When will humanity have a K3 civilization?

[Tom Mazanec]

When will humanity have a K3 civilization?

[Hornblower]

When will humanity have a K3 civilization?

What is a K3 civilization?

[Tom Mazanec]

Level 3 on the Kardashev Scale.

[antoniseb]

For this poll I wish you'd included an option for "unknowable at this time".

[eburacum45]

This is a Kardashev III type civilisation, which uses all the luminosity of a galaxy for its own purposes.

There are many reasons to suspect that humaity will never have a K3 civilisation;

1/ there are no K3 civilisations visible anywhere else in the universe, so it seems likely that they are very, very rare if not absent in our universe.
2/ The galaxy is 100,000 light years long so even at the speed of light it would take at least that long to collect all the light from all the stars; travelling at such speeds appears to be impossible, so it would take much longer.
3/ no civilisation 100,000 light years could communicate internally in less than that period, as all messages would be limited by the speed of light. So the people at one end of the galaxy would be entirely ignorant about what was happening at the other end; a sense of paranoia would probably ensue, which would most likely end in eternal preparation for war, rather than in a galactic civilisation.

So the existence of a K3 civ in our future looks unlikely.

[Tom Mazanec]

For this poll I wish you'd included an option for "unknowable at this time".

I didn't think of it.
Obviously, however, any question about the future is unknowable. Some alien species 1 billion light years away may have created an artificial Big Bang that is destroying the universe at the speed of light 999,999,999 years and 364.9 days ago, so tomorrow's sunrise is only 99.9999999999999999999999% likely.
Vote your handwaving guess, if you want.

[antoniseb]

... Vote your handwaving guess, if you want.

OK, I'm going to guess a hundred million years, but if it doesn't happen by then, don't come looking for me to try to hold me to it.

[Tom Mazanec]

And while we're on the topic of alternatives I did not think of, why in the name of Isaac Newton does the forum limit me to 5 choices? If not, I would have listed 1 billion years and never separately, since they are very different alternatives, either of which could be justified. Another forum I often post on (alternatehistory.com) allows up to 20 choices on polls.

[Swift]

This section of the forum is for astronomy and space exploration questions with straightforward, generally accepted answers.

As this thread doesn't seem to meet that criteria (straightforward, generally accepted answers), but is rather an open discussion, I've moved it from Q&A to Science & Technology

[Tom Mazanec]

Thank you, Swift. But again, why such a stringent poll option limit?

[Swift]

Thank you, Swift. But again, why such a stringent poll option limit?

I have no idea. I suspect it is an aspect of the unmodified forum software (Fraser doesn't like modifying it). If you want to discuss this further, please start a thread in Feedback.

[mike alexander]

From watching TV, I'd say we already have a Type VII Kardashian civilization (Snooki visible at Alpha Centauri).

[Ara Pacis]

Is it even physically possible for such a civilization to exist?

[ShinAce]

About as likely as unicorns discovering anti-gravity, but never say never.

[MikeMcc]

I really doubt that we will spread out of the Solar system, barring some fancy new physics that allows us to take shortcuts, the technical hurdles are just too massive. The energy required to move a sensible mass at a respectible fraction of the speed of light is just ridiculously high.

[Jens]

The most popular answer at this point is the last one. I suspect that in many of the cases (like mine) the key there is the "never" part at the end.

[KiwiBiggles]

I really doubt that we will spread out of the Solar system, barring some fancy new physics that allows us to take shortcuts, the technical hurdles are just too massive. The energy required to move a sensible mass at a respectible fraction of the speed of light is just ridiculously high.

I'm pretty hopeful we'll leave the solar system within a century - or at least begin an interstellar space program (admittedly we would have to get used to much longer-term projects than now, due to the incredible distances involved). The biggest energy problem seems to be getting into orbit from Earth - and after that things appear to get a lot easier (energy-wise). The best approach would seem to be to build a base infrastructure in earth orbit (or Lunar or Mars orbit) then mine asteroids and comets for metals, fuel, water, and what have you... manufacture interstellar vehicles in zero gee and then have at it!

Self-replicating machines could do it a lot easier than self-replicating people, at least to get the ball rolling exploration-wise and to develop some interstellar infrastructure for people to follow. They could maybe take some DNA and incubate an inter-stellar human population (I'm not sure how the infants would survive?) or maybe medicine can develop a safe method of deep-space hibernation(?) or my personal favourite would be a massive generation-ship that could go into orbit around an exosolar planet to begin a colonisation programme (maybe a combination of all three would be the most practical?).

I used to think interstellar colonisation was highly impractical if not impossible - mainly for economic reasons. The thing that has changed my mind is the advent of Planetary Resources Inc. Reading about their programme has changed my attitude - once we get out of Earth's gravity well the resources in asteroids and comets would appear to be there for the taking, and I no longer believe our terran economic system will prevent us from achieving our interstellar destiny (I would hope for a more equitable and just interplanetary/interstellar economic system - see Kim Stanley Robinson although without the violence). I think it's imperative we colonise the stars - if we would only stop fighting each other here on Earth it would be easy, and I hope my kids will live long enough to see it begin!

Kiwi

[Cougar]

Level 3 on the Kardashev Scale.

Well, doggone you, you made me go look up what this-here Kardashev Scale is...

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal.

In other words, it measures civilizations based on energy consumption. I rather question the premise that ever-increasing energy consumption is even a desirable measure for a civilization's advancement. One might just as well argue that the least amount of energy consumed might be a better indicator of an advanced civilization.

[Van Rijn]

In other words, it measures civilizations based on energy consumption. I rather question the premise that ever-increasing energy consumption is even a desirable measure for a civilization's advancement. One might just as well argue that the least amount of energy consumed might be a better indicator of an advanced civilization.

The big issue to me is long term sustainability. If you have a civilization where it is necessary to use the energy and material resources of a galaxy, how long can they sustain it, and what's left when they can't? I don't see how such a civilization could survive stably long term.

[Van Rijn]

I used to think interstellar colonisation was highly impractical if not impossible - mainly for economic reasons. The thing that has changed my mind is the advent of Planetary Resources Inc. Reading about their programme has changed my attitude - once we get out of Earth's gravity well the resources in asteroids and comets would appear to be there for the taking, and I no longer believe our terran economic system will prevent us from achieving our interstellar destiny (I would hope for a more equitable and just interplanetary/interstellar economic system - see Kim Stanley Robinson although without the violence).

But the use of interplanetary resources is very different from using interstellar ones. On an interplanetary scale, the resources are relatively close, reachable with reasonable flight times and energy expenditure. Interstellar travel times, however, are much longer and require a lot more energy, unless you're willing to accept travel times of tens of thousands of years at least. So there would be little or no interstellar commerce, and interstellar colonization efforts would be more expensive than building more habitats in the solar system. There might eventually be some interstellar colonization, but it would be at a major economic disadvantage.

[slang]

Level 3 on the Kardashev Scale.

Phew.. that cleared things up... My kids were big fans of K3, and the idea of a whole civilization of them terrified me.

[Ara Pacis]

There might eventually be some interstellar colonization, but it would be at a major economic disadvantage.

Ever go camping, or read about the Pilgrims or the Mormons or the Rapa Nui or army ants or bee swarms? Not all "colonizations" or forays into the unknown are undertaken for economic advantage.

[headrush]

This is a Kardashev III type civilisation, which uses all the luminosity of a galaxy for its own purposes.

<snip>

1/ there are no K3 civilisations visible anywhere else in the universe, so it seems likely that they are very, very rare if not absent in our universe.<snip>

If the K3 civilisation uses all the luminosity of a galaxy how can we ever see one ? Or do they use the energy from someone elses galaxy ?

ETA - Am I getting confused with a Dyson sphere ?

[ShinAce]

If the K3 civilisation uses all the luminosity of a galaxy how can we ever see one ? Or do they use the energy from someone elses galaxy ?

ETA - Am I getting confused with a Dyson sphere ?

Maybe we have detected one. Google dark flow. It's a real measurement, but I doubt was caused by any civilization.

[headrush]

Maybe we have detected one. Google dark flow. It's a real measurement, but I doubt was caused by any civilization.

Hmmm,
According to an article on national geographic, this theory has been contradicted by new data.
Under the title 'Unknown "Structures" Not Tugging on the Universe After All? ', they describe how a motion has been detected, but far slower and in the opposite direction !

I don't think this could be ascribed to K3ers sucking in matter though, so It's probably off topic.

Interesting stuff though, thanks.

[KiwiBiggles]

But the use of interplanetary resources is very different from using interstellar ones. On an interplanetary scale, the resources are relatively close, reachable with reasonable flight times and energy expenditure. Interstellar travel times, however, are much longer and require a lot more energy, unless you're willing to accept travel times of tens of thousands of years at least. So there would be little or no interstellar commerce, and interstellar colonization efforts would be more expensive than building more habitats in the solar system. There might eventually be some interstellar colonization, but it would be at a major economic disadvantage.

Yes, this was my previous view too. I couldn't see how terran economics could be bent to the idea of massive global expenditure on a project that wouldn't provide an economic return for many generations if ever. I thought it was pretty sad, because I think an economic return is far from the most important reason for an interstellar space programme. My veiw was that interstellar exploration was a pipe dream...

But regardless, we do already have an inter-planetary space programme - in fits and starts as far as human exploration goes admittedly. Our 'robots' do pretty good work out there in the solar system though, and hopefully we'll see a manned expedition to Mars and/or the asteroids inside say 50-75 years? Why not an interstellar un-manned mission within say a 100 years, and after that... who knows?

It was the realisation that asteroid and comet mining was within practical grasp that has really given me renewed hope. Terran economics don't necessarily have to pay the bills for an interstellar programme - just give it a boot leg into orbit and it can find it's own resources thereafter. If we can get robots into interplanetary space (we know we can) and if they can mine resources for free and self-replicate (why not?) without the energy deficit of Earths gravity-well, what's to stop them leaving the solar system and starting over in a promising new star system? Once they have pre-positioned infrastructure and resources in a new system (within say tens of light-years) people could follow in generation ships, hibernation ship or some other method or combo thereof. Earth's economy would rumble along (we hope) mostly unaffected (fiscally at least) by events beyond it's local space. The new colony could be economically self-sustaining once it has been boot-strapped by the generation ship. A brand new civilsation in effect - what a glorius opportunity to do a better job than here and now! :smile:

True, the distances to a viable new star system are bound to be daunting, to say the least. And people being people, what are the chances a new planet wouldn't end up just as screwed up as this one sometimes seems.

I still think we could do it though. Maybe it will turn out that in the next few hundreds of years we'll see colonies in interplanetary space. If we can do that, I think it would be inevitable there would be interstellar colonies within say a thousand years. After all, living on an asteroid would be cool - but you couldn't beat the prize of a nice wet and warm terrestrial new planet somewhere...

I just did a quick google, and there is already the 100 Year Star-Ship Study by DARPA and NASA Ames - and Project Daedalus and the British Interplanetary Society have been around for some time. Exploration is in our nature, maybe it's just a matter of time?

http://www.bis-space.com/

http://100yss.org/

http://www.planetaryresources.com/mission/

[PlutonianEmpire]

Ever go camping, or read about the Pilgrims or the Mormons or the Rapa Nui or army ants or bee swarms? Not all "colonizations" or forays into the unknown are undertaken for economic advantage.

The economics of today are QUITE different than those in previous eras, as far as I know. People have become too greedy and money-hungry to care, and given every new discovery announcing yet another limitation to space travel, at a rate of like what, once a week? And with the shortsightedness of the vast majority of the world's population, it is simply not possible.

Yes, this was my previous view too. I couldn't see how terran economics could be bent to the idea of massive global expenditure on a project that wouldn't provide an economic return for many generations if ever. I thought it was pretty sad, because I think an economic return is far from the most important reason for an interstellar space programme. My veiw was that interstellar exploration was a pipe dream...

But regardless, we do already have an inter-planetary space programme - in fits and starts as far as human exploration goes admittedly. Our 'robots' do pretty good work out there in the solar system though, and hopefully we'll see a manned expedition to Mars and/or the asteroids inside say 50-75 years? Why not an interstellar un-manned mission within say a 100 years, and after that... who knows?

It was the realisation that asteroid and comet mining was within practical grasp that has really given me renewed hope. Terran economics don't necessarily have to pay the bills for an interstellar programme - just give it a boot leg into orbit and it can find it's own resources thereafter. If we can get robots into interplanetary space (we know we can) and if they can mine resources for free and self-replicate (why not?) without the energy deficit of Earths gravity-well, what's to stop them leaving the solar system and starting over in a promising new star system? Once they have pre-positioned infrastructure and resources in a new system (within say tens of light-years) people could follow in generation ships, hibernation ship or some other method or combo thereof. Earth's economy would rumble along (we hope) mostly unaffected (fiscally at least) by events beyond it's local space. The new colony could be economically self-sustaining once it has been boot-strapped by the generation ship. A brand new civilsation in effect - what a glorius opportunity to do a better job than here and now! :smile:

True, the distances to a viable new star system are bound to be daunting, to say the least. And people being people, what are the chances a new planet wouldn't end up just as screwed up as this one sometimes seems.

I still think we could do it though. Maybe it will turn out that in the next few hundreds of years we'll see colonies in interplanetary space. If we can do that, I think it would be inevitable there would be interstellar colonies within say a thousand years. After all, living on an asteroid would be cool - but you couldn't beat the prize of a nice wet and warm terrestrial new planet somewhere...

I just did a quick google, and there is already the 100 Year Star-Ship Study by DARPA and NASA Ames - and Project Daedalus and the British Interplanetary Society have been around for some time. Exploration is in our nature, maybe it's just a matter of time?

http://www.bis-space.com/

http://100yss.org/

http://www.planetaryresources.com/mission/

Doesn't make it any less of a pipe dream, sadly. See above.

[SkepticJ]

The big issue to me is long term sustainability. If you have a civilization where it is necessary to use the energy and material resources of a galaxy, how long can they sustain it, and what's left when they can't? I don't see how such a civilization could survive stably long term.

The stars burn whether you catch their light or not. Unless the K3 civilization is boosting the rate of nuclear fusion above what it naturally is, then there's no difference in longevity between a totally inhabited galaxy and a lifeless galaxy.

But a K3 civilization would eventually have to contract, trillions of years from now, as the stellar birth rate slows down. Eventually everyone is huddled around black holes, licking up the dew of Hawking radiation as the universe winds down toward heat death.

[Van Rijn]

The stars burn whether you catch their light or not. Unless the K3 civilization is boosting the rate of nuclear fusion above what it naturally is, then there's no difference in longevity between a totally inhabited galaxy and a lifeless galaxy.

Which is what I would expect they would do, along with other things, like collecting the gas and dust that would otherwise build new systems. If a civilization is so expansion driven that it is compelled to build megastructures throughout a galaxy, it isn't going to just stop when it has used everything but the stars themselves.

[Van Rijn]

I still think we could do it though. Maybe it will turn out that in the next few hundreds of years we'll see colonies in interplanetary space.

I think interplanetary colonies are very likely as long as we don't do something really stupid. The issue I'm pointing out is that interstellar colonization would be more expensive than building more habitats in the solar system, and there's little or no possibility for interstellar commerce. So, there would be a strong disincentive to interstellar colonization. There might still be some despite that, but it is very unlikely that we would expand throughout the galaxy.

If we can do that, I think it would be inevitable there would be interstellar colonies within say a thousand years. After all, living on an asteroid would be cool - but you couldn't beat the prize of a nice wet and warm terrestrial new planet somewhere...

Warm, wet worlds would be rare. If interstellar colonization happens at all, it will be done using space habitats (O'Neill style habitats, for example).