Type I civilization

The lowest of the civilization types on the Kardaschev scale.

A Type I civilization controls all of the energy resources that can be feasibly extracted from a single planet. This includes the use of mineral, solar, climatic, and biological energy sources.

Human civilization has nearly completed its transition to Type I.

-Back to the Transhumanist Terminology metanode

I seem to remember Michio Kaku mentioning in a book or media spot, that another important factor in reaching Type I is that we also have to overcome our differences and superstitions.

Reaching Type I is the most difficult step in the advancement of a civilization since we have to reach that milestone without blowing ourselves up. Supposedly after this milestone, this threat is nonexistant.

Of course we still have racisim, war, and religious extremists, so we are still far from accomplishing the requirements of a Type I civilization.

Also, in order to reach Type I, it is important that we believe that it is us, the humans, rather than the other species on the planet, that deserve the energy. Of course, Transhumanists believe that space provides ample room for expansion, so long as we exploit it to the fullest. . . .

Those who colonised the Americas and Australia believed the same thing. This aspect of transhumanism is just manifest destiny on a much larger scale. It's amazing how so few things really change.

I am hardly anti-technology. . . I agree with many of the precepts of XH. I cannot, however, abide the view that humans are the only really important thing to come out of the Earth's billions of years of development.

dg-

Sorry, but the transition from Type 0 to Type I isn't anywhere near to beginning, much less almost completed. Let's take a look at it.

Searching the web for information on Kardaschev's system yields a tremendous number of references to the squishy concepts of energy of a planet, energy of a star, blah, blah, blah. What the hell is this? I thought this was a scale, not some silly heuristic.

The only document I could find that contained actual numbers for the Kardaschev scale (1) gave these as the important figures:

• Type I: total energy consumption of between 10¹⁶ and 10¹⁷ watts/year.
• Type II: total energy consumption of between 10²⁶ and 10²⁷ watts/year.
• Type III: total energy consumption of between 10³⁷ and 10³⁸ watts/year.

What this says is that when humanity's total power consumption reaches 10¹⁶ watts/year we will have begun the transition to Type I and that when it reaches 10¹⁷ watts/year we will have completed said transition.

So how close are we? According to (2) worldwide energy consumption for 1996 was approximately 380 quadrillion BTU. That works out to 1.1 * 10¹⁵ watts, or about one-tenth of what we need to begin the transition. Obviously we aren't even close yet.

(2) also projects that global energy usage will reach 600 quadrillion BTU in 2020, or about 1.75 * 10¹⁵ watts. Clearly, we are still a long way from even beginning the transition.

jafuser-

The Kardaschev scale is explicitly designed to say nothing at all about specific technology, social condition, or species. It measures nothing but the energy consumption of a civilization, on the (reasonable) assumption that power usage correlates to technological sophistication which itself correlates to societal sophistication.

While Kaku may not be able to imagine humans reaching the necessary levels of energy usage while remaining a violent, fragmented race I have doubts as to whether we could ever get there any other way. The notion of violence seems too deeply ingrained into our civilization to ever be eradicated. Especially if you accept the argument that advances in medical technology will permit currently living humans to live to see the Transition it seems unlikely that we will be able to undo the memory of, and thus the capability for, violence.

neil-

I'm sorry to admit that I can derive no actual meaning from your write-up. It appears that you've given us three soundbites, rather than trying to actually argue a point. While this may be the best that CNN has to offer, I expect better from Everything2. Or maybe that's your point. I don't know.

References:

1. http://www.coseti.org/lemarch1.htm
2. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo99/world.html