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.


Psychological Evolution with the Kardashev Scale

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:20 PM
I was recently discussing with a friend the Khardashev Scale, and the implications of humanity reaching the different phases of civilization, assuming humans have not been there before. I wanted to get a few reactions and thoughts from a broad audience, other than just him, and see what a sampling of you had to say about the evolution of psychology and sociology when it relates to the Kardashev Scale.

* 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]

Kardashev Scale Criteria

The basic criteria for the Kardashev Scale are related to energy consumption, which is a good place to start, but what about our social, moral and economic systems?

In 200 years, say we haven't destroyed ourselves and still cling to our primitive way of life. What will happen when we finally move from a Type 0 to a Type 1?

Economic Implications

Most of us already know that a change in energy consumption would drastically change our economy. We always postulate that anti-gravity is being covered up by the evil Lockheed Martin and Boeings of the world at the order of a sinister shadow government. So while that's locked up in Dugway Proving Ground, what if we somehow were able to harness the power of the planet using geothermal energy, amongst other forms (hydrogen, solar) assuming these were not confiscated by the Illuminati? This would give rise to a renewable energy source. The economic impact would be devastating for corporations that make their living off siphoning the life out of us by over-charging for energy.

Social Implications

The structure of our lives would change drastically as well. No longer would we need to visit the gas station and pay $18 for a half tank to get us half a mile. Travel would be simple, effective, and quicker than ever before. We wouldn't need to worry about long lines, and visiting megacity hubs would be fun and enlightening. Conceivably, struggling educational institutions would no longer be financially burdened by the large cost of living, and other power structures that keep the top knowledge in the hands of a few elite. This would give rise to more effective learning systems, and more effective learners. This would open the floodgates for new technologies, new research, and new methods of completing tasks. Forseeably, we might finally reach other solar systems, other stars, and find out the truth that most of us already know; our universe is teeming with life of all shapes, sizes, and compounds.

Psychological Implications

This is what I'd really like to examine, and get some input from everyone on. The original debate I was having with my colleague was about straight vs. gay, and the ethical, biological, and moral principles that make up the argument in the first place. One would argue that, biologically, those who aren't homosexual are correct. This in that the man impregnates the female. Then why, is homosexuality becoming more and more common? My theory is that homosexuality, and acceptance is part of the evolution of a civilization, thus turning us back to the harnessing of energy, and new social structures.

Without getting into the debate of whether it is right or wrong, let's explore the possibility that with every civilization's evolution, comes an evolution of consciousness, lucidity and awareness. I would like to hope that by the time humanity has reached a Type I or Type II civilization that they are well versed in what love and reproduction are. They are NOT one in the same. If I say "I love my girlfriend," that is different than saying "I have a hot girlfriend that I want to reproduce with." Yet, I think this gets confused in our world of materialism. Thus, when I say "I love my girlfriend," I'm saying "I love having sex with my girlfriend, but the minute she steps out of line I will dump her." I'd like to get your thoughts on this matter.

Returning to the gay/straight debate, when a civilization understands and accepts, it becomes a societal norm. A prime example is the Civil Rights era, and the marriage of interracial couples. In 1960, a white man/black girl, white girl/black man, was taboo. It was not illegal, but it was looked down upon, especially by the small communities of middle America. Now, it is not uncommon, and widely accepted for lovers of different race to wed and reproduce. As time goes on, the same is going for the gay population. It's not uncommon to see gay bars, gay speed dating, or gay activities to take place normally. Eventually, as people start to realize how silly Christianity is, and how it's been misinterpreted for, oh...say the past 2000 years, the older generations will die out, and gay marriage will become legal everywhere. Is this wrong? No. But should gays be asked to reproduce? That's another matter entirely.

All-in-all, it is my theory that a Type III Civilization would be fully understanding of love, relationships, and sexuality. It would look at these as three intangible differences. Society would no longer required that "only married couples have kids." The social structure would support a nature over nurture upbringing that would allow biological entities, newborns, to be born into a natural environment, to learn prosper and grow in their own ways. Anyone who can add to my thoughts, or argue them from a mature perspective is encouraged to.

new topics

log in