Type IIs
Type II civilizations didn't advance without technology.
If a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere, what was that planet's social and environmental cost? Did they figure out how to handle pollution from developing that technology? And once they solved all those problems, who would it serve? A planet crammed with people, or just elite tribes?
As suggested in Limits to Growth, constrained growth is the key. Type IIs would have figured out overpopulation, such that there were a system of checks and balances. They would have solved the system feedbacks, delays and overshoots. Their planets (plural, because they would have access to many) would probably not be very populated, meaning there would be more than enough resources and wealth (or however that concept was understood) to go around. They wouldn't care so much about "social media", or its equivalent, or would have found a way to use it in a productive way, instead of remunerating one company and its investors. The point is, how can a civilization be so advanced to harness a solar system, and be so involved in petty politics?
Machine learning was probably a big part of Type IIs, as a "master algorithm" would obviate the need for multiple software systems.
But as it was suggested in Limits to Growth, technology is not a panacea.
So how does a civilization evolve from one that is stubbornly primitive to one that can harness its star and beyond? And how does the brain devolve all the bad stuff, that leads to wars, terrorism, hatred, etc.?
Anthropology and technology aren't related disciplines although they would have to be.
***
If we had unlimited power from the sun, how would we use that power, and manage side-effects? In Jevons Paradox the quantity of a resource is depleted by its availability. If it was infinite, what would be the control and constraints, if any?
If a civilization can manage to build a Dyson sphere, what was that planet's social and environmental cost? Did they figure out how to handle pollution from developing that technology? And once they solved all those problems, who would it serve? A planet crammed with people, or just elite tribes?
As suggested in Limits to Growth, constrained growth is the key. Type IIs would have figured out overpopulation, such that there were a system of checks and balances. They would have solved the system feedbacks, delays and overshoots. Their planets (plural, because they would have access to many) would probably not be very populated, meaning there would be more than enough resources and wealth (or however that concept was understood) to go around. They wouldn't care so much about "social media", or its equivalent, or would have found a way to use it in a productive way, instead of remunerating one company and its investors. The point is, how can a civilization be so advanced to harness a solar system, and be so involved in petty politics?
Machine learning was probably a big part of Type IIs, as a "master algorithm" would obviate the need for multiple software systems.
But as it was suggested in Limits to Growth, technology is not a panacea.
So how does a civilization evolve from one that is stubbornly primitive to one that can harness its star and beyond? And how does the brain devolve all the bad stuff, that leads to wars, terrorism, hatred, etc.?
Anthropology and technology aren't related disciplines although they would have to be.
***
If we had unlimited power from the sun, how would we use that power, and manage side-effects? In Jevons Paradox the quantity of a resource is depleted by its availability. If it was infinite, what would be the control and constraints, if any?
