6 ms·

Kardashev Scale

74 points by kwikiel 7y ago

nyolfen 7y ago
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AC470ED016B9B9214C64625F4709AA38 http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AC470ED016B9B9214C6...
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Smil's Energy and Civilization is indeed excellent.
  - davidivadavid 7y ago
    I've been meaning to look at his work, but I'm not sure where to start? Any books to avoid/prioritize?
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Quite honestly, this is as good as any. I'd read the earlier version (Energy and History) previously. His materials book, Making the Modern World, is also an eye-opener. He covers energy transitions, fertilisers, China, and much else. Oh, and apparently just published: https://www.worldcat.org/title/growth-from-microorganisms-to-megacities/oclc/1085577162 https://www.worldcat.org/title/growth-from-microorganisms-to...
PeterStuer 7y ago
A more accurate measure would be the average amount of wellbeing a civilization extracts from its consumed units of energy.
- ben_w 7y ago
  The difference between each point on the Kardashev scale is about 10 orders of magnitude. The observed variation of well-being per unit of energy is so vanishingly small in comparison that I don’t even need to work it out, because it’s like comparing one subsistence farmer with only their own labour — no tractors or horses — to the entire primary energy consumption of the industrialised United States of America today. 2500 kcal/day vs. 3.18 TW
ianai 7y ago
I think fossil fuels moved us too far up on the energy usage scale before we were ready for it.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  Perhaps virtue is the biggest problem in the world today.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  All else equal, a species would rather have a smaller global population when starting to use fossil fuels. There's only so much capacity for use of fossil fuels, and more people means less per-capita. Before we used fossil fuels, 100% of economic growth was funneled into population growth. That trend was only bucked with the industrial revolution with its associated fossil fuel use.
- dTal 7y ago
  You may be on to something, but what would "ready for it" have looked like? Are we talking technical, or social progress? Because social progress would appear to depend at least in part on technical progress (for example, automation making slavery obsolete), and technical progress depends on... abundant energy.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Would we have had the energy for WW1/2 without fossil fuels? I don’t think so. They were at least in part due to pressures for countries to grow into other countries territories. Without oil, population growth wouldn’t have brought the world to that point so quickly. We also wouldn’t have had airplanes nor jets. That probably would mean the atomic bomb would be developed after nuclear power plants-avoiding a century of associating nuclear power with nuclear bombs. Kind of a neat thought experiment.
satori99 7y ago
> The limitation of biological life-form and the evolution of computing technology may lead to the transformation of the civilization through Mind uploading during the transition from Type I to Type II, leading to digitalized civilization). Neal Stephenson's recent novel "Fall; Or Dodge in Hell" deals with humanity taking its first steps down this path in the near future.
- deltron3030 7y ago
  What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation.
  - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
    > What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". Why? What makes you you? Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long That can also be said of the passage of time. Every moment there are forks in the road, and whatever you are is constantly diverging from what you were -- otherwise nothing would be happening to you.
    - deltron3030 7y ago
      >Why? What makes you you? My history until now. >Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? It doesn't matter.
      - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
        > What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind >> Why? What makes you you? > My history until now. ? > that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation. >> Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > It doesn't matter. ? You seem to be arguing against yourself.

74 points by kwikiel 7y ago

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AC470ED016B9B9214C64625F4709AA38 http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AC470ED016B9B9214C6...

dredmorbius 7y ago
Smil's Energy and Civilization is indeed excellent.
- davidivadavid 7y ago
  I've been meaning to look at his work, but I'm not sure where to start? Any books to avoid/prioritize?
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Quite honestly, this is as good as any. I'd read the earlier version (Energy and History) previously. His materials book, Making the Modern World, is also an eye-opener. He covers energy transitions, fertilisers, China, and much else. Oh, and apparently just published: https://www.worldcat.org/title/growth-from-microorganisms-to-megacities/oclc/1085577162 https://www.worldcat.org/title/growth-from-microorganisms-to...

PeterStuer 7y ago

A more accurate measure would be the average amount of wellbeing a civilization extracts from its consumed units of energy.

ben_w 7y ago
The difference between each point on the Kardashev scale is about 10 orders of magnitude. The observed variation of well-being per unit of energy is so vanishingly small in comparison that I don’t even need to work it out, because it’s like comparing one subsistence farmer with only their own labour — no tractors or horses — to the entire primary energy consumption of the industrialised United States of America today. 2500 kcal/day vs. 3.18 TW

ianai 7y ago

I think fossil fuels moved us too far up on the energy usage scale before we were ready for it.

wallace_f 7y ago
Perhaps virtue is the biggest problem in the world today.
ThrustVectoring 7y ago
All else equal, a species would rather have a smaller global population when starting to use fossil fuels. There's only so much capacity for use of fossil fuels, and more people means less per-capita. Before we used fossil fuels, 100% of economic growth was funneled into population growth. That trend was only bucked with the industrial revolution with its associated fossil fuel use.
dTal 7y ago
You may be on to something, but what would "ready for it" have looked like? Are we talking technical, or social progress? Because social progress would appear to depend at least in part on technical progress (for example, automation making slavery obsolete), and technical progress depends on... abundant energy.
- ianai 7y ago
  Would we have had the energy for WW1/2 without fossil fuels? I don’t think so. They were at least in part due to pressures for countries to grow into other countries territories. Without oil, population growth wouldn’t have brought the world to that point so quickly. We also wouldn’t have had airplanes nor jets. That probably would mean the atomic bomb would be developed after nuclear power plants-avoiding a century of associating nuclear power with nuclear bombs. Kind of a neat thought experiment.

satori99 7y ago

> The limitation of biological life-form and the evolution of computing technology may lead to the transformation of the civilization through Mind uploading during the transition from Type I to Type II, leading to digitalized civilization). Neal Stephenson's recent novel "Fall; Or Dodge in Hell" deals with humanity taking its first steps down this path in the near future.

deltron3030 7y ago
What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation.
- TelmoMenezes 7y ago
  > What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind, or "you". Why? What makes you you? Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > And that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long That can also be said of the passage of time. Every moment there are forks in the road, and whatever you are is constantly diverging from what you were -- otherwise nothing would be happening to you.
  - deltron3030 7y ago
    >Why? What makes you you? My history until now. >Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? It doesn't matter.
    - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
      > What's uploaded can maximally be a fork of your mind, not your actual mind >> Why? What makes you you? > My history until now. ? > that fork starts to diverge within that new environment as it adapts to it, and won't recognizable for long, so it's not even a good idea for conservation. >> Maybe you are already being emulated, how would you know? > It doesn't matter. ? You seem to be arguing against yourself.