the energy they need to survive by expending the least amount of energy possible. Humans naturally found a way to do this by cooperating with each other and living in civilizations.

No

2025-09-08 18:03:23 UTC

I disagree with this statement because civilizations set the tone for future advancements and allowed for groups of people to come together and improve their physical, social, and economic conditions. Having social organization in which the people are governed gave individuals the opportunity to recognize their social standing and promoted a sense of humanity within this structure.

2025-09-08 18:03:24 UTC

This suggests that humans weren’t meant to live in large, organized societies. I can see the point, since early humans lived in small groups and closer to nature. But I also think people naturally create communities and rules, so civilization feels like a natural part of human growth.

Agree

2025-09-08 18:03:26 UTC

This is true because everyone has a slightly different starting point in life, as well as a different mindset. These slight changes ultimately lead to each of us living a unique life, which means that some of us will do better than other in things such as wealth.

2025-09-08 18:03:28 UTC

I agree, civilizations do require a sense of private property and ownership. Individuals owning their own property is what creates a civilization, with each person contributing in some way, giving them the motivation to work for the civilization to keep that freedom. This also creates a sense of order and organization that is needed in a civilization.

no

2025-09-08 18:03:42 UTC

While civilizations are a very important part of history, especially modern history, actions taken outside of civilizations help bring everything together, and can explain how certain culture, traditions, and civilizations came to be.

2025-09-08 18:03:49 UTC

I agree with this because once civilizations grow, power and resources are never shared equally, and some groups end up controlling more than others. This creates hierarchies where the wealthy benefit at the expense of the poor, and injustice becomes built into the system.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 18:03:54 UTC

I disagree with the statement that World History should focus on the history of civilizations because there is so much more to what happened in the world than just civilizations, and it is good to know this context to better understand past and present civilizations. This allows for zero gaps in history and for people to understand everything and why it happened.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 18:03:58 UTC

I disagree with this statement because people have always yearned for community, cooperation, and structure to survive and thrive in society. People naturally gather resources, protect each other, and create a culture which is exactly what a society does. If anything, civilizations reflect an individual's ability to adapt and build complex societies.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 18:03:59 UTC

I disagree with this statement because living in a civilization is a natural part of humanity. Throughout the years, people have worked together in groups for safety, security, and a feeling of support. Building civilizations is like teamwork, and it has helped humans advance and grow over the years.

2025-09-08 18:04:12 UTC

I agree that civilization require a sense of private property and ownership as it gives people the sense of freedom. Being able to make individual choices, like deciding what to own and be, gives people the sense of responsibility. They are more inclined to be a part of society if they have the freedom to make their own choices.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 18:04:15 UTC

A civilization can never have one uniform definition. For one, there are so many civilizations that all have different things, such as occupations, social hierarchies, governing bodies, culture, etc. Defining a civilization to be universal would either exclude too many diverse types of civilizations or be so inclusive that it cannot accurately describe one civilization alone. Civilizations should be defined abstractly, and the definition should be built upon if needed.

Agree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 18:04:21 UTC

While it is unfortunate, the best way for people to live in a civilization must require a lower social class which people work in order to get out of. Still, it is important for the civilization to make it possible to change classes with hard work as that is where the motivation to benefit society with work comes from. There will always be some level of social division in a civilization and it more often than not will lead to injustices for certain groups.

2025-09-08 18:04:45 UTC

I agree that world history should focus on civilizations because they leave behind the most records, ideas, and innovations that have shaped the world we live in. By studying them we can trace how governments, cultures, and technologies developed and influenced one another across time.

2025-09-08 18:04:52 UTC

A civilization does not need to have a sense of private property and ownership. While that would be nice to have in a civilization, the civilization can still survive without any private ownership. Many dictatorships throughout history, and those present today, do not practice private ownership. While private ownership may make the civilization a better place for people to live, it is by no means necessary, and the civilization can still function without it.

2025-09-08 18:04:55 UTC

Nobody forced humans to form civilizations. We as a species learned to collaborate with each other to benefit us as a whole. Being with other people is a large part of our humanity. It is not unnatural, it has been a part of us from the beginning.

2025-09-08 18:04:58 UTC

It's not possible to develop a universal systematic definition of civilization. Civilizations are very different and complicated, they are always undergoing changes. Every civilization has varying achievements, values, etc. The environment you live in affects your definition of civilization.

2025-09-08 18:04:59 UTC

I believe this statement to be false because every civilization is unique to its own, with its own language and its own values and ideals and culture, and I think creating a universal, systemic definition of civilization is very limiting, and creates more disparities. Even though it may seem like a universal, systemic definition of civilization promotes peace, it doesn't promote individualism and the value to one's differences. Civilizations having definitions of their own allows for the rest of the world to learn about those communities and the stories behind them. It allows for the cross-cultural exchange of knowledge and beliefs to be more powerful.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 18:05:29 UTC

I think that this is true because civilization naturally moves towards a social hierarchy. People will naturally move higher or lower in society. Although this is morally wrong because all people should be treated equal, it happens anyways. This creates people who are more wealthy and powerful than others.

Yes

2025-09-08 18:05:32 UTC

I agree with this statement because more often than not, social stratification is responsible for creating a sense of supremacy or prestige amon certain people, especially in regards to their social standing, and leads others to face poverty conditions or other economic issues.

2025-09-08 18:05:50 UTC

Yes, it is simply not possible for all humans to be equal. There are so many factors in humanity that no two humans will be treated equally. Also, if everybody is treated as equals, the civilization would collapse due to not having a strong central power to keep the people all together. While this may be unjust, it is the harsh reality of life that people need to accept in order to be able to cooperate with each other.

2025-09-08 18:05:55 UTC

I disagree with this statement because living with other, forming groups and systems is exactly what humanity does. Humanity is ultimately drawn to creating systems for themselves and much more complex compared to the rest of the world in that way. It is not unnatural at all for humans to use what they know and naturally feel they should do to create the livelihoods they want. Humans already created the civilizations that have formed throughout history naturally.

Agree

2025-09-08 18:06:01 UTC

In every large society, there will inevitably be injustice, and wealth will not be distributed evenly. Civilizations are no exception, as rules and regulations that one must follow, along with class differences, can lead to the idea that people are not equal to others, which is indeed true in civilizations.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 18:06:08 UTC

I agree with this statement because human behavior is always greedy. We look out for ourselves before others and that is just in our nature. When people start to get greedy and take advantage of others, wealth disparities more often occur and this leads to injustice. Whether that is a central power or just a few individuals, any civilization that properly runs will have wealth disparities.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 18:06:09 UTC

I do think that civilization requires a sense of private property and ownership because it connects back to the need for there to be class divisions in a civilization. Owning land and properties helps in determining your social and economic status within a society, and it introduces the ability to be able to trade and sell this land. This creates an economy within the society and also pushes for development in the society too.

Yes

100210741 — 2025-09-08 18:06:15 UTC

Civilizations involve a huge number of people, and when that happens, social stratification comes most of the time. In almost all civilizations, there is some sort of wealth disparity, with the top percent of people having most of the wealth. Additionally, injustice usualy happens in civilization and although it can be lessened, the problem still occurs as humans collectively are not perfect.

2025-09-08 18:06:17 UTC

I disagree with this statement because living in a civilization seems more natural than not. I think people are more inclined to form civilizations and work together to form structure. People enjoy having social connections. I think grouping together and forming structure is more natural than living outside a civilization.

Agree

2025-09-08 18:06:18 UTC

I agree with this statement because while their is previous history to civilizations it is not well documented or nearly as important leading up to the modern world. So while we should touch upon history before civilizations, it should just be to better understand what caused civilizations to form and there importance.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 18:06:44 UTC

I agree with this statement because civilizations usually end up creating some sort of social class and division. By creating this divide, differences in wealth and power begin to happen. Once certain groups have more resources or influence, things do not remain equal for too long, which ends up leading to injustice.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 18:06:51 UTC

I agree with this statement because once a civilization comes into power, power and resources inevitable fall into the hands of certain individuals or a group of people. This creates class and hierarchies where there are people who are living off of a luxurious life while other are trying to survive. We can see this in past civilizations and see how every time, social stratification is unavoidable.

Agree

10020917 — 2025-09-08 18:07:20 UTC

The most important aspect of learning history is the ability to use past experiences as advice for the future and how to make decisions to benefit society. While there is some valuable knowledge to come out of some uncivilized groups, the most experience and knowledge comes from civilizations, the most developed societies that have been able to last and thrive after a long history of trying different systems.

Shaurya Suresh

2025-09-08 18:07:35 UTC

I disagree with this statement as humans are bound to evolve and it is seen even before the time of civilizations with evolution. Civilizations are just another step in humans evolving and knowing how to fend for themselves.

No

2025-09-08 18:08:08 UTC

I disagree with this statement because while civilizations were integral to the development of our history, this subject should not be the only topic that is recognized within world history as there are many different types of people and groups that significantly contributed to economic and social welfare that did not classify as civilizations.

Tanisha Kamat

2025-09-08 18:08:37 UTC

I disagree with this statement because world history should not only focus on civilizations. It should also have stories about people who were not part of any civilizations, like nomadic groups, as they also have a significant role in history.

2025-09-08 18:08:40 UTC

The truth is, there is no real natural state of humanity. We do not know what that is yet. There have been many debates over the years about human nature and how humans would respond and react according to different modes of living, but we really have no way of knowing for sure. That being said, there is no way for us to know if civilizations are "unnatural", simply because we don't know what is natural for us. Psychologically, we are social creatures. But, psychologically, we all have our own ways of being social. We are also all social to varying degrees. Civilizations are not an unnatural state of living, but there's no way of knowing whether they are natural, either.

2025-09-08 18:08:43 UTC

I think this means that once a civilization forms, people end up divided into social classes, with some having more wealth and power than others. I agree because history shows that civilizations often create inequality. At the same time, I think societies can work to reduce injustice, even if it never fully goes away.

Fawaz Ashiq

2025-09-08 18:09:10 UTC

I think world history should focus on civilizations because the biggest developments occur in a well structured civilization. Other people in history don't have the organization of a civilization to create large enough events that are important towards world history.

Nyasa Khandelwal

2025-09-08 18:09:12 UTC

I disagree with this statement that world history should focus on civilizations because it could leave stories of countless individuals and their cultures who were not apart of these civilizations out. Even smaller societies had a big impact on who we are today, just as much as city and empires did. Real world history should include both civilizations and small communities as well.

Disagree

2025-09-08 18:09:13 UTC

I believe that World History should not focus exclusively on civilizations. This is because focusing on what happened after and during these civilizations gives us insight into the mistakes of future events that we will learn, and showcases a better understanding of how our world evolved from a specific point to now. However, if we were to just focus on civilizations, we would never have understood how they have impacted us later in history.

2025-09-08 18:09:18 UTC

I disagree with this statement because while civilization are vast and complex, world history is much more than that. Neglecting everything else to just focus on civilization will not give one a true understanding on world history. It is also important to know what occurred before and after the formation of civilization to truly understand civilization. It is important to focus on a range of topics to understand influences and impacts.

No

100210741 — 2025-09-08 18:09:41 UTC

I believe world history, specifically world history regarding humanity, shouldn't focus on just the history of civilizations. Since civilizations have a very disputed definition, this can lead to arguments and confusion regarding what is considered "world history" if we went this route. Additionally, a huge chunk of humanity has involved a lack of what we call "civilization", even thought they are foundational for what we are today. Furthermore, I believe world history should prioritize other things more, like interactions between different humans.

2025-09-08 18:10:06 UTC

I agree with this statement in the aspect that humans will naturally form civilizations that result in social stratification, forming different groups. It is simply how it works, and whether it invariably leads to wealth disparities and injustice can always occur. Human naturally form groups and those groups can often disagree with each other, leading to disparities and injustice. It is simply human nature and to go against these tendencies is likely impossible.

2025-09-08 18:10:21 UTC

I don’t fully agree with this idea. Focusing only on civilizations leaves out the stories of smaller groups, nomadic peoples, and Indigenous cultures that also shaped history. World history should include both civilizations and non-civilized societies to give a fuller picture of the past.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 18:10:27 UTC

I disagree with this because, since the beginning of time, not just humans, but most animals too prefer living in groups. Civilizations are made up of like-minded people with similar beliefs, systems, and ways of living, and people naturally want to spend time and trust people they can relate to. Being in groups is also how people stay safe and how a community can grow and continue to thrive.

2025-09-08 18:10:43 UTC

I believe humans desire a the feeling to be at "home". Whether or not this requires the ownership of private property, I don't know. However, I do know that a civilization must be able to make its inhabitants feel safe and welcome in order for the society to function. I do believe that one should be able to have possessions that are completely theirs though. Things that people earn should be theirs forevermore.

2025-09-08 18:11:09 UTC

No, there is a lot more to history than just civilizations. It is also important to understand life before civilizations and the nomadic groups when civilizations started to emerge. People in many instances did not live in civilizations, and it is crucial to understand what their role was in history.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 18:11:15 UTC

Civilizations should have a sense of private property and ownership. Without it, it's more likely that a civilization will fall into its own conflicts if issues of ownership cannot be solved easily. It also helps motivate people to work for their land and can promote a better economy. Additionally, ownership can be crucial for those in a civilization whose life depends on it, like for civilizations with social or economic hierarchies.

2025-09-08 18:13:00 UTC

Humans living in a civilization is not an unnatural state because humans have always tended to move through groups and form relationships. It's more natural for humans to be apart of a group than alone and it helps the survival of humans overall.

2025-09-08 18:14:10 UTC

I agree with this because social stratification is not entirely fair and leads to injustice. People are born into different class structures and because of this it does not mean that one is better than the other.

2025-09-08 18:14:13 UTC

This is true. Humans, by nature, experience feelings of jealousy, envy, and hate for those above them in the social hierarchy. Throughout history, there have been many times when this envy has turned violent. On the flip side, humans feel good when they are better than other humans. It boosts their egos and gives us more confidence. And that thrill that comes from knowing that you're doing better than everyone else (or just a few people) is something we will never stop chasing. The need to feel superior, successful, and like we fit in is at the forefront of our minds. This feeling drives us to make decisions, and those decisions make social classes appear and lead to social stratification.

2025-09-08 18:15:21 UTC

This is untrue. Many people who live outside of civilizations still have an impact on the people living within civilizations. Every little thing in history has led us to this moment, and disregarding any part of it will alter our perception of the past for the worse.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 18:15:33 UTC

I do think this is true because no matter how goods and money are distributed or gained within a society, there is always going to be someone who has more or less than you, which causes people to act out in greed and jealousy.

2025-09-08 18:16:13 UTC

Civilizations require a sense of private property and ownership. Moreover, even Nomads who constantly move homes have property and ownership of either animals or resources. Ownership is needed to give people a sense of identity and control.

2025-09-08 18:16:42 UTC

Civilization does not necessarily require a "strong" state to function. I think that it could function better with one but innovations, specialization, and cultures will still continue to exist without a "strong" state.

100199811 — 2025-09-08 18:17:12 UTC

I agree with the fact that World History should focus on civilizations because it's important when learning about the modern world today, to know and understand how things came to be. But I think it's more important to know the effects of civilizations and how they've evolved into the groups of people prominent in our modern world.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 18:17:56 UTC

Living in a civilization can be both a natural and unnatural state of humanity. It's one thing to create communities and form bonds with each other, to help one another, to create a culture, and to create things together. It's another thing to introduce things like power and economy or hierarchy and classes into the mix. Of course, this part can also be natural because most humans naturally want power or wealth. Most likely, civilizations are a natural state of humanity, and even the parts with power and hierarchy has become natural over time.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 20:03:38 UTC

I would agree. Civilizations will most naturally have their governing bodies, hierarchies and classes, etc., and this will almost always naturally lead to such issues. Besides, bringing people together, whether they are different or not, will always bring up issues with differences, and could ultimately cause conflicts and a divide.

Varsha I

30006451 — 2025-09-08 20:08:56 UTC

World history should focus on everything, not just civilizations. Yes, one focus should be on civilizations; it's important to learn about them, and it has more documented history than anything outside of them. However, history should also focus on everything else. Anything, anyone, any people outside of a civilization, etc. are still valid and important parts of history. History is not just what happened in a couple of the civilizations around the world, it's what happened at any time, any place, to anyone. It's all important.