Most other regions of the world at that time weren’t “civilized” in the sense that I think you’re trying to get at, to my knowledge. What I think you mean by civilized is the introduction of urbanism, a mass agricultural surplus, a continually stratified society, craft specialization; the classic “Urban Revolution” of V. Gordon Childe. If we speak in those terms, none of the other regions of the world (to my knowledge, I am a bit hesitant to say so for the New World and for Eastern Asia, because my expertise is not in that region and I don’t know the current thinking and evidence for those areas) were “civilized,” which itself is a loaded term in need of definition every time it is brought up nowadays.

In comparison, for example, most of Europe was still very much in a Neolithic economy; smaller, sedentary farming/husbandry villages of no more than 1000 people maximum, some walled, some unwalled, using pottery, having a more egalitarian (generally; Europe is a big place and it’s hard to say specifics for such a broad question) social structure, and unaware of the use of metals. I believe around this time the ard, the scratch plough, was beginning to be introduced into Europe, which would greatly improve grain output and thus impact demography significantly. There were no complex governmental systems, and the world seems to have been governed on the basis of the interactions of local communities; sort of similar if you want a comparison to the Greek polis system of classical Greece, but much, MUCH less ideological, theoretical, and stratified. Communities were largely self sufficient but definitely had strong ties to their neighbors, and, where they could, used the sea and easy land routes to trade with these neighbors.

To my knowledge (and again I study Europe, so someone will have to correct me for the rest of the world if I’m incorrect), everywhere else in the world was at a similar stage except for the new world, which was just starting to cultivate its first grains, and which would not be using them as intensively (teosinte took a long time to become domesticated maize, longer than say wheat and barley in SW Asia). Since China was an independent center of domestication for rice and millet, it had its own comparable Neolithic economy which would soon coalesce into the Chinese Bronze Age “civilizations”.

For Europe, most major technological innovations were adopted from SW Asia, through Anatolia and into Greece and the rest of Europe, using those sea connections I mentioned earlier. It is likely that Bronze metallurgy was introduced in this way, slowly, since we see the technology move slowly across Europe in a wide sweep. It is unclear if they invented agricultural tools independently or adopted them from the East; I am of the opinion they adopted them, but I’ve seen some argue otherwise. I’ve seen arguments that say the domestication of fruit trees (olive, fig, grape, plum, etc.) in SW Asia just around 4000 BCE forced a restructuring of the traditional agricultural economy and allowed specialization in craft agricultural goods (olive oil, wine) which in turn allowed for the true rise of complex societies like the Sumerians. This in turn spread throughout the regions in the four cardinal directions from SW Asia, leading to a rise of complex societies where it took hold. This argument is way more convincing to me than the argument that people one day just started working Bronze somewhere over there, or that working Bronze (a deeply complex process, requiring long distance trade connections and supply lines) was a natural outcropping of lithic (stone took) technology. Even in the early Bronze Age in Greece for example you see they’re still mostly using lithics (hence the sometimes used “Chalcolithic” age (copper/stone age). That answer turned a bit into a rant, but I hope it helps.