Bob Dylan Was Right

Come gather round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times, they are a changing

It's hard to imagine a more compelling bit of evidence for this than an Op-Ed piece published on July 22 in the Los Angeles Times titled "Toward a Type 1 civilization":

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.

The author, Michael Shermer, then explains just what a Type 1 civilization is, not to mention Type 2 and Type 3 civilizations.

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.

What makes this so remarkable is that discussions of such arcane and advanced topics have almost always been confined to science fiction novels and limited-interest mailing lists. To have them now being seriously discussed in a major newspaper should tell us how much times have indeed changed.

But beyond the surprise factor in finding this subject on the Op-Ed page, even more important is the key point that Shermer makes:

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 key point is summarized in the piece's sub-heading, which says, "Along with energy policy, political and economic systems must also evolve."

Can we do it? Can we evolve, adapt, improve, or reinvent our political and economic systems to achieve a Type 1 civilization?

Shermer says he's optimistic. Given how much is at stake, let's hope he is right.

Mike Treder

Comments

[Rahein]

The memes they are changing.

[Zyndryl]

I think you missed what Shermer was saying. Specifically, this:

"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..."

So, that last part you quoted, he was talking not about power usage but a Kardashevian socio-political equivalent.

Or, maybe you did see it but didn't quite explain the distinction in your blog entry well.

[John B]

There's no reason a Kardashev Type 1 civilization couldn't have a restrictive form of government. Type 1 merely reflects the power capture capability of the globe, not the social, political, economic, or other capabilities. Similarly, it is quite possible that a Type 1 have multiple forms of government.

Just because tech continues to improve doesn't mean other parts of our lives have to. In many cases, it seems that there may well be stagnation and/or regression in some areas of our lives while tech (and others) continue to grow.

-JB

[dek]

JB wrote: Just because tech continues to improve doesn't mean other parts of our lives have to. In many cases, it seems that there may well be stagnation and/or regression in some areas of our lives while tech (and others) continue to grow.

So, are you championing social, political, and economic stagnation or are you just a pessimist who needs to be right?
It was explained that allowing a Type 1 society to develop will mean we have to change our social, economic, and political structures because the present systems and the kind of global cooperation needed to develop a Type 1 society are mutually exclusive. Besides, with the state of our civilization, why would we not want to change things?

[John B]

I was attempting to point out a hidden bias in the original article - the fairly common belief that technological improvement should automatically improve everything else. As per my statement above, I do not believe this is a given.

Am I a pessimist? You betcha. Do I have to be right? I sure hope not, as being a pessimist indicates in part that I realize ('believe', if you prefer) that I screw up.

I believe we should work at improving our (singular and collective) lives. I believe we have a responsibility to do what we can, where we can, when we can to make life better - socially, politically, technically, whatever.

I explicitly do not believe that hiding behind unreasoned articles of faith like the implicit technological salvation assumed in the original article is of benefit in such efforts.

Sincerely,
JB