Paths of Civilization

[DakkaMania]

It's a useful tool, yes, but it's also an incredibly dangerous one.

We really shouldn't be using religion to justify our values regardless, the best way is to use widespread secular education to so that the populace understands why the government acts as it does. To this end it really should be more of a priority for our Civ to prioritize gymnasium construction so that more of the people are educated and thus less likely to be swayed by religion over hard science.

Greater education also opens up the door to Democracy and more opportunities for innovation.

Click to shrink...

That's nice.

We'll look at it in 500 years or so. By then secularism should start to become a thing.

We will build Gyms, but they won't be competing with the priesthood for a very, very long time.

And the Priests aren't all bad. They are basically shouting at us to hold true to our values.

That can of course change, but we are not anywhere near that point. And to get secularism (or at least separation between church and state), we need it to be seen as a problem. So we should increase RA slowly and regularly get into arguments with the priesthood. We want more temples anyway. At least one in Blackriver, one in Hatvalley and one in the cataracts and later on somewhere in the middle of PTSD-chans territory. Thats ~4 RA, 5 if we add a level 2 temple in Sacred Forest. But it covers every major direction and is close enough together for the priests to stay in contact.

Greenshore and Tinriver will need temples as well at some point due to sheer distance, but it can wait.

For now, we should look towards minimizing the drift towards the Stallions Temple as AN noted it was starting to cause issues. Another temple in between should moderate the discussions by adding more viewpoints.

 

[Umi-san]

But ofcourse, for nature is but a force, tis deprived of will and intent. An thus is by it very nature servile. For force exists to be used and channeled. You do not bring a force into harmony with yourself, you utilise it or you subject yourself to it. In either case the force cannot care. And the pole is indeed an imposition, first a plant us slave to its nature, and cannot reject it commands, and by making use of that nature one lays an imposition, for the ability to refuse is nonexistent.

And the resistance of the world is that if any other force to be subjected for the purpose of man. For such a force, harmony is only achieved in subjugation.
And man by by the grace of God knows nature, for he is it master, and a such he is interwoven with nature by bonds of dominion and creation. Thus to give one's self to one's whims is surrender to nature and an abrogation of one's control over it, and so a force unleashed would drown its former master in it power, but if the master holds the reigns in the movement of surrender, he would awake before hitting the depths of the void.

Click to shrink...

If nature is naught but a servile force, a plant naught but a slave to its nature, nature is a servile master and the plant not imposed upon but acting in accord with its servile master and thus with itself in a wider self-accord.

The resistance of nature's slave, the world, is that of any other being subjected to another. Harmony with it is achieved in accord; and accord in alignment of interests. If nature is a force, man's will is a force of alternate vector. When two interests collide, a new one is created; its progenitors subsumed in mutual self-destruction. When they align under the bond of gravity, they revolve in mutual satisfaction; grow through the sacrifice of selfish self-accord.

Man by the grace of Nature knows the world, for he is the world's servant and subject to it by bonds of mutual self-destruction and satisfaction. To give one's self to one's whims is to be the vine; to not give one's self to one's whims is to be the vine on the pole nature gave.

The former is to act in sole and selfish self-accord; the latter to revolve, evolve.

 

[Concho117]

That's nice.

We'll look at it in 500 years or so. By then secularism should start to become a thing.

We will build Gyms, but they won't be competing with the priesthood for a very, very long time.

And the Priests aren't all bad. They are basically shouting at us to hold true to our values.

That can of course change, but we are not anywhere near that point. And to get secularism (or at least separation between church and state), we need it to be seen as a problem. So we should increase RA slowly and regularly get into arguments with the priesthood. We want more temples anyway. At least one in Blackriver, one in Hatvalley and one in the cataracts and later on somewhere in the middle of PTSD-chans territory. Thats ~4 RA, 5 if we add a level 2 temple in Sacred Forest. But it covers every major direction and is close enough together for the priests to stay in contact.

Greenshore and Tinriver will need temples as well at some point due to sheer distance, but it can wait.

For now, we should look towards minimizing the drift towards the Stallions Temple as AN noted it was starting to cause issues. Another temple in between should moderate the discussions by adding more viewpoints.

Click to shrink...

As long as we actually start laying down the foundations now for separation between Church and State by building Gymnasiums soon I'm happy.

 

[veekie]

I agree that at the moment it is the most effective tool at our disposal for moderating negative external influence.

However, I also believe that we should be looking into secular alternatives to religion. Perhaps we can even attempt to introduce more Humanist and Enlightenment values early through the spread of secular education by building more gymnasiums. This would give us a more solid philosophical foundation for the continued abolishment of slavery rather than continuing to rely on Priests which may or may not favor the government at any given time.



I don't really understand what you're arguing here, could you perhaps rephrase it?

Click to shrink...

Secular humanism is not going to work, period, in this time period, in this society.
The big part that makes the Ymaryn work is that individuals sublimate parts of their self-interest and identity into the community and administration. They uphold justice as a virtue and reinforce a spirit of enquiry. They work hard to tend the land for future because the gods say so, they seek peace and unity because the gods say so, they work backbreaking hours rather than get slaves because the gods say so.

So take a secular angle, why wouldn't a given individual do what feels good and helps their friends and family? Get slaves to work the hammers instead of yourself. Why does the concerns of people a century down the line matter?

The secular ideal is not one which the environment backs up. Many of our values are costly and detrimental on a personal level and the benefits are paid forward to other people. Appeal to faith is one of the strongest arguments for "why should I suffer to benefit people I don't even know" for a very very long time yet.

The Gymnasiums are very valuable in making it more efficient to train, retrain and educate people more efficiently, but if you are hoping that they'd bring secularism in any manner...well, keep hoping. Maybe in the next 2000 years or so

 

[maximillian]

I agree that at the moment it is the most effective tool at our disposal for moderating negative external influence.

However, I also believe that we should be looking into secular alternatives to religion. Perhaps we can even attempt to introduce more Humanist and Enlightenment values early through the spread of secular education by building more gymnasiums. This would give us a more solid philosophical foundation for the continued abolishment of slavery rather than continuing to rely on Priests which may or may not favor the government at any given time.



I don't really understand what you're arguing here, could you perhaps rephrase it?

Click to shrink...

Morality and values are not intrinsic, man's free will gives him power over his conduct and what he accepts and does not; which is why those two vary by region and time. So what holds them togather, what refines them and what entrenches them? The answer is faith, they are right because people believe they are right, they are good because people believe them to be good, there is no material proof or evidence to it, it is pure faith.
And so throughout history religion has been the main caretaker and developer of societies values and morals, with time these values seeped into every nook and cranny of that society, and with the rise of population and affluence, started developing independently.
Thus you had values and norms that developed away from the foresight of the clergy, but where always held in check by the clergy.
But over time the clergy dooms itself, for the belief in those values becomes so intrinsic that men believe they no longer need the clergy to safeguard it, nor God. It becomes viewed as natural, and thus detached from divinity and its priesthood who become redundant.

 

[Susano]

So take a secular angle, why wouldn't a given individual do what feels good and helps their friends and family? Get slaves to work the hammers instead of yourself. Why does the concerns of people a century down the line matter?

Click to shrink...

Because of ethics and values that person has internalized? Religion of course is a very good tool to get people to internalize values, no doubt about it. But it isn't the only way, and in the end all that matters is to "get" a child early enough in their development to instill those values. This can be done in a completely secular way as well. We also do talk about 'American values' or 'democratic values' or 'the values of a pluralist society' as well, after all - we hold those values to be almost self-explanatorily important, without religion being involved.

What you're saying is basically implying the old canard that atheists can't be moral.

Right now we have to rely on religion, but your absolutist claim that we need to coat our values in religious paint in order for them to survive is rather baseless.

 

[DakkaMania]

Secular humanism is not going to work, period, in this time period, in this society.
The big part that makes the Ymaryn work is that individuals sublimate parts of their self-interest and identity into the community and administration. They uphold justice as a virtue and reinforce a spirit of enquiry. They work hard to tend the land for future because the gods say so, they seek peace and unity because the gods say so, they work backbreaking hours rather than get slaves because the gods say so.

So take a secular angle, why wouldn't a given individual do what feels good and helps their friends and family? Get slaves to work the hammers instead of yourself. Why does the concerns of people a century down the line matter?

The secular ideal is not one which the environment backs up. Many of our values are costly and detrimental on a personal level and the benefits are paid forward to other people. Appeal to faith is one of the strongest arguments for "why should I suffer to benefit people I don't even know" for a very very long time yet.

The Gymnasiums are very valuable in making it more efficient to train, retrain and educate people more efficiently, but if you are hoping that they'd bring secularism in any manner...well, keep hoping. Maybe in the next 2000 years or so

Click to shrink...

We'd also need the Gyms to give the bored noblemen something to do before they start trouble.

A drastic oversupply of elite fighters is part of what caused the Crusades. The pope of the time thought he could vent those excess fighters against people they didn't like anyway and stop the knights from preying on the peasantry. It somewhat worked, but I doubt we want to start a huge war of conquest or get those youngsters to found their own mercenary company and bugger off. Those 5 Wealth may well represent the nobility taking things into their own hands, so I'm reluctantly okay with making Chariots and spinning off another mercenary company under our own terms.

In this case, inaction will cause more trouble than giving in to the Patricians demands.

Besides, we can always tell them to go and punch nomads. That should make use of excess nobles in a way that actually helps us.

 

[Umi-san]

So take a secular angle, why wouldn't a given individual do what feels good and helps their friends and family? Get slaves to work the hammers instead of yourself. Why does the concerns of people a century down the line matter?

Click to shrink...

"Who needs a thousand metaphors to realize that you shouldn't be a dick."

 

[Concho117]

Secular humanism is not going to work, period, in this time period, in this society.
The big part that makes the Ymaryn work is that individuals sublimate parts of their self-interest and identity into the community and administration. They uphold justice as a virtue and reinforce a spirit of enquiry. They work hard to tend the land for future because the gods say so, they seek peace and unity because the gods say so, they work backbreaking hours rather than get slaves because the gods say so.

So take a secular angle, why wouldn't a given individual do what feels good and helps their friends and family? Get slaves to work the hammers instead of yourself. Why does the concerns of people a century down the line matter?

The secular ideal is not one which the environment backs up. Many of our values are costly and detrimental on a personal level and the benefits are paid forward to other people. Appeal to faith is one of the strongest arguments for "why should I suffer to benefit people I don't even know" for a very very long time yet.

The Gymnasiums are very valuable in making it more efficient to train, retrain and educate people more efficiently, but if you are hoping that they'd bring secularism in any manner...well, keep hoping. Maybe in the next 2000 years or so

Click to shrink...

Faith works now, yes, but it also inherently limits our society. Religious institutions rely alot on tradition to maintain their legitimacy and stability which can lead to stagnation as time goes on. The way a Secular system would work is that by educating people on things like biology, ecology, etc. we can directly show them why they have to work as hard as they do.

Where an individual who relies on Faith works long hours because the Gods tell him to, someone with secular education would work because he knows intellectually why and how he needs to work to get the results he wants. Furthermore an individual with secular education could also innovate and see where improvements can be made to net even greater yield for future generations.

People can be trusted to act on their own interests but they need to have some form of education for them to be able to understand that their long term interests may be more important than the short term ones.

 

[DakkaMania]

Because of ethics and values that person has internalized? Religion of course is a very good tool to get people to internalize values, no doubt about it. But it isn't the only way, and in the end all that matters is to "get" a child early enough in their development to instill those values. This can be done in a completely secular way as well. We also do talk about 'American values' or 'democratic values' or 'the values of a pluralist society' as well, after all - we hold those values to be almost self-explanatorily important, without religion being involved.

What you're saying is basically implying the old canard that atheists can't be moral.

Right now we have to rely on religion, but your absolutist claim that we need to coat our values in religious paint in order for them to survive is rather baseless.

Click to shrink...

The environment is what is important here. A modern human being has the values reinforced practically daily. From Hollywood, to your local newspaper. They all promote our values overtly or subtly.

Right now, the only big media outlet with regular attendance are the priests. Theatres and the like will help shore it up from other angles, but for the next millenia, the priesthood is vital for cultural maintenance.

We also have rival priesthoods that plant their ideas in our peoples heads, so the priests are needed to counter that, especially as we are very accepting of foreign views. The priests are the ones that mediate the clashing values and ensure that our values are upheld.

 

[Umi-san]

@maximillian We're resuming the theocracy debate.

 

[Nianque]

Can we debate the merits of domesticating otters instead? It seems to be a safer topic.

 

[Concho117]

@maximillian We're resuming the theocracy debate.

Click to shrink...

We're not really discussing Theocracy.

We're discussing how religion interacts with morality and whether or not we can replace it with a more secular system to improve quality of life and lessen the chance of the Priests fighting with the government.

Can we debate the merits of domesticating otters instead? It seems to be a safer topic.

Click to shrink...

Well, I mean we need to have this discussion eventually and now with the Priests being their own independent faction this needs to be addressed. Do we capitulate to the demands of the Priests or do we start looking into ways to replace them with more state-reliant institutions like public schools and universities.

 

[DakkaMania]

Faith works now, yes, but it also inherently limits our society. Religious institutions rely alot on tradition to maintain their legitimacy and stability which can lead to stagnation as time goes on. The way a Secular system would work is that by educating people on things like biology, ecology, etc. we can directly show them why they have to work as hard as they do.

Where an individual who relies on Faith works long hours because the Gods tell him to, someone with secular education would work because he knows intellectually why and how he needs to work to get the results he wants. Furthermore an individual with secular education could also innovate and see where improvements can be made to net even greater yield for future generations.

People can be trusted to act on their own interests but they need to have some form of education for them to be able to understand that their long term interests may be more important than the short term ones.

Click to shrink...

I'd like to point you to the entire modern climate-change deniers, young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers etc.

Education is no cure for idiocy.

And the Gyms are elite only. It will take centuries until acceptance standard lower and take in more people. For the system to work, more than just the elites need to buy in. The farmers need to accept it too, and those listen to the priests.

No one here argues that the priests should be in power forever. But I ask that this matter is viewed pragmatically.

And pragmatism says that this is the best we can get for a long while, so we need to make it work. Pointless pontification about the virtues of secular humanism won't make the development go any faster, it's just going to annoy people as the argument goes in circles.

 

[maximillian]

@maximillian We're resuming the theocracy debate.

Click to shrink...

God dammit am already running low, I can't do two at once!

 

[veekie]

The environment is what is important here. A modern human being has the values reinforced practically daily. From Hollywood, to your local newspaper. They all promote our values overtly or subtly.

Right now, the only big media outlet with regular attendance are the priests. Theatres and the like will help shore it up from other angles, but for the next millenia, the priesthood is vital for cultural maintenance.

We also have rival priesthoods that plant their ideas in our peoples heads, so the priests are needed to counter that, especially as we are very accepting of foreign views. The priests are the ones that mediate the clashing values and ensure that our values are upheld.

Click to shrink...

Yep. The problem is not in enforcing values on individuals. Individuals can be atheistic without being immoral(heck, atheists are around since ancient Greece anyways, a number of philosophers expressed skepticism about the gods), and I'd be in a difficult place if atheists can't be moral . The problem is in enforcing values on societies. We don't have the tools to make thousands of people take personally disadvantageous things for the common good.

Irrational, blind faith is particularly valuable when handling issues where Proof is not being considered by the rival parties, or proof is objectively impossible to provide for enough of the audience.

Literature, theater, art, music can all help reinforce values, though they aren't quite nearly as powerful as religion for pushing values into new populations. We'd probably reach the point of inventing nationalism before we can start shifting away from religion as the guardian of tradition and culture without simply being overwritten by other cultures.

...which is mostly to say Theaters, Gyms, Art Patronage, Festivals. These are how you develop alternative tools.
And the best part is that most of these tools were first devised for and by religion.

 

[Umi-san]

We're not really discussing Theocracy.

We're discussing how religion interacts with morality and whether or not we can replace it with a more secular system to improve quality of life and lessen the chance of the Priests fighting with the government.

Click to shrink...

@maximillian
A theocratic system can replace a secular system as long as we make the ground rules sufficiently grounded in reality. It won't stagnate so long as its values are not so limited as to be unable to reflect changes in its setting and its congregation do not follow the words of its administration w/ blind faith but instead actively participate in refining and evaluating it.

Edit: I.e., I'm making an inverse of the argument because I'm disinterested in discussing veekie's belief that "blind faith" is a necessary tool for enforcing moral behavior in a society as a whole. You might as well just implement ritual stoning of the particularly immoral. Such a practice is basically the same thing as saying hell exists.

The validity of going overboard and instituting a theocracy is comparatively more interesting.

 

[DakkaMania]

Yep. The problem is not in enforcing values on individuals. Individuals can be atheistic without being immoral(heck, atheists are around since ancient Greece anyways, a number of philosophers expressed skepticism about the gods), and I'd be in a difficult place if atheists can't be moral . The problem is in enforcing values on societies. We don't have the tools to make thousands of people take personally disadvantageous things for the common good.

Irrational, blind faith is particularly valuable when handling issues where Proof is not being considered by the rival parties, or proof is objectively impossible to provide for enough of the audience.

Literature, theater, art, music can all help reinforce values, though they aren't quite nearly as powerful as religion for pushing values into new populations. We'd probably reach the point of inventing nationalism before we can start shifting away from religion as the guardian of tradition and culture without simply being overwritten by other cultures.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this.

We simply lack the tools to do without blind faith. Hence why we worked so long to make sure our Faith is actually a force of good.

The rot will creep in eventually, but that's true for every institution. The answer is to make sure there is a plurality of power centers so not one temple can dictate to the entire faith.

Culture will be a great glue, though. The Battle of Bloodriver is already the seed of a national identity. As was the Fall of Xohyr. Both of them are iconic and will contain our values. Be it the sacrifice for the whole as seen in Bloodriver or the shame for killing innocents as Xohyr was burned.

 

[Susano]

The environment is what is important here. A modern human being has the values reinforced practically daily. From Hollywood, to your local newspaper. They all promote our values overtly or subtly.

Click to shrink...

I find the idea that our modern values only survive because of constant indoctrination to be very dubious. For one thing, we live in rather pluralist societies, especially compared to earlier times - i.e., we are not getting 'bombarded' by a single, coherent moral message; rather we get confronted to dozens of view points, as it should be.

Our society still doesn't crumble, despite the decreasing importance of religion, because religion is ultimately not necessary in order to instill moral values. As, ironically, Ignatius of Loyola (the founder of the Jesuits) is said to have said: "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man." People rarely really question the fundamental core tenets of their upbringing. I think, ironically, you can see this best in people who do turn away from old values: People turning away from religious parents, but still believing that "something is out there". Or all the dissident movements in the East Bloc in 1989- most of them said "Socialism is actually a good idea, but...".

The core tenets always stayed.

So I would argue it doesn't necessarily take religion to reinforce them. They just need to be present in our society one way or the other, as religious values or as secular values, to be imprinted onto our children.

 

[Concho117]

I'd like to point you to the entire modern climate-change deniers, young earth creationists, anti-vaxxers etc.

Education is no cure for idiocy.

And the Gyms are elite only. It will take centuries until acceptance standard lower and take in more people. For the system to work, more than just the elites need to buy in. The farmers need to accept it too, and those listen to the priests.

No one here argues that the priests should be in power forever. But I ask that this matter is viewed pragmatically.

And pragmatism says that this is the best we can get for a long while, so we need to make it work. Pointless pontification about the virtues of secular humanism won't make the development go any faster, it's just going to annoy people as the argument goes in circles.

Click to shrink...

While I agree that there will be idiots in any society, the examples you pointed out are definitely minorities and that public education has also led to wonderful things like Vaccines, Space Travel, etc.

At first it will be elite-only, but as more Gymnasiums are opened more people will attend. It is also significantly easier to work top-down when it comes to spreading change in a society so we have that going for us. People will view Public Education as a status symbol and as such will be easier to convince to send their kids to school. Actually here's a fun fact; the reason the US school system has the school year defined as it does is because the rich would leave for the countryside in the summer to escape the heat of cities. Thus schools choose to formalize this vacation rather than operate with less than half capacity.

And while I'm not arguing for the immediate replacement of Priests I am advocating for increased attention to Gymnasiums and secular education.

 

[maximillian]

If nature is naught but a servile force, a plant naught but a slave to its nature, nature is a servile master and the plant not imposed upon but acting in accord with its servile master and thus with itself in a wider self-accord.

The resistance of nature's slave, the world, is that of any other being subjected to another. Harmony with it is achieved in accord; and accord in alignment of interests. If nature is a force, man's will is a force of alternate vector. When two interests collide, a new one is created; its progenitors subsumed in mutual self-destruction. When they align under the bond of gravity, they revolve in mutual satisfaction; grow through the sacrifice of selfish self-accord.

Man by the grace of Nature knows the world, for he is the world's servant and subject to it by bonds of mutual self-destruction and satisfaction. To give one's self to one's whims is to be the vine; to not give one's self to one's whims is to be the vine on the pole nature gave.

The former is to act in sole and selfish self-accord; the latter to revolve, evolve.

Click to shrink...

But a collision of forces does not necessitate a merger , an can in end in one bowing to the other, and nature being devoid of will is at a stark disadvantage to man, who's divine gift of will maketh him unique in that regard.
And the accord and harmony you speak of is already in place in the relation of subject and lord. It is the subject interest to be of service to the lord, and it is the Lords interest to care for the subject, the bonds of dominion tie them intricately.
The harmony and accord are what we make them to be, they are creations of man in utter Bondage to his mind. And a man who realises his dominion can surrender without fear of loss of that very will that grants him his supremacy.

 

[Sivantic]

I cannot believe I missed the Yandere discussion.

Real Life y u do dis to me ;_;

• Sure, Stay as Long as you Need: The Ymaryn were, and are, a very open and welcoming people. Refugees and travelers were always welcome to stay, and live among the Ymaryn. It meant that the Individuals had to follow the Ymaryn's laws, but guaranteed access to food usually meant it was worth it for most people.

Click to shrink...

This is in a different color for some reason. Is there a way to change it back?

When the website is in different styles, it appears invisible.

Steppe Farming

Click to shrink...

Step Farming. Steppe farming is something different and suicidal

We actually butterflied them away interestingly enough.

Click to shrink...

>talking about bees
>butterflied away

Ohohoho

 

[Raichu1972]

Faith works now, yes, but it also inherently limits our society. Religious institutions rely alot on tradition to maintain their legitimacy and stability which can lead to stagnation as time goes on. The way a Secular system would work is that by educating people on things like biology, ecology, etc. we can directly show them why they have to work as hard as they do.

Where an individual who relies on Faith works long hours because the Gods tell him to, someone with secular education would work because he knows intellectually why and how he needs to work to get the results he wants. Furthermore an individual with secular education could also innovate and see where improvements can be made to net even greater yield for future generations.

People can be trusted to act on their own interests but they need to have some form of education for them to be able to understand that their long term interests may be more important than the short term ones.

Click to shrink...

The problem with your viewpoint is that it relies on widespread education to work.

If the priests tell the Yeomen Farmer that slavery is bad because it caused humans to get kicked out of Eden, when Men treated other Men as Pigs, and the Gods say that such behavior is a bad thing, Yeomen Farmer will understand it and agree with it.

If the nobility (the only people which will currently really benefit from any sort of public education system) tell the Yeomen Farmer that slavery is bad because we believe in the moral right of all human beings and as such forcing someone to work for no reason is immoral, you would probably get quite a few people agreeing. You would also tick off the rich farmers who would be able to afford slaves and would get extra money having slaves work his farms instead of farmers. You would tick off the Traders, who could buy and sell slaves for large sums of money, and would be barred from a trade good because the nobles said so. You would tick off the Guilds, who could use slaves as cheap manual labor instead of having to pay the poor in the cities.

Religion works so well in this time period because it forces certain moral values on everyone, no matter how corrupt or immoral they are. As an example, the only reason our traders don't trade in slaves is because our religion says it is wrong to do so.

 

[Concho117]

The problem with your viewpoint is that it relies on widespread education to work.

If the priests tell the Yeomen Farmer that slavery is bad because it caused humans to get kicked out of Eden, when Men treated other Men as Pigs, and the Gods say that such behavior is a bad thing, Yeomen Farmer will understand it and agree with it.

If the nobility (the only people which will currently really benefit from any sort of public education system) tell the Yeomen Farmer that slavery is bad because we believe in the moral right of all human beings and as such forcing someone to work for no reason is immoral, you would probably get quite a few people agreeing. You would also tick off the rich farmers who would be able to afford slaves and would get extra money having slaves work his farms instead of farmers. You would tick off the Traders, who could buy and sell slaves for large sums of money, and would be barred from a trade good because the nobles said so. You would tick off the Guilds, who could use slaves as cheap manual labor instead of having to pay the poor in the cities.

Religion works so well in this time period because it forces certain moral values on everyone, no matter how corrupt or immoral they are. As an example, the only reason our traders don't trade in slaves is because our religion says it is wrong to do so.

Click to shrink...

Well yes, widespread education is something we should be striving for regardless.

 

[Raichu1972]

Well yes, widespread education is something we should be striving for regardless.

Click to shrink...

It is, but it's also something that won't happen until we can mass produce written material, and have at least a 50% literacy rate.

So until then, religion works far better than education at teaching people our values and helping them integrate into our community.