How so? The collapse of Classical civilization and the lost of so much knowledge that had been accumulated over the centuries produced a void in Western scientific advancement that really didn't start to go forward again until the Enlightenment. So I see no reason that we would be much further along if Classical civilization wasn't wrecked.
That's a complete myth, and it really irritates me. Even a cursory glance at history reveals just how false this colonialist notion of "progress through history" is.
The Western Roman Empire's collapse had nothing to do with Christianity, and "Western scientific advancement" (didn't actually exist until the scientific method, but nevermind) was actually spearheaded by the Church after society recovered. For the rest, we owe the entire rest of the world, which continued on much as it always had. European culture does not, and in fact, never has, existed independently of the world.
Further techological sophistication continued all throughout Asia. We LITERALLY owe the very concept of "zero" (and our numbering system in general) to India.
And in any case, I don't care how technologically sophisticated a society gets, if there's no physical way to travel the incomprehensibly vast distances in space, the Galaxy will
never be colonized. (Maybe,
maybe, local groups of stars.
Maybe.)
I know you hate Rome due to sectarian reasons and much of that hate is deserved. Rome never committed wholesale genocide against all other peoples for merely having a different religion.
Genocide is genocide is genocide, regardless of the reason.
And I'm mostly being facetious, anyway (I quoted Life of Brian for a reason). My "enemy" is Caesar, his legions, and that whole legacy. Rome herself, I have no hate nor ill will towards; they invented the hamburger.
Who's fault is that? To be honest, my European ancestry is Germanic and Celtic and I am proud of that, but it's kind of embarrassing, to me, how "backwards" they were compared to Hellenic civilization. I know this is a harsh caricature, but it really comes off as if they were just a bunch of filthy, tribal spearchuckers while Southern Europe, North and East Africa, the Near East and Asia were making amazing advances in all spheres of human endeavor. I know that if I had a choice, if I were alive during then, I know which culture I'd prefer to live in. Sorry.
Lol.
No apology needed, as there is some merit to that; when Romans built cities East of the Rhine and just lived their lives, the local Tribes started following suit with similar buildings, or just straight up moving in, because the quality of life in such towns was clearly superior to living in hovels made of mud and wood. (Though nevermind that back then, and until VERY recently, major metropolitan areas, including Rome herself, were rife with disease compared to smaller towns.) I doubt I'd survive in the North at all.
On the other hand, consider...
Greco-Roman culture was much the same (very macho), but feminine males and "bottoms" still had a place in society and were not tortured and killed.
Their women were, though. The Greeks and Romans were NOTORIOUSLY misogynistic, far moreso than the Northerners.
Furthermore... sure, Athens gave us Socrates and democracy. Athens also democratically forced Socrates to commit suicide because they didn't like him.
Don't mistake a society that has technological sophistication for being egalitarian to our standards, nor a society that lives primarily in agricultural communities for lacking such mindsets.
