Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, July 25, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments |

Document Toward a Type 1 civilization

by Michael Shermer, LA Times

Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22-2008jul22,0,5301697.story

Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve.

Our civilization is fast approaching a tipping point. Humans will need to make the transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels as the primary source of our energy to renewable energy sources that will allow us to flourish into the future. Failure to make that transformation will doom us to the endless political machinations and economic conflicts that have plagued civilization for the last half-millennium.

We need new technologies to be sure, but without evolved political and economic systems, we cannot become what we must. And what is that? A Type 1 civilization. Let me explain.

In a 1964 article on searching for extraterrestrial civilizations, the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev suggested using radio telescopes to detect energy signals from other solar systems in which there might be civilizations of three levels of advancement: Type 1 can harness all of the energy of its home planet; Type 2 can harvest all of the power of its sun; and Type 3 can master the energy from its entire galaxy.

Based on our energy efficiency at the time, in 1973 the astronomer Carl Sagan estimated that Earth represented a Type 0.7 civilization on a Type 0 to Type 1 scale. (More current assessments put us at 0.72.) As the Kardashevian scale is logarithmic -- where any increase in power consumption requires a huge leap in power production -- we have a ways before 1.0.

Fossil fuels won't get us there. Renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal are a good start, and coupled to nuclear power could eventually get us to Type 1.

Yet the hurdles are not solely -- or even primarily -- technological ones. We have a proven track record of achieving remarkable scientific solutions to survival problems -- as long as there is the political will and economic opportunities that allow the solutions to flourish. In other words, we need a Type 1 polity and economy, along with the technology, in order to become a Type 1 civilization.

We are close. If we use the Kardashevian scale to plot humankind's progress, it shows how far we've come in the long history of our species from Type 0, and it leads us to see what a Type 1 civilization might be like:



Type 0.1: Fluid groups of hominids living in Africa. Technology consists of primitive stone tools. Intra-group conflicts are resolved through dominance hierarchy, and between-group violence is common.

Type 0.2: Bands of roaming hunter-gatherers that form kinship groups, with a mostly horizontal political system and egalitarian economy.

Type 0.3: Tribes of individuals linked through kinship but with a more settled and agrarian lifestyle. The beginnings of a political hierarchy and a primitive economic division of labor.

Type 0.4: Chiefdoms consisting of a coalition of tribes into a single hierarchical political unit with a dominant leader at the top, and with the beginnings of significant economic inequalities and a division of labor in which lower-class members produce food and other products consumed by non-producing upper-class members.

Type 0.5: The state as a political coalition with jurisdiction over a well-defined geographical territory and its corresponding inhabitants, with a mercantile economy that seeks a favorable balance of trade in a win-lose game against other states.

Type 0.6: Empires extend their control over peoples who are not culturally, ethnically or geographically within their normal jurisdiction, with a goal of economic dominance over rival empires.

Type 0.7: Democracies that divide power over several institutions, which are run by elected officials voted for by some citizens. The beginnings of a market economy.

Type 0.8: Liberal democracies that give the vote to all citizens. Markets that begin to embrace a nonzero, win-win economic game through free trade with other states.

Type 0.9: Democratic capitalism, the blending of liberal democracy and free markets, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements in developing nations and broad trading blocs such as the European Union.

Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.

The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap forward to a Type 1 civilization are primarily political and economic. The resistance by nondemocratic states to turning power over to the people is considerable, especially in theocracies whose leaders would prefer we all revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. The opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the industrialized West, where economic tribalism still dominates the thinking of most politicians, intellectuals and citizens.

For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum tribal world in which a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another tribe, state or nation -- and our political and economic systems have been designed for use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world and become a Type 1 civilization by spreading liberal democracy and free trade, in which the scientific and technological benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because in the evolutionist's deep time and the historian's long view, the trend lines toward achieving Type 1 status tick inexorably upward.

That is change we can believe in.


Michael Shermer is an adjunct professor in the School of Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University, the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific American. His latest book is "The Mind of the Market."

Comments 1 - 50 of 65 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #218516 by JAMCAM87 on July 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm

 avatarCheck this out for a laugh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkObvXY24tk

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

2. Comment #218537 by JAMCAM87 on July 25, 2008 at 2:00 pm

 avatarIntersting article, I love it when a quasi-scientific approach is applied to things like economics and civilisation. It aids my belief that science is all-encompassing.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

3. Comment #218538 by TruthByEvidence on July 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm

 avatarI'm optimistic that we shall indeed reach a level 1.0 civilisation . My optimism sprouts only because there are many intelligent and capable individuals that shall not allow the world to crash and burn without a valiant effort.

Other Comments by TruthByEvidence

4. Comment #218539 by 8teist on July 25, 2008 at 2:02 pm

 avatarJamCam87, Fucking brilliant , thanks for that link.

Other Comments by 8teist

5. Comment #218547 by phatbat on July 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm

 avatar1. Comment #218516 by JAMCAM87

omg lol - that's hilarious - love the priest at the end. Proper belly laugh.

Other Comments by phatbat

6. Comment #218548 by 8teist on July 25, 2008 at 2:07 pm

 avatarJust think if it wasn`t for religion we could probably be at level 2 by now :)

Other Comments by 8teist

7. Comment #218550 by Apathy personified on July 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm

 avatarRadesq,
27

Edit: About 5 or 6 good ones....

Other Comments by Apathy personified

8. Comment #218553 by kkelly on July 25, 2008 at 2:10 pm

 avatarGiven that human morality evolved in hunter-gatherer clans whereby the natural urge toward empathy extended little past one's own in-group, I think there's an inherent limit to how civilized and egalitarian human society can become. Type 1 seems feasible, but I don't think it will be all it's cracked up to be.

Other Comments by kkelly

9. Comment #218557 by JAMCAM87 on July 25, 2008 at 2:14 pm

 avatarDavid Mitchell is excellent, his humour is almost conversational but always very intelligent. He understands irony like no other. RD should get him on-board.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

10. Comment #218564 by JAMCAM87 on July 25, 2008 at 2:19 pm

 avatarre. kkelly

"Type 1 seems feasible, but I don't think it will be all it's cracked up to be."

Why do you say this? I also thought this.

I thought achieving type 1 sounded awfully like Globalisation. Can civilisation reach type 1 without loss of culture and nationality? Are these things important?

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

11. Comment #218572 by Greybishop on July 25, 2008 at 2:26 pm

 avatarJamcam87, thank you!

That was a great treat on a Friday afternoon.

Other Comments by Greybishop

12. Comment #218579 by kkelly on July 25, 2008 at 2:29 pm

 avatar11, I mean global democracy and free-market economy of course are possible (not in my lifetime though), but interpersonal relations will always be the way they are because our brains aren't capable of universal, indiscriminate generosity. It's not just our limited innate morality, but also our tendency toward prejudice, faulty belief, etc.

I think there will always be large groups of backward people no matter how far scientifically and socially the rest of the world will go.

Other Comments by kkelly

13. Comment #218606 by Dr Doctor on July 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

 avatarI think this is too glib.

Whilst the examples of Type 1 might be sufficient from a detectability point of view, it doesn't meet the definition of:

"Type 1 can harness all of the energy of its home planet;"

Compare that with his example:

"Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise."

What the effing heck does that have to do with it? A type 1 civilisation is one that CAN harness all of the energy of a planet. That is all.

The articles sayes "we need" and then does not explain the hurdles, or any rationale at all!

To me, at first reading, this is a very poor article. It is either made so by the fact I have a very poor brain, or he has been forced to make too many cuts for space allowance to make the article coherent.

Bah, humbug.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

14. Comment #218608 by ty90 on July 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

My own views of a level 1 ?
I fully support the idea, it will by nature cull and trim some cultural aspects of each country but I think the cores will remain.
Or, just maybe we will become something grander- the culture of Humanity.
Because in ways, all we need to survive and be a peace is one culture, besides a peaceful society with values that everyone can respect, what more is needed?

I am sorry if this sounds niave, but either a type 1 planet or a global democracy sounds best.

*groan* Imagine the angony of a global election...we would need to be type one just not to kill each other !- Ty

Other Comments by ty90

15. Comment #218613 by Lucas on July 25, 2008 at 2:46 pm

 avatarJAMCAM87 - To your last two questions: no, and not really. There will be an invariable loss of some aspects of culture as time moves on no matter what, and as we mix our cultures further, new subcultures grow, some old ones are forgotten, some are remembered. And we can all do without nationality. These things are important to some degree, but not nearly to the degree they are currently held by most folks. Time moves on. Humans evolve. Our cultures evolve and morph and mix. All this will lead us to a Type 1, if we don't totally botch it in the process. We will be able to maintain a sense of social grouping and culture and self-identity through memories of our tribal and nationalistic customs, but in a less divided context in which all kinds, and all kinds of knowledge, mix freely.

That, or we're about six months away from pure Mad Max anyway, so who cares. Horde those bullets and cans of food.

Other Comments by Lucas

16. Comment #218631 by D'Arcy on July 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm

 avatarShermeer's Type 1 civilisation:

Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.


I suggest Type 1.1 civilisation:

Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with no markets and one where the Earth's resources are owned in common, in which anyone has free access to what is produced. A planet where all citizens have equal rights and in which everyone has the franchise.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

17. Comment #218635 by David J on July 25, 2008 at 2:54 pm

 avatarAh, #1, the laissez-faire libertarian utopia. Where do I sign up?

Other Comments by David J

18. Comment #218636 by Apathy personified on July 25, 2008 at 2:55 pm

 avatarWith the issue of globalisation - what about the 'language barrier'?
Can there be a 'global nation' if there are so many languages, most of which are specific to geographical locations(roughly, anyway)?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

19. Comment #218641 by JAMCAM87 on July 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm

 avatarLucas

we can all do without nationality


I totally agree with everything in your post.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

20. Comment #218642 by Steve Zara on July 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm

 avatarComment #218553 by kkelly

I don't agree. We have evolved self-awareness and the ability to share ideas and plan for the future. We have the ability to transcend the abilities of our individual brains in many areas, not just science and reason.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #218645 by Lucas on July 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm

 avatarApathy - We'll just have to educated everyone in multiple languages on the assumption that none of them will ever totally disappear. No offense to all the other countries and languages, but if everyone on the planet spoke English, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, and Spanish, they'd get along pretty well on a wide swath of the planet. Of course there are other languages that one could argue to be on the list, but folks that speak those should also be able to speak one of these five, so what would it matter? One language might eventually win out, but I'd bet we get off the planet (or blow it up) before that happens.

Other Comments by Lucas

22. Comment #218680 by Jiffy on July 25, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I had managed to complete an erudite contribution, thought I had properly submitted it and somewhere it was lost in the ether. we have a long way to go before a type 1.0 internet! (And I thought we were on internet 2.0!). I'll try again if the red wine doesn't get the better of me.

Other Comments by Jiffy

23. Comment #218702 by kkelly on July 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm

 avatar21, I know we do, but I think that the difficulty of individually overcoming our vestigial, irrational impulses and mental inadequacies will translate into there always being a large number in any type of society who never do. I'm not saying there's a limit to what societies can accomplish in science and economic equity, just that there will always be factions that don't get it.

Other Comments by kkelly

24. Comment #218705 by Jiffy on July 25, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Gathered my thoughts now. I really don't think a SOVIET scientist would advocate the type 1.0 definition: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise". Didn't think the old Soviet republics were all in favour of free markets free of government interference!

I think that suggesting worldwide liberal democracies produce maximum efficiency is a very rose tinted spectacles view of our preferred method of self-governance. Most liberal democracies have been slow to wake up to and pretty toothless against the problems of global warming. Why? because special interest groups, be they power companies, oil barons, airlines or car manufacturers are always going to have more of a franchise than the average bloke on the street. The bottom line will always be put before the common good. Perhaps for us to truly become a type 1.0 civilization we need the common good to be put above all else. You might even call it the 'Culture'. I suspect D'Arcy has the better definition.

Other Comments by Jiffy

25. Comment #218715 by Apathy personified on July 25, 2008 at 4:06 pm

 avatarLucas,
Fair enough, but i still think it will be a difficult issue - if humanity ever gets to the point where 'type 1 civilisation' is possible.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

26. Comment #218720 by Dr Doctor on July 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm

 avatarType 1 civlisation

Totalitarian, everyone does what they are told or else, we harness geothermal, solar, etc etc etc.

Now where was the requirement for all of the "liberal democracy" stuff again?

*scratches head*

It may BE required, I just haven't seen any argument to explain why.

I get the impression if this was 5-10 years ago the word "multimedia" would have been thrown in.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

27. Comment #218721 by Jiffy on July 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm

For the sake of argument let's suppose that in order to survive as a global species we have to halve carbon emissions now. Shermer advocates liberal democracies as the best means of achieving his 1.0 Utopia. However his own liberal democracy has been the biggest roadblock to progress in achieving such a reduction. What makes him think this will change, bear in mind his definition is that the global economy will work without interference from states or governments. How in the hell will you then stop trade that is harmful? How do you stop car use, inefficient coal power stations, airlines, or anything with a hefty carbon footprint if not through states or governments. Free trade is incapable of assessing the public good. If it sells well then the trade will continue, just like cheap air fares, gas guzzlers, even the cows reared on formerly rainforest land. None of this is good for the planet in the long run yet is the enescapable conclusion of unfettered free trade. In a liberla democracy the best we can hope to achieve is to ameliorate capitalisms' worst excesses through regulation. That means state interference. Sorry Shermer, your Utopia will be choking on its own exhaust fumes.

Other Comments by Jiffy

28. Comment #218755 by Svetlana on July 25, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Maybe it will seem wildly for local community ;), but communistic (then - soviet)philosophers created similar speculations else 15-20 years ago. Only those speculations were more powerful. And your reasonings look like childish tales in compared with their brilliant theories. Moreover - they predicted (then! in those times) the collapse of so-called "socialism" in the world and they explained that "capitalism" in its common understanding didn't exist already in 50s of XX century. Further, they predicted that after the collapse of socialism and appearance the more or less homogeneous (in political and economical meaning) world (i.e. in fact - the world, which we have now), the world society will develop toward some global state, which resembles communism (Yes! :P), but not "capitalism". The increasing of communications in the world (including Internet) will help this development. And so-called "free market" will die out at last as absolutely needless thing.
And paradoxically, but even current state of our world shows that those guys were right! ;), when other theorists (including dear author of discussed paper) waste their time...


PS. I see that nobody will believe me. Nevertheless, when in the past, before 1957, some clever persons spoke to the common public about space travels, this public called them "crazy" :) My statements are the same in their strangeness.

PSS. I'll explain for "illiterates" ;) - the communism is a society of freedom and it has nothing in common with any totalitarian regimes, despite of their names.

Other Comments by Svetlana

29. Comment #218756 by SPS on July 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Type 0.4
...non-producing upper-class members.

Not so different from today.
I think I prefer D'Arcy's version of Type 1.0 society.
Free trade cannot guarantee a movement away from fossil fuels.
Free trade cannot guarantee fairness, or equal opportunities in a class divided society.
To me it seems that quality of life is not always brought by unfettered free trade, but is often won in spite of it, such as the enactment of child labor laws, safety in the workplace, eight-hour work days, universal healthcare in some countries, and so on.
Innovation, as it depends on free trade, is tethered to profit. In my opinion, in the interest of our future, we need to get to a place where result is valued over reward, where what is beneficial wins out over what is profitable, where what is considered possible is valued over what is currently considered plausible.
This is not to say that there aren't admirable, even exciting, elements to be found in a 'free' market system, such as in the entrepreneurial spirit.
Even so, does anyone believe that our future is dependent on our ability to sell to one another, to clamor and posture over the pursuit of money? If capitalism/free trade is the best we have, is anyone convinced it's the best we can do?

Other Comments by SPS

30. Comment #218787 by Vinelectric on July 25, 2008 at 5:32 pm

 avatarHere, here.

Just in case anyone missed JAMCAM87 first post, you must check out the youtube link, especially the last minute of the interview.

Go, on..

Other Comments by Vinelectric

31. Comment #218837 by zbob on July 25, 2008 at 6:26 pm

SPS and D'Arcy,

I agree with D'Arcy that we should have the higher goal of a more global, communal economic system in order to rise above the selfish interests of laissez-faire captitalism.

An inevitable consequence of Shermer's pseudo-utopian free market society is the continuation of some individuals and groups maintaining a luxurious lifestyle while millions of fellow humans suffer from malnutrition and impoverished living conditions. (Even with universal democracy and information access)

Should we interact with each other globally by continuing to emphasize our differences and not our similarities? Should we continue to allow corporate greed to victimize poor people throughout the world?

Each consciously evolved individual has the responsibility to be compassionate toward their fellow human with unconditional love and support, but would not a collective conscious mechanism of responsibility be a future goal? One problem with our current inability to fully sustain an enlightened world is our selfish economic systems that encourage selfish motivations in our daily lives. With cooperative economic systems in place, we would not have to struggle for survival in a selfish manner.
It is difficult to recognize our egocentric nature whenever it arises but through mindful practice and enlightened education, we could be on the right path to consciousness evolution.

Other Comments by zbob

32. Comment #218844 by zbob on July 25, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Svetlana,

I neglected to applaud your post in addition to D'Arcy and SPS. Excellent

Other Comments by zbob

33. Comment #218854 by Rational_G on July 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm

 avatarThis strikes me as mediocre writing at its finest.

Other Comments by Rational_G

34. Comment #218937 by hoops mccann on July 25, 2008 at 8:57 pm

 avatar"Renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal are a good start, and coupled to nuclear power could eventually get us to Type 1."

I hope he's talking about nuclear *fusion* here. A couple more Chernobles can send us back to type 0 pretty quickly.


Comment #218854 by Rational_G: "This strikes me as mediocre writing at its finest."

Thanks. I thought I was missing something.

Other Comments by hoops mccann

35. Comment #218957 by theonlybap on July 25, 2008 at 9:49 pm

zbob --

Why do we have a responsibility to be compassionate to other humans? Is there something that dictates that? Please elaborate on why you believe this.

My current understanding of humans is that we are all motivated by self-interest through a system of economical trade-offs of what we value. In the end, people are just acting selfishly. We can't help it. We either act according to what we currently value, or cognitive dissonance forces us to rationalize and change our values. However, it boils down to what each individual believes is best, in his mind, which is essentially selfish.

Blake

Other Comments by theonlybap

36. Comment #218970 by crabsallover on July 25, 2008 at 11:18 pm

 avataralso see Michael Shermers' book The Mind of the Market
http://www.michaelshermer.com/the-mind-of-the-market/reviews/

Other Comments by crabsallover

37. Comment #218978 by Christopher Davis on July 25, 2008 at 11:37 pm

 avatar"With the issue of globalisation - what about the 'language barrier'?
Can there be a 'global nation' if there are so many languages, most of which are specific to geographical locations(roughly, anyway)? "---Apathy personified

Good question. I did a paper in college on a closely related topic (don't remember exactly what I said, but I got an "A").

As different cultures come into closer and closer contact, languages are being lost at an ever-increasing rate. Some anthropologists find this an absolutely appalling state of affairs. They argue that in losing these languages, we are losing the "different ways-of-knowing" that make all cultures unique.

In my paper, I contested this position.

A pet example of people expousing the view I argued against is that the Inuit have 'X' (I can't remember the actual number cited) different words for snow. They claim that each one of these different words represents a unique concept...a concept intelligible only within the Inuit language.

My counter was that this is inherently racist. I argued that in order for this to be true, then whatever concept the Inuit are trying to convey must be incomprehensible to the minds of people who aren't Inuit, because if wasn't, then translating the concept into another language (even if it meant inventing an entire new word) would be just as effective at preserving this "way-of-knowing" as preserving the whole language.

The only other option is to conclude that people who speak different languages actually have minds that not only work differently, but are incapable of learning how to work in new ways.

Personally, I'm with Lucas. If everyone was relatively fluent in about 3 out of 5 major languages, communication wouldn't be the problem that most people imagine it might in a globalized economy.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

38. Comment #218987 by Shaka on July 26, 2008 at 12:30 am

 avatarIt's a nice theory, but sadly it wont work.

Our planet will not be able to support our numbers for much longer. We barely have enough fresh water, how will we support the new babies being born everyday?

Plus there's rising food costs because we also don't have the land to feed everyone.

We're heading for a massive Die Off, as in Starvation. Of course, this is also part of nature.

Once there is no longer enough food and water to support large numbers of a species, most will begin to die because of starvation. Than, the food source gets to grow once again because there is no longer large numbers feeding off that food. And since there's more food again, the numbers of that species begin to grow again.

Thats what we, as humans, part of this natural cycle, will face.

Plus lets not forget oil, which is used in almost everything we make. Cars, gas, plastic, steel, etc. Once it's gone, it's gone.

The people that have the best chance of surviving the Die Off are those that are the most sufficient. That are able to feed themselves from their own lands and harness rainwater.

Other Comments by Shaka

39. Comment #219019 by Ailes du Serpent on July 26, 2008 at 4:52 am

 avatarHm. Mixed feelings about this:

You know, I grew up in eastern germany, back in times when it was communist. I remember back in school we were thought a similar chart of "historic progression":
- hunter/gatherer pre-society
- agrarian/feudal slave society
- bourgeois/capitalist society
- and finally socialist/communist society as the perfect be-all-and-end-all of history. (the "twist" was that it was meant to come "full circle" in the end, that is arriving at the same paradisic freedom we were supposed to have in the pre(oppression)society ).

Those were the "immutable laws of history", as handed down by the prophet Marx.

There are some things to it, but assigning a teleological order to it always struck me as bullshit, even in the fourth grade.

My issue would be that it is rather debateable that a Type 1 Energy-Mastery (planet scale) is ONLY achieveable with the described Type 1 society (global democracy, etc.). I think this says more about the authors private preferences and hopes than anything else (not to dismiss the author, I mean I'd prefer such a society too). You can argue that certain types of societies are better fitted for achieving certain kinds of goals (like moving up the Energy-scale), but I don't know, ever since my communist upbringing I've grown kind of weary of teleologic historic plans and outlines. Some of it has almost a religious quality to it, "inevitable progress" sometimes can sound like "secular rapture" (mainly adressing the transhumanist/singularity nerds who think that someday technology will inevitably be so advanced, save us all and spirit us away into paradisic times). There are lots of people, like religiously deluded people, who would gladly be stuck on a certain step of the "progression ladder" and don't develop any further (Hardcore christian and jewish sects for example, or 'primitive' tribes, etc.) - it may be inconceivable to most of us, but yes, many people in the world really think differently, really have a different view on what'd constitute a "perfect society", which for them is something rather from the past. They get this worldview from the religious delusions that are fed to them by the people who actually profit from their positions in such societies (priesthood, chiefdom, patriarchy, you name it...). I mean, you can leave all those behind while the rest of us moves on, only thing is that those people have a nasty tendency to fuck it up for the rest of us..
anyways

Other Comments by Ailes du Serpent

40. Comment #219020 by leodavinci on July 26, 2008 at 4:59 am

 avatarYes, i think i designed a type 2 machine a while ago - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=387K6i7YZvM

Other Comments by leodavinci

41. Comment #219029 by utelme on July 26, 2008 at 6:19 am

We're heading for a massive Die Off, as in Starvation. Of course, this is also part of nature

Natures not going to have the opportunity to do anything before Irans projected 54000 centrifuges (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25859051/)make enough bombs to wipe us all out. This all while the world twiddles its thumbs and debates endlessly.

Other Comments by utelme

42. Comment #219032 by Dr Doctor on July 26, 2008 at 6:28 am

 avatarAh I forgot, Iran is the new bogeyman.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

43. Comment #219033 by beebeeo on July 26, 2008 at 6:33 am

I generally like Shermer and I am a subscriber to skeptic but I don't get this article. I must agree that it is poor and does not provide any solutions. It just states the obvious, that we have to move towards a type 1.0 civilization but he fails to express how. A totally free market will not necessarily move us towards a better future. Where is the data to support that. I would think that governments would have to interfere in a way that forces companies to be more energy efficient and less polluting. If you introduce a strong selection criterium like a high carbon tax "natural selection" would take place and energy efficient products would be able to compete against cheaper but more polluting products. If something like that could be enforced globally we could be on the right track in almost no time but unfortunately the people are not aware enough of the problem to create the necessary political will. I remain a "fan" of Shermer but he is not providing any solution here.

Other Comments by beebeeo

44. Comment #219038 by zbob on July 26, 2008 at 6:52 am

theonlybap,

To quote Dr. Dawkins: "I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

As humans we have evolved to the point of self awareness and the unique (as far as we know) ability to understand our own negative thoughts and actions and, therefore, attempt to create solutions which may be contrary to our "natural" instincts. While mutual altruism is, in all likelihood, the result of genetic evolution, a more universal altruism requires consciousness evolution. We can maintain our selfish attitudes and actions as nature has produced for us or we can intentionally "rise above" this selfishness and create a more livable future for our descendents. Hasn't the selfishness of individuals and groups caused enough destruction and suffering for one planet?

Other Comments by zbob

45. Comment #219049 by GBile on July 26, 2008 at 7:34 am

 avatarTo my knowledge the 1.0 version is full of bugs and security-leaks, mainly because of the rush to bring it to the market.

Version 2.0 is reasonably robust and has some features added, just to convince people to make the change.

But version 3.0 really delivers the goods....

Other Comments by GBile

46. Comment #219084 by ordeneus on July 26, 2008 at 8:44 am

What absolute tosh! Free markets? Free trade? There's no such thing. Typical Libertarian nonsense from Mr Shermer. The panacea to our problems is not some Freedmanite implementation of laissez faire economics, policies which set human kind back and have never worked (except for the already rich & powerful who got there in the first place using policies he opposes).

Other Comments by ordeneus

47. Comment #219085 by Fredrik Svanberg on July 26, 2008 at 8:45 am

Shaka,

You speak nonsense.

"Our planet will not be able to support our numbers for much longer. We barely have enough fresh water, how will we support the new babies being born everyday?"

People also die. There is plenty of water the problem is distribution.

"Plus there's rising food costs because we also don't have the land to feed everyone."

There is an enormous surplus of food. The problem is distribution.

"We're heading for a massive Die Off, as in Starvation. Of course, this is also part of nature."

Food production is at an all time high.

"Once there is no longer enough food and water to support large numbers of a species, most will begin to die because of starvation."

Not going to happen.

"Than, the food source gets to grow once again because there is no longer large numbers feeding off that food. And since there's more food again, the numbers of that species begin to grow again."

I'm no expert but even I know this is not how it works.

"Thats what we, as humans, part of this natural cycle, will face."

That is not how we have been doing things for the past five thousand years or so.

"Plus lets not forget oil, which is used in almost everything we make. Cars, gas, plastic, steel, etc. Once it's gone, it's gone."

So? Nobody seems to be able to agree on how much oil there's left. There has also been interesting and apparently succesful experiments in synthesizing oil from biological waste.

"The people that have the best chance of surviving the Die Off are those that are the most sufficient. That are able to feed themselves from their own lands and harness rainwater."

But that's ok since there won't be a "die off".

Other Comments by Fredrik Svanberg

48. Comment #219092 by Border Collie on July 26, 2008 at 8:56 am

 avatarSounds real good from a detached, global, from the moon, ivory tower sort of view but seems like a lowest common denominator, ant hill, termite mound, beehive, living in a cardboard box reality to actual people.

Other Comments by Border Collie

49. Comment #219189 by Rasmus_Holm on July 26, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I thin Lucas is spot on. The nationstate will need to go. As I see it as globalization marches on the nationstate is replaced by larger political unions at first, like the EU, and ultimately with one truly global civilization.

Nationalities are arbitrary and as much accidents of birth as religion.

Other Comments by Rasmus_Holm

50. Comment #219344 by Christopher Davis on July 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm

 avatarFredrik Svanberg,

You are not disputing Shaka. You are disputing Malthus...and to do that successfully, you are going to have to post something better than you have so far.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: