Can you not rate the level of civilization by life expectancy for what is civilization but for the sake of prolonging life?
Civility does not mean the same thing as civilization. 
it can depending on context. 
Only on the internet where people feel free to use their own made-up definitions of words.
In real life, civility means politeness.
Ill change it for you… but is not politeness civilized behavior…?
I don’t know if I agree with that statement. It makes sense but I don’t think it’s the primary reason. Civilization, for example, can also be rated by the its technological advancements (which increases man’s knowledge of the world) or its stability (adaptability).
Actually, large percentage of older populations is undesirable as it destabilizes the country’s economy.
It is a current concern of many countries with aging populations. Some countries bring in immigrants as replacement workforce, which creates other problems, as foreigners, for example, gradually start displacing local populations, which may create identity problems/shifts within the country.
Countries with oldest populations:
chartsbin.com/view/1239
An example of the aging problem in Japan:
Yeah, life extension only makes sense if it prolongs a youthful body.
I’d be more wont to rate it by quality of life.
Reducing negative uncertainty, enabling people to flourish. Life for life’s sake is worthless. Quality over quantity.
Absolutely agree.
,
It’s developed some really rather ookie nuances and perhaps had these from the beginning. Since it has often been used as a word to describe one culture as opposed to barbaric cultures, barbaric cultures that tended to be wiped out, enslaved or otherwise abused by the ‘civilized’ one. yeah, they seem to live longer.
How was this a response to the OP? I mean, it’s a fine old statement, but it seemed strange in context.
Though this comes from their common roots. Civilized people who are not barbaric. To demonstrate that they are above the barbarians they come up with ritualized etiquettes in communication. Its a kind of class issue, though originally to distinguish some people from those creatures beyond the polis.
Ah, sounds like the life in the northeastern native american tribes. Quite democratic, children given real childhoods - whereas in europe kids were treated pretty much as little adults and worked - abundance of food, great views, no busy work, room for much individualism…
yet technological developments can increase the probabilty of mass destruction can they not?
a combination then of life expectancy and quality of life?
I think increased life expectancy is a likely outcome of a good society, not a metric of how good it is.
if it is a likely outcome then we can arrive at a percent chance it is indicatory and thus allocate a percent to which it is an indicator of civilization
How?
And, ah… why?