Categories of Planetary Civilizations:

[Divine Insight]

As everyone knows Nikolai Kardashev has proposed a systematic way to categorize classes of civilizations on a universal scale. His system is outlined below:

Kardashev Power Source Classification of Civilizations:

• Type 0: Any civilization that has not yet been able to harness 100% of the sunlight falling on the surface of its planet.
• Type 1: also called a planetary civilization—can use and store all of the energy which reaches its planet from its parent star.
• Type 2: also called a stellar civilization—can harness the total energy of its planet's parent star (the most popular hypothetical concept being the Dyson sphere—a device which would encompass the entire star and transfer its energy to the planet(s))
• Type 3: can control energy on the scale of its entire host galaxy

On this system humanity is currently a type 0 civilization. Some scientists, such as Michio Kaku, predict that technologically we may be able to become a type 1 civilization in about 100 to 200 years.

However, keep in mind that this Kardashev scale of civilizations says nothing at all about how efficiently the civilization is applying the use of the energy they have captured. All the Kardashev scale requires is that the civilization is capable of controlling a specific source of energy. They could be squandering that energy in non-productive and even self-destructive ways and still qualify as a certain type of civilization on the Kardashev scale. In other words, the Kardashev scale says nothing about the goals or behavior of the society, it addresses solely the question of how much energy they can control from a given source.

Because of the failure of the Kardashev scale to address important issues I would like to proposed two other scales that might be more useful for humanity. The first of these I call the Terraforming Scale.

Classification of Civilizations based on their ability to Terraform a Planet:

• Terra Type 0: Any civilization that has not yet been able to fully control their own planet's ecological stability.
• Terra Type 1: can control and maintain the ecological stability of their natural host planet.
• Terra Type 2: can control and maintain the ecological stability of several planets within their home solar system.
• Terra Type 3: can control and maintain the ecological stability of their entire solar system.

On this system humanity is also currently a type 0 civilization. We can't even control the ecosystems of our own planet. Also notice that no scientists are predicting when we might be able to do so because the above classifications of civilizations haven't even been officially recognized. Finally, note also that even if we became a type 1 Kardashev civilization harnessing the entire solar energy that falls on the earth this would in no way guarantee that we would be able to control the ecosystems of the earth. In other words, we could become a type 1 Kardashev civilization and still be totally at the mercy of the forces of nature that control the ecological stability of our own planet. This is why I feel that this Terraforming Classification is important.

Notice that this Terraforming system says nothing about the sources of energy the civilization might use. This system addresses solely the ability to control the ecological stability of planets.

I suggest that it would be far better for humanity to focus on becoming a type 1 Terraforming civilization than on becoming a type 1 Kardashev civilization, if for no other reason that this goal would be a far more fruitful goal to achieve. In other words, it would be far better to be able to control our planet's ecosystem than to merely harness all the energy that falls on our planet from our sun.

Finally I would like to propose yet another useful category of civilizations. I'll call this the "Social Coexistence Classification"

Social Coexistence Classification:

• Social Type 0: Any civilization that has not yet been able to fully get along and work together as single unified force on a planet.
• Social Type 1: Any civilization that is able to work together as single unified force on a planet without wars or major disagreements. (This does not require that there are no troublesome or criminal individuals. It only requires that major nations are all working together in harmony)
• Social Type 2: Any civilization that is able to work together as single unified force on several independent planets without wars or major disagreements.
• Social Type 3: Any civilization that is prepared to make a unified attempt to communicate with any alien civilizations that they might encounter.

Unfortunately, once again we are still a type 0 civilization on this scale as well. I suggest that it is highly unlikely that we could ever reach a Terra Type 1 civilization until we have achieved the status of being a Social Type 1 civilization (or at least very close to it)

Questions for Debate/Discussion:

1. Do you feel that these additional civilization categories I've proposed are useful?
2. Do you feel that our ability to master the ecological stability of our own planet is important?

3. Social Questions:
3a) Does our current world appear to be heading closer to, or further from, becoming a Social Type 1 civilization based on the above scale?
3b) Do you believe that religions are, or could be, a factor in whether we ever reach a Social Type 1 status?
3c) If you answered "yes" to question 3b, do you think religions are helpful or hurtful?
3d) If you believe religions are hurtful do you have a social solution to propose that might offer us a path toward becoming a Social Type 1 civilization?

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

2. Do you feel that our ability to master the ecological stability of our own planet is important?

I would say most definitely. Overpopulation and the effects of that (increased pollution of the atmosphere, stresses to food supplies via reduction in land available for farming and livestock, etc.) will eventually become a major problem if the exponential growth in the number of humans continues at the current pace. The average human exhales about 2 lbs of excess CO2 each day (ie. 2 lbs more than they breath in). With 7.4 billion people on Earth now, that puts 1.5e10 lbs or 7.4 million tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere each day just from humans breathing. This pales in comparison to the industrial contribution, but is just one example of the impact of too many humans on this planet, and adding exponential growth in livestock to support the larger human population, along with the increased requirements on potable water and other resources, it is clear that we must do something to reduce the growth rate in the population.

There are obvious *&%)#! like the Duggar's who think it is OK to have 19 children in one family, and a large number of uneducated people in the world who don't know any better, and/or don't have access to birth control and education, who will continue to add to population growth abnormally. But even without these groups we will eventually reach a level where the resources on Earth cannot support the population, and nature or wars over resources will take care of the situation and reduce the human population to sustainable levels (or wipe it out completely).

To avoid this we have to get better control of the ecological condition of the planet, and in the distant future it may be necessary to try and terraform Mars or the moon if we obtain the technology to do so at those scales, and have available the extensive time it would take to accomplish that. Science fiction at the moment, but if we don't get a handle on population growth eventually nature and wars over resources are likely to make Earth an unpleasant place to live millennia from now, and if there is no where else to go it could be an unhappy ending.

Of course, if one believes that their god is going to return and take believers to heaven in the not too distant future, then there would be no reason to worry about this sort of thing. And I think the Duggar's and people like them genuinely believe that this is true and so would make no effort to help the cause of population stabilization. It is up to the science community to continue to influence governments and to think long term, and hopefully overwhelm certain short-sighted religious contingents who may ignore these long term issues due to their belief that it doesn't matter as the "end days" are not that far away.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

All the Kardashev scale requires is that the civilization is capable of controlling a specific source of energy. They could be squandering that energy in non-productive and even self-destructive ways and still qualify as a certain type of civilization on the Kardashev scale. In other words, the Kardashev scale says nothing about the goals or behavior of the society, it addresses solely the question of how much energy they can control from a given source.

That was the case when the idea was first presented. Perhaps back then (early 60's) it wasn't something to consider as part of the scale, or perhaps it was just assumed that such populations would have to include these other aspects into the equation a-la natural.
But yes, others who have been interested in the Kardashev scale since then have made such additions;

With this in mind, the Kardashev scale was developed as a way of measuring a civilization’s technological advancement based upon how much usable energy it has at its disposal (this was originally just tied to energy available for communications, but has since been expanded).

and;

These additions consider both energy access as well as the amount of knowledge the civilizations have access to.

https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scal ... ilization/

Also notice that no scientists are predicting when we might be able to do so because the above classifications of civilizations haven't even been officially recognized.

Has the Kardashev scale even been officially recognized?
In as much as scientists today are revered, there are schisms which oppose one another as far as data interpretation is concerned, and lack of consensus would be a common problem within a type zero species.

Indeed, the scientific community reminds me of how the religious community - or any other type of social community hearkening to type zero [TZ] principles, tend to behave. Only - of course - a more knowledgeable version of the same.
Scientists are like the priests of old, and just as vulnerable to the whims of those who have the power and influence and ability to fund whatever projects they place their interests in.

In other words, we could become a type 1 Kardashev civilization and still be totally at the mercy of the forces of nature that control the ecological stability of our own planet. This is why I feel that this Terraforming Classification is important.

I think the two would simply go hand in hand as natural enough for a species willfully moving from TZ to T1.

The greater difficulty would be in figuring out how to get the masses interested in putting their support into the project. The masses - unfortunately - do not see any particular need to do so. Life is short and there is temptation plenty in which to squander such opportunity on.

I think that there are pockets of influence moving towards becoming a T1 species with in mind not everyone wants to do so - that is taken into consideration as part of the plan.

This has the affect of separating humanity into groups.

1: Those who don't care.
2: Those who do care but have no direct influence and
3: Those who do care and have direct influence.

Unfortunately, once again we are still a type 0 civilization on this scale as well. I suggest that it is highly unlikely that we could ever reach a Terra Type 1 civilization until we have achieved the status of being a Social Type 1 civilization (or at least very close to it)

I would tend to agree with this assessment as it relates to the masses, but as I said, this does not mean that there are not those who are involved in building this T1 with in mind that not everyone will make it - indeed, most will not.

Questions for Debate/Discussion:

1. Do you feel that these additional civilization categories I've proposed are useful?
2. Do you feel that our ability to master the ecological stability of our own planet is important?

Yes to both.

3. Social Questions:
3a) Does our current world appear to be heading closer to, or further from, becoming a Social Type 1 civilization based on the above scale?

From standard accessible data, it is a little hard to predict but appears to be moving away from becoming T1, for reasons I have already outlined.
However, that has to do with the majority. The minority, imo, are considering alternatives and building these into their infrastructure.

3b) Do you believe that religions are, or could be, a factor in whether we ever reach a Social Type 1 status?

I do not know of any organised religions which have the well-being of life on earth at the forefront of their belief systems.
Generally the impression I have is that such religions are politically motivated and in that, use and abuse is of the planet is not here nor there.
The Christian religion has been lead to believe that societies are powerless against the corruption of (what can only really be referred to as) criminal activity riff in politics and general community activity and that there is a 'god of this world' who is allowed to use humans to their own destruction through careless attitude toward environment through greed etc.
Thus, Jesus is required to come and put a stop to that evil, in which case Christianity is effectively redundant as a means in which to put a stop to the damage being done, because 'it is prophesied' that Jesus and the heavenly host are the ones - the only ones who can do this.
In other words, it will be done on earth as in heaven, but not by human beings.

The other aspect of this has to do with earth being a place which - while holding beauty - is generally seen as less than desirable - especially when compared to the idea of heaven. All in all the religion has evolved into one where powerless victims are promised things which are currently not available to them due to great evil in the world, and thus the need to be concerned and proactive is diminished among them, if not completely deactivated.

A T1 (and onward) society is a heavenly one, or in the case of some Christian doctrines, one which requires heavenly assistance to make happen. Either way, the victims are relying on faith in such assistance eventually being forthcoming, rather than in rolling their sleeves up and dealing with the problems themselves. They have willingly been rendered powerless through the doctrines which encourage them to believe this about themselves.

3c) If you answered "yes" to question 3b, do you think religions are helpful or hurtful?

To the majority, they are hurtful. To the minority, they can be worked around.

3d) If you believe religions are hurtful do you have a social solution to propose that might offer us a path toward becoming a Social Type 1 civilization?


It may be that the 'social solution' has already been in effect for millennium and the politic/religious ordering is the vessel in which the solution has been and continues to be used for.

On the other hand, in my experience with hard-lined atheists over the years, it has become apparent to me that many of them are no different in the overall opinion and attitude of may theists in regard to this subject. We are nothing much - merely dust and our lives are pointless and when we die that is the ends of us. Such beliefs serve to render the same attitudes regardless of which side one sits. There is no advantage in being an atheist and no guarantee that the world would be significantly different in attitude, should everyone decide to become atheist.

So yes - while I agree that religion isn't helping, nor is non-religion.

As to proposing anything that might offer us a path toward becoming a Social Type 1 civilization, as I understand it, most people are not interested. I accept that but it doesn't dissuade me from focusing on the potential.

In my mind, I think AI will develop eventually enough that IT becomes the 'representative' of humanity and carries that torch out into the cosmos, after having become the T1 and in doing so may even carry the seed of human and other life forms with it to plant upon planets which can host the seed and thus continue the process...of evolving to the point of being able to create AI and send it into the cosmos with the seed...rinse and repeat...

This may even be how we ended up on this planet in the first place.

Thank you for your participation in this thread.

No problem. It is a subject I am very interested in.

[center]The Necessity of Changing Our Present Systems of Disparity.

Moving from a Type Zero Species to a Type One Species[/center]

♦ A System of Parity

♦ A System of disparity = a system of the Antichrist.

♦ 'Utopia' is the natural product of a system of parity.

♦ Is human nature really greed and corruption?

♦ Becoming Type One species - is it possible for humanity to achieve?

[Divine Insight]

It is a subject I am very interested in.

Me too.

I was a teenager when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States in the 60's. His administration encouraged the sciences as he set the goal to put a man on the moon. I vividly recall companies sending technicians to our school setting up science booths to display their "space age technologies".

It was a very encouraging time for scientific-minded individuals. We were about to put a man on the moon and Mars was being banned about like as if it would be a project to soon follow.

In 1963 Kennedy was assassinated. Fortunately however his mission to land a man on the moon continued on and we finally achieved that goal in 1969. It was a great time to be alive. Watching the moon mission from lift-off, to the moon landing, to the astronauts being safely returned to earth was quite fascinating.

The sci-fi series known as Star Trek also began in 1966 and became popular quite early no doubt because of the moon mission happening concurrently. Things were looking up and the "Space Age" appeared to be nigh.

But then it became increasingly clear that interstellar flight was extremely unlikely to ever become a reality due to the restriction of the speed of light and the whole Relativity thing.

It also quickly became apparent that even a trip to Mars would not be happening anytime soon. In part because of technological problems, but even more so due to the formidable financial costs of such a project. The "Space Age" dwindled out as the "Information Age" became the new buzz word.

Over the years the idea of any practical or realistic sense of doing anything in space, including merely putting men on Mars became generally accepted as being so impractical as to be a worthless endeavor (I'm not saying that this is the case, but rather this was the public perception of the situation).

And then we wars became the focus of attention with the Vietnam War taking center stage in the 1970's. Along with this were the civil rights movement and the women's rights movement, etc. Society became focused back in on itself (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), the only problem is that they didn't solve these problems as we see today. These very same problems are raising their ugly head once again. The progress we thought we may from the 70's through the 90's turns out to have been extremely impermanent and fragile.

Of course, course with the twin towers disaster on 9/11 and the USA invading Iraq public attention was once again buried beneath the dark blanket of war.

I make no apologies for the political views I'm about to voice, but I saw the 8 years of the Obama Administration as moving us back into the right direction of global peace, humane civil rights, and planetary ecology. In fact, I hold that many people who hated Obama actually hated him precisely for those accomplishments.

Today under the Trump adminstration it appears we've been flushed right down the toilet back to beyond square one. Even beyond the 1960's. This administration appears to want to take us back to the 1950's, 40's, or even the 30's. This administration has already destroyed any hope of planetary ecology. This administration is setting civil right back to the 1930's and even encouraging racism, religious bigotry, and even political division between Americans. This administration has withdrawn from the global society and is currently setting an example for the world of national narcissism focusing solely on "Me, me, me!" instead of encouraging global cooperation for the betterment of humanity.

So much damage has already been done within the first year of this USA administration. It's a worldwide embarrassment to be sure. A grave mistake for the USA that may very well be unrecoverable, even if a sane administration were to replace it in 2020. So much damage will have been done by then that the next administration would require its entire four-year term just to try to turn things back around again.

So I see little hope for humanity, unless a nation like China rises up to fill the ethical void created by the current administration of the USA. If humanity survive in the long haul it will most likely be led by the Chinese because America has torpedoed itself in the heart and is unlikely to recover from the wounds anytime soon, if ever.

So if humanity has a prayer it most likely rests in the hands of the Chinese. At least that's what the world currently looks like to me.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

1) The social types make a lot of sense. The Terra ones do not to me, because in my mind there is no such thing as ecological stability. The whole reason things evolve is to respond to the constantly changing environments. I'm not convinced that humans can maintain the stability of something that, by definition, isn't ever stable.

2) It's important to understand and limit the impacts humans have on the rest of living things since those things play a role in our ability to survive on this planet. But I don't think we can possibly master something that is dynamic like the environment.

3a) Neither. I think we have roughly the same tribal mentalities that we've had for the last 10,000 years. The one major difference is that now humans have pretty much outsourced their tribalism to governments to handle.

3b) Religions are a net detriment to humanity and will not be helpful towards reaching a Social Type 1 level.

3c) Hurtful

3d) Universal human rights (most importantly freedom of speech) and democracy are the best path towards level one. The individual as the most important sovereign entity is a tremendous advancement from the enlightenment, and it's almost miraculous (meant non-theistically) that humans reached that realization. That we did, however, has shown us that a melting pot of the world is possible, since it has already happened in the US. It's just a matter of scale at this point...

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

In 1963 Kennedy was assassinated. Fortunately however his mission to land a man on the moon continued on and we finally achieved that goal in 1969. It was a great time to be alive. Watching the moon mission from lift-off, to the moon landing, to the astronauts being safely returned to earth was quite fascinating.

Yes, the space race was an interesting waste of time and money and resources, which shouldn't be surprising given that the science was based upon the thinking of type zero species...and largely continues along that trajectory.

I suspect the idea Trump propagated in making America 'great' again has something to do with the exciting times of those days, and that the promise of channeling public $$ away from such things and using the $$ to strengthen the weakening infrastructure and support all Americans through that was enough enticement for the people to vote for him. As it turns out (not unpredictable as far as I am concerned) Trump lied and it is business as usual in the swamp.

It will make it impossible for any other presidential candidate to sell the same promise but, in my mind anyway, politics have never been and will never be about the well-being and security of the masses. It is always about maintaining the positions of the few at the cost to the many.
That is the way of prison mentality (type zero species.) Top Dogs always get the best of everything and 'stuff the world'.

'When will we ever learn? When will we eeevvvveeerr learn?'

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

In 1963 Kennedy was assassinated. Fortunately however his mission to land a man on the moon continued on and we finally achieved that goal in 1969. It was a great time to be alive. Watching the moon mission from lift-off, to the moon landing, to the astronauts being safely returned to earth was quite fascinating.

Yes, the space race was an interesting waste of time and money and resources, which shouldn't be surprising given that the science was based upon the thinking of type zero species...and largely continues along that trajectory.

I would certainly disagree with your assessment that it was a waste of time. Many things came out of this far beyond the actual trip to the moon.

The most obvious benefits were the technological advances that came out of the actual project itself. Taking on a major technological project like this forces us to solve problems that we wouldn't otherwise need to solve. So to think that this was a waste of money is to ignore those benefits. This project also actually contributed to the economy of our society. It wasn't just a drain on the economy. Many companies benefited from the need to provide products to NASA and those companies didn't limit their product solely to NASA either. So those companies benefited in the advancement of the technologies of the products they produce as well.

To call it a 'wast of money' suggests that you seem to think that the only benefit of going to the moon was to actually make the trip. That is extremely short-sighted.

The other far less obvious benefit of the Moon Project was that it simulated students to study the science and engineering in general. Therefore the USA produced more engineers during that period. The vast majority of those engineers never even worked on the Mood Project at all. Yet they contributed to the technological advancement of general industries and manufacturing. So there were many "unseen" benefits from the Moon Project that most people don't even realize were related.

So to call this a 'wast of money' is to totally ignore the true impact it actually had on our economy and technology in general.

And today, with almost no incentive to study the sciences, and even religious opposition to the sciences our modern day students are not learning the sciences. This will (and actually has already) resulted in other countries surpassing us in educating their younger generations in the sciences and mathematics.

The USA is actually falling behind in the sciences. I believe Japan has already surpassed the USA in terms of producing far more qualified scientists and technologists. China is quickly moving to surpass us as well, if they haven't already. They most certainly will if the Trump Administration has any say in the matter.

The USA is currently moving in a direction of religious ignorance where science is almost becoming a dirty word.

If you think the Moon Mission was a waste of time, then you haven't understood the true scope of what that mission had truly accomplished. And without that kind of scientific incentive, the USA is doomed to become a nation of scientific illiterates.

We've already dropped to being something like 35th on the list of nations with good science education. And China is way closer to the top of that list. So we are already behind China. This means that when our millennial become senior citizens the USA will become a third-world country in terms of education. Far behind China.

In fact, I heard that China is actually talking about a possible Mars Mission. If that's true then the young people of China are doing to be focusing on science.

Trust me, having a national goal to go into space has profound affects on the technological success of a society even if they never launch a single rocket. It's not the mission that represents the success. It's the incentive the mission provides for the students to want to become technologically educated.

That's the real prize. Not the actual mission itself.

If putting a couple men on the moon for a few brief moments was all we got out of the Moon Mission, then of course it would have been an absolute waste of time. But that's nowhere near the actual purpose of the mission.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

I would certainly disagree with your assessment that it was a waste of time. Many things came out of this far beyond the actual trip to the moon.

The most obvious benefits were the technological advances that came out of the actual project itself. Taking on a major technological project like this forces us to solve problems that we wouldn't otherwise need to solve. So to think that this was a waste of money is to ignore those benefits. This project also actually contributed to the economy of our society. It wasn't just a drain on the economy. Many companies benefited from the need to provide products to NASA and those companies didn't limit their product solely to NASA either. So those companies benefited in the advancement of the technologies of the products they produce as well.

To call it a 'wast of money' suggests that you seem to think that the only benefit of going to the moon was to actually make the trip. That is extremely short-sighted.

The other far less obvious benefit of the Moon Project was that it simulated students to study the science and engineering in general. Therefore the USA produced more engineers during that period. The vast majority of those engineers never even worked on the Mood Project at all. Yet they contributed to the technological advancement of general industries and manufacturing. So there were many "unseen" benefits from the Moon Project that most people don't even realize were related.

So to call this a 'wast of money' is to totally ignore the true impact it actually had on our economy and technology in general.

Well what can I say? You appear to be in two minds here DI. In the OP you make it very clear that we are indeed a TZSpecies, you go to the trouble of making pertinant additions to the concept in relation to becoming a T1Species, then I remind you that the space race was a waste of time and money...

...which shouldn't be surprising given that the science was based upon the thinking of type zero species...and largely continues along that trajectory.

...and you come back at me arguing as if I am incorrect in my assessment!

I am supposing that you understand that a TZ species which isn't moving forward to becoming a T1 species, is going to fail as a species. So unless you are saying that we are moving toward that goal, then yes - the space race was a wasted effort, even that it brought many benefits to SOME people, those benefits are still counted in terms of money and investment which are still motivated by TZ mentality - greed etc which you speak about in the OP, as well as elsewhere on this site.

The rest of your post goes on about how America is failing as a nation while other nations are overtaking and advancing. Are you suggesting that the other nations are moving toward becoming T1 civilizations (nations) while America is bogged down in the TZ zone?

If that is the case, then most civilized people will agree that America brought it on herself and will suffer the consequences of her actions and inaction's as a nation, right from her conception. It's been a long time coming and inevitable at that. Karma is a you-know-what.

But even in that, if indeed the rest of the world, or the majority of the rest of the world are heading towards becoming T1, America, or what will be left of her, will be assisted by that world, as a matter of necessity.

Or, if indeed your praises about those other nations are in recognition of achievement based upon TZ mentality, those other nations will fail eventually.

I think the main problem with your reply {Post 4} to my original post {Post 3} is that you picked one small comment from it and made opportunity to go off on a tangent, while you basically ignored the rest of my post - even that it was comprehensively engaging in the OP and what you wrote therein.

Your have swerved away from the OP and become decidedly political and in that bemoaning America's demise and pointing the finger ONLY at religion as being the reason for that.

You and many other anti-christian individuals make the mistake of not realizing that religion is and always has been a POLITICAL device, and until you get that, your reasoning will remain unbalanced.

The fact of the matter is, if human beings collectively will not become a T1 species, then everything they have done will have been a waste. Of time, money, resource, intelligence, opportunity, and life.

The space race was motivated by competition. Egocentrically driven and is it any wonder things have turned out as they have? No it is not.

T1 requires something that is driven by nations collectively cooperating with that goal in mind. (see OP for more on that.)

[Divine Insight]

T1 requires something that is driven by nations collectively cooperating with that goal in mind.

From a purely perfectionist perspective I totally agree. But it should be crystal clear that no nation is even remotely close to being at that mentality yet. Much less a cooperation of nations.

The closest thing we've come to this thus far is the Paris Climate Accord, and the USA just backed out of that. So it should be clear that this whole process is extremely fragile. Especially when a single individual can arbitrarily make decisions for an entire nation.

Our current political systems may prevent us from ever becoming a T1 anything.

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Our current political systems may prevent us from ever becoming a T1 anything.

Then the best suggestion anyone can make is to accept that as the case and forget about trying to change anyone's mind or for that matter appoint unbalanced blame on any particular aspect of the TZ Species. Adopt another position which does not require one to participate in such pointless interactions.

It is what it is.