what was the decisive moment in human history?

[© tweed]

inspired by NT Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P3noKr2T1A

[H. Ross Peron]

The first both spiritually and even on a temporal level considering the Enlightenment did not lead to mass rejection of Christianity.

[Fascism Must Be Defeated]

Perhaps the origin of agriculture in various places?

[Blue3]

Maybe putting the life and crucifixion of Jesus would be less controversial? Because you don't have to be Christian to understand the impact he had on the world.

[DC Al Fine]

I just don't see the enlightenment being the decisive moment in human history. I voted Jesus' resurrection, but I suppose agriculture or the wheel or something would also be a good answer from a secular POV.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

I voted Jesus' resurrection, but I suppose agriculture or the wheel or something would also be good answer from a secular POV.

[DemPGH]

Philosophically, I was going to say the paradigm shift that was the reinvention of knowledge - i.e., Baconian thought, but of the two, certainly the Enlightenment. No one ever actually rose from the dead anyway, and if they did I would like to talk to them. I would also like to know how it affected anyone other than the person who rose from the dead.

From a more concrete standpoint I might say the moon landing. At least, that's the first thing that comes to mind, but if I were to think about it I might come up with something else.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

When we went fro being scared of fire to being appreciative of it.

[afleitch]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

[Franzl]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

If one believes that it happened, then of course it is a relevant historic event.

[afleitch]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

If one believes that it happened, then of course it is a relevant historic event.

But belief is not history.

[Franzl]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

If one believes that it happened, then of course it is a relevant historic event.

But belief is not history.

It's history if the belief is correct. What meaning does a question like this have if one is forced to disregard an event that is believed to have taken place?

[dead0man]

If the Enlightenment counts as a "moment" then the first handful of domestication events would too and I'm going with that.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The Invention of States.

[afleitch]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

If one believes that it happened, then of course it is a relevant historic event.

But belief is not history.

It's history if the belief is correct. What meaning does a question like this have if one is forced to disregard an event that is believed to have taken place?

That's a good question. But how do you know the belief was correct other than through belief? No historical method can corroborate a supernatural occurance. There is is also a distinction between history and narrative. Arthurian legend was considered part of history as countless myths were. But it wasn't history. Otherwise you open up history to being the domain of Mohammed rising to heaven on a winged horse, Zeus defeating the Titans and aliens crashing at Roswell. History is not supposed to bend to your personal or spiritual worldview.

[DC Al Fine]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

If one believes that it happened, then of course it is a relevant historic event.

But belief is not history.

It's history if the belief is correct. What meaning does a question like this have if one is forced to disregard an event that is believed to have taken place?

That's a good question. But how do you know the belief was correct other than through belief? No historical method can corroborate a supernatural occurance. There is is also a distinction between history and narrative. Arthurian legend was considered part of history as countless myths were. But it wasn't history. Otherwise you open up history to being the domain of Mohammed rising to heaven on a winged horse, Zeus defeating the Titans and aliens crashing at Roswell. History is not supposed to bend to your personal or spiritual worldview.

Well if we're talking about impacts, its irrelevant whether the event actually occurred or not. But if it bugs you that much, let's call it "12 guys believe their recently executed leader rose from the dead and start the world's largest religion"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Both are western centric and we really should move out of that box. Secondly the resurrection was not an historic event and doesn't meet the criteria for one and given the question asked we have to say the Enlightenment.

If one believes that it happened, then of course it is a relevant historic event.

But belief is not history.

It's history if the belief is correct. What meaning does a question like this have if one is forced to disregard an event that is believed to have taken place?

That's a good question. But how do you know the belief was correct other than through belief? No historical method can corroborate a supernatural occurance. There is is also a distinction between history and narrative. Arthurian legend was considered part of history as countless myths were. But it wasn't history. Otherwise you open up history to being the domain of Mohammed rising to heaven on a winged horse, Zeus defeating the Titans and aliens crashing at Roswell. History is not supposed to bend to your personal or spiritual worldview.

Regardless of whether or not an event actually happened, it has the same historical effect so long as it is believed to have happened.

Other than a few anti-religious fanatics, there isn't any one who really doubts that there was a teacher named Jesus who went around Ancient Israel c. 30 CE preaching about God, or that he was crucified by the Romans, or that shortly after his death, his followers proclaimed he had been resurrected.  Whether that claim of resurrection be true or not, the historical effect is essentially the same, is it not?

Also, to revise your own question: how do you know a historical event happened other than through belief?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Perhaps the origin of agriculture in various places?

Precisely.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's already been mentioned and, yes, it is such a truism that it sometimes seems to be bordering on cliché, but it is pretty clearly the beginning of agriculture. I'm not inclined to get too specific over what sort of agriculture (even at a basic level; c.f. between pastoralism and cultivation. Because I'm strange, I would also include some forms of fishing), because that differed (still does, if not to the same extent) in different places. It's a decisive moment that happened at different times in different places, of course, but that's not terribly relevant.

Strong cases can be made for other important material shifts (such as the development of towns, or - much later! - the industrial revolution), and for certain related political ones (the development of 'the state', which has already been mentioned. So long, that is, as we accept a fairly broad definition of 'the state'). Cases for intellectual shifts, even very important ones (though I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the so-called 'Enlightenment' actually counts as one  of those^*), are infinitely weaker, and moments of divine revelation (and the like) are weaker still. Whatever our own personal religious views, we cannot regard (for instance) the Resurrection as an event in human history.

_{*I would actually argue, and only half trollishly, that the idea of the Enlightenment has been of greater consequence than that questionable intellectual epoch itself.}

[afleitch]

Whatever our own personal religious views, we cannot regard (for instance) the Resurrection as an event in human history.

That's essentially what I was getting at. Furthermore something such as the resurrection is of questionable influence for say, China. It had almost zero impact on two millennia of development there. The same can be said of the Enlightenment of course, which is why I think the choices presented are a little bizarre and not particularly inclusive when talking about world history.

The development of agriculture, hunter-gather tribes aside, is universal. Man manipulating the land particularly though deforestation had a notable effect on the climate which in turn had an effect on agriculture etc.

[Cassius]

The foundation of the first cities maybe?

[The Mikado]

In what sense is the Enlightenment a moment?  If it is, then something like the development of agriculture that was also a long process should be a contender and should obviously win.

The Green Revolution of the 20th century and the massive increase of agricultural production allowing humanity's size to treble in half a century should be a contender, too.

[DemPGH]

Seems to me that people are very much overestimating the development of agriculture. Domestication of plants and animals happened early and was inevitable I would say, so if that's our defining moment, I guess we're not capable of much. And of course we are.

I'm looking for something that's not inevitable and which marks a true jump for our species. I actually think we could be on the verge a real defining moment, but I think when we venture into space and when we start building rockets and sending them to other planets to send back information, that's pretty significant.

Including the Resurrection as an historical moment would be like including an E.T. crash at Roswell as an historical moment. You know, we back-engineered all that equipment, so we could vote that.

Maybe the Enlightenment was inevitable too? I sure know it could have happened, and should have happened, far earlier than the end of the Renaissance, essentially. Francis Bacon and others were arguing things that fed the Enlightenment. And that's my point about inevitability: all this stuff evolves, it's just a matter of when and under what circumstances.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

How was plant and animal domestication inevitable? It didn't happen in a lot of places where it was ecologically possible and it took a long time to do so when it did (Do you know the process of how Maize was grown from wild plants... it's inconceivable given what they had to work with. Probably ranks of the one of the greatest inventions in human history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hunter-gather societies still manage to exist, so I'd hardly call agriculture inevitable, tho the more intense utilization of resources that agriculture made possible did give agricultural societies an edge when competing for land both types of societies placed a value on.  So while once invented its spread was fairly inevitable, I would not say that its invention necessarily was.  However, agriculture is really multiple inventions, not a singular one, so I really doubt its advent can be considered a moment.