Type 0 to type 1 civilisation?
Lance
Lance
> see
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ftF8sXzoWk&feature=related
"Dr.Michio Kaku..Talks about Different Types of Human Civilizations.
He also Talks about the Earth Beings Reaching the Scale of
Civilization."
Here's a Wikipedia article on the Karadshev scale that seems to be the
basis of Kaku's You tube talk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
I wonder whether energy is the correct way in which to think about
technological and civilization progress?
Lance
Peter Brooks
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
>
> I wonder whether energy is the correct way in which to think about
> technological and civilization progress?
>
civilisation or progress. A species or organism could be very high up
this scale, but have no aesthetic understanding and no morality. So it
seems flawed just from that point of view.
Wikipaedia includes the explosion of a nuclear bomb in the calculation
of the energy 'used' by a 'civilisation'. If a 'civilisation' is still
expending massive amounts of energy on weapons production, then I'd
think it deeply uncivilised. So, on this measure the scale seems to
fail fairly spectacularly.
If 'use' were defined as increasing happiness, or decreasing misery,
poverty, disease, with any energy expended in the opposite direction
subtracted from it, then I think we might have a useful measure of
progress towards civilisation. Such a measure would show the world
wars as huge steps backwards - but also give credit for the beneficent
results, like antibiotic production, from wars.
I'd think another useful measure of civilisation would be the depth of
the hierarchy, or reporting structure. Just as slow-moving,
bureaucratic companies have many tiers of management, whilst
innovative, fast-moving, companies have, at most, two, at a push,
three levels between the worker and the board director, so you'd
expect a flatter social structure in a less totalitarian
'civilisation'.
I agree that technically, an iPod is evidence of huge progression,
technologically, from the phonograph cylinder of 1877 - only a century
and a quarter! - I'm not sure, though, that that leap is as
significant, intellectually as, the evolution of musical instruments,
or, for that matter, of musical form, to arrive at the modern
orchestra. Is a huge improvement in, simply, recoding technology as
significant in a profound sense as that of music itself?
Lance
All of these are clever points. But the morality of a giant
civilization that astronomers might detect in the heavens probably
can't be discerned through a telescope. So I suppose energy use and
technology are the things on which we would have to make our initial
judgments.
Lance
Peter Brooks
>
>
> All of these are clever points. But the morality of a giant
> civilization that astronomers might detect in the heavens probably
> can't be discerned through a telescope. So I suppose energy use and
> technology are the things on which we would have to make our initial
> judgments.
>
than 'big is best'. Spikes in energy use may well, if other creatures
evolve in a similar way to us, signal wars rather than technological
innovation. In which case, a diminution of energy use might be the
sign of civilisation kicking in at last.
Lance
Or that it is on its last legs... :-)
Lance
Peter Brooks
An Epicurean civilisation, with machines tending to physical
requirements, and live consisting of discussions, in the garden,
between friends, might be seen my some as the end of civilisation.
There's the popular story of the businessman and the fisherman [I'm
not actually sure of its origin] that's relevant:
[I'm not sure if this is a good version, really, just the first out of
google}
An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal
Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked.
Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American
complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long
it took to catch them.
The Mexican replied, ‘only a little while.’
The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more
fish?
The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate
needs.
The American then asked, ‘but what do you do with the rest of your
time?’
The Mexican fisherman said, ‘I sleep late, fish a little, play with my
children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village
each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have
a full and busy life.’
The American scoffed, ‘I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You
should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger
boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several
boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of
selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the
processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the
product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this
small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and
eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding
enterprise.’
The Mexican fisherman asked, ‘But, how long will this all take?’
To which the American replied, ‘15 - 20 years.’
‘But what then?’ Asked the Mexican.
The American laughed and said, ‘That’s the best part. When the time is
right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the
public and become very rich, you would make millions!”
“Millions - then what?”
The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal
fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with
your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the
evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your
amigos.”
Lance
Could this be a true account of the source?
see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbeitsmoral
Lance
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm more like the fisherman than the banker I think, but wonder
whether the former is to some extent a free rider who benefits from
technology but doesn't contribute towards it. Somewhat similarly, it
is sometimes suggested that the philosophically inclined person should
live in a cave. However, the old saying 'it takes all types to make
a world' springs to mind.
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
> O
>
> I'm more like the fisherman than the banker I think, but wonder
> whether the former is to some extent a free rider who benefits from
> technology but doesn't contribute towards it. Somewhat similarly, it
> is sometimes suggested that the philosophically inclined person should
> live in a cave. However, the old saying 'it takes all types to make
> a world' springs to mind.
>
David Horrobin makes a case for schizophrenia making creative
humanity.
A disgrace politician, industrialist or other psychopath could write
another book, like Machiavelli, arguing that psychopathy made
humanity.
Lance
An American friend writes:
"Well, it certainly is a leisurely lifestyle to go. If you're willing
to do without health insurance, dental care, old age planning,
technological comforts like central heating (a bit more relevant in
Germany than in Mexico, admittedly) or even -- gasp -- the internet.
If you don't need backups in case your boat gets damaged, or fish
staying away from your neck of the coast. If you're willing to go
without vacation or holidays, the extra money to buy books, go to the
movies or the theater, then it's certainly a role model to follow.
"No, I'm not saying that we all should be running after the idols of
money and riches; I myself certainly don't do that. On the other hand,
the chliché of the pastoral relaxed lifestyle of the simply peasants
simply doesn't match reality. Most of them out there lead a grim and
gritty life of poverty, and probably were much poorer than Böll ever
allowed himself to be."
-----
It seems to me that people such as the Bushmen (hunter gatherers) did
much less work than we do nowadays -- about three to four hours a day
-- but they were certainly likely to suffer more from food shortages,
child infant death, disease, and the like. In general I think life for
the poor is probably rather difficult.
Lance
Peter Brooks
>
>
> It seems to me that people such as the Bushmen (hunter gatherers) did
> much less work than we do nowadays -- about three to four hours a day
> -- but they were certainly likely to suffer more from food shortages,
> child infant death, disease, and the like. In general I think life for
> the poor is probably rather difficult.
>
I don't think that I'm built for the life of a hunter-gatherer, but I
think it is the case that that life is much less grim than it has
sometimes been painted as well as being a lot less idyllic than it
has, at other times, been. All of us had ancestors who were hunter-
gatherers and successful at it, and I'm sure that they were not much
less happy than us.