When I say literacy I meant the invention of written word . It commonly does mean that . This has happened either two or three times in historyin mesopotamia , in mesoamerica , and possibly in China , and each time writing spread in these places , it led to the rapid advancement and sophistication of the society . i . e . , its development into a civilization . Each time it happened in a society that had achieved a large surplus , specialization and social and material stratification . It followed not proceeded from the advent of civilizations , every single time . Meanwhile rapid advancement and sophistication is necessarily rapid cultural change . So that would imply that literacy undermines cultural stability rather than being necessary for it . You ' re saying that literacy doesn ' t precede civilization , but surplus does . which leads to writing . which leads to civilization . No , surplus comes before civilization which comes before literacy was invented in every single instance . Your entire argument against what I ' m saying is utterly selfdefeating . You might want to examine your logic before writing things like this . Bunkum , as you say . Bunkum . And again , writing has only been invented thrice . But never in the absence of civilization . It never proceeds civilization . It only ever follows it . And again , writing has only been invented thrice . Aha , but the count for how many times it happened outside of an extant civilization is zero . The invention of farmingsurplus , as you insistonly led to civilisations that were literate in a vast minority of cases . So ? Why do you think that is relevant ? What is actually relevant is that in precisely zero instances literacy arose and caused civilization rather than being invented in the context of an existing civilization . Also , you should probably learn the difference between ' proceed ' and ' precede '. If you have a cure for dyslexia in your pocket be sure and share .