Spent some time this morning reading a great blog post by Centauri Dreams about what Kardashev actually meant by Type I, Type II, and Type III civilizations.
See the post here:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=30255&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+centauri-dreams%2Feepu+%28Centauri+Dreams%29
Centauri Dreams speculates that we should be well past the energy consumption required to categorize us as a Type I civilization, which according to Kardashev was described as:
I – technological level close to the level presently attained on the earth, with energy consumption at ~4 x 1019 erg/sec.
See the post here:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=30255&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+centauri-dreams%2Feepu+%28Centauri+Dreams%29
Centauri Dreams speculates that we should be well past the energy consumption required to categorize us as a Type I civilization, which according to Kardashev was described as:
I – technological level close to the level presently attained on the earth, with energy consumption at ~4 x 1019 erg/sec.
So I did a tiny calculation and indeed, we are WAY beyond the minimum necessary to be a Type I civilization. Total World Energy Consumption (WEC) in 2008 was 15 terawatts, and has increased several percentage points since then. By the way, 4x10^19 erg/sec = 4 terawatts. So at least in terms of the "literal" definition, we are easily a Type I civilization as our WEC is nearly 4 times that defined by the Kardashev Scale.
Of course it depends on where this energy comes from, whether we can control it or not, and if we're using it purely for interstellar communication. But since we're using SETI and METI for listening and transmitting signals, plus much of our energy does come from planetary sources (with the exception of solar), I'd say we probably qualify as Type I. What Kardashev meant by "technological level close to the level presently attained on the earth" is a bit weird since it implies earth is more advanced than Type I civilizations. Sort of a bad definition if we're trying to define Earth....
My 2 cents in the half hour I had between experiments.
Heh, first comment!
ReplyDeleteI digress;
I dislike what Paul Gilster said about The Kardashev Scale in his article, simply demeaning the others who have expanded on the scale trying enhance and define it better, and offering nothing in place other than saying, "that's not what Kardashev said," and alluding to a paper Kardashev put out saying he is speaking purely tentatively in hopes others will take up his work. In my opinion, this is the act of an egotist with nothing to contribute to Science but criticisms on others' contributions. It was certainly profound when he likened Sagan and Kaku's interpretations of the "scale" to an oratory as if they weren't refining the term that Kardeshev had put forth and simply posing some form of religiosity instead.
New interpretations should always be welcome, it's called learning, and if we can redefine things that we once knew to be something else into something more refined and precise, it is learning too. Science by definition is a body of knowledge and if it weren't for the many interpretations of our natural world through experiment and reproduction of said experiments then there would not exist such a body, and society would still be in the hands of the dark ages the religiously affiliated would have us in.
Over all, while the article was very in-depth. It gave me the feeling Gilster spoke with an agenda other than informing or refining terms of which are in question. Next time I hope to hear some suggestions made by him other than just pure criticisms and false-dichotomy.