Register to reply

Towards a Type 1 Civilisation. How do you want your future?

by JLawrenceIV
Tags: civilisation, future, type
Share this thread:
JLawrenceIV
#1
Jan27-04, 01:07 PM
P: 17
Dr. Kaku, Carl Sagan, and the majority of the scientific community recognises the need for society (esp. in the United States) to wake up to the threats that human activity, through pollution and nuclear energy, pose to the future of humanity and the planet. Not to mention future threats from bioterrorism, cybercrime and the like.

Kaku always pushes a true democracy which includes all the world, not just one composed of the privilaged few who are born in Industrialised nations, as being the best solution to the world's problems. (or that is how I interpret him)

I am in my early 20s. Kaku sometimes suggests that mine is the most important generation that has ever walked the face of the planet because it is mine which will have to deal with these threats that face humanity.

I would like to very generally ask people what sort of society they would like the future to be, and what they think the best way of achieving that future is given the present state of the world.
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physical constant is constant even in strong gravitational fields
Physicists provide new insights into the world of quantum materials
Nuclear spins control current in plastic LED: Step toward quantum computing, spintronic memory, better displays
MythioS
#2
Jan27-04, 02:20 PM
P: 50
Well ideally I think most of us would agree that a poltical system needs to be formed that governs the entire planet beyond that of the UN.

Unfortunatly as many others speculate its unlikly we will recognize how petty our differences are, until some event triggers that emotional response into being.

I had hoped that this entire terrorist situation could have possibly done that to a certain extent, but all its done is show the falicies of the United States' own structure of government and that even the 'free world' is to a certain extent a prisoner of its own design. But the event isnt exactly over. Only time will tell.

> ...what they think the best way of achieving that future is given the present state of the world.

Well that takes some serious brainstorming...

Basically you need to change peoples focus so that they no longer see themselves and or their nation as the only way things could and or should be. That something larger then themselves other then a religious topic exists so that the discussion wouldn't lead into a spiritual fight.

But goals arent always the easiest things to achieve. You need a reason for them. And in that lies the problem. At present, no one sees a 'need' for this level of advancement within our global culture.

Until something along the lines of an encounter by aliens from another world happens then we will remain focused on our personal greed, and defensiveness of our opinions.

Realistically I think the closest chance we'll have (given the liklyhood that aliens will not either visit or make themselves known, depending upon your opinion of UFO's and all) is the efforts of corporations within their greed to possibly dominate their market in space (ie; resorts on the moon etc) will we see a need to possibly create some unification. But even in a situation like that your more likly to simply have a larger scale version of the UN instead of actually ever forming a true singular government.

Sorry if im being redundant or not adding anything to the floor, maybe if someone else adds something it'll spark...

MythioS
Moni
#3
Jan27-04, 03:17 PM
Moni's Avatar
P: 201
At least not like Matrix !!!

JLawrenceIV
#4
Jan30-04, 03:00 PM
P: 17
Towards a Type 1 Civilisation. How do you want your future?

I wouldnt want to live in the Matrix either, but the Matrix was unrealistic though. People will either be kept in zoos, or will be the masters of their technologies, or be destroyed by their own hand or that of a slightly higher being. We probably will never become physical nor mental slaves to a higher power unless it is to homosuperior, Alpha types (see Brave New World).

I think it is important that we, the enlightened, curious ones who can see the future before the great unwashed, think hard about in what direction we wish to see society go as we devolop the types of technologies that Type 1 civilisations posess.

I look at the world as it is - what drives people - and especially what the current world leaders think about. Unfortunately most of today's leaders can only see at most 5 years ahead and for the most part are living 50 years in the past it seems to me.

I think we need people with real vision who will shape the society of the future and hopefully make that future a utopia that every single citizen is elated to live in and is free to live in it however they want.
Moni
#5
Feb1-04, 06:13 PM
Moni's Avatar
P: 201
JLawrenceIV Yes! I agree with you :)

If human become slaves...they must of some superiors!

But what if that superior *things* built by human...not the machines may be genetically developed super humas

And you are also correct about the world leaders :)

Of course they should be more serious and intellegent to control the future world communities..or it may turn into another world war...or something worst [b(]
JLawrenceIV
#6
Feb1-04, 06:28 PM
P: 17
But what if that superior *things* built by human...not the machines may be genetically developed super humas
Yeah, but I certainly imagine there will be genetically engineered superhumans and I hope that this happens. Really though I think that probably machines will dominate over all since machines based on quantum computing and nanotechnology will go far beyond anything we can fathom and so it will not be fair to call it human anymore - although some human consciousnesses may be a drop in the ocean of consciousness, I think a transhuman consciousness will dominate or something uniquely nonhuman entirely. One thing I am sure of - whatever consciousness dominates it probably will not be based on biology as we know it for the most part.
objectivist
#7
Feb18-04, 10:43 PM
P: 3
the differences between nations are not petty as it is often offered. The difference between a dictatorship and a limited republic, the difference between death camps and freedom, is not mere political rhetoric. As i mention in a previous post, no man has the right to force his beliefs on another. That is the moral imperative man must accept if man is to have a future. Men are born with autonomy and need that autonomy for survival. They must deal with each other through reason alone, never by a gun. If your goals cant be accomplished without force (see USSR, see any Middle East Dictatorship, any socialist or fascist state), then your goals had darn well better go unaccomplished. The belief that it is right to use force against another man or group, and that some "good" justifies it, is the single cause of all crime and all wars in human history.
the_truth
#8
Feb19-04, 04:39 PM
P: 146
"But goals arent always the easiest things to achieve. You need a reason for them. And in that lies the problem. At present, no one sees a 'need' for this level of advancement within our global culture."

This problem is usually solved by shedding light on threats and enemies. Global warming, expensive crude oil and the threat of losing our comfortable standard of living are viable candidates. Of course trying to get political support to get the government and voting population to listen is going to be difficult and these threats may be deemed 'liberal' or 'science' by certain communities or plainly ignored by certain voters and politicians. There are 3 aspects of politics which need to be fulfilled in order for these threats to become important issues.

The first being that they should be politically neutral and not associated with and ideologies which might be detrimental to their importance, especially amongst voters. This will cause all political groups to agree and not oppose reforms in favour of an ignorant sentiment.

The second is for everybody to see these ideas as something which can raise their reputation by agreeing with, this will involve talk about how the lack of change will affect children etc etc.. It has to seem as though extinguishing these threats would be the greatest thing since bread and butter, though not in an excessively hyperbolic manner. Providing loads of evidence and at the same time not mentionning anything politically sensitive is needed to do this.

The third is funding. I'm not talking about a huge array of spin doctors and propoganda, just enough for these issues to slowly creep into the limelight. Many mentions about how our future is beginning to look grim in a science magazine. Perhaps hint to a few political parties, who like this sort of 'We can make your future bright!' image, that backing these issues would improve their popularity. Funding would be needed to make these issues popular.

So basically, to help humanity progress to a type 1 civilisation, we must not create a pacifist ideology or make speaches to people who will listen. We must use political intrigue in order to get society to make a few steps in the right direction, without causing too much fuss, ignorance or paranoia as the result of our activites.


"They must deal with each other through reason alone, never by a gun. "

Certain people disagree, I'm sorry, reality is occurring and your dream is impossible, though we can get closer to it. As with most abstract principles, they do not work in reality, but reality can get close to them.
objectivist
#9
Feb19-04, 09:55 PM
P: 3
"They must deal with each other through reason alone, never by a gun. "

"Certain people disagree, I'm sorry, reality is occurring and your dream is impossible, though we can get closer to it. As with most abstract principles, they do not work in reality, but reality can get close to them."


Of course that is the purpose of abstract principles. Ethics deals only with the choices available with men and is less interested in the choices they are presently taking. Imagine if the founders rejected a rational government because they knew it would never be perfect. As for my principle as applied in the real world, there will always be people that initiate force against other people. None of them have a right to do it, but it is unpreventable. The only way of dealing with it is establishing a government for the sole purpose of dealing with aggressors, because for the same reasons that the initiation of force must be banned, the resistance and retaliation against force is a moral imperative.
Brickster
#10
Jun18-04, 01:00 PM
P: 21
Quote Quote by objectivist
"The only way of dealing with it is establishing a government for the sole purpose of dealing with aggressors, because for the same reasons that the initiation of force must be banned, the resistance and retaliation against force is a moral imperative."

Resistance force is the main cause of the initiated forces, if you deal with it that way then you will only breed more aggressors, you cannot force fear on a group of hostiles and not expect for them to retaliate in larger numbers of increased complex views on why they should be forceful.
futb0l
#11
Jul8-04, 06:33 AM
P: n/a
Equalizing the wealth of all parts of the world

We're sitting here comfortably in our chair while people in Africa is probably starving to death. If that is achieved then I think that most conflicts will be sovled and humanity will advance very rapidly.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Human civilisation in 1.5 billion years Earth 56
Ancient civilisation History & Humanities 6
Stagnating civilisation History & Humanities 38
To The Next Type of Civilisation... General Physics 12