Type I civilization: Reality or fantasy?

[The 10th Plague]

Lately, I've been reading a lot about the classification of civilizations made by Kardashev. There are three "types" of High-advanced civilizations according to him.

Type I: A civilization can harvest all the energy that the home planet possesses. It can control it's own weather, earthquakes, and even volcanic eruptions. The energy-consumption of a Type I civilization starts with 10^16 Watts.

Type II: A civilization can harvest all the energy that the own star possesses. It can mine stars. The civilization will have full knowledge about it's own galaxy, and it will have a few colony's in neighbouring solar systems. The energy-consumption of a Type II civilization starts with 10^26 Watts.

Type III: A civilization can harvest almost al the energy in a total galaxy. Such a civilization is practically immune to extinction, only the Death of the universe itself can destroy such a civilization. The energy-consumption of a Type III civilization starts with 10^36 Watts.

Kardashev based this on Earth's humans ("we"), and assumed that we could reach this. Currently, we are about a Type 0.73 civilization. This means that we are going to reach Type I in about 150 years. I think it will be extremely difficult for us to reach this.

Just look at this wikipedia page : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ofcourse, wikipedia cannot be trusted completely, so take the article roughly. For us to become even type 0.8 we would need fusion power - which indeed is coming pretty soon - but after that we would need a certain type of World Government to managy the energy. Yes, we are on our way to creating a World Government - especially the European Union is a kind of ancestor of the World Government - but I think it would take us at least 200 years to achieve this. In any "normal" world this would not be too long, but in our modern world it is. We have almost devoured all the fossil fuels that this Earth has given us. If we don't change our ways of energy-producing rapidly our economy will crumple, devastating Earth's inhabitants. This will eventually create wars. We can see that already: the "war on terror" actually is war for oil, oil, and oil again. I think Bush only attacked Iraq for it's oil. And last, but not least, our fossil-fuel-devouring-problem has created yet another problem: the climate. We are destroying our own biosphere, and polluting the Earth. Also all our CO2 -emmissions have created a reinforced greenhouse-effect. If we do nothing, about 50% of all coastal areas in the world will be flooded in the year 2050.

So, what do you think about becoming a Type I civilization? Will we achieve this great barrier, or will it be just a fantasy which we'll never achieve (which would mean the extinction of humanity)?

Personally, I HOPE we're going to make it, but it will be extremely difficult.

[stasis]

Well, it's not reality until it happens. So, fantasy for the moment. I don't see what would be so impossible about the notion of harvesting kinetic energy, though. Be it from tectonic plate stresses or the ocean or whatever else. Moving on to solar energy seems like the next logical step from there, given the fact that things like our weather and the fossil fuels we currently use are generated by solar output. A barrel of oil is a crappy battery, basically. Putting power stations into orbit around the sun shouldn't be beyond us.

Technologically then, although I am not an engineer, I see no damning obstacle. The politics of the situation are another matter, and that sort of thing is probably a lot harder to meaningfully graph. I really have no idea when if ever the spear-chucking and tribalism will cease. Nationstates themselves as a global system are set up in a manner that this kind of conflict is inevitable, which, as you suggest, would indicate the need for something like world government. Or at least much larger nationstates drawn up along culturally compatible lines. The massive technological initiatives spanning a global or semi-global area of effect would obviously require a more stable geopolitical climate, to be sure. And I can't imagine the successful implementation of mega-engineering such as space elevators (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) under the threat of bombing, international espionage, and tribal power plays.

The EU is hopeful. I'd like to see a North American union develop in tandem, that as a precursor to some trans-Atlantic union. It seems culturally feasible. The alternative in accomplishing a similar end is a disintegration of the nationstate altogether, perhaps within the context of international capitalism. That route sounds a bit less viable unless it were to take place all over the world simultaneously - which seems less likely to happen. Ultimately, I'm not as concerned at the moment with the particular method of overcoming the current myopia of nationstates as I am with it being overcome. To that end, whatever works.

[bucolic_]

I remember hearing about this from Michio Kaku, did a quick google search. He seems to think it'll happen in 100-200 years. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seems a bit optimistic to me, but who knows. You might be interested in reading some Ray Kurzweil. I've got "The Singularity is Near," which covers some similar topics.

And I agree with Stasis, the problem with arriving there is more societal than it is technological.

[The 10th Plague]

I remember hearing about this from Michio Kaku, did a quick google search. He seems to think it'll happen in 100-200 years. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Seems a bit optimistic to me, but who knows. You might be interested in reading some Ray Kurzweil. I've got "The Singularity is Near," which covers some similar topics.

And I agree with Stasis, the problem with arriving there is more societal than it is technological.

Yes, I agree with you two too. In my first post problems I don't really deal with technological problems, but I deal much more with social and political problems. The technology is there to achieve, the people aren't yet.

But thanks for the links !

[rocksteady]

I say screw the world government, we have a better chance if we let Google take control.

[The 10th Plague]

I say screw the world government, we have a better chance if we let Google take control.

Google already has a lot power over the world; 90% of the internet is controlled by Google. But Google should go through a very big change if they really want to "rule the world". I most honestly think the EU is the best candidate.

[Night]

Type I: A civilization can harvest all the energy that the home planet possesses. It can control it's own weather, earthquakes, and even volcanic eruptions. The energy-consumption of a Type I civilization starts with 10^16 Watts.



I think you've concisely identified the appropriate socio-fiscal barriers to our expansion into a Type 1 civilization. Well said.

Has anyone ever heard of Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? (see bucolic_'s post below for original citation)

While it is certainly not without its critics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), I think it provides a creative model that could serve to accelerate Kardashev's exponential growth rate.

[The 10th Plague]

Well, Kurzweil has a point in there. Just look at the past century. Our whole way of living has changed during the last 100 years. In 1900, not many people had electric lighting, and in 2007 there are more cell-phones than humans, life without computers is unthinkable, and without electricity many of us literally would die ;) .

Still, I don't think we would be reaching the socalled singularity in 2045. That would be less than 30 years. I don't think robots will be smart enough to exceed the human brain. This is because computers don't "think" the way we do. Even if you'd have an infinite speed of calculation, computers would have to be significantly changed in their "thinking"-way. A computer can't learn by it's own; something humans can do. When humans learn, they create connections between their neurons, making "calculation"-speed faster in those regions of the brain. A computer can't enhance it's own speed while operating. Chemical processes would be needed to do that, and a computer doesn't do chemical reactions.

But, if we're going to reach the Singularity, than it could be pretty dangerous. There should be at least something like the Three Laws of Robotic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , to prevent something like the The Matrix (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[rocksteady]

Well, Kurzweil has a point in there. Just look at the past century. Our whole way of living has changed during the last 100 years. In 1900, not many people had electric lighting, and in 2007 there are more cell-phones than humans, life without computers is unthinkable, and without electricity many of us literally would die ;) .

Still, I don't think we would be reaching the socalled singularity in 2045. That would be less than 30 years. I don't think robots will be smart enough to exceed the human brain. This is because computers don't "think" the way we do. Even if you'd have an infinite speed of calculation, computers would have to be significantly changed in their "thinking"-way. A computer can't learn by it's own; something humans can do. When humans learn, they create connections between their neurons, making "calculation"-speed faster in those regions of the brain. A computer can't enhance it's own speed while operating. Chemical processes would be needed to do that, and a computer doesn't do chemical reactions.

But, if we're going to reach the Singularity, than it could be pretty dangerous. There should be at least something like the Three Laws of Robotic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) , to prevent something like the The Matrix (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

You may want to read more kurzweil, he addresses this and many other potential issues, and has asnswers for almost all of them.
check out this site for tons of good articles relating to this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity!

rocksteady added, 4 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...

Google already has a lot power over the world; 90% of the internet is controlled by Google. But Google should go through a very big change if they really want to "rule the world". I most honestly think the EU is the best candidate.

I think that is a terrible idea, capitalism is slowly replacing government in many ways, especially in the day to day lives of ordinary people. Google just invested more money in renewable energy research than our federal government. When allowed to function properly, the market is much better at fulfilling the needs of the people than government. I think Google is a great example of some of these companies that will emerge from the tech sector and change the face of the world, exciting times ahead!

PS - don't say Google controls 90% of the internet, it's not factual and can be misconstrued as such. Google dominates online advertising, but does not CONTROL THE INTERNET by any means.