It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NWO or Type 1 Civilization?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+24 more 
posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:57 AM

A common speculation suggests that the transition from Type 0 to Type I might carry a strong risk of self-destruction since there would no longer be room for further expansion on the civilizations home planet

Many of you know me I can't keep my nose out of speculation....

I was digging around the web as usual and I came across this video. I did a search and came across a few old threads regarding it. However they were not slanted in the direction that it struck me. I've added some links to the Type 1 Civilization theory down below. I must apologize to those who cannot watch video. I'm a lousy typist and wont be able to provide a transcript.

I'll provide some links to a couple of my threads on the NWO. This thread will focus on the Type 1 theory. My question is are they one in the same? Is this the big secret? Have Aliens explained this to our leaders already and is this the possible force behind the drive for globalization? Or is this just simply the next logical step?

I'll let you read the information and please check out the links to my two other threads on the topic again linked down below. Then when finished I would love to hear your take on it.

Thanks in advance


Must Watch

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.

Kardashev scale

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement. The scale is only theoretical and in terms of an actual civilization highly speculative; however, it puts energy consumption of an entire civilization in a cosmic perspective.

It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. These are based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonization. In general terms, a Type I civilization has achieved mastery of the resources of its home planet, Type II of its solar system, and Type III of its galaxy.[1]

Energy use

* Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet — has approximately 1016 or 1017 W available.[2] Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74 × 1017 W (174 petawatts, see Earth's energy budget). Kardashev's original definition was 4 × 1012 W — a "technological level close to the level presently attained on earth" (presently meaning 1964).[3]

* Type II — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 4 × 1026 W.[2] Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86 × 1026 W. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1026 W.[3]

* Type III — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 4 × 1037 W.[2] This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size; the stated figure is the approximate power output of the Milky Way. Kardashev's original definition was also 4 × 1037 W.[3]

Related threads on the NWO.
The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order
Emergency Broadcast - New World Order Ahead!

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:47 AM
It seems like a strange concept to connect energy utilization to technological advancement. While the technology necessary to capture all solar energy hitting the Earth would be advanced, the premise is that the civilization would require that energy (why capture it otherwise?). Is that a valid assumption? Use of energy at that level would seem to imply massive industrial needs. If not industry, what else would the power be used for? Supporting an enormous population? Maybe, but are these the directions a technologically advanced civilization would necessarily go? The idea seems to be humancentric. As humans we've shown that we like to multiply like crazy and build complex and energy hungry infrastructure. Perhaps other civilizations have less expansive and expensive goals and would never have the need for that much energy.

But let's talk about us. We're an ambitious race. Maybe we are going in that direction. But perhaps raw energy use is self limiting. Capturing and utilizing all of the Sun's energy which strikes the Earth and using it on Earth would wreak havoc with the climate. As it is now, most of the energy, the vast majority of it, is reflected and radiated back into space. If it is instead captured and used on the surface (doing whatever it is we are going to do with it), what happens to all that heat?. This has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, that's small potatoes compared to what capturing all of the Sun's energy implies. Could a civilization capable of doing that actually survive their own success? It's easy to say that an advanced civilization could cope with the problem. Much easier to say than to actually deal with the laws of thermodynamics.

Kaku talks about self destruction through violence but he does not address this point. Even if we learn to get along, we can still be the cause of our own destruction (or retardation).

We are nowhere near being a type I Civ. Not only do we not have the technology to capture the Sun's energy, we have nothing to do with it all. We as a planet are using, on an annual basis,(with fossil fuels, nuclear power, and miscellaneous other power sources) about 10% of the Sun's power which strikes the Earth in one day. In other words, we are only using about 2.5/10,000ths of it, and we're trying as hard as we can.

[edit on 10/3/2009 by Phage]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:54 AM
reply to post by Phage

Very nicely written. I wonder if we have reached "Critical Mass" Pun intended but I meant that also in the business sense. Where by we reach a rate in which things expand at a much increased fantastic rate. Are we reaching this critical mass stage in science?

100 years may not be that much of a wait. With the present rate of technological expansion we may just reach a level rather quickly where we may be able to do whats required to achieve it?

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:02 AM

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.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:05 AM
Excellent thread my friend. Star and Flag. These are things I have never considered much less investigated. I did some research on the Venus project a few years ago but never came across anything like this. As always, good work.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:21 AM

Are we being prepared?
Bare with me on this. I know another video but watch.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I agree with Tootles. Excellent thread. I'm not so sure it would be as cut and dry as that. He seems to not realise that regardless of technological advancement we will still be human. But I could see that perhaps a block in what he views as the natural progression in which technology does not affect the sociological and psychological changes he so optimisticly thinks will happen.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:17 AM
He is looking for energy on all the wrong places.
Skip the ET search.

I'd post on the youtube videos buy he won't heard it.

UFOs work on the forces of stresses air, and ether if any,
controlling the electrical carriers with voltage and frequency.
Image should show up.

The beam maker proposed operation is pulsed DC.
The UFO 'climbs' up and hovers on a pole of charges.
You got to see it to believe it.

Perhaps that will take away his ET fixation.
ED: youtube poster sergejsh already has enough of
my posts
ED: NWO is just tower of babble talk from people
who need to control more trying to mend the tower.

[edit on 10/3/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 10/3/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:30 AM
Great thread! I am not completely against a world civilization. The people who I am against are the people planning it. I don't think that globalism should be achieved by any one ideology or any one nation. It shouldn't be achieved through force or conquest. Rather people should be more willing to set aside their conflicts and rivalries with one another and people should be more willing to join together for this goal. It shouldn't be something for the elites.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by Frankidealist35

That's just it...

Will we recognize the difference?

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:16 PM
Even today, depending on how far you go to get to some of the more remote areas, we actually have every level of civilization from .1 to .8.

All coexisting on the same planet.

Some of the remote jungle areas have people who live just one tiny step up from the stone age, and in 1969, as we were putting a man on the moon, I recall a National Geographic exploration into deep parts of New Guinea.

The thing that really stuck out in my mind, was the guide was being forthwith in speaking of the cultural practice of cannibalism.

He off-hand commented that he didn't care for cannibalism, but then, his personal experience was limited to an old woman, and she was a bit tough to chew.

Now this was the CIVILIZED guide! When compared to the others he was guiding them through.

One group is going to the moon.

Same planet, another is stone age, and practices cannibalism.

I would suggest that overall, we are more primitive than we'd like to think of.

We can point to our particle accelerators, the Space Station, hypersonic aircraft, advanced biophysics technologies, elemental transmutations, and huge organizational operations, but at the same time, we're spending a significant portion of total funds available on new ways to kill each other more efficiently.

We haven't advanced.

We just dress better, and can cover a battlefield quicker.



Frequently, one and the same.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:09 PM
I found it surprising he used the phrase the "Elites".

Large trading blocks?

It just sounds exactly like what people are fearing regarding the New World Order.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:39 PM
I'm down with a world civilization as long as we have a U.S type constitution with something like the venus project with i think is a step in the right direction

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 02:48 PM
reply to post by Jsmallz

See here's the deal...

Many around the world don't want that. We would be a state within a super state. Just like how we have it here in the United States. 50 states part of the greater whole each with their differences or for another example what the EU is attempting to become a super state with many different states/countries.

There will be resistance.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:02 PM
Well it seems the EU is moving ahead.

Lisbon Treaty will give European Union a president --

Lisbon Treaty will give European Union a president -- and it may be Tony Blair .
Ireland voted strongly in favor of the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, overturning a previous, shock No vote and taking a key step towards ending the 27-nation bloc's deadlock, ministers said on Saturday.

Irish voters backed the EU's Lisbon Treaty by 67.13 percent in favour to 32.87 percent against, according to final results of a re-run referendum published Saturday.

There have been suggestions in the European Parliament that British former prime minister Tony Blair could be given the job of EU presiden

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:03 PM
Hmmm.... Well i think his theroys about there being type 3 civilizations out there are alittle bizzare. Our planet is 4 billion years old, and the universe is only 14 billion years old. I dont think a type 3 civilization would be around. Mabey they are, but all thoose galaxys from around the beggining of the universe are all but extinct. So Do any of you agree?

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

I agree we are nowhere near the stage of a true unified world,no countries or borders.But i think it is inevitable in the future,it will not happen for a very long time though and will be the result of a huge shift in how we perceive ourselves and earth.No doubt it will happen when we venture more into space,colonies on mars? not just for scientists but the general population that can afford it.When we reach a stage like that our perception of *countries* and even earth itself will continue to shrink in size along with the fear of differences or tribal like territory marking(borders).Course this is hundreds of years into the future,if we survive that long.As for type 1 civilization,i think it's too broad and not precise enough.Who is to say we will need *more* power in the future? what if technology and the energy use for such technology actually decreases? I do like kaku though,he mentions alot of things that other scientists wouldn't dream of for fear of ridicule.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:10 PM
Cool post Slayer, and very good use of Michio Kaku. I have been a fan of his research for sometime, and he is quite renowned in the world of psychics to boot! Now, do we make it to type one civilization? At the rate things are going and proliferation around every corner, it remains to be seen. I yearn for human progress and companionship among all spectrums of humanity, but at present, I don't see it as possible. We thrive on our differences and individuality. Plus, some insidious groups conspire to encourage our differences and mistrust of one another. They turn the world into a tinderbox ready to blow and before the fuse is lit they come out of the shadows ready to blow out the match. However, you must surrender all thoughts, individuality, beliefs, and other human requisites so that order can be restored. People will clamor for any port in the storm.

So, call it the consolidation of a very few, and as a result, surrender our rights for any means of human progress that is natural and unbridled. In other words, it is a squeeze play. It is progress centered around what a few powerful figures have in store for their subjects. This is not progress, but regress, and I will have no part of it. However, if humanity can come to a point were we progress as a whole and are able to bond at a subconscious level, then maybe. In other words as Kaku said, people will kick and scream at the very sight of change, because our individualism is encouraged from birth. The world the physicist speaks of is an alternate universe and damn near impossible by today's standards. Maybe, if we can find a wormhole or something in the next fifty years we can get to 1.0, please excuse the sarcasm, but Kaku has talked about in the past.

Too many people are out for power and self-preservation, than that of humanity or the world as a whole. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but face it, that is the way world is; and it has been that way since man crawled out of the primordial slime. I'll end with a clip from a movie I enjoy and it resonates with the world we live in today, please disregard any religious connotations you may gain from this clip, because that is not my intention. Listen to Pilate's final remarks in response to Christ and you will see what I mean about the current topic.

That is how we will respond to progress or Earth 1.0.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Jakes51]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:19 PM
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Solomons

That's a very good perspective. I wrote the following for another thread but in a way it applies. It's about Iraq. Setting the pro and cons of war aside for a moment. Let's look at it in the context of this discussion..


I'm not sure if Iaqis are ready for a representative type Government.

Yes The Iraqis are a honorable and ancient people but they have never had that type of freedom. They cant even get along within their own religion. Sunni vs. Shia. So who are we to try and force our version of Government on them?

I feel that if they wanted that type of freedom they would have risen up and forced the issue a long time ago. They have always been dominated as a people by one form or another of strong central control, That's all they know. Not everybody in the world is ready for an open society. Freedom of religion etc.

They have 0 experiences in these matters. So we should not be surprised that they fall back on what they know. Attacking the differences instead of embracing variety.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 03:22 PM



Type 1 Civilization

[edit on 3-10-2009 by SLAYER69]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in