[
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?