However, I found it was a little to hard to speak on this subject because of my lack of research; thus I turned to questioning our future. I stumbled upon the famous Michio Kaku discussing what our civilization's future holds. For Professor Kaku, we have two options, maybe three, but he focuses on two, Type 1 civilization (planetary) and Type 2 civilization (stellar). By his calculations we are about 100 years away from a Type 1 civilization. Currently we sit at a Type 0 civilization, we depend on dead plants, crude oil, and so on to fuel our countries. I hope, we can evolve into this ideal Type 1 civilization, where we can harness the earth's power, in a sense we become planetary. However, as Mr. Herman enjoys to point out, though we may have this technology soon, we also do have the ability to wipe ourselves out.
Professor Kaku believes that we are beginning to make steps towards this planetary civilization. He uses the Internet as an a example. The Internet portrays the ubiquitous nature of our languages, but the idea of ubiquity applies to the majority of things today: fashion, sports, music, and so on. The opposing side is portrayed as terrorism, groups that intend to destroy and leads us away from Type 1. Terrorist, not like what American perceives, want a monoculture.
Here is where I step back from the article, I hope we reach a Type 1 and further to a Type 2, but the idea that terrorist wanting a monoculture and less science I disagree with. While today we have the people who oppose science because of ethics and morals, I have an issue with more of the monoculture idea. If we all wear the same clothes, if we all listen to the same music, and if we all speak the same language, are we no in a monoculture? I believe that Professor Kaku is speaking upon say we have Korean music and Koreans listen to American music, but are we all not listening to the same thing? Rather than 100 years as Professor Kaku predicts, we are much further away from Type 1. The idea of terrorism is yes of the bombings, but of also the immaturity of the race as a whole. We have the power to destroy, but we have not realized that we have the ability to grow as well. I do not know if we will become this Type 1 or become extinct like myriads of other Type 0 civilizations. Once we realize that we cannot continue to depend on dead plants and that we need to evolve, then maybe we can become a Type 1. Sorry to sound so skeptic, but I do not see our race continuing until we learn. Maybe it is our morals and ethics that stand in our way, maybe anxiety towards change, I have no idea, but change is necessary or the Internet will become in vain and we will have fulfilled the prophecy of destroying ourselves.
Its Interesting that you talk about the internet as a progresion into a type 1 civilasation because it was originaly created as a way of comunacating after a nuclear war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaku's societal paradigms that Lukas mentioned. Albert Einstein once said that "the consciousness that created the world cannot change it" - or something along that mindset. There is a substantial disparity between the current global consciousness-particularly that of the United States- and that required for a shift to a Type-1 civilization. Yet, I believe that the shift from a Type-0 to Type-1 civilization will occur much quicker than anyone imagines. All it would take is a sufficiently catastrophic or otherwise sensational event that in some way affects a large portion of the world's populace.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with Simon, our civilization, regarding the United States, only acts when something fails. However, I have to question, is the type 1 civilization better? If the type 1 requires us to lose our morals and ethics is that really better than what we have at the moment? As Simon points out we may be closer to a type 1 civilization. As Ray Kurzweil predicts, according to singularity, that we are much closer than anyone thinks. Furthermore, Kurzweil builds upon Professor Kaku's theory by creating two other categories (which I will not explain because I have no idea what they are).
ReplyDeleteThe point of using Kurzweil as an example, is to question if these utopian ideas of our society is really better. Even today we can see that we are losing our own heritage. Languages are lost simply because people no longer see use for them. As I see it we need to lose our ethics and morals to become this type 1 civilization, but besides losing our laws the govern our ideals of right and wrong we also lose something else, history. We are taking steps by becoming more green and losing less of the planet. But the reality is that while we gain we are losing. Technological advances I agree strongly with, but is it really all worth it? Can we have this relationship between man and the world or should we exploit it and continue to degrade. I do not know if we can have this symbiotic relationship or not, maybe a solution is that of a .5 type civilization. Again another utopia but maybe better, we advance as far as our limits will let us, find a relationship with the planet we live on, but not too far that we lose all contact with it. Today we have solar panels, electric cars, and other technological advances leading the revolution, but when should it end? when do we really know if we have made a Type 1, or are just creating fallacies and destroying ourselves quicker? I think that may be the largest question, we have made steps but these steps have also brought with them dire consequences. So i ask you, is it worth it?
(excuse the poor grammer and spelling, comments dont really have the goodies of posts)