Talk:Kardashev scale/Archive 1

message: I just hit the motherload in terms of references, can someone help me get together and compile all this information. From the article On the Inevitability and the Possible Structures of Supercivilizations Karadashev developed a second scale on possible outcomes of extraterrestial detection/nondectection.
*References:
*Kardashev, N. S. "Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations," Soviet Astronomy, 8, 217 (1964)
*Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation, by F. J. Dyson
*Supercivilizations as Possible Products of the Progressive Evolution of Matter
*On the Inevitability and the Possible Structures of Supercivilizations
* The Radio Search For Intelligent Extraterrestral Life
*Detectability of Extraterrestrial Technological Activities
*ENERGY AND CULTURE
:::::::--Ctrl_buildtalk 15px| 22:26, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Request

message: ===NPOVing Article===
===Internalize more information from referered external sources===
from: Talk:Kardashev scale#Further References
: "Can anyone think of a way to integrate the information included here: Energy and Culture along with Detectability of Extraterrestrial Technological Activities? With the intergration, combination and references to the infromation provided there (without copyviolating) could bring this article much closer to featured article status, because then it wold be very relevant and very information filled. Basically both articles relate knowledge, energy, and development. 
 Ctrl_buildtalk 15px| 20:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no complaints I will remove this outdated content. ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tasks

message: Kardashev's original scale only had types I, II and III. Several "extensions" of types IV and up have been added to the article, but I'm a little dubious about how they're presented; as far as I'm aware these are all highly speculative and also generally idiosyncratic. Does anyone have solid sources for who proposed these extensions and whether they're used by anyone else? Bryan 06:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a section header to separate Kardashev's original three-point scale from the later extensions looks like the right way to go, IMO. Bryan 05:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Current talk page begins here

message: Could there be categories higher than those presented? EG harnessing energy from other universes? A transcendence to a higher form, to be able to manipulate energy/matter as needed in exact accordance to physical laws seems likely provided we don't kill ourselves off first.
*This is exactly what Levels IV, V, VI, and VII indicate, it is just that due to us not being able to comprehend the technology, it is unpredictable what these levels really mean, as that level IV could mean control of the whole universe or just the whole Local Group of galaxys, V could mean multiuniverse powers, or it could mean control of the cluster, VI could mean control of the super cluster, or ability to change physical constants , and VII could mean god like powers, or the ability to contol anything, and we can define it both ways because having this type of energy control could mean that the abililites that come with them indicate these levels of control. Ctrl build 10:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher categories? 

message: Can anyone think of a way to integrate the information included here: Energy and Culture along with Detectability of Extraterrestrial Technological Activities? With the intergration, combination and references to the infromation provided there (without copyviolating) could bring this article much closer to featured article status, because then it wold be very relevant and very information filled. Basically both articles relate knowledge, energy, and development. --Ctrl_buildtalk 15px| 20:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: --Ctrl_buildtalk 15px| 22:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Further References

message: "the cost approaches $10,000,000 in energy. This is an infinitesimal fraction of the approximate GDP of the United States alone at the end of the 1990s through the begining of the 21st Century."
I added the "infinitesimal fraction" bit myself; but I suspect the cost is a great deal higher than 10 million dollars. Can someone correct this bit?
Ben Standeven
* fixed --Ctrl_buildtalk 15px| 01:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  verify cost of interstellar transmissions. 

message: the article says
 "III.5 Ability to survive the end of the Universe."
how can that be true...does it mean 
  III.5 Ability to extend the life of the Universe
I'm confused...BrokenSegue 22:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survive the end? 

message: Readding ludicrous over-precision in table -- value comparisions are difficult, and exact values to multiple decimal places gives a better sense of a logarthmic growth phenomena than anything else. Also several values are derived from more exact wattage numbers than the rounded exajoule numbers. --Ctrl_buildtalk 15px| 05:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables

message: How is the progress towards renominating going? I fixed notes and see alsos. Notes were a mess - I hope I didn't scramble them, but there were in two sections and at least one symbol had 2 notes...perhaps more advanced notes from Wikipedia:Footnotes would be better then numerals I used. They are not in order anyway. It reads good, although I cannot understand the diagram - even after reading a caption (:Image:Development-Diagram.gif#Description). This needs to be properly explained so a laic can understand this. Oh, references must be formatted properly accordingto Wikipedia:Cite sources - i.e. giving last access date. Are there no printed references for this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress? 

message: ----
Is it possible to speculate about a civilazition utilising magic? It seems to me that that would qualify such a civilazition as type II or above. (Type III or above if they use both.) --Auric The Rad 04:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
::The Kardashev Scale seemingly only refers to a technology/energy relation, but if one wanted to by pass that, and calculate the energy/matter relation needed to accomplish an action, one could also refer to the Kardashev scale, but likely not in the same way as it quanitifies the technological level of a civilization. It probably would be rather useless for comparison to technological civilizations the "magic level" of a fictional civilization. That said, it could take a similar form to energy/strength levels in shows like DragonBall, games like Magic or Dungeons and Dragons, or thought experiements. So you could compare the "gross magical energy level" of perhaps the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter universes, but it would likely not draw good comparision to a technological civlization. In actuallity, this brings up a good point about Star Wars's usage as an example, but since the civilization is mainly technologically based, with "The Force" a biological caveat, it probably its effect is irrelevant. That said, you may want to see the third of Clarke's three laws. --Ctrl buildtalk 15px| 18:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic tech scale? 

message: In the article it says that "According to Kaku, Kardaschev has estimated the development of such a civilisation at the year 7800." for a type III civilization. A type three civilization is supposed to encompass a whole galaxy in some way, perhaps Dyson Spheres around every star.  Now I believe the Mily Way is about 100,000 light years across, so how is it possible for a civilization to travel this kind of distance in just a few thousand years?
Am I missing something? Wormholes? Warp Drive?
::I am as confused as you are. I am not quite sure what that means. --Ctrl buildtalk 15px| 23:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the "early" stage of a Type III civilization is characterized by "colonization of nearby galaxies," the nearest of which is over 2 million lightyears away, I'm going to say that FTL travel is assumed.  --noösfractal 23:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the definition of "Type III" is not dependant on the colonization of other galaxies. It looks like this bit of the timeline is unreferenced, so I don't know where that "continued colonization of other galaxies" bit comes from. I'm still pretty leery of the type VI and above stuff, too; Wikipedia shouldn't be making up Kardashev numbers for them unless we can point to external sources that use those numbers independantly. Bryan 00:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Kaku says in that interview: "In fact, growing at a modest rate of 1% per year, Kardashev estimated that it would take only 3,200 years to reach Type II status, and 5,800 years to reach Type III status." So the reasoning appears to be just a plain old "compounded interest" calculation with no physical basis provided for how a civilization could possibly expand that fast. Internationally recognized physicist or no, he still needs to explain why this is remotely plausible. Bryan 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Only if the Dyson spheres are the highly unrealistic variety that's usually depicted in science fiction, with a thick crust and an Earthlike environment somehow magically glued to the inner surface. A realistic Dyson sphere would be much thinner, and probably wouldn't even be a single solid shell; see Dyson_sphere#Dyson_swarm. Bryan Derksen 07:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  7800 Years? 

message: I'm in the process of creating a spoken version of this article.Kazhivlad 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Article 

message: I just removed the following section from the article. It's unreferenced and I requested citations for its major claims back on April 8. If anyone knows where these extensions came from, feel free to fill in the blanks and restore it. Bryan 00:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Type VII is already listed as being in Isaac Asimov's short story, "The Last Question", as shown. the others appear to be created as intermediate steps from Type V to Type VII, however, they ARE fictional, and have been in the page for quite some time. I'd think that would be criteria for inclusion.  User:Raccoon Fox - Talk  00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter how long it's been in the page if it violates the "no original research" rule, in fact if it's original research then having had it in the page for a long time is worse. My basic problem is that I have no idea who's making up the designations "type VI" and "type VII". Editors here on Wikipedia aren't allowed to make up new Kardashev levels, so they must be from some other source. But the source isn't actually given anywhere. Since you're the one who most recently re-added the contents to the article, do you happen to know what the source is? If so, please provide it. Otherwise I'll have to take it out again. Bryan 00:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's been a week now since I re-requested citations for this section. Eventually I'm just going to remove it again if none are provided, does anyone know of any? Bryan 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to assume, though, the article's history is available. If there used to be references present for these facts I'd gladly include them, but I've been watching and contributing to this article for quite a long time and I'm not aware of any. I just did a quick browse through old versions and found that the only external reference that's ever been associated with this section is http://www.suite101 .com/article.cfm/6513/70188 (see this version from 1 January 2005, for example: ) didn't contain any mention of types above III and was therefore useless as a reference for this stuff. I've also found that this material has actually been sitting here in the article for two years now; this is the edit where the meat of it was added back on October 17 2004, . I hate having to be a hard-ass about removing material from articles like this, but frankly two years is far more than enough time for material that appears to be completely made up to be sitting in a Wikipedia article. I'm taking the section back out again. If anyone wants to restore it, please dig up some sort of supporting reference for it before you do. The material can sit safely here in talk or the article's edit history until then. Bryan 06:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it appears that you are correct.  Perhaps the section "Extensions to the original scale" could be a little more in-depth?  (Though information on IV & above appears to be pretty sparse and is pretty much only relevant to science fiction.  "Creating a universe at will" is not an activity that has much relevance or can even really be comprehended in a logical way.) --JD79 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional extensions

message: I guess the assumption is advanced civilizations would require external sources of energy to tap into in order to grow.  But doesn't nuclear power invalidate that assumption?  It's stand alone.  There could be a million fission reactors some where, and one could get tons of energy from them.  From that, one could assume that it's entirely possible that similar reactors could be created in the future that produce more energy, and are smaller.  Meanwhile, none of this requires naturally occuring phenomena like planets, stars, or galaxies.  So a civilization could become so powerful to the point of having complete control over an entire galaxy without having to rely upon it for energy. Malamockq 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nuclear reactors are all you use to get to Kardashev I status they'd be producing as much energy as falls on Earth from the Sun and as a result they're doubling the amount of waste heat that will need to be radiated away into space to keep the planet at its original temperature (which I assume would still be an important consideration at the K-I level). Seems like a lot of trouble to go to to avoid using solar energy that's falling on the surface for free anyway. As for higher Kardashev levels, which will probably be using space habitats and might not even be biological any more, the heat rejection problem is the same either way but I still don't see any good reason not to use solar energy in addition to the local reactors. Stars are just big naturally-occuring fusion reactors themselves, after all, and their output is just going to be wasted otherwise. Bryan 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another point is that the civilization might not have a viable star nearby. For example, maybe they're well away from galaxies or a trillion years into the future (though most fissionable material would be gone by then). -- KarlHallowell 03:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One way to generate large amounts of energy in the post-stelliferous era might be to feed matter into black holes. It won't matter what sort of matter it is at that point. But we're getting into OR territory here, and farther away from what the talk page is supposed to be for. We'll probably need some external sources. Bryan 06:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kardashev scale and nuclear power 

message: "Weakness by supposition?"'s: "unique conditions on Earth allow for specific technologies to develop (faster)" mentions "The Moon produces tides, and offers some protection from asteroids, comets, and radiation." in this article.
*never heard of the moons radiation protection, higly sceptical there is any significant to speed up progress, citation needed!
*why doesn't it mention the moons gravity, stabilisating the earth axial tilt, causing more stable climate.
*why doesn't it mention the moons influence on callendars for agriculture?
*why is the supposition-segment not more astrological/universal?
--Ollj 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has long contained a lot of material that IMO isn't really appropriate for this specific topic, belonging instead in some more general article on xenology or futurology. Now that I've finally put my foot down on that troublesome "fictional extensions" section I'll start looking at this bit tonight and perhaps find a better home for it. Bryan 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There, I've moved most of the section over to astrosociobiology instead. That article seems to be more appropriately into specifics like this. Bryan 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: moon radiation protection?

message: what does this mean? --njh 06:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That unit was introduced by User:Kardak on February 11, not sure what it means. The columns originally didn't have time units. See . Bryan Derksen 06:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess in that case it probably is just ignorance of the meaning of watt.  I'll revert it. Alternatively it might have meant the rate of increase of energy consumption, but 21EJ/year = 0.67TW.  (No civilisation could maintain 0.67TW/hour for long!)--njh 07:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  terawatts/hour? 

message: Could it be speculated that the human Imperium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29 in the Warhammer 40k mythos is *still* at level one? What of the Eldar or other races?
Apologies for being nerdy, I like thinking scientifically on these things. Lady BlahDeBlah 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The human imperium is clearly level II, given their multi-system wide-spread empire. None of the races are known, iirc, to control another galaxy, so they are all at most level II within what we know, ignoring the special powers of the warp and it's effects. 82.36.72.45 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be nerdy... 

message: This list has been growing again and a lot of the entries seem like they've been arbitrarily placed there based on editors' personal opinions of what the energy usage of the fictional entities seem to be. It seems especially bad for the type IV section, wherein it seems people have been putting just any old "godlike" alien they can think of. The Kardashev scale is all about energy usage, however, something which is specific and quantifiable and which isn't actually specified in most of these cases. I'm going to start moving the more obvious cases here and I'd request that some indication be given of what their actual power consumption is before they go back on the list. Bryan Derksen 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of the type IV entries should be wholescale, as type IV is not part of the official scale, yet any inclusion seems to grant validity to it. The time lords and The Dancers at the End of Time references should be moved to the extensions section, as these are the strongest and most clear references. Whilst the Bab-5 fan in me wants to keep the first ones, technically that's a plural and not a single civilisation :P This entire section should really be limited to the most notable of sci-fi authors. Even though I despise notability, this section could otherwise grow without any limitations otherwise. For example, the night's dawn trilogy details such a type II human federation, but I am lothe to extend the list. Perhaps require stated energy usage equal to that needed, just to force it to a smaller size, and create catagories for anyone who wants to try and include more? (easier to just use catagories and have people add as they like, and keeps inclusionists like me generally happier :P) 82.36.72.45 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The point of the Kardashev scale is not the physical extent of a civilization, but simply its raw energy utilization. The Ancients may have been K-III level since they had some pretty impressive power generating technology (Zero Point Modules, Project Arcturus) but lacking solid numbers it would be speculative to say they were with any certainty. Bryan Derksen 15:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tons of original research in the "Literature describing different Kardashev Types" section

message: The Galactic Empire (Star Wars) rated as Type III is probably correct, however the Culture (Banks) seems to be vastly more advanced; if both are Type III, it should perhaps be noted that they are high and low examples.
The United Federation of Planets (Star Trek) is at a markedly lower level than the previous two, perhaps a late Type I? I lack the ability to accurately do the math involved here, but detailed logical analysis on these subjects can be found online, with numbers provided:
* Star Wars power generation based on the Death Star
* Star Wars power generation considering the scale of the galactic civilization
* A brief comparison between Star Wars and Star Trek power levels
--88.113.57.173 03:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding popular sci-fi civilization power levels 

message: ----
In the article it says that it would take millions of years to conquer the galaxy, but maybe we had developed space-time folding tech and we could travel a lot faster than light? i mean, watch the humanity's last 2000 years, that tech would be avaliable for 3000-4000, don't you think?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.30.132 (talk • contribs) 
:See Wikipedia:No original research. Michaelbusch 03:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed limit 

message: Are civilizations on the Kardashev scale based on how much energy they can harness from the given source, or the energy of that source-for example, a type III civilization harnesses all the energy in a galaxy, BUT if there were a planet on which a single civilization had some sort of uber generator that was only a cubic meter in volume but could generate as much energy as that of the entire milky way galaxy would they be considered type 3, even though they don't harness every source in the galaxy? The snare 09:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kardashev scale is representation of the amount of energy a civilization can produce... so yes it could be just a box. But the scale was developed in with the intent of looking for the mechanism or source of the energy. Just like when we use coal, hydropower, or nuclear power plants to generate energy, each method leaves evidence of where the source of that energy comes from. So although Kardashev's scale is the amount of energy being produced, it's the source that usually gets talked about most when we're looking for evidence of ET.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could definitely be better explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy or source of energy? 

message: The Caleban Race from Frank Herbert's novels, The Dosadi Experiment and Whipping Star, actually are stars (or are represented by stars). Where in the Kardashev scale would they be located? Does the phrase usage of the power of a star apply to a race that actually are (for all intents and purposes) stars? --Guthrie 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question; the answer could also apply to Gaia, which is also listed. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calebans 

message: removing (Alternative Biochemistry)... I can't see that being a carbon based species, versus a silicate based species has much impact on how we classify them as a civilization, in accordance, with the Kardashev model.
removing (Anthropic principle)... until we establish the Kardashev scale with possible teleological implications I think it should remain removed.
keeping  (Clarke's three laws)... the third aspect "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" is a possible route by which teleological implications could be introduced or defended. So I think it's a good place to start with the teleological side of Kardashev's scale.
keeping  (Drake Equation)... the level of advancement of a civilization has a major impact on Drake's equation. Type II and III civilizations that have the power and technology to escape their local star cluster dramatically increase their chances for longevity. That would be value L in the Drake Equation.
keeping  (Fermi Paradox)... the paradox directly inspired ideas like the Drake equations and the studies and definitions by Carl Sagan and Kardashev.
removing (History of science and technology... the entry has noting to do with advanced civilizations, it's completely earth-POV, it doesn't make a link to Kardashev scale once, and in whole is a rather weak article.
keeping  (Rare Earth hypothesis)... because of it's connection with the Fermi paradox and Drake's Equation.
removing (Simulated Reality)... again until the teleological portion of Kardashev's scale is complete, we can't really introduce this link. Consensus hasn't been reached yet on whether to use my above links by John Barrow and Alan Guth... so I'd keep it removed until that has been resolved.
removing (Technological Singularity)... John Barrow talks quite a bit about an expanded Kardashev's scale that has several attributes, mostly from his position that both mechanical-computer singularities (Type-minus categories.. See links above) and extremely powerful civilizations (Types VI and VII), in the end, trying to manipulate and miniaturize the smallest bits of space, matter, and time. However, we currently the expansions of Kardashev's scale are in contention, so we'll have to work that out before this link has any relevance.
keeping  (World energy resources and consumption)... it's one earth-centered POV that I think can stay... We humans love to compare sizes! "How advanced are we?" I think removing it would cause more distraction and edit wars, than help the page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up See Also section