Instigator / Pro
User_2006's avatar
7
User_2006
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1996

Humans do not need to become a Type I civilization on the Kardashev scale.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Tags
Science
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
fauxlaw's avatar
21
fauxlaw
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Type 1 Civilizations on the Kardashev scale refers to civilizations that had controls of all resources on the planet.

No defined parameters for the debate(any violations to the DArt guidelines will be deducted points without saying).

Round 1
User_2006's avatar
User_2006
Pro
#1
As that there is a lack of time left, I will waive this round and let my opponent see what I have. 
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#2
I Argument: The Kardashev Scale pre-dates and supersedes Green New Deal
 
I.a The Green New Deal? Where did that come from? Well, it’s an insight to how my mind works. As an astrophysicist, Nikolai Kardashev was beyond the petty early 21st century arguments of what has recently been aggregated into the Green New Deal, and the alleged catastrophe we face if climate change alters a mere 2˚C [, or the ocean rises by a factor of as many centimeters [these may not be exact figures, but they are given merely to explain the point], in a mere 10 year span from now. He knew this in his active lifetime in the mid- to latter 20th century, and into the 21st. He could discount it because we have already battled climate change of much wider variation by remote operation of automated equipment, probes, to the Sun, and major planets, including Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and to many of their satellites, including our moon, on which we have also landed astronauts, and various asteroids, and one comet. Kardashev has witnessed this because he died just a year ago.
 
I.a.1 Kardashev’s Scale is an analysis of a single factor in multiple expressions: planetary, star systemic, and galactic systemic energy resources. The humanoid populated systems’ abilities in these three progressive system types to harness and use all their respective energy resources is a measure of scalable technical advance that Kardashev explored.[1]
 
I.a.2 As such, the scale of Kardashev’s model cannot be bothered with such technically backward concerns as the Green New Deal [GND] and its alleged “science” of climatology that ranks as the youngest, and, therefore, least evidentiary-supported of earth sciences, most of which have been practiced for thousands of years, while climatology has endured, at most, for 200 years. Consider the irony of a geologic timescale when the GND focuses on 30-years cycles of climate as models for prediction of anthropogenic calamitous forces at work in those 30-year cycles.[2] Worse, when these fledgling “scientists” call their science “in,”[3] as in completely studied and peer-reviewed for authenticity, it is authenticity itself that is in the proverbial crosshairs. The other earth sciences make no such claims. Therefore, the Kardashev Scale would consider such arguments as irrelevant to the scalability of energy resources consumption, which, nonetheless, makes use of such resources as wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geo-thermal, biomass, and nuclear, along with fossil fuels, as well as such future potentials as ion beam magnetic peptides, or cosmic ray amplitude modulation [I made those up]. I therefore divorce my arguments from any GND considerations.
 
II Argument: Energy Resource Priorities of Consumption in the Kardashev Scale
 
II.a Just as we measure the various energy resources we make use of today in terms of percentage of use on a national and global scale, we have the ability to measure our current status relative to a Type I Kardashev Scale civilized planet. The level of a Type I system, planetary, would factor the various energy resources we use as listed above [I.a.2] in a priority of global percentage of use which, today, ranks fossil fuel [coal, oil, natural gas] as the highest priority energy resource, consisting of 64% of all energy resources, combined.[4]
 
II.b Since we already track this important data of global energy consumption, we are well equipped to measure the demand of Kardashev Scale implementation, even to the extent of ranking a current model compared to the ideal model that actually complies with the requirement of a Type I civilized planet. Therefore, we can, with no further technical ability needed, rank ourselves as a percentage of compliance with that ideal model. To wit, we could rank ourselves as a current Type 0.VII civilized planet, by use of capturing current consumption along with a calculation of a reserves potential, even of “real time” energy resources of solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, and biomass. For example: by a knowledge of the quantity of daily global exposure to sunlight [we have that data available[5] to the current collection capability [if not already available, it is obtainable, although it appears this, too, is commercially collected, not including residential collection and use, per footnote [2], we can calculate the total consumptive factor of solar energy sourcing. Repeat those calculations for each energy resource we have; the aggregate global energy consumption is an obtainable factor to gage our level of compliance to a Type I planetary civilization. The graph offered in footnote [2], which reports the data by a listing of specific contribution of energy-producing plants, is just such a report that would justify our Kardashev scalability.
 
I rest my case for round 1.

My round 2 will emphasize the argument that we must do more than need to implement our Kardashev Scale status.
I hand the baton to User-2006 with best wishes for round 2.
 
 
 
 

Round 2
User_2006's avatar
User_2006
Pro
#3
As I am out of time again, I will try to make my case as quickly as possible.

The definition of "Need" is as follows:
require (something) because it is essential or very important.
Or
necessary duty : OBLIGATION
My opponent has failed to prove why humans are not just desirable to, but NEED to rank up on the Kardashev scale. Based on my understanding, my opponent had provided benefits that could happen if we have technologically advanced to such level, but the fact we can live in the same condition for millions of years would mean that it is just desirable to be a type 1 civilization. 
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
Con
#4
I Rebuttal: my opponent does not show what he has, round 2
 
I.a In the first round, my opponent waived. In the second round, my opponent is still waving by only defining need.What rebuttal needed for a definition known already? I acknowledge his definition. But then, my opponent declares that I have failed in my attempt to argue that not only must people desire to rank on the Kardashev Scale, but must need to rank. But, I do not fire all of my guns at once [I keep having to say this to opponents who want all my arguments in round 1]. No matter, I have more argument, and it is actually the reverse of my opponent’s expectation, to wit:
 
II Argument: Another limitation debate
 
II.a Russian cosmonaut, and astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev, created an arbitrary scale by which to rate technology levels of civilizations based on planetary, star systemic, and galactic scale power to use those levels of energy production.[1] I say “arbitrary” because “civilization” itself is a relative term. “Civilization” does imply a certain ability to sustain its existence, but the energy production by lighting a fire is sufficient to do that. I am suspicious that this does not rate a Kardashev Type 0.1 civilization, so I am skeptical that “civilization” is even necessary to define. Let’s just assume it implies no higher technology than fire. As Kardashev says, we start with a planetary-level of technical advance, at least with regard to energy production. But the factor of energy production is arbitrary. It is fine for a planetary system limitation, although there are other factors Kardashev may have chosen, and ‘civilized beings of another planet/system/galaxy may choose another factor, such as food production, but I suppose that is energy consumption, as well. Perhaps a homeostasis of landmass use, then.
 
II.b The debate proposal is that “Humans do not need to become a Type I civilization on the Kardashev Scale.” The operative word in this string is not “civilization,” but “need,” my opponent alleges. Well, between need and desire, there is a difference, and understanding this is critical. A want is less imperative than need, so we have been taught to believe. But the fact is, civilization depends on needs, even at its least defined scale, such as mastery of fire. However, needs of the nature of basic survival do not define my Con position. Let a civilization answer all of its needs, we have still not achieved the level of technical advance necessary to enter Kardashev’s Scale, let alone advance beyond level I. Here’s why:
 
II.c Here’s my pitch, pure and simple: Limitations are the first step in a long process of a civilization in decline, not advance.Said another way, needs, alone, do not drive technical advance to that scale.[2]  Satisfying needs, alone, limit technical advance. Basic survival needs are satisfied by simple technology. Air, water, food, shelter, and sleep need no complicated technology to achieve. These five needs are the basics of human survival according to Maslow.[3] These five needs satisfy the first tier of survival: physical. There are, according to Maslow, three other tiers; in order: physical safety, love and belonging, and self-esteem. Each of these has descriptive requirements, like the five for physical survival,[4] but outlining them are beyond this argument. It is sufficient to know that each of them requires no more technology than the first tier of needs. Therefore, as said, needs, alone, do not drive technical advance to the Kardashev Scale. Something else does.
 
III Argument: What drives technical advance sufficient to reach Kardashev Scale Type I?
 
III.a I’ll repeat the critical pitch of my contending argument: Limitations [typically in the guise of resources as defined by the Kardashev Scale] are the first steps in a long process of a civilization in decline, not advance.[5]  The something else alleged in my argument I.c [round 2] is: wants, or desires.
 
III.a.1 Wants can be satisfied at any tier of Maslow’s needs because they are not essential for survival, but they do enhance it, and there’s the step above needs that leads to real technical advance necessary to attain Level I of the Kardashev Scale.[6] And level above I will simply require added technology. This is why wants do the opposite of needs; wants free us to make continued steps in an equally long process of civilization in advance, not decline.We read in Ecclesiastes 12: 12: “And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”[7] So, is knowledge and technology ever at an end? One Dartmouth University professor says no. “Groundbreaking discoveries in physics, such as the realization of the importance of dark matter, for instance, have challenged this notion. The more we learn, the more it pushes the boundaries of what we don't know.”[8] One might ask, such as my opponent, “Do we really need to know the properties and effects of dark matter?” We don’t know, and that’s not a satisfying answer. However, the proper question, according to my argument, is, “Do we want to know the properties and effects of dark matter?” The simple, if satisfying answer is: We should want to know because the effects just might be beneficial. Maybe dark matter is another energy resource, at least for a star system Level II, and maybe a galactic system Level III of the Kardashev Scale.
 
III.a.2 Sir Francis Bacon once said, “While philosophers are disputing whether virtue or pleasure [or needs or wants?] be the proper aim of life, do you provide yourself with the instruments of either?”[9] Instruments are one indicator of some level of civilization, but, as Bacon alleges, having them does not imply they are being used, or used properly. Needs tend to satisfy without being compelled to advance further than needs. Therefore, contrary to the proposal of this debate that “humans do not need to become a Type I civilization, in order to not just survive, but to survive well, to thrive and advance, humans must want to become a Type I civilization, and more.
 
IV Conclusion: A reversal of fortune
 
IV.a My opponent has claimed I did not satisfy the requirement to prove we do need to achieve Level I of the Kardashev scale. In fact, I’ve demonstrated that we are well beyond half of that journey, but have not yet achieved it. I’ve not only demonstrated that we need reach that level, but that the only way to accomplish it is to expand our horizon beyond needs. We must wantto achieve not just the first level of the Kardashev Scale, but to extend our reach beyond that first level. There is no end to knowledge, and, therefore, there is no end to technology.[10] Why limit ourselves in that regard by merely satisfying needs? I ask for your vote for Con.