
Kardashev Scale - kwikiel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
======
satori99
> 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
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.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
I've been thinking about this, and I believe with what we know today about
neuroplasticity, if you take a multiple-year approach to "uploading" at the
end of your biological life, assuming one is able to couple digital and
biological neurons transparently enough, there is no reason to believe that
the brain wouldn't shift all parts over to the digital as the biological went
down.

This would definitely be "you". I think the main question is whether we will
achieve a sufficiently transparent digital neuron anytime in the next few
centuries, and whether your personality would change during the "upload".

A more scary thought is, what if we develop human-to-human transfer
capabilities long before we develop digital neurons? Then I think it os
inevitable that people in power will purchase young humans and transfer to
those at the end of their life. Maybe this will be some dystopian nightmare.
Or maybe it will turn out to be the ultimate version of marriage, if the two
"selves" remain distinct in the merged brain.

~~~
wruza
“Then I think it os inevitable that people in power will purchase young humans
and transfer to those at the end of their life. Maybe this will be some
dystopian nightmare”

Depending on how you see it, that already happens by having “a son who will
continue my deed”. People give a birth to people, pass down genes, knowledge,
viewpoints, behavioral patterns.

What you mean is probably that ‘self-aware thing’ that could teleport to a new
body. But in fact there is no teleportation, since there is no evidence of
such ‘thing’. You could make a fresh copy of your body (or a machine) and
maybe copy your brain contents to it, but you will not see from these new
eyes. Someone completely un-different will do. Because no soul; sensory gaps
define borders between us, your original eyes are still in place and your sad
brain is still there. Your copy will be happy that they are alive for yet
another century, but it is no different than when someone very similar is
already young and happy while you’re slowly decaying. Why not just tell them
all your stories and fade out then?

That brings us into the situation where dystopian nightmare already exists (it
ain’t me, it ain’t meee) and you’re doomed to live in your body no matter what
till the death.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
> but you will not see from these new eyes

No, what I am proposing is that if done carefully, gradually, strengthening
the link over a timespan of several years, it would be possible to actually
see from these new eyes. The mind would gradually expand into the other brain.

~~~
modzu
maybe a closer reality is doing this temporarily via TCMS. scan one brain, and
impose the neural pattern on a target brain. the beauty is that its temporary.
you could plug into someone else, and for a moment experience what they are
experiencing, even through their eyes

~~~
therein
Everyone here seems to be missing his point. He is talking about transferring
over the thing that is "you" in a continuous fashion, over time, into another
host. "continuous" is the key here, as in the "self-aware thing" that is you
will not have a disruption in his aware conscious experience. No disruption in
history.

------
nyolfen
[http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AC470ED016B9B9214C6...](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AC470ED016B9B9214C64625F4709AA38)

~~~
dredmorbius
Smil's _Energy and Civilization_ is indeed excellent.

~~~
davidivadavid
I've been meaning to look at his work, but I'm not sure where to start? Any
books to avoid/prioritize?

~~~
dredmorbius
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...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/growth-from-microorganisms-to-
megacities/oclc/1085577162)

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

~~~
dTal
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
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.

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

~~~
ben_w
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

