And it also lets you support a new class of people who aren’t dealing with food all day. Perhaps some early farmers offered to supply non-farmers with food in exchange for sticking around and providing entertainment, protection, or education. Thus you could have had the birth of the first full-time professional musicians, actors, police/security guards/bodyguards, and teachers.
Right. If all you have are a few related tribes, you can handle most of the interpersonal issues informally. If you have hundreds or even thousands of people from dozens of families bumping into each other on a daily basis and potentially getting into disagreements, you need a more formal system of making sure things continue to run smoothly. That formal system was government and laws.
We had neolithic agriculture long before the first cities, or social stratification. There are plenty of stone age agriculturalists even today in the Amazon and New Guinea.
We’re not too civilized. We still wear pants. The Greeks would be appalled.
I think bidet users would place you in pre-Ick territory. You just wipe your crap on a piece of paper? Might as well use a corncob, or leaves.
Understood, however your reply is how I do feel about it, just shout enough that you are civilized and we ignore that we are not civilized.
You make my point very well.
By modern(ish) standards, running water.
By older standards, construction of some sort of permanent dwelling to escape the elements, nature, etc.
We’re cool, then. 
As pointed out upthread, these things will always be arbitrary to an extent. It’s really a matter of bookkeeping and definition more than anything real. Also, there will always be some ideological baggage involved.
That said, “not acting like an asshole to your fellow human beings by some arbitrary standard” probably isn’t a very useful definition. Then you just have to exclude way too much, considering people’s infinite creativity when it come to assholeness.
Good point. Maybe agriculture is better thought of as a condition that needs be in place in order to have civilization.
Also, then again, maybe it you don’t even need it. There is such a thing as complex hunter-gatherers. When you have villages, technology, social stratification and political intrigue, then “uncivilized” starts to sound a bit silly.
So, if we can’t agree on agriculture, I’m thinking about changing my vote. I’m going with “broadband internet”. Maybe that one, at least, can get some consensus around here. I mean, I may be open to some negotiation on hot showers, but there’s no way I’m going back on dial-up.
Suppose a society of dolphin-like aliens with plentiful wild food.
They might be:
–unlikely to build cities
–unlikely to farm (or aquaculture)
–unlikely to write
What if they develop a complex social structure, including law, philosophy, and science.
Now, if they never build a thing, might they be civilized?
If they do build things (but not cities or farms), might they be civilized?
“I call it . . . the world’s oldest profession.”
I propose: a system of settling disputes more sophisticated than “if you kill someone you can reasonably expect their family to try to kill you which will lead your family to try to kill them”
Hmmm. I’m not willing to accept being pre-Ick, but I wouldn’t fight the label Mid- or Mezo-Ick.
I always thought that “permanent settlements” was the clear-cut, nonjudgmental dividing line between civilization and its antithesis–nomadism.
But I like for words to have meanings.
That seems quite unfair on the nomads, considering the derogatory connotations of “uncivilized”. Nomadic cultures can be plenty advanced. You may mean it in a nonjudgmental way, but I don’t think everyone will take it that way.
Which I suppose is a problem with the entire debate, really. Calling someone civilized is fine and dandy, but when you exclude someone from the club, it’s basically an automatic insult. Maybe it’s a term we would be better off without entirely.
On the other hand, it is a very useful distinction for talking about the differences between New York City and New Jersey.