Humanities transition to a type 1 civilization

As the humanity is a level 0 civilization, do you think the change to society would be too great to succeed at leveling up and ending with the destruction of humanity.

Or

Will society adapt to science advancing so fast and embrace it.

It obvious that religion will be a major factor in this transition.

(If you don't know what I am talking about, here's a quick vid)

I fail to see why religion cannot coexist with science.

Ignorance, yes. But that is a different concept.

I do not mean religion cannot coexist, religion is a part of society but I was aiming more at certain religious groups that would oppose science moving ahead and not religion itself but you make a good point on ignorance being the problem.

This raises an interesting issue. We have developed countries (dependence theory) who amass the wealth, technological prowess and in many cases the resources of countries who are less developed. Kardashev certainly entertained the dependence theory on his work, however I think we are still a bit far away into evolving to a Type 1 civilization given the enormous disparities in today's economy (not to mention the current crisis, and the brewing of new rivalries, namely West-East).
Religion isn't a decisive factor regarding this in the western world (muslim world needs an urgent reform.

We forgot to mention the climatic change, humanity must face its problems at home before committing to space, less our time runs out.

Religious people. Conservative (definition, not newsspeak) people will resist the flow, regardless. Correlation does not imply causation.

On topic: Class 1 is mastery over a single system, isn't it?
I think we could go out and achieve that shit in 50 years, if we actually tried. Humanity doesn't even need a unified governmental body to colonize extraterrestrial space.

The primary barrier is travel approaching the speed of light. I am of the opinion that Einstien was wrong, and gravity is actually a manipulate-able force. To the point where certain electromagnetic frequencies may induce time-space existence (allowing a body to travel a near infinite amount of "distance" simply by hopping a few....time particles... I forgot what you call them.)

Call it a hobby, call me a nutjob. I just think that after the theory of relativity came out, the dominant paradigm put a halt on a lot of potentially groundbreaking research.

(If I ever get serious about this, I'll probably need to get two opposing physics degrees. Fuck that shit.)

Edit: Yeah, climate change.
I just hope the "leaders" don't decide this is the beat-all solution.
I would love to see terraforming experiments, in reference to reparing the Earth's atmosphere, though. That would be really cool.

I don't think we're gonna make it into a type 1 civilization, and we'll have religion to thank for that.

I think first world countries would succeed in achieving level one status before we really fix anything with third world countries, just looking at the potential for the profit to be made in space and looking at a money pit of a third world country. I know that sounds bad but thats just the bad side of capitalism and there is very few that would do this for mankind.



Even with Einstein's theory there is ways around traveling at the speed of light example Einstein-Rosen Bridge, Alcubierre drive, entanglement-assisted teleportation and so on.

For me, we can't evolve to a type 1 civilisation.

The reason: while we certainly have the mastery of every continent of this planet, we still haven't even begun to harness its power. We have only barely harnessedn the atom, we painstakingly try to harness geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy.

We aren't even sustainable on our own planet, we aren't able to harness its entire power because we have only used the power that could "end", meaning fossile fuels and gazes.

As long as we haven't harnessed the infinite energy wells of our planet, that are the oceans, the winds and the core of Earth, we will not have evolved to a type 1 civilization.

Its a bit like if we tried to skip a step of the stairs: moving to the stars when our base if fragile would mean that a single mistake could crush our entire civilization. What if we try to go to the sun to harness fusion, and we try and fail. We can only try so many times. If we find eternal sources of energy here on Earth, we will be able to entirely focus on the stars without having to look back worriedly in the case we fail.
We must build a situation where our expansion is not pushed by need for energy but need for space and ressources. Once that is achieved, then we can shoot for mans greatest dream and venture to the stars.

Go and see this for more info on types of civs, and watch the youtube video to realize what we are aiming at.
Typ0/1/2/3 Civilizations by Dr Michio Kaku

I TOTALLY understand what you are talking about and I saw that video last year.

Religion is formed from specific figures stating this religion is "absolute" and "perfect" which doesn't need to change at all.

Science on the other hand always advances and improves itself every time.

These two "CAN" co-exist but the real issue is, are people ready to accept that co-existence?

We are far, I am afraid not even to step 2 from hundreds of steps of becoming type 1 civilization.

- War, hunger, plague and other man made disasters still exist even as we write because we as humanity still are not willing to work together despite our differences and if we wanna advance to the next level then we must destroy the old monetary system and create a new type of system that is refreshing, renewable, and also something we can count on for many generations to come.

- Muslim, Christians, Jews, Buddhism and atheism etc. are still not willing to accept the fact that they are all human beings striving for the same goal which is.. better living and better health.

We are FARRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from type 1 civilization and it is gonna take years, if not decades to first improve our status in which we live in and also which state the world is in ... without planetary improvements I can see no future in becoming a long lasting type 1 civilization.

With the average person humanity will consume itself. It takes an Individual or a group of individuals with a great enough foresight to see past their own lives and the power to put fourth changes and enforce them. If today and now, leaders from the leading world nations were to come together and discuss this, there would be no progress. There is no immediate need for change. It will take a threat to a massive portion of the worlds population or WWIII to create such individuals along with the drive to accomplish a true change. Human nature is destructive, so we will have to combat Human nature, create enough space for us to be destructive(interstellar travel), or a drastic decrease in population which levels off to a stable value. Seeing as option 2 is at least a few hundred years out before becoming viable and option 3 will at best be only a result and not a cause, human nature must be altered. The bright side is that people are perhaps the only creature harder to fully exterminate then the cockroach. No matter what we do there will be survivors who will continue on.

As for how I feel, the best way to become a surviving Type 1 civilization would be to immediately cut back on the world population, change dependency to renewable resources, localize production, and condense the population. The most important requirement for this type of change is the cooperation of world governments of a scale unheard of, a merging of these governments, or the destruction of all government and subsequent creation of a single world governing body. The best way to achieve that, however, would be the existence of a third party in a WWIII situation unbound by loyalty to a single people, possessing the sufficient force to participate in such a war, and possessing the singular goal of human advancement and survival.

The concept of God can certainly coexist with science, due to agnosticism. Religion, however, cannot. They contradict each other too greatly.

I hate to repeat myself, but:

HOW?


The only way I have ever heard this argument framed, is in reference to people who cite religion as justification for rejecting scientific theory.
Creationists are stupid, yes, but anecdotal evidence is not enough to prove or disprove a statistical hypothesis. Just as a scientific one can not be justified based on one, three, or thirty observed instances.

"Due to agnosticism" means nothing. As a sentence, clause, or concept it makes no connection to the previous line of thinking. And, belief systems classified as "agnostic" are not laws, theories, or principles that can be referenced as such.


Please, elaborate. It's not that I have a personal problem with you, or am terribly offended.
This just boggles my mind.

Seeing that this topic is going out of line, how about a renewal of the debate/discussion.

What do you think will impede/stop/slow the transition from type 0 to type 1?

Religion is certainly a factor, as it divides people more assuredly than walls and fences. To transition to type 1, there either needs to be no religion, one global religion, or a perfect synergism of the currently existing religions, as to not impede in anyway the progress of humanity. Think of the countless wars that have slowed down humanity during the middle ages, called thereafter "the dark ages".
Of course you could say war brings technological advances, but thats off topic and... thats about it.

Materialistic possession is the main problem, because it is the drive of every single human being, with the exception of select few, if none. This material possession problem can be solved by resolving another problem: spirituality.

If man advances further down the path of understanding his own self and thus those around him, he will be able to release these materialistical concepts and advance as a civilisation.

Which leads us back to religion, the main representative of spirituality in our world. If we sort religion, materialism and spiritualism, then we will advance to type 0 if all goes well.

We sure ain't there yet.

I'm an Agnostic Theist. I believe in God but hold to a loose definition of God so I can openly accept the ideas of religions and science without having inner conflict.

You see my view is that the cause of conflict with religions is their strict definitions of God, Creation, Their stories and their taboos. Without a strict definition of God, I can live without much of the conflict caused not by God, but by Religion.

The ability to question aspects of Religion is part of being Agnostic. They are not faithful, they are open minded and questioning....an Atheist is closed, there is no god, there is no proof, its all fairy tales.

I don't see what religion has to do with it isn't the problem that there has to be one world governments in control rather than separate nations fighting for control wanting their economy to stay separate from others if we were to become one the wealthy nations wouldn't be able to keep profiting from exploiting poorer nations.

A good point, but religion does have a great impact for the simple reason that it separates people, and we cannot achieve type 1 unless we unite our strenghts and put aside all differences. Forever. And as long as religion is here, we can't do that. Religions will either have to change or dissapear, most probably the former.

I mean, look at theEgyptian Presidential Candidate and tell me we can make it to a type 1 civilization.

We simply can't. Religion has to whange, along with other things, asssuredly, but I believe that if we tackle the problem soon enough, we should get there before petrol runs out.

Religion has nothing to do with the fact that people don't like to share if any thing religion would actually help people feel more at ease with sharing.

Humanity as a type one civilization? That's a bit of a stretch from where we're standing. Here's why:

1.)New laws are being passed in countries to regulate/ban info sharing. Now there's not much that big of a threat but it's promoting something else. Something that keeps these countries more selfish.

2.)Land. Yes, you read that right ladies and gentlemen. Our growing population breeds more corruption due to the fact that the rules are "the strong can take what they want" military might decides who's homeland will be. And with that approach, who's got the time to consider the future?

3.)Money - not surprising yes? Greed is what fuels man to get more and to do almost anything to get it. Space? There's no one who's gonna pay there, why should I invest there when there's a ton of people here on this planet willing to pay me for an average garbage I trick them into buying?

4.)Me,I,My. The most used up words in the human existence. Keeps you dying from a useless death but it also keeps you from helping in crucial moments. The simple thought "as long as I can eat everyday, I'm happy" is what prevents humanity from reaching beyond our system. If you ask how that happens, it's like this: why should I worry if we reach space or not? I'm not getting fed just by thinking that, that's even a waste of time just thinking about it. I'd rather go work and earn than to worry about our future.

That's what I think so far. Can't really say I'm not one of those people considering our country is crap right now. What I stated are the things easily observed on anyone if you go outside and watch the news

Ah, but then why are there wars, injustices, deaths and massacres, suicide bombings and terrorism in the name of religion?

If religions (note the 's' on the word) helped us share things with each other, then we would have gotten rid of extremism and a lot of wars could have been avoided.

Thats the problem. The 's' on religions that tell you that there are many different people out there that believe that their vision of the almighty father is the right one, and that the rest is just like my little pony (sorry for the horrid comparison, its the first thing that comes to mind). Certain people understand, a small group don't even want the idea of another faith than theirs to exist.

Thus they "share" greatly with us by planting bombs.

Now you might say "Yes but they want to fight capitalism, its remnants of communism" or "Its just a small group, they can't do that much of a damage". And also "Why are you expressly picking on the Islamic religion, that's racism(or that word to say that you hate someone because of their religion)".

On number one, I can say yeah sure, okay, fight capitalism, okay, but just don't do it by having sharia.
Secondly, these people have been around since, well, the end of the second world war and we still haven't gotten them either eradicated (sorry, a bit violent there, pardon me if I offend you, my apologies) or reasonned with.

And lastly why the Islamic religion, well because its the one that stands out the most in my point. Some extremist Christian groups are also very untolerant towards other religions, but they don't blow people up, or at least I don't know of any christian fanatics that do. I'm citing the two bigger ones because they are the ones with the most violent records.

Bouddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Hindouism, Shintoism, Polytheism in some very remote places, none of these (to my knowledge again, I am not supremely omniscient like most of the entities worshipped by the latters) have a very violent history, and are pretty tolerant when it comes to cohabitating with other religions. Bouddhism even goes to the point that it can find some of its wisdom in the faiths of other religions, so I'd say (my opinion, not a fact) that he's a pretty nice fella.

Hindouism has some internal equality problems, Judaism has a kinda scarred history, and Taoism is...well, equal to himself, intolerant to other religions messing around with his country. Same goes with Shintoism.

Now I've been spouting for quite some time now, and I might have angered a few of you by my demeaning way of speaking about your religions.

If I have offended you, I am deeply sorry. If not, good for me.

So coming back to my original point,

YES, in the loveliest of worlds, religions HELP people get along with each other. They are a unique and effective social way of getting people to work together towards one objective.

BUT, thats only valid in the world of Carebears. If an extremist of one group doesn't like where his religion is going, he will use violence to get it back on a rail he likes better.

And assuming that a religion was entirely united under a single goal, then there would always be an old enemity with another religion, whose little extremist group would pop a bomb somewhere (being offensive again, I am SO sorry about this).

That being said, I get your point. If religions could do what they are best at, sure, they won't be a problem. But they won't. Unless we get a miracle. And that is their domain.

We will Derp each other trying to get to the planet Mars.
We dont have the time to fully get to a whole-wide civ.1 before we end our own world.
We will blame religion for failing us as they watch people shoot themselves for bits-of-food.