Is Climate Change the Origin of Civilization?

An interesting observation on those lines .If you've ever driven cross country out west through say Kansas it's interesting to note those lands were once underwater and as you drive toward the rockies you are able to observe the typical formations and imagine the fact that you are actually on the sea or lake bed .This is supported by finds of shells and other sea stuff .What can be a boring drive is enhanced by that knowledge at least it was for me .

An interesting hypothesis but I think there is more to it than just climate change.

In Australia at the same time a similar process was taking place with the desertification of large tracts of land yet the Australian Aborigine didn't go through the same process but rather remained in nomadic groups. I am sure a similar thing happened in other places like North America yet in contrast civilizations did arise in South America where the climate remained relatively wet.

This seems to indicates that there must have been some other factor as well as the climate change in order for civilization and ultimately industrialization to take place.

PS I like the new format.

The existence of the Nile valley is probably the key difference... it is very productive and can support a lot of people, and the more organized the people are (planning around the seasonal flooding, etc), the more people it can support. As the Sahara dried up, people must have sought out the nice place to live (the Nile) and found a bunch of other people there too. Before you know it, you have pyramids!

I suspect any migration was driven by a lack of (food) resources to support the population, however small. Naturally the Nile valley would offer more resources, but it's likely there was conflict between tribal groups competing for these resources, rather than a happy mix of cultures developing into a population. I can imagine a dominant group would have eventually emerged to from these struggling tribes, driving the others to extinction. We still see attempts to do this today...

A. is it possible that the person had once been to a place where there were crocodiles, hippos, and other animals, then drawn a picture of them on an animal skin, or something, and decided that they would walk in this direction... trade the picture for some food, then the picture would get traded to someone else and so on... until it arrived at the person living in or near the cave, and that person decided to replicate the drawings in the cave??? - maybe, but if shells were found underground, then it doesn't seem likely... anyway: I don't think that pictures are proof enough.

The question is " what happens to the people when the land where they live becomes a desert?"

My answer is that the smart people move, or adapt to the new environment, or change the environment, or die... clearly, the easiest thing to do is move, the next thing would be to adapt, and finally the hardest thing would be to change the environment.

My question to you is: Why do people live in Afghanistan's desert, or the desert of any 3rd world country?

I believe civilization is created primarily by trade networks and the wealth they bring. Climate change may have caused migration to the Nile valley, creating favorable conditions for the creation of successful trade routes through a densely populated and productive area, resulting in the growth of civilization.

There was an interesting book/TV series produced some years back called Out of the Fiery Furnace that discusses the effect of the discovery of the process of smelting on the development of society from pre Bronze age up till today. One of the theories put forward was that the smelting process was an offshoot of the process of firing pottery and the practice of using metal oxides to colour the glazes. Sometimes when you fire pottery the metal oxides will naturally smelt into their original metal from the oxide due to the reducing atmosphere of the kiln and this lead to the development of smelting all sorts of metals from their naturally occurring ores.

Whilst the development of metals was probably not the initial step in the process of civilization it was probably one of the most important factors. This is born out by my earlier point that the Australian Aborigines didn't develop metals and remained nomadic while the Aztecs did develop metals along with civilizations.

I believe that civilization is a direct result of population density. You put 10 people together, a hierchy develops. 50 together and you have a clan. A couple of hundred or thousand and you have a tribe. Many thousands and you have a city state. 10s of thousands and you have a nation. Humans have been around in our current incarnation at least 40,000 years, but it's only the last 10,000 years that there is evidence of civilization. So why did it take so long? I think agriculture was a big factor. Also, I think you need a critical population density in order to innovate and specialize. The larger your population, the more specialized you can be. I'm always interested by this subject and I'm well aware my beliefs are merely educated opinions, but it's fun to debate it.

One of the first "cities" (Jericho, if I remember right), started out as a trade hub, not as a population center.

(I'm reading a great encyclopedic book called The History of Science and Technology that discusses this subject, and I find it fascinating too.)

That's Amazing. I had been familiar with the cities in Turkey from around 8000 to 6000 BC, but I had no idea about Jericho. Apparently this city dates back to 10,000 BC. I'll have to read about it.

Bingo! Civilization is built on wealth. You never get wealthy growing crops or making pots. You get wealthy buying food and pots and selling them to someone else- being the middle-man. Civilization develops around trade hubs.

Why would trade require a city? Agriculture seems like the reason to settle down in one place. American Indians traded with each other all the time and no cities were built. Nomadic tribes of the Asian Steps traded many things, but no giant nation state or cities were created.

It's probably a bit obvious to say you need a lot of people to form a city. Plus cities can be anywhere, but they are usually found at a strategic position or more often a trade route. In all likelyhood, it is probably a combination of many factors that caused civilization. I just have always noticed that all the ancient civilizations we read about; Egypt, fertile crescent, Indus river valley, Yellow river valley, are all bordered by deserts that expanded when the climate changed significantly after the last ice age, as the story that started this thread talks about.

Oh, trade doesn't REQUIRE a city, but if it is profitable and stable enough, it can provides the economic foundation for the growth of a city and the development of a civilization.

I agree. I would be hard pressed to argue that given the choice between founding a city on a trade route or 100 miles away from a trade route, that people would chose the later. Trade definitely plays an important role. Regardless, I'm surprised Jericho is so old. 12,000 years ago there was at least a village there, that's amazing.

In the ancient world, cities were generally established from defensive bases, to protect something of worth. That could be trade wealth, natural resources or whatever. People clustered together for protection, as much as anything else.

I think we are going through a similar cycle. I was trying to determine what my father should plant in his vegetable garden by using the solar cycles as a guide. I found out that last year was a good year to plant corn in Oklahoma, but as I compared the 11 year cycles. I notice that more sunspots (and more solar energy) was being added in the 20th century when compared to the 19th century. Yes global warming is occuring, but I dont think that there is much we can do other than cope with it.

G'day Guest

• I notice that more sunspots (and more solar energy) was being added in the 20th century

Er, NO! Well sort of.

The solar max occurs on an 11 year cycle with the maximum output corresponding to an increase in sunspots but it's not the sunspots that are causing the increased output. Sunspots are actually cool spots on the Sun's surface and appear dark because they are radiating much less energy than the surrounding area. They are also areas of phenomenal magnetic disturbance that are powerful enough to rip chinks of the Sun's surface off then loop it through their magnetic fields and smash it back into the surface.

The increased output has more to do with the drop in the strength of the Sun's overall magnetic field and ultimate loss of the primary poles as they reverse polarity. The first sign of a new solar cycle is sunspots with reversed polarity. The first one was seen last year and a second a couple of months back so there's a good chance the next cycle has commenced.

PS I already have the Sun filter for my telescope and with a little bit of luck should be able to gets some pictures of the pending solar fire works display.