We, along with most historians, always discuss the causes of the declines of civilization.  What are some reasons for the rise of civilization?

I would say:1. Economics - need or convenience of trade with others in a close geographic proximity2. Religion - common worship leads to the building of structures in which worship may take place, and therefore a common meeting ground3. Family - a familial unit in itself is a kind of "community", and a few large families in the same area create economic drivers that attract outsiders to that area

What I propose is the work of V. Gordon Childe, the man that gave us the term Urban Revolution, and while it can be argued that this is not the same as the rise of civilization it does seem (to me at least) part and parcel of the process. We all know that the change from hunter-gatherer patterns to settled agriculture was a huge shift in how society worked and the following are the steps that Childe says take us for a folk society to and urban society [my comments in brackets]. Let me know what you all think.1. Large population and large settlements (cities) [We don't have to chase game or even our own herd animals, we have the ability to settle down and we will acquire more things.]2. Full-time specialization and advanced division of labor [Since we don't all have to farm anymore because the advance methods provide surpluses, some of us can do other things.] 3. Production of an agricultural surplus to fund government and a differentiated society [Specialization will lead to a stratified society and we will need some folks to do the jobs people cannot or will not do for themselves. 4. Monumental public architecture [I prefer the term monumental public works, which I've seen used instead; this is anything from the pyramids to our interstate highway system.] 5. A ruling class [In that differentiated society somebody (or bodies) will find a way to get the power. Might be the priests class, might be the warrior class, might be the intellectuals... gonna depend on the society and their values.]6. Writing [At least some way to keep track of important info.] 7. Exact and predictive sciences (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, calendars) [Gotta be able to do the books and banking; need this for #9 below.] 8. Sophisticated art styles [Almost goes without saying... cave painting to the Sistine Chapel to you-name-it. Expression.] 9. Long-distance trade [Validates our spatial relationship with the rest of out world.] 10. The state [We are beyond being members of a tribe or subjects of a leader we are citizens of a concept.]Just about any civilization you name will fit into this construct as far as I can tell. Your thoughts folks?

Don't we need to define what constitutes a civilization?  Does any grouping of people count as a civilization?  Are we to assume that a tribe of 200 in the Amazon is a civilization too?  I don't know that I buy into #9 on Wally's list.  Trade is not necessary for civilization, as far as I know the Mongols did not engage in long distance trade until they had established their Empire.Defining a civilization is a rough one, saying why some succeed and others don't is even more difficult.  Add to the equation that some people will inevitably bring race and social Darwinism into it and it becomes a very sticky subject and one fraught with misunderstandings and grandstanding.  I would guess the best way is to examine individual societies and try and deduce why they succeeded or failed and try to find general attributes.  The problem with this approach is that there are exceptions to every rule.

I generally agree. Not all elements are necessary but some combination of the above would seem to be a requirement with at most one or two attributes missing.

Indeed and illustrates (for my part anyway) that I keep telling the same stories.  😀