If we are to continue to survive and evolve as a species, we must strive to control the planetary forces critical for our survival.
According to Michio Kaku, we are only 1 or 2 hundred years away from becoming a Type-1 civilization.
This will not happen unless we start now; otherwise we will go the way of all species that lose their niche.
Michio Kaku: Theoretical Physicist, Bestselling Author, Popularizer of Science
http://www.mkaku.org/

Quote:
Physics of Type I, II, and III Civilizations
Specifically, we can rank civilizations by their energy consumption, using the following principles:

1) The laws of thermodynamics. Even an advanced civilization is bound by the laws of thermodynamics, especially the Second Law, and can hence be ranked by the energy at their disposal.
2) The laws of stable matter. Baryonic matter (e.g. based on protons and neutrons) tends to clump into three large groupings: planets, stars and galaxies. (This is a well-defined by product of stellar and galactic evolution, thermonuclear fusion, etc.) Thus, their energy will also be based on three distinct types, and this places upper limits on their rate of energy consumption.
3) The laws of planetary evolution. Any advanced civilization must grow in energy consumption faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes (e.g. meteor impacts, ice ages, supernovas, etc.). If they grow any slower, they are doomed to extinction. This places mathematical lower limits on the rate of growth of these civilizations.
http://ufo.whipnet.org/xdocs/michio.kaku/index.html

Kaku defines:
A Type 1 civilization as one that is truly a planetary society, who has mastered all forms of terrestrial energy. Their energy output is much greater than ours. It would take at least 3,200 years to reach Type 2.

A Type 2 civilization is a civilization who have an energy output of a small star. They would be so advanced that they could build a sphere around their planet to maximize their energy output.

A Type 3 civilization is so advanced that they have begun colonizing other star systems. Their energy output is massive compared to ours. A civilization this advanced would be able to bend space and time at will. They would probably be capable of interdimensional travel and even time travel.

So where are we here on planet Earth? Well, we are Type 0. We still get our energy from dead plants. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I could only imagine what an advanced alien civilizations thinks of us. With our racism, wars, and class struggles we will be luck if we ever get to a Type 1. At the current rate, in my opinion the human race is headed toward extinction.



...and to repeat....

So where are we here on planet Earth? Well, we are Type 0. We still get our energy from dead plants. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I could only imagine what an advanced alien civilizations thinks of us. With our racism, wars, and class struggles we will be luck if we ever get to a Type 1. At the current rate, in my opinion the human race is headed toward extinction. -M. Kaku


What we need these days is a new
"Declaration of Interdependence"

'we are an intelligent species'

I don't know if one of us is psychic, but we're on the same wavelength. I just read the same article by Michio Kaku, and was about to post something along the same lines!

"It'd be one heck of a fragile bottleneck!"

Elsewhere the discussion seems to focus on the space travel aspect of Kaku's thesis (saving the species by seeding the cosmos); but I think the focus needs to be on achieving that mastery of the planet here, first only as a part of moving off of the planet. Leaving certainly wouldn't be a solution for the vast majority of folks in need of a new habitat.

rede: viva the synergy....

Can we be so sure an advanced civilization does not have racism,
wars, and class struggles?

odin1

They would have proved themselves masters of self-preservation and the perpetuation of there own kind. What that entails is debatable - but the negatives that you cited are seen, even by us, as not conducive to survival.

What use are these things to an "advanced civilization?"

What use are these things to any civilization with a meteor hurtling towards it?

I think there will always be room for diversity and competition, but not as major impediments to progress.

Please excuse this slightly tangential attachment!!!

Suppose the day eventually arrives when a technological civilisation is discovered. Which type would it most probably be?

- Type 0, as ours is right now.

- Type I, as ours will be if we hold things together for another couple of hundred years.

- Type II, which is said to lie more than 3000 years in our future.

- Type III, which could be a 1,000,000 or more years down the road.

Two factors to take into account when answering that are (a) the cosmological time scale, (b) the age of our own technological civilisation.

Let's make two assumptions:

(1) The first planets suitable for the evolution of life were accreted around the first of the second generation stars 10 billion yrs ago

(2) It takes 5 billion years to evolve a technological civilisation.

That allows the possiblity that the civilisation could currently be anything up to 5 billion years old. I think, therefore, that:

(1) The probability of discovering a Type 0 or Type I is very close to zero.

(2) There's a slightly better but still very small chance of finding a Type II.

(3) There's a high probability of a great predominance of Type III (or higher). But they may not be easily detectable. Their activities may be indistinguishable from (other) natural phenomena.

why all of this speculation when its highly possible that we'll end up killing each other before reaching 'type 1?'

bfp, I don't think we will. I think we'll overcome the problems. I think there are many signs of that being the way things are going. It's what we want for our offspring. It's what we want for our species. It's what I anticipate. We must make it happen.

It is hard not to be nihilistic, but...
...if you "believe" in evolution...?

I was struck today listening to British P.M. Brown's Speech at the JFK Library (April 18, 2008) "British Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to focus on the worsening global economy as his U.S. tour comes to a close. In a speech at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, P.M. Brown speaks about steps international institutions should take to stabilize financial conditions."
http://www.c-span.org/

Well, I'm not gonna go for exact quotes, but I liked it when he invoked a July 4th, 1962 speech by JFK speaking about the mutual dependence of the world's new intercontinental status (presaging the term globalized). Brown also mentioned MLK speaking of a mutual web of interdependence... that the world must recognize... looking for cooperative interests, rather than competitive interests.

It's a fun speech to watch. As a Brit, in Massachusetts, he does not shy away from historical references, and I think it is he, who coined (if not inspired) that phrase "Declaration of Interdependence," that I used earlier.


I see it as if we, as humanity, are adolescents, deciding whether to stay living at home with mom & pop, or go out and take charge of and manage our own lives.

Michio Kaku seems to think we're pretty close to taking that step across the threshold.

Do you think a class 3 civilization or 2 for that matter would engage in any type of diplomacy with a class 0 or 1?

odin1

Kaku says no.
Even a (fully developed) Type I civilization would see a Type 0 as we see an ant colony. -his analogy

We may study ants, but we make no diplomatic overtures.


p.s.
Though E. O. Wilson, father of sociobiology, advocates that we live more cooperatively (diplomatically) with ants.

Then if that were so, would'nt the class 2 or 3 civilization have broken one of the rules? If we were considered as an evolving life force even if were considered no more than ants wouldn't that be a type of class labeling? And remember, if we are no more than ants-would they step on us?

odin1

We get our energy from daed plants, but we also use wind, solar, and geothermal power, so why aren't we a type one? Because we don't make more energy than we can consume?

Frankly, that is only a small portion of what we need to work on. We may harvest energy from wind, solar power, or even the dams we love so much. There are probably so many more ways to go about getting energy. If you took our fossil fuels away, we'd slowly start breaking down. Really, we've only been a technologic race for around a hundred years, bending sciences and mother Earth almost to our any wish. The thing is, we take more out of the Earth than we give back.

"It is hard not to be nihilistic, but...
...if you "believe" in evolution...? "

lol i don't believe it

How much of our energy (planet-wise) is produced from non-polluting sources? Not much.

I don't think we are doomed, but I think the way we live now is. Soon the massive populations of China and India are going to want all the comforts we enjoy. Indeed why shouldn't they? All we can offer them is more of the same. Alternatives are available but we do not try to use them. It is also possible that we may have to give up some of our comfort in order to survive.

(Can I say here that a pet hate of mine is people who wander around inside their over-heated houses wearing summer clothes in cold weather! I know it's petty--but wearing a cardigan or jumper before turning on the heating may help the planet a bit!!) Seriously I think it is a symptom of how little we think when we use energy needlessly.

Incidentally wouldn't the superior Class 1 etc civilisations be obliged to render assistance and help to the inferior Class O yobbos? This would be a further mark of their superior-ness-- otherwise morally they would have to be a Class -1 Civilisation. Superiority of the type claimed would imply all areas should be shiny-bright, and that includes morality too.

Ellis: "Incidentally wouldn't the superior Class 1 etc civilisations be obliged to render assistance and help to the inferior Class O yobbos? This would be a further mark of their superior-ness-- otherwise morally they would have to be a Class -1 Civilisation. Superiority of the type claimed would imply all areas should be shiny-bright, and that includes morality too."

- One would hope so, but the Kardashev scale relates only to technological development based on usable energy. It states nothing about moral or spiritual superiority. While it does seem clear that the more advanced Type would have a remarkable capacity for self-preservation probably expressing itself in a strong morality with regard to their own kind, it may not have any interest in preserving our kind - it may be content to allow evolution to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I remember from somewhere where it was said that mankind will not run out of natural resources because as we begin to grow short on one resource for our energy then we simply change to another. It was that way when we burned trees and hunted whales and then switched to crude oil. Of the three trillion gallons of crude oil in this planet we have used up 1 trillion of it so we have two trillion left, but with that said we are already looking for alternative fuels like hydrogen, wind, solar, and geothermal. It may seem like we are taking our time in switching over, but you have to remember that this world is not run by politician or even by military leaders, but rather by business men who if they cannot turn a profit on something will axe the project no matter how much mankind can benefit from it.

I think it was either in the late 19th century or maybe in the early 20th but supposedly Nicola Tesla had found a way to turn the entire world into a battery and everybody on the planet would be able to get all the power they needed for free, but since the business men could not figure out a way to make a profit form it the invention was panned and Nicola Tesla died a pauper.

the problem with tesla's theories were, and are, that there is no way to measure how much of an effect power travelling wirelessly would have on us and our environs...

we're worried about microwaves as it is...

yea, water is a polar molecule... the human body is ~78% water... time for some 'rat vs electric field' experiments lol

I imagine frogs are mostly water, but I've heard grasshoppers have been levitated also.

http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html

So, ...would Tesla's ideas fit into a Type I civilization?

Learning from the Past to Achieve the Future
...an important part of a Type I future, IMHO.

http://magazine-directory.com/Archaeology.htm

ARCHAEOLOGY A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America
Volume 61 Number 4, July/August 2008
Amazonian Harvest: Can prehistoric farming methods lead us to a sustainable future?
by Mara Hvistendahl

"If we were to apply [pre-Columbian] techniques, it would be much better for the world...."
"This is like finding potsherds," he says. The leaf belongs to the cacao tree, which grows throughout this part of the country, the Beni, in circular patches called forest islands--telltale signs, he believes, of early settlement.
Erickson has worked in Bolivia and Peru for three decades, and he hopes his research will bring the lessons of the past to bear on the present, perhaps guiding sustainable agriculture here and across the globe. He is part of a growing group of archaeologists who are engaging and helping shape the communities in which they work, but a few decades ago, other scholars would have thought him crazy.
"He sees forest islands supplemented with raised fields of corn, tobacco, beans, and pumpkin--an agricultural cornucopia that will enrich the earth for future generations."
===
Oh, what a nut!

This article also mentions Biochar and Amazonian Dark Earths, Terra Pretta.
>see also: http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26941#Post26941

The book, 1491, explains what was going on here in the Western Hemisphere, for which these folks are now finding evidence.

~

Do we really EVER learn from past mistakes though? As a species we seem to fear the innovative solution and we are comforted by the familiar. For example at the moment we are searching frantically for oil instead of concentrating on finding other ways to provide energy on a large scale.

Good luck to Erikson. It sounds lovely, but I think we'll see lots more broad-acre fields of waving palm oil (!) before we see those forest islands.

no they would not because they would wonder if they came down and tried to help us think of it a class zero has never seen an alien before we would probably shoot it and take it for study.

I have given much thought to energy for twenty years +, in between ponders of end of man senerios and models exam of retro virus mutations ... over twenty years having a thingy that could solve the energy problems ... ethics have demanded the withhold as the resulting chao's to an oil based world economy demanded it. Now the world is maybe ready for it in the diversity and slow changes that will take place so do not give up the ship yet all, a model is being made, there is indeed much need for it despite the feathers that will be ruffled.

Continual containment that can be used in fusion needs is just a side effect of the event too as magnetic spin of fields create a helix suitable without pulse... that will get someone shot.

I just would like to see a childs ward in some destitute little village medical clinic somewhere ... have ...a night light. The little things in life of need.

Enjoy he thought all, kind regards, Sage

At the same time let's work to ensure that the adjective 'destitute' does not apply to the either the hospital or the village , and contine to help both achieve a standard to be proud of.

Kardashev - Imagine Star Civilizations 1, 2 and 3.

Imagine SuperStar Civilization Earth.

Imagine www.grb.net

John Pozzi

Given that we havent figured fusion out after a half century and no other alternative we have has the potential to produce more than a fraction of the energy we're now getting from fossil fuels, I don't see humanity every going beyond a Type 0 civilization.

Given that fossil fuels have exploded the amount of food we can produce, and thus the human population, far beyond what is capable of being supported without said finite petrochemicals and fuels, I think we're orders of magnitude much more likley to contract as a species over time.

We've consumed about half of the world's effective recoverable supplies of oil already. As it became cheaper and easier to produce on the upside, the inverse is true on the downslope. The more of the resource we demand from the earth, the more geologic forces retrict access to the resource and the more energy that is required to recover and process it. At some point, more energy will be spent trying to acquire a unit of the resource than the resource itself produces when used, thus the energy source becomes an energy sink. We used the first half of the recoverable resource base over the last century. If it weren't for geologic restraints restricting production of the resource and the net energy principle, we would use up the next half within the next 3 decades.

As much as I would like to see mankind transcend Earth and colonize space in a sustainable manner, we've pretty much blown any prospect of that happening already. We can't even sustainably manage ourself in the most ideal environment that we know of - our home planet. If we can't do it properly here, then doing so in space, which lacks all the critical resources we need, which are in relative abundance on Earth, is out of the question.

So with that having been said, I wholly agree with Michio Kaku in his observation.

I used to work in the library that had Tesla's collected later papers. I don't know of anyone who read them and found any usable ideas in them. Of course, they probably wouldn't have told me and I probably wouldn't have understood them if they had.

At least, I'd like to get this thoughtful and difficult thread back in the light (a concept Tesla might deal with).

Not knowing exactly what I'm talking about,

--lylwik

I do not begin to understand most of Tesla's ideas, but I have some insight into why they have been ignored. Tesla was undoubtedly a genius, an original thinker and innovative inventer. But he was a very poor communicator, antisocial and prone to making impulsive and unusual decisions without considering the possible outcomes. Had he been born earlier this may not have been so important, but he was there for the start of our modern media-saturated age (indeed he was one of the innovators). He never understood that 'the medium is the message' or learned how to play the game, so others who were more cooperative with the people who matter were able to overtake him and denigrate him.

Perhaps now it is time to return to his ideas, even some of the odd ones, with an open mind and see if they could have some application today. I really think we need all the help we can get!

I think we can easily make Type-I status in a couple centuries. While it may seem like it's impossible, we are discovering and inventing new things everyday, and renewable resources are becoming more common. I also think that human rights will be solved soon. Countries are enforcing new laws all the time in favor of rights for everyone. But, I believe that there will only be one race at some point. "Cross-breeding" if you will is a very common thing now, so I think we will eventually only be one race of humans.

You're probably right, '94, although it may take millennia. Even so, I think the world has already become so small that race is a minor factor in the generation of hostility. As I see it, religion is a greater threat to peace and global scale social homogeneity. But by far the greatest threat to civilization remains, in my mind, overpopulation. The much discussed negative consequences are known only too well, but armed conflict over diminishing resources, especially fresh water, can hardly be least among them. While focusing on goodwill is essential, it will not be enough. We are in a position of heavy reliance upon science and technology to help us through the period enormous challenge posed by world population growth. Hopefully, humane ways will be found to halt the growth. If found, then Type I civilisation, awaiting us just over the horizon, will bring a brilliant new day to humankind.

Every person on Earth should be employed to help effectively manage the Carbon Cycle. Without gaining mastery over the various facets of the carbon cycle, we won't be able to progress on to become a Type I civilization. It wouldn't be a very nice place to live anyway, if we never learn how to get carbon-based energy, carbon-based fuel, and biosequester carbon at the same time....

Biochar (sometimes called Terra Preta soil) is the missing part of the carbon cycle--an unbalanced cycle which we developed by using fossil fuels to unsustainably "support" agriculture. Biochar is a way to return the carbon from fossil fuels, which we've already used, back to the earth. This restores and enriches the land, and increases agricultural fertility and productivity.
Biochar could restore and rebalance our carbon-based energy economy, and it would then allow us to progress sustainably forward to become a Type I civilization.

I don't think biochar can provide energy, which is the more fundamental problem.

Yes, it is a problem that you think this.

Perhaps this is just a semantic problem, but why do you think biochar production can't also provide energy? The Nature link about biochar, in the "Terra Preta to Save the Biosphere" thread, refers to "bioenergy," but it's still producing electricity.

The article also mentions "process heat," which can be captured to produce work, so it should count as energy too.

In practice there is a trade-off, between maximizing char production, fuel production, or energy production, but with industrial-scale processing both fuel production and energy capture could be utilized while maximizing the carbon-sequestering biochar production.
===

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html

"Various pyrolysis technologies are commercially available that yield different proportions of biochar and bioenergy products, such as bio-oil and syngas. The gaseous bioenergy products are typically used to generate electricity; the bio-oil may be used directly for low-grade heating applications and, potentially, as a diesel substitute after suitable treatment."

With Biochar...
"CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis. Sustainably procured crop residues, manures, biomass crops, timber and forestry residues, and green waste are pyrolysed by modern technology to yield bio-oil, syngas, process heat and biochar. As a result of pyrolysis, immediate decay of these biomass inputs is avoided. The outputs of the pyrolysis process serve to provide energy, avoid emissions of GHGs such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), and amend agricultural soils and pastures. The bioenergy is used to offset fossil-fuel emissions, while returning about half of the C fixed by photosynthesis to the atmosphere. In addition to the GHG emissions avoided by preventing decay of biomass inputs, soil emissions of GHGs are also decreased by biochar amendment to soils."

"The biochar stores carbon in a recalcitrant form that can increase soil water- and nutrient-holding capacities, which typically result in increased plant growth. This enhanced productivity is a positive feedback that further enhances the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere."

"In addition, biochar yields several potential co-benefits. It is a source of renewable bioenergy; it can improve agricultural productivity, particularly in low-fertility and degraded soils where it can be especially useful to the world's poorest farmers; it reduces the losses of nutrients and agricultural chemicals in run-off; it can improve the water-holding capacity of soils; and it is producible from biomass waste. Of the possible strategies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, biochar is notable, if not unique, in this regard."

"Biochar can be produced at scales ranging from large industrial facilities down to the individual farm, and even at the domestic level, making it applicable to a variety of socioeconomic situations." ~Nature

IMHO,
Production and use of biochar can help achieve many of the 8 UN Millennium Development Goals... around poverty, hunger, environmental sustainability/biodiversity, global partnerships, and maternal & child health.

Biochar can help populations in undeveloped and underdeveloped countries as well as generate new careers and jobs here in the developed world. The health benefits of biochar production, for example, in the Third World (over traditional charcoal production & cooking methods) could save more live than eradicating malaria, because of reduced respiratory disease-associated smoke production.

"Biochar may not be beautiful, but it does beautiful things."
~with apologies to Fritz Frimmel

It can provide energy, depending on how you use/make it.

If you're goal is CO2 sequestration, you're not going to get much energy out of biochar; for this purpose you basically degrade the organic matter at lower temps and bury it.

If you treat it at higher temps you can get useable fuels out of it - i.e. various bio-oils similar to diesel fuel. The downside is that anything you take out of it as fuel goes back into the atmosphere - thus reducing to total amount of sequestration you get.

At high enough temps you gassify it, giving you maximal energy-generating capacity, but minimizing the sequestration side of the equation. Hypothetically this could approach a zero-carbon fuel source - you essentially release as much CO2 burning the fuel as was absorbed by the plant you converted into fuel.

But, to bring it back to the OP, biochar is not a route to a type I civilization. A type 1 requires that we use 100% of the energy available to a planet. Since ~99% of this is solar energy, and plants are only ~ 3-6% efficient, you won't even get close to a type I, even if you harvest every plant, algae and photosynthetic bacterium on earth.

Bryan

Yep, it's just that before we can progress on to a Type I civilization, it seems as if we should master the carbon cycle... to successfully complete our "Type 0" stage ...to be able to use the carbon cycle sustainably, and keep it undiminished or even enhanced.

I'm pretty sure that would violate entropy...

Better to transend it - let the carbon cycle do its thing, with minimal mess from us.

Bryan

Don't reckon many nations are going to wait for significantly better use of fossil fuels and mastering the carbon cycle. Sure, something's got to be done about it, and urgently (I disagree with ImagingGeek on that), but most likely there'll be rapidly increasing dependence on nuclear fission, like it or not, terrorists or not. I think that's going to become the mainstay, with alternative renewable sources being a small slice of the pie. Until/unless fusion arrives.

The question was: can we make it to Type 1?

I recently read about a study that attempted to predict how long it might take to reach that status given the data at hand regarding our progress up the Kardashev Scale. The answer is: anything from about 200 years to 6000 years! So, can we make it? Yes, I guess so, IF a technological civilization can be sustained long enough.

With what in particular?

Bryan

Hi Bryan


- refers to:


I suppose it depends on what you mean by "minimal mess". Actually, something would be done about it, and with minimal mess from us, using nuclear power. I know that has its own problems but, as I said, I think it's coming anyway.

By "minimal mess", I meant minimal carbon contributions from us. I can see where the confusion could have come from...

Bryan

Yes, I see. My mistake.

We've already "messed up" the carbon cycle beyond anything seen on this planet before (not more extreme than any previous climate mode, but just different than any previous mode). It will take decades at least (hopefully) for the changes to fully register and affect the various systems that compose the climate, but we live on a different planet now than we did a few hundred years ago. We have a small chance to restore the carbon cycle to within baseline parameters, but it will still take decades for those effects to restore and stabilize the climate.

Even the crust of the planet has heated up very rapidly over the past 60 years when compared with the past 500; it's like a hockeystick! google: Beltrami & "crustal heating"

In that "Restoring the Biosphere" thread, my most recent posts talks about how the carbon cycle is broken, and ways of fixing the carbon cycle.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=36396#Post36396

So my point is that we've gone way beyond "minimizing" our distortion of the carbon cycle. We need to learn to work with the carbon cycle, rather than transcending Nature, and aspire to be as good as Nature. We have finally learned about the complexities of the carbon cycle, so when will we stop acting as if we did not know. When will we stop shunting long-seqestered carbon from its hallowed grave and up into the air, and start shunting carbon back into the soil so as to restore a more stable climate and the planet's biodiversity.

It took millions of years for the planet to build enough biodiversity to draw down all the CO2 now stored in peat, humus, kerogen, lignites, coal, and oil... and finally make this planet a habitable place for the likes of us. And within a few hundred (or thousand) years we have completely undone much of what evolution accomplished over that long span. Is that moral? When our children look through the eyes of their grandchildren, what sort of world will they see. What will their ancestors see and think?

It is a moral imperative to restore the soils, seas, and skies of our mother, to restore Gaia's achievement of life everlasting.

There is a lot of work to do:
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/mackenzie/mackenzie_TOTEM.html



Fortunatly, there is a lot of us to learn about it and to do it.... It's not about surviving until we get to be Type I, but having a habitable place to enjoy once we get there. Plus we won't get there at all, without starting over again (the 6000 years scenario), unless we have a very habitable place from which to progress (the 200 year scenario).

In addition to all the high-tech solutions to reduce emissions such as nuclear, solar, tidal, clean coal, wind, geo, desalination, etc....
Restoring biodiversity and the richness of the carbon cycle seems like the fundamental way to go.

Is the world evolving or devolving? R u a foolishly smart cynic or a wisely stupid optimist? N if u've already chosen ur position, how easily can u b convinced of the other point-of-view? This fascinating debate is so insidious it's almost like the battle of good vs evil. Earlier in the thread there were a lot of comments being made that not-so-subtly expressed which team the author was on. All my life I can remember cranky ole curmugeons grumbling that the world is going to hell. Those people made me feel mad n rebellious n self-righteous, n still do, but I've also been humbled by the many times I was wrong.

This thread is so tempting for fringe lunatics like myself to come out yapping n foaming at the mouth. I shud've expected that a lot of "Ancient Astronaut" n "God Is an Alien" sort of freaks wud have jumped all over this topic, but none did, so I guess I will. Dr Kaku's thesis insinuates that Type III's r already out there. Can we make it to Type I? Well, does some bigshot have our back?

Here we r in our infantile state of barbarism, n I c a lot of people investing a lot of time n energy caring for the youngest of our species, even the ones that don't individually belong to us. I feel like latching on to the giant assumption that this sort of nurturing behavior is exactly what is needed to help us secure a more spectacular future.

Seems reasonable to propose that a Type III civilisation wud take a quiet observation approach to dealing with us, us babies in our crib. But to just let us slaughter each other without divine intervention might b seen as unacceptably cruel.

Solution? Teach the locals to develop morals faster than they develop tools by sneaking in a few well-calculated prophets. "No, Kthulu! U're supposed to snip off Jesus' attenae so He can blend in with the regulars!" "U're right, Jor-El! Boy, that wudda been embarrassing!"

K, I'm done now.

So, mason, your argument is that encouraging a few alien types to suggest 'morals' in the guise of codes of conduct which eventually surfaced as a mulitude of belief systems was part of a PLAN? (Sorry about the shouting--- I got a bit squeaky there.)

Well---
a) This argument is probably better catered for in NQS.
and---
b) I heartily agree with your suggestion that, with alien help or not, we are indeed headed for a spectacular future already, more spectacular sounds terrifying!