I recommend the study of the eonic effect and its model of world history: then the place of diverse cultures in the context of civilization becomes clearer: Cultures at all places and times share a basic oneness in the sense of their being part of the same speciation of man. The ‘progress’ of civilization, as we see from the eonic effect, is not a means to fully change this fact, or to make statements about ‘primitive’ and ‘advanced’ cultures. Such prejudice arises spontaneously, but it is based on incomplete sets of criteria. The point of the eonic effect is that civilization is globalization also, and the progression of ‘stages’ arises from the logic of macroevolution on a planet, and it is thus no coincidence we suspect that it starts in the global/Eurasian center of gravity: the Middle East, and the Fertile Crescent. This zone gestates civilization for almost five thousand years before real globalization begins in the Axial Age, although it is proceeding apace by diffusion from Egypt/Sumer towards India, China, and Europe, and, we suspect, even the New World. Note that Europe never really takes off until modern times, and is first a recipient of diffusion via the Roman system, for many centuries.
We should note how retarded Europe was, until very late, and the whole confusion of Eurocentrism arises from the ‘johnny come lately’ transitional process that finally propels Europe, and at the same time, plus or minus a smattering of decades, the whole planet. Throughout the core prroesses of culture remain invariant, despite the immense changes created by knowledge and technology, and are not essentially different from the most ‘primitive’ cultures. We can see that development proceeds in a mainline that then shows diffusion into local, then global environment. At this point in our history we can see that genuine changes are possible for the first time, but only if they can be species-level transformations.
In general the question of culture, development, and change is confused by the very recent dominance, temporary, of the European transition zone: we thus see that European culture is a red herring: there is a unique transformation that is a part of globalization via selected regions.
We can seee that judgments of culture are thus misleading: in the relative eye-blink of ten thousand years since the Neolithic onset the whole group of cultures of global homo sapiens is undergoing transformation. We can’t make judgments very safely inside that band of millennia. The term ‘evolution’ applies to the wholle integration of transformation.
It is important to see that real globalization is not economic! That is a secondary process that can actually produce distortions.