No two fundamentally disagreeing civilizations can be right at the same time—so either value-systems cannot be compared … or one of them is wrong.
Think it’s a bit more complicated. The issue is that while value systems can be compared, there are many different criteria by which they can be measured against each other. In different comparison frameworks the answer as to which is superior is likely to be different, too.
Consider e.g. a tapir and a sloth. Both are animals which live in the same habitat. Can they be compared? They “fundamentally disagree” about whether it’s better to live on the ground or up in the trees—is one of them “right” and the other “wrong”?
This, by the way, probably argues for your point that generating alternative narratives is useful.
Good point—you have to take into account technological, genetic, geographic, economic, geopolitical, etc. conditions as well.
(Which poses an interesting question: what sort of thing is America or any one of its component parts to be compared to? Or is there a more general rule—something with a similar structure to “if the vast majority of other civilizations would disagree up to their declining period, you’re probably wrong”?)
Steppe hordes, sea empires, and hill tribes may be alike enough that similar preconditions for civilization would be necessary. (cf. hbdchick’s inbreeding/outbreeding thing, esp. the part about the Semai: same effect, totally different place)
Think it’s a bit more complicated. The issue is that while value systems can be compared, there are many different criteria by which they can be measured against each other. In different comparison frameworks the answer as to which is superior is likely to be different, too.
Consider e.g. a tapir and a sloth. Both are animals which live in the same habitat. Can they be compared? They “fundamentally disagree” about whether it’s better to live on the ground or up in the trees—is one of them “right” and the other “wrong”?
This, by the way, probably argues for your point that generating alternative narratives is useful.
Good point—you have to take into account technological, genetic, geographic, economic, geopolitical, etc. conditions as well.
(Which poses an interesting question: what sort of thing is America or any one of its component parts to be compared to? Or is there a more general rule—something with a similar structure to “if the vast majority of other civilizations would disagree up to their declining period, you’re probably wrong”?)
Steppe hordes, sea empires, and hill tribes may be alike enough that similar preconditions for civilization would be necessary. (cf. hbdchick’s inbreeding/outbreeding thing, esp. the part about the Semai: same effect, totally different place)