[Inori]

The Kardashev Scale - the original (and still widely used) method for measuring the advancement lies solely on the amount of energy a civilization can harness from a given source. The original breakdown is below:

• Type 1 civ - able to harness all the energy coming from their home star that reaches their home planet
  On earth, this would mean the entire planet covered in solar arrays. Not too fun.
  
• Type 2 civ - able to harness all the energy their home star generates
  For us, this would be a Dyson Sphere
  
• Type 3 civ - able to harness all the energy of their home galaxy
  Conceptually inconceivable at our current stage, this would mean harnessing energy from the supermassive black hole at the centre of the milky way
  

I have three issues with the scale.
The first is the fact that earth isn't used as a control to compare other civilizations to. In the 70's, Carl Sagan estimated that earth rates a 0.7 on the Kardashev scale, and today that's gone up a whole 0.02(ish).
The second is the immense leaps between types. Type 0 (being no energy) to type 1 (being the global solar arrays) is currently millions of years in the making for mankind. Branching off of this, even if other, alien civilizations exist, who's to say they're this incredibly advanced?
Lastly, the fact that the advancement of a civilization is measured by how much energy they can harness from given sources. What if there's an incredibly advanced civilization with the same technology as a type 5 (complete control over their home universe) that figured out ways to operate using minimal energy? Would they go back to type 0?

What are the benefits to the Kardashev Scale? If there are none (which seems probable), are there better options for measuring the advancement of civilizations?

[meow]

I have three issues with the scale.
The first is the fact that earth isn't used as a control to compare other civilizations to. In the 70's, Carl Sagan estimated that earth rates a 0.7 on the Kardashev scale, and today that's gone up a whole 0.02(ish).
The second is the immense leaps between types. Type 0 (being no energy) to type 1 (being the global solar arrays) is currently millions of years in the making for mankind. Branching off of this, even if other, alien civilizations exist, who's to say they're this incredibly advanced?
Lastly, the fact that the advancement of a civilization is measured by how much energy they can harness from given sources. What if there's an incredibly advanced civilization with the same technology as a type 5 (complete control over their home universe) that figured out ways to operate using minimal energy? Would they go back to type 0?

What are the benefits to the Kardashev Scale? If there are none (which seems probable), are there better options for measuring the advancement of civilizations?

The first is the fact that earth isn't used as a control to compare other civilizations to. In the 70's, Carl Sagan estimated that earth rates a 0.7 on the Kardashev scale, and today that's gone up a whole 0.02(ish).

Uhh, and? We're far from a perfect and advanced civilization, comparing us to something that's potentially as advanced as a type 2 or 3 civilization would be meaningless. Using us as a control to compare other civilizations to would limit the scale immensely. We don't know how advanced other civilizations are, that's why the range of the scale is so wide.

The second is the immense leaps between types. Type 0 (being no energy) to type 1 (being the global solar arrays) is currently millions of years in the making for mankind. Branching off of this, even if other, alien civilizations exist, who's to say they're this incredibly advanced?

Power and intelligence grow exponentially. If the types were on a linear scale then it just wouldn't make sense, we'd be surpassing type after type as one would only be a little more advanced than the other. Furthermore, if you have a problem with the gaps, what would you define as the different types?

Lastly, the fact that the advancement of a civilization is measured by how much energy they can harness from given sources. What if there's an incredibly advanced civilization with the same technology as a type 5 (complete control over their home universe) that figured out ways to operate using minimal energy? Would they go back to type 0?

How much energy you can harness =/= how much energy you use, you're getting those two confused. If you can harness enough energy to create and use the technology of a type 5 civilization, regardless of how much of it you use, you're obviously at the level of a type 5 civilization. Plus, minimal energy could mean many different things. Minimal energy to run a type 5 civilization could be the equivalent to 1,000 centillion metric tons of oil, but it could also equate to 1 barrel of oil, depending on how the energy is used. Either way, again, if you have the technology to power a type 5 civilization with whatever amount of energy, you're clearly at or above that type.

[Inori]

How much energy you can harness =/= how much energy you use, you're getting those two confused. If you can harness enough energy to create and use the technology of a type 5 civilization, regardless of how much of it you use, you're obviously at the level of a type 5 civilization. Plus, minimal energy could mean many different things. Minimal energy to run a type 5 civilization could be the equivalent to 1,000 centillion metric tons of oil, but it could also equate to 1 barrel of oil, depending on how the energy is used. Either way, again, if you have the technology to power a type 5 civilization with whatever amount of energy, you're clearly at or above that type.

If a civ doesn't harness any or harnesses very little energy, then I doubt they would have dyson spheres around a bunch of local stars when they have no use for them. And regardless of what tech you have, it's measured by energy, thus problematic.

(Also, what happened to "stop quoting OP")

[meow]

If a civ doesn't harness any or harnesses very little energy, then I doubt they would have dyson spheres around a bunch of local stars when they have no use for them. And regardless of what tech you have, it's measured by energy, thus problematic.

(Also, what happened to "stop quoting OP")

Are you testing my patience on purpose? You should probably learn what something is before trying to point out "problems" in it. The Kardashev Scale is not based on how much energy a civilization harnesses, it's based on how much energy a civilization is able to harness and use. You can be finished with trying to act smart now.

As for the quoting OP thing, cry me a river.

[Rick]

Power and intelligence grow exponentially.

I don't get where you got this, yes in the past things like the industrial revolution have sparked rapid advancements that seem to snowball, but it's pretty well agreed that we simply don't know where the limits of technology (And our own intelligence) lie. We're already getting to the limit of the transistor, what makes you so certain that growth of our knowledge will not only continue at this rate but speed up?

[meow]

I don't get where you got this, yes in the past things like the industrial revolution have sparked rapid advancements that seem to snowball, but it's pretty well agreed that we simply don't know where the limits of technology (And our own intelligence) lie. We're already getting to the limit of the transistor, what makes you so certain that growth of our knowledge will not only continue at this rate but speed up?

but it's pretty well agreed that we simply don't know where the limits of technology (And our own intelligence) lie.

I don't see how that has anything to do with this. Because we don't know the limits of our intellect, it can't be growing exponentially? Nice logic.

We're already getting to the limit of the transistor,

Oh boy, not this argument. I hate people like you who think human intellect is measured by the complexity and/or tininess of our computers; you realize not every smart person is a computer scientist right? By the way, we're not getting to the limit of the transistor because our intelligence is coming to a halt, it's because you can't make a computer's internal network(s) any smaller than atoms.

what makes you so certain that growth of our knowledge will not only continue at this rate but speed up?

It already has been sped up and will continue to speed up for as long as our species survives and thrives. I'm not going to go in paint and make a graph for you because if you're as smart as you seem to think you are, you should be able to recognize an exponential trend. It took humans 3.4 million years to go from the stone age to the bronze age, 2,100 years to go from the bronze age to the iron age, 800 years to go from the iron age to the Roman Period, and so on. If you can't tell that this is an exponential trend then I'm afraid you need to go back and retake your algebra 1 class.

[Customer]

If this thread doesn't stop turning into an insult match rather than a debate, I'm going to have to close the thread.

[Inori]

If this thread doesn't stop turning into an insult match rather than a debate, I'm going to have to close the thread.

I'll do it. Meow is trying to bait everyone, and it's getting annoying. (For the record, @"rick" is right)

[Customer]

I'll do it. Meow is trying to bait everyone, and it's getting annoying. (For the record, @"rick" is right)

A debate isn't supposed to be about who's right or wrong, it's supposed to be about understanding the persons argument and politely displaying your own.

This comment contradicts itself, but this thread could really be a happy one. If there's someone that comes along who is clearly not debating, then don't respond to them.