Talk:Kardashev scale/Archive 2

Environmental control and active energy production
If a well developed civilisation has full control of its environment, why must its main energy source be passive, i.e. light emitted from stars? You could easily imagine humanity as a type II civilisation utilising the hydrogen on Jupiter or a type III civilisation taking control of galactic chemical evolution in order to increase the energy output of the galaxy. If a type III civilisation is able to prevent stars from forming, they can use the matter in a galaxy for energy production in their own fusion plants at will and perhaps increase the energy production of the galaxy greatly. The ratio of the sun's effect and mass is about 0.0002 W/kg, for a car(Opel Astra) it is 72.6 W/kg, so the sun isn't all that effective. This line of thought is not discussed at all in the article, but it could have massive implications for the Kardashev scale, if it is possible. Narkogrib 12:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like the scale is a function of sustained power consumption over a period of time. So I see no reason to differentiate based on how that power is produced. For example, completely harvesting the output of a supernova could, for a few days or weeks, boost a civilization into the type III range. Harvesting the gravitational energy of an entire galaxy might keep a civilization in, oh, the type IV range for a period of time.


 * Incidentally, since I'm on the subject, is there any measure of peak power for a civilization? For example, the Tsar Bomba (the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated) is estimated to have generated power of roughly 10^24 watts over a period of roughly 40 nanoseconds which I calculate is Type 1.8, if it were somehow sustained and the power used. There are physical processes (like fusion, various particle interactions) that could only occur at sufficiently high temperatures (which can be produced by a burst of power). -- KarlHallowell 15:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating, looking for sources...--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TYpe 2 and subtlety
A type 2 civilisation might also have grown in subtlety, and thus not need shouting at with the power suggested. As our ability to generate loud signals has grown, so to has our ability to distinguish signal from noise and detect quiet signals. Midgley 14:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The material which assumed otherwise has since been removed. (It was probably original research, anyway, which is why it missed this possibility.) -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If we can find sources that Type II's might be more signal-quiet I support it's addition.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Reinstatement of removed material through justification by reliable sources
Preamble Recently the Kardashev scale has come under some harsh scrutiny that I think is justified. Material has been removed from the Kardashev scale because it's too close to violating No original research rules. While I think much of the removal should be reinstated, it becomes the responsibility of those who add content to diversify and cite from reliable scientific researchers on this topic. And before we reinstate the material I think we should talk about it.

Understandably, much of what can be discussed has implications on sci-fiction writings, almost all sci-fi has a basis in science and the part that discusses 'how advanced can a civilization become' is really what the Kardashev scale is all about; it's a way of looking at, and defining how we as mere humans might classify more advanced civilizations.

I personally found the page, about a year ago, and liked the page throughout most of the summer of 2007. The recent removal of content, particularly on the 27 Dec 2007, in my opinion, takes the entry to almost the earliest entry. I feel that there just not enough material on a model that can be talked about heavily in sci-fi circles and which scientific minds are studying. Michaelbusch and I have been talking about the reverts which I highly encourage you to read User Talk:Michaelbusch. I'm currently a little disappointed in most of the reverts done, mostly because I feel it's much easier to delete, than to do the research and add content.

I feel that there is content to be added and that the material removed can be cited and justified by scientific articles, and discussions. But so far I've only found a little and I need help, if I'm going to make the article better. To show that I have found some information that could possibly provide that justification, I've provided some responses below. But so far, most of the material I've found only come from a few sources: Carl Sagan, Freeman Dyson, Alan Guth, Michio Kaku, John Barrow, E.R. Harrison and Frank Tipler. If I can encourage you to help, I think we can find a broader basis of scientific, non-original, research that has used the idea of Kardashev's scale to provide insights into advanced civilizations.

'''Material responses to revert edits... material I've found so far.'''

In response to edit 00:12, 27 December 2007 by User:Michaelbusch rv by statement of OR... possible timeline

Preamble: Carl Sagan first proposed a model for speculating future power levels, and Kardashev himself proposed that if human power production raised by even a modest 1% a year it would go on to have amazing power production levels, equal by definition to certain Kardashev scale models... I'm sure with the your help we can find the orginal work where Kardashev first proposed this... I'm still looking for it. Anyone have the balls to ask Dr. Kaku to cite his sources better?

Source: Dr. Michio Kaku article in Cosmos Magazine called Starmakers

Link: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1683

Direct quote, or text:
 * "Currently, our energy output qualifies us for Type 0 status; Carl Sagan estimated that we qualify as a Type 0.7 civilisation. We derive our energy not from harnessing global forces, but by burning fossil fuels (oil and coal)."

Scientists are using Carl Sagan's model to extend and propose a timeline for possible human advancement. The article goes on to say....


 * "But our energy growth is rising exponentially, and we can calculate how long it will take to rise to Type II or III status. "Look how far we have come in energy uses once we figured out how to manipulate energy, how to get fossil fuels really going, and how to create electrical power from hydropower, and so forth," says Donald Goldsmith, a University of California at Berkeley astronomer and author. "We've come up in energy uses by a remarkable amount in just a couple of centuries compared to billions of years our planet has been here ... and this same sort of thing may apply to other civilisations."
 * Freeman Dyson, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, estimates that, within a century or two, we should attain Type I status. In fact, growing at a modest rate of 1 per cent 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."

In response to edit 03:46, 20 April 2007 by User:Michaelbusch rv by statement of OR

Preamble: Tearing space or creating worm holes would require a civilization capable of bending space, I think it's most likely the entry was just rewritten to avoid plagiarism of Dr. Kaku, or someone else's thoughts.

Source: Dr. Michio Kaku article Physics of Extraterrestrials

Link: http://www.mkaku.org/articles/physics_of_et.php

Direct quote, or text:
 * "But with recent advances in quantum gravity and superstring theory, there is renewed interest among physicists about energies so vast that quantum effects rip apart the fabric of space and time. Although it is by no means certain that quantum physics allows for stable wormholes, this raises the remote possibility that a sufficiently advanced civilizations may be able to move via holes in space, like Alice's Looking Glass. And if these civilizations can successfully navigate through stable wormholes, then attaining a specific impulse of a million seconds is no longer a problem. They merely take a short-cut through the galaxy. This would greatly cut down the transition between a Type II and Type III civilization.


 * Second, the ability to tear holes in space and time may come in handy one day."

In response to edit 00:13, 27 December 2007 by User:Michaelbusch rv by statement of OR and uncertainty of purpose... Function as a Teleology

Preamble: Basically all definitions come down to perception. We say paper airplanes fly, birds fly, airplanes fly, but flying squirrels glide. It all comes down to how we define advanced beings that inevitably leads to teleological implications. Eventually any civilization that reaches an highly advanced stage comes into a disambigution of immortality, omnipotence and other godly-like abilities. An hypothetical situation might be illustrated by supposing Q from Star Trek was to act like a God to a lesser advanced civilization, whom might not be able to understand the difference. To them Q would be a God, when in fact he's just a highly evolved and technologically advanced being.

Some scientific examples of what I have found so far

Source: John Barrow's book Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits pg.132 has this to say.

Link:http://books.google.com/books?id=0jRa1a4pD5IC&pg=PA133&dq=%22is+capable+of+manipulating+the+most+elementary+particles&sig=qilR_CGErLINTCc8dde2da76oV8#PPA130,M1

Direct quote, or text:
 * "The fact that our own Universe possesses what some regard as a suspiciously good fine tuning might even be regarded as evidence that this successive tuning of long-lived universes by advanced inhabitants has been going on for many cosmic histories already.......


 * A similar teleological suspicion is found in Freeman Dyson's reaction to further coincidences about the strengths of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces, which prevent nuclear reactions consuming the material of the stars so rapidly that life-supporting environments disappear long before evolution can produce biological complexity:
 * 'As we look into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.'"

Further discourse: The idea that advanced civilization could create Universes and entire populations of beings has also found support in Alan Guth's discourse.

Source: Alan Guth's paper Do the Laws of Physics Allow Us to Create an New Universe

Link: http://ccdb4fs.kek.jp/cgi-bin/img/allpdf?199303089

Source: John Barrow Living in a Simulated Universe

Link:http://www.simulation-argument.com/barrowsim.pdf

Source: E.R.Harrison, The Natural Selection of Universes containing Intelligent Life, Quart. Jl. Roy. Astron. Soc. 36, 193 (1995)

Link:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995QJRAS..36..193H

Conclusion: I personally feel that the teleological aspect of advanced civilizations should be completely left out except for perhaps a brief mention of it's possible impact on teleological discussions, and an internal link to teleology.

In response to edit 06:48, 28 February 2007 by User:Bryan_Derksen by statement that Type IV and above are not part of Kardashev's original model.

Preamble: Extentsion of the model was not done by Kardashev, I can agree to that, however they still call the extentsion of the model the Kardashev scale in honor of his work. Take the Bohr model for instance, the bohr model was incorrect for the ground states of orbital angular momentum, so after getting an update they called it the Bohr-Sommerfeld model. Not all models or scales are presented in recognition of every scientist that has made a contribution to the idea, many times the model will retain the name of only the scientist who first purposed the idea. Without extending the model we're left to rely on definitions and concepts that have been out-of-date since the 1980's.

And the idea is being extended... I think we the community of wikipedia should do our best at keeping up with the scientific work being done with regards to advanced civilizations, I think we might have to wait a bit to see if they later rename the scale in honor of other scientists work.

Source: John Barrow's book Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits Link:http://books.google.com/books?id=0jRa1a4pD5IC&pg=PA133&dq=%22is+capable+of+manipulating+the+most+elementary+particles&sig=qilR_CGErLINTCc8dde2da76oV8#PPA130,M1

Direct quote, or text:
 * "Suppose that we extend the classification upwards. Members of the hypothetical civilizations of types IV, V, VI,..., and so on, would be able to manipulate the structures in the Universe on larger and larger scales, encompassing groups of galaxies, clusters, and superclusters of galaxies. Ultimately, we could imagine a type Omega civilization, which could manipulate the entire Universe (and even other universes)."

Discourse: I think we might have to split the article because the type of civilizations is being regarded also from the stance that power output is not the only or all-encompassing definition of advanced civilizations.

to quote again from Barrow:
 * "But we are not primarily interested in this aspect of Kardashev's classification. Rather, we want to extend it so as to define a ladder of technological milestones of achievement."

Ideas So far this is pretty much all I got, I mean I do have other links that I'm exploring but basically I wanted to show that the information is being discussed in science circles. Having the article only talk about civilizations type III and below limits the article. Pretty much everything in the current edition of the Kardashev scale article is information everyone knew back in the late 70's. The idea has changed and evolved and I think it's ashame if we can't find the sources to update the entry. Thanks for reading, I've heard it said that I can be a bit verbose. :P--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sparkygravity, please understand that the article is not required to be exhaustive. See Undue weight.  Basically: your long discussion above, and that which I've removed, isn't needed for a good description of the idea and is distracting. Michaelbusch (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment, but for the next few days I'm going to be still involved in a lot of offline holiday revelries so I can't do an exhaustive analysis of what's actually changed yet. Instead, for now I'll just skim over a quick diff of the current version with a random version from a few months back and give some general impressions, followed by a suggestion that there's no rush to get the article into any particular version. Anyway, there's no rush to get the article into any particular version. It's not like it's on AfD with the spectre of death hanging over it should things sit in one state or the other for a few days longer. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to see the tables removed from the "Hypothetical futures" section, those things have bothered me for a long time. Same with the table from the "Possible timeline" section.
 * A trimming of the examples section is also quite good, I've done that myself on a fairly regular recurring basis. This section is probably the biggest OR magnet in the whole article.
 * On the other hand, some of the text that was in the "Hypothetical futures" section wasn't so bad. When I actually have time I think I'll want to go through it on a sentence-by-sentence basis and incorporate some of it into the remaining sections, assuming nobody does something like that in the interim. I think it should be possible to mention a lot of the "subsequent work" that's been done in this area without giving it undue weight, it'll just take more careful writing.


 * It is not my intent to give undue weight to this article, but rather to discern what would be undue weight. Undue weight isn't measured by the amount of words in article, it's by the amount of words that are represented only by a minority view. Reading this discussion page, I come to conclusion that anyone who's familiar with both the Kardashev scale and Sci-fiction can come up with an example of civilization that is above Type III, and to be honest I think anyone who's just familiar with the Kardashev scale can think of something above Type III (but I have to be able to prove that assumption, need help)... That means the idea isn't in the minority. As far as the material represented currently, it's outdated, I've got to wonder what the majority of scientists would define as the Kardashev scale as it stands today. I currently think the page represents a majority view of what was believed in the 80's, but that has to have changed a lot, and we need a view point from 21st century.


 * I liked the tables personally, I'm a visual person and my eye-balls ate that right up... up to the point where I realized it was probably OR and couldn't find any scientist plugging the numbers and making diagrams. I think your right about the tables, they shouldn't be in, at least until we can find an article where a reliable source did plug the numbers and do some tables.


 * I'm also cool with the trimming of examples, currently it makes the article too earth-centered POV, and really if content is to be added I'd prefer it be from scientific sources versus sci-fi.


 * What you call exhaustive, I would call thorough and what you would call distracting, I would call interesting. I think wikipedia is about content, not of the minority, that would qualify as undue weight. I think that wikipedia is about building, adding, and expanding knowledge... but your right, the data must be relevant, and it must be held in understanding by the majority of those familiar with Kardashev's Scale. Really this is a fact finding mission about what is held in understanding by the majority. Me, I've seen it many times, and just want help finding citations and consensus that the Kardashev scale is more than currently represented by Wikipedia. --Sparkygravity (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a nice video of Dr. Michio Kaku using Type I, II, III in vocabulary not represented by current wikipedia entry on Kardashev's scale. I'm thinking if Dr. Michio Kaku is using it in loose descriptions of advanced civilizations other physicists and cosmologist might as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHbnM_42mQE&feature=related Please watch.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I read through this article and look at what scientists are talking about today, I'm more and more convinced that the scale has become a benchmark in describing not just the power outputs of potential alien species, but of what level of scientific and industrial advancement a civilization can reach in general. Carl Sagan wanted to add H to describe the level of information a civilization had access too. John Barrow talks about Types in regards to a civilizations ability to manipulate sub-atomic particles and energies, and Kaku pretty much uses it for everything. The more I read the more it seems that the Kardashev scale is acting as a 'catch-all' vocabulary term when scientists and SETI researchers talk about civilizations... And that's not including the folks in sci-fi circles. So there's got to be descriptions of Kardashev's scale that are missing in this article.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose deletion of detailed Kardashev levels information
I think all the information that was deleted should be restored. These tables and energy values are very useful for aspiring science fiction authors like me. I have a collection of over 1,000 science fiction books, most of which I have read. Science fiction authors when thinking up new stories can use these tables that were unfortunately deleted to place the science fiction stories they create in their place on the Kardashev scale and thus come up with better, more rationally constructed science fiction. Keraunos (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I really like the tables too, but Wikipedia isn't a forum for Original Research, do you know where we can find the article where the tables were first published?--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If a way can be found to tap into the quantum vacuum zero point energy, this would be equivalent to magic and would eventually lead to a Kardashev Level IV, Level V, or Level VI civilization. Keraunos (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention needs to be made of amount of energy that according to physics would be needed for anti-matter production which would be necessary for starship propulsion. Keraunos (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No mention is made of the amount of energy that would be needed to create exotic matter, which would be necessary to create wormholes. Keraunos (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've found so far, both Dr. Michio Kaku, and Dr. Barrow agree that at some level advancement the ability to create unique and exotic matter, fold space and create shortcuts in space takes a certain level of advancement. However the several articles I've read only mention possible energy levels in too brief of terms... I haven't been able to find the solid outside research yet, and until we can, it's not going into wikipedia.--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on Exotic matter doesn't give too many hints on such a quantity, aside from a spin on E=mc^2.
 * I think that this article should revert a little bit more of the information about fictional Types above III, even if they were not part of Kardashev's original outlook. That being said, I don't feel that endless detail on which Types various civilizations from Star Wars, Star Trek, etc., fall into is not really relevant to this article.--JD79 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that the interest in the sci-fi aspect of Kardashev's scale is high enough that the material should remain, until we material to split and maintain it within it's own article. I think part of the problem with the page is that there isn't enough separation between science and sci-fi in the article... Now I don't want to shut down the sci-fi aspect of advanced civilizations, I just think the article needs an injection of factual, provable data that doesn't sacrifice content.--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I could tell, the tables were well sourced, and I think they should return. Zazaban (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article was well sourced, I don't see why it had to be neutered. Ctrl build (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes!!! That is it!! That's how I feel, I feel that the article has been neutered. Now I know my where my motivation comes from... fear of neutering :)--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions
I've been asked to comment on the recent disputes, including material that has recently been removed. One of the most important things to remember is that Wikipedia is a collection of true facts, not of potential future facts (of which there are an infinite number). On particular questions, a few pennies worth of my thinking:


 * Having a list of fictional civilizations which fit into various type classifications is dicey. Listing every imagined advanced civilization here would probably be overkill, since there are a very large (potentially unlimited) number, and the energy usage of the civilization is usually not an important point to the author. Probably only a few well-known examples would be enough for the purposes of this article.  Making this list into prose might help keep the length more reasonable.  If an exhaustive list is determined to be useful, I think it would be best if it got its own article.  Because these civilizations are fictional, it's also not always possible to determine the amount of energy they are using. As such, it's best to include only those where this kind of information is clearly spelled out, and to require references to these passages or episodes or whatnot.  This avoids original research and probably also will help avoid many disputes.  I've tagged the current list where the justification for inclusion is unclear.


 * Going through the predictions of a particular futurist in-depth adds too much speculative content, I think, and there's the danger of giving readers the impression that there is broad consensus that this is the course that history will take. These predictions pretty much always turn out to be wrong, and different people have conflicting predictions.  (The bulk of this material has already been removed, and I don't think most of it should be re-added.)  I could be convinced to accept a few short lists or paragraphs describing notable authors and works on the topic.  But best to let readers turn to the original source material if they want to get detailed predictions, or to other Wikipedia articles that already exist on particular technologies.


 * But note that we already have an article to describe future energy development; I think efforts at listing real-world but speculative or futuristic sources of energy should be directed to that article, with a brief summary or link from here. The current section on that topic appears to be composed solely of the speculations of Wikipedia editors, so I've tagged it as original research.


 * "Giving readers examples of interesting things that use very large amounts of power/energy" are already handled well by Orders of magnitude (power) and Orders of magnitude (energy). Perhaps the thresholds mentioned here should be added there.  If there are non-speculative quantities (such as how much energy is stored in various subatomic particles), those could be considered for addition to those lists.  I don't think things like "how much energy it would take to open a wormhole, power a warp core, etc." are appropriate, because these things are either fictional or highly speculative. I've added "See also" links to both of those articles for now.


 * The predictions in the chart up top (Image:Kscaleprojections.png) are really coming out of left field. Who is making the predictions that are graphed?  It seems like this chart would be more useful as part of World energy resources and consumption, though I would be tempted to delete it as speculative unless it comes from scientific sources.

-- Beland (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The graph was made by the article's creator (User:ctrl_build), I believe. The data is from the same source as the data in the table of historical energy usages. I wasn't able to find this on the internet; I think you have to pay for it. As for the article, I'm going to try to make some more changes, such as adding in some cites that apparently got lost at some point. Ben Standeven (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia already has an article on future energy development, the only real problem with referencing it, is that it has nothing to do with what Kardashev was trying to say. His interest in energy development was not a earth-centered POV, Kardashev, Sagan and Dyson all speculated about large scale energy production. Dyson consider the Astroengineering, Sagan examined how we'd intercept evidence of astroengineering feats, and Kardashev measured what this would mean in reference to the energy production of a civilization. So energy development speculation is an important aspect or Kardashev's scale, it needs to be there, but right now it's inclusion in the article is either earth-centered, or non-exsistant(OR). It needs to be totally rewritten and cited from scratch. Anyone willing?


 * The graph I believe was made by (User:ctrl_build) but it's data is factual, and now cited please see International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2005, pg. 82 http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/weo2005.pdf. Basically, all he did was convert mtoes into joules, joules into Watts and divided it into Kardashev's Watt requirement to get Sagan's fraction. Personally, I'm thrilled he did the math. If your not the kind of person, who'd be begrudging to a short projected Fahrenheit to Celsius table being added to the global warming page, then you can't have any qualms about this table staying right where it isdon't even think about it :P. I'm hoping that the page can become easier to read by adding tables and things. That's why I want the other tables back in, right now the page is much more boring, and harder to read.


 * As for what is speculative, and what is deterministically defined, I think much of the futurist speculation should be removed to it's own section. I'm hoping that the page can be split, separating Kardashev's original proposal, and it's immediate SETI discussions(done in the 70's and 80's) from the future extension that was done to Kardashev scale by other reliable scientists (Barrow, Dyson, Guth, Harrison, etc). Since that future extension would be speculative even from a scientific perspective, we could move much of the speculation from Kardashev scale to a page titled "Extension of Kardashev's scale". I think by splitting the article we could resolve most of the conflicts on this page... Right now the section on Astroengineering is so small I'm thinking we could combine it with that. However if your going to split an article you have to add content because otherwise it's a high candidate for AfD. Which I'm highly opposed having many of the aspects of Kardashev's Scale being deleted.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sparkygravity, I wasn't referencing the table, but the graph with 19 colored lines, Image:Kscaleprojections.png. There's not even a comprehensible legend which tells us what the different colors mean. I've left a note for the creator. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * oh, I thought you meant the tables, I've got to agree with you about the picture it's not clear. I would like to have a couple of images for the entry though. hrm.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Future energy development answers the question, "How will humanity rise on the Kardashev scale?" which is a natural one for readers to have whether or not Kardashev addressed it. As for adding material from other authors...given the relatively short length of the article right now, I don't think there's any need to split it to separate out information on extensions to the scale, as long as each of the ideas presented is clearly attributed. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * no, it's not nearly long enough to be split, but I'd like for there to be enough content eventually to be able to split it into an article more for the futurist enthusiats, and another for those interested in SETI and non-earth-centered-POV.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart was a simple linear projection using several growth rate bounds. It would likely be better to provide an illustrated example of Kardashev Scale bounds. In light of comments about energy consumption and efficiency by Jared Diamond, it is likely that the technological context of the Kardashev Scale is less relevant in today's modern energy climate. What we can point to in a chart is that small changes in growth rate, due to the exponential nature of the scale, lead to big changes in when certain thresholds are crossed. 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrl build (talk • contribs)
 * well there's nothing wrong with the graph as long as it's clear, currently it needs a legend... I'd keep it in right now, as both a compromise and I feel the page could be a lot more visually appealing, which is why I support adding a few pics back into the article. As long as it's not OR and we can make a clear legend, which isn't really OR either, I'm fine with it.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this article fact or fiction? - Number of fictional examples
I propose and maintain that in the interest of keeping the Kardashev scale an article focused on scientific fact/discussion rather than fiction that these measures be discussed and agree on by the community:


 * 1) The number of examples in section 5, Classifying fictional civilizations, be limited to Five in reference to each type (ie, Type I, Type II, etc.)
 * 2) That the list of fictional examples adhere to the guidelines purposed by Embedded_Lists and project WikiProject Laundromat
 * 3) That examples listed either are widely known mainstream fictional civilizatons (such as Star Wars, Star Trek, etc), or exemplify and illustrate the Kardashev scale by direct reference or concept.
 * 4) That if a conflict of examples arises between mainstream examples and referenced examples: that the referenced examples win over mainstream fiction examples by a 3:2 margin (meaning the article would list 3 examples where the Kardashev scale was closely reference and upheld, over only 2 mainstream examples; enabling people unfamiliar with the scale to have a reference they might understand).
 * 5) When and if there are already five examples listed under a specific type, that old or outdated examples can be deleted, and new examples take there place if they exemplify the Kardashev scale to a higher degree, or if they are better known to the public(laymen) audience.
 * 6) That if any conflict arises between new and old examples, the editing war stop! and the conflict is moved to the discussion page, where the issue can be resolved by the community, by vote or discussion.

Until such a time that there is a majority oppose, the users below, will maintain this proposal to the best of their ability.
 * 1) User:Sparkygravity

Vote on proposal:

Support- I proposed it, of course I agree with myself ;)--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Annoucing My work page Kardashev_scale
rather than continually dumbing links onto the discussion page and hoping that people will sift through it and add content, I have generated a page of links, and resources that I'm reading and hope to work on. I hope to use these resources to add content, I'll share what I have so far, but hopefully in the future anyone interested can just go look at the Kardashev_scale page to see what I'm upto.

content so far

Work and sources I intend to do for Kardashev scale

 Kardashev scale

Add Nuclear Energy to section, Need to go into fission and fusion, wish to commend 24.182.14.17 with respect for his attempted contribution, it's from him that I got the idea

Things in nuclear that have to be done, a litte about ITER, about DEMO can't go into it too much or else it'll skew article towards earth-centered POV

links:
 * http://www.iter.org/a/index_faq.htm - talks about the current power effienceny of ITER and current fusion power plants
 * http://www.iter.org/pdfs/open_day_11.pdf - talks about ITER's power rating ~500MW, consumption rate ~487MW, construction start 2008, planned finish 2016
 * http://www.iter.org/a/n1/downloads/construction_schedule.pdf - ITER construction schedule
 * http://www.iter.org/FAQ/EE2.htm - talks about the power generation of ITER at 500MW, duration 400seconds, consumption rate during longer burn 200MW, and power generation if thermal energy can be converted to electric energy at a 33% effciency ~200MW (not useful for commercial application)
 * http://www.iter.org/FAQ/EE3.htm - the plant following ITER will be 6 times bigger in size and produce 1300 to 1500MW, which 1000MW will be commercially for sale. (This will be a demonstration of commercial viability.) not called DEMO, but implied


 * http://www.pppl.gov/polImage.cfm?doc_Id=48&size_code=Doc - talks about DEMO, DEMO will generate 2500MW of power, 1000MW (efficiency of 40%) will be for sale commerically. ITER has a gain of 10 produced/consumed... Fusion power gets more efficent the larger the plant, so DEMO will have a gain of 25 of produced/consumed.

 Kardashev scale 
 * http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm - gives me the number of coal plants world wide 50,000. So, if I can link 50,000 times some power plant say fusion that generates more power, I can prove by implication by reliable sources that human civilization could become a Type I, simply by replacing or supplementing coal power plants with fusion, or some other more efficient power source.

Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Michaelbusch and User:Sparkygravity's reversion
Restoring page to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=187946840&oldid=187881897

Me and User:Michaelbusch have had our differences of opinion on what needs to happen to make this page better. As you can see, I've discussed my feelings at length, I'm giving User:Michaelbusch the oppurtunity to do the same. Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * on the history notes restore is labeled as 188005483, that's my mistake I actually restored the page too 187881897, as the link above will show. Please feel free to add your suggestions and opinions--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sparky, I've been out of circulation for several weeks, so I'm not up on the recent discussions. I don't wish to come back immediately into an edit war, but your blanket reversion is seems non-sensical to me. I thought I had only removed material that was flagged as uncited, speculative, or otherwise irrelevant, and explained this in my edit summaries. Since you did object, I will further explain here. Give me a few minutes to compare the diffs, and please don't put back the version that has been tagged every which way. Michaelbusch (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here follows a list what I removed and why, in order, skipping minor typographicals:
 * Cite-needed, OR, out-of-date, and split-apart tags. My removals were designed to purge cite-needed material and OR, the out-of-date tag doesn't make much sense because the Kardashev scale is an old idea, and when I removed the OR and speculative material, the article didn't need to be split.
 * Image of Kardashev scale values for the Earth, twentieth century data and thirty-year extrapolation. This figure is good to have, but only once in the article.  This was a duplicate, and not in the relevant section.
 * 'All such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point' - I'm being pedantic here. If a Kardashev 1+ civilization exists anywhere, it isn't hypothetical.  My re-wording probably needs to be tweaked.
 * Sagan's information-content measurement. While this is good to link to, and should be mentioned in the article, as it was, it was disconnected from the surrounding text.  A section on other methods of characterizing civilizations would be good to have, and this would go there.
 * World Energy Consumption maps. These are irrelevant to the Kardashev scale.  All that matters is the sum total, which is given in the table.
 * Methods by which a civilization could feasibly advance to Type 1:
 * removed antimatter as definitely not feasible within current physical understanding. Even under the most optimistic situations, antimatter isn't a net energy source - you need to make the antimatter in the first place, and to do so requires making just as much or slightly more matter, so the amount of power you put in is less than or equal to the power you get out.
 * removed geothermal because, as was stated, it isn't sufficient.
 * condensed hydroelectric, ocean thermal, and wind into solar, because they are indirect means of tapping solar energy and are insufficient on their own.
 * removed synthetic biology and transhumanism on grounds of lack of feasibility. The former may be arguable, but would probably hit OR.  The latter doesn't make much sense, because it is non-specific.


 * Removed black hole energy source under Type II. This is uncited.  It may be feasible for someone who is able to seriously consider building a Dyson sphere, but I'd still like a reference of the idea before it goes back in.
 * Removed 'but applied to all of the stars ... power mechanisms not yet proposed.'. The first part seems trivial from the definition of Type III, the last trivial on a basic level.
 * Removed reference to Kaku and extracting useful work from dark energy. While this is cited, I'm not sure what it adds, and I'm also not sure that it makes physical sense.
 * Removed link to www.futurehi.net . This is a blog, without assertion of notability, and therefore it doesn't meet either WP:NOTE or WP:RS.
 * Removed section comparing the Kardashev scale to the work of Leslie White. While the comparison is interesting, it isn't well worded - I don't think we need give a laundry list of White's ideas - and I see several key differences between the two.  I think this comparison is sufficiently complex that it violates no original research to include anything on it unless there are third-party sources that discuss it - in which case we need to cite them.

Sparky, I appreciate your zeal, but please don't revert well-intentioned edits that improve the article. The material I removed was a mixture of original research, speculation, and some stuff that simply doesn't belong on this page. Some of it can be contested, but most can't. For those that can, I think it might be best if you made a user subpage and played with the article, and then asked for comments, before posting them in article space. It is better to have a short article than a long one that has so many cite-needed and OR tags on it. Michaelbusch (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Michaelbusch- in this diff you remove several cits, one of which is from CERN, which I think people would consider reliable. Can you elaborate? Everyone-looks like an edit war is brewing, please work out here before this escalates. Thanks. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing I'll go over them one at a time


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=188005483&oldid=187946840 - your reason for the removal of the two images was they were not directly relevant... however since the images are the power consumption and supply of the human race... and under the section labeled #current_status_of_human_civilizatioin. I feel that they are directly relevant because as the images show, there is a disparity per capita between power usage in developed countries versus developing countries. If we all generated the same power per person as Americans or Australians do, we might already be Type I, or very close to it. Furthermore, if it is your desire to improve the article you wouldn't mind keeping them since having relevant images, is one of the main topics brought up in WP:FA discussions
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188005483 - you practically removed the entire section calling it redundant, and speculative. The information is not redundant because the info. in future energy development is earth POV, and this section was not. It's speculative nature keeps the article NPOV, because half of this article is for sci-fi users. Additionally this article isn't meant to be just for you, I think why you feel information is redundant is because it's spelled out. It needs to be spelled out, so that even 12 year old kids with C+ grades have a chance to understand it. All references to earth's level technology were meant to be a comparison so that non-expert readers could understand the differences in power requirements. What you call irrelevant, is covered in future energy development, as real energy strategies... all the citation needed}} stamps all over the place, I put up myself, because it's important to link those energy developments with Interplanetary studies whenever possible, such as the [[AIAA, NASA, SETI, and BIS. Which I need to do, or need help in doing. Deleting it whole cloth does not help the article, IMO. Also what completely baffles me is why did you leave the solar power method when you deleted all the others, why did you just leave one?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188006650 - I have no problem with this edit
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188006835 - Why did you demote the fictional example? It reads "The Galactic Empire of The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov is a galaxy-spanning civilization which possesses the technology necessary to harness energy on a planetary and stellar level. " This in combination with a previous statement... before you removed it, read " Type III civilizations might use the same techniques employed by a Type II civilization[11], but applied to all of the stars of one or more galaxies individually, ". So if a civilization could harness energy equal to a star(stellar level), and then repeat that process/method to each of it's colonies it would the elevate itself from Type II, to Type III... which is why Asimov's example was in Type III, before you demoted it.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188007065 - I'm fine with that removal, I didn't like that link either.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188007239 - so in this edit you, deleted the intro picture that User:Ben_Standeven was kind enough to redo, and clarify due to previous criticism of the picture that was there before it. I don't support your deletion of it, because it provides an intro picture to the article. It's directly relevant to our civilizations progress towards a Type I civilization... sure it's earth POV, man I wish it wasn't, but we humans love to compare sizes. I'd rather have a real, reliable, and relevant intro pic, than none at all. Perhaps most fustrating to me, but could be just me, is your philosophy of deletion which stated "removing tags, as I feel the material that needed those tags shouldn't be here at all and so removed it." This is different from what I believe, so maybe your right, and I'm wrong, but I believe that contributing to wikipedia, means... contributing. While I think deletion can improve articles, the only way to add content, is to add it! I believe that your level of deletion is hurting the article not making it better.
 * You have a tendency to do this on Dec.27, and 28 (24 hour period) you removed 7 large sections whole-cloth and 2 sets of links starting with this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=180336134&oldid=180173404 Quite of work there to just be deleted.
 * Your final revision of today, (other than reverting my page restore) was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188008071 - I don't feel it's irrelevant, it may be not be alot of information about Type IV civilizations currently in this section (see reverts done in above link), but if Kardashev_scale is to be expanded, then I'd prefer to show that it's being expanded by scientists (which I intend to do by adding cites by Dyson, Tipler, and Barrow) and not just science fiction writers. Which is why it was there, to establish some level of scientific precedence.


 * now last time I stated my reasons I felt the removal was unjust, and discussed it, I didn't get much back... thank you for responding this time, I hope we can work this out soon--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But you admit yourself that you haven't followed up on the dicussion because you've been busy, that's cool. But the section plastered with templates on anti-matter, geothermal energy, etc. etc. I put all those  templates up myself. I will go find the articles, but I'm busy trying to diversify the links away from Dr. Michio Kaku, because if that page links to only one scientist repeatably then your previous statement of WP:undue will be correct. well I've found some. But your deleting the sections faster than I can find proper cites for them all, cuz I've been busy too. I admit the article needs work, which is why it had the this article may contain OR template at the top. The reason I keep putting up  templates is because I'm hoping some more people will help me find them.


 * Now to quote from WP:DP "Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story". Quote from WP:3RR "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page." Today your removed 7 things... not just 3, and on Dec. 27, you also removed 7 things. I did not officially dispute your actions of the 27th, I let your reverts stand. I ask you for a compromise, that you voluntarily restore the page to it's previous state as an act of good faith... Until the issue can be discussed further. Tic for tac as they say. If your refuse, I will request mediation.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As a casual reader/contributer, I find the current version much cleaner. Without looking at diffs, I tried to figure out what had been deleted, and was able to think of only a few things. There were charts of human energy usage, which perhaps might go in an 'inspiration/history' section, and there were methods such as geothermal that did not belong, since they do not scale enough for this use.

Then I looked at the diffs. I think the removals are OK, even though many are referenced. As an encyclopedia article this should be a summary, and not an exhaustive article - therefore there will be good, solid, referenced stuff that is left out, not because it is OR, but because it's mostly of interest to specialists. I realized this is a blurry line, since many editors like the topics they edit and would naturally like to include more, but I think the current article gives the right level of detail for Wikipedia. LouScheffer (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree because the first thing that wikipedia is not. Is that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there isn't any limit to it's content, as long as it's reliable, verifiable, relevant and NPOV then the content should stay. As far as cleanliness, this article is a work in progress the templates that had previously been at the top were meant to alert a reader that there are some parts of this article were up-to snuff, and some parts where not; the reader needs to be aware of it's incompleteness. Please see links for information about wiki guidelines.--Sparkygravity (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding another quote from wiki guidelines in supporting addition, over deletion of content. This comes from WP:SUMMARY "The length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. So we must move information out of entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information." The way to create a new entry is too add content, until the time comes where theres enough information to split it, into it's own entry. This needs to happen, with this article very badly, because at the heart of this article there is something called a POV fork. Half of this article wants to be scientific, and the half the article wants to be science fiction. The main article Kardashev scale must always be a little of both to remain NPOV. But it's my belief that ultimately, what is best for this article is to add to it's content, so that a split can be made. So that users interested in the speculation, and inspiration of science fiction have a place to go and users interested only it's relevance to Interplanetary studies, SETI, and cosmology have a place to go. IMO.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sparky, I concur with Lou (but that was obvious). I have explained each of my edits.  If you can provide sufficiently compelling reasons, then the material can go back in.  You have not done so.  Just because something is possibly or tangentially connected to the article doesn't mean it should be here.  Your statement that many readers would not understand the current article is nonsensical.  The basic idea of the Kardashev scale is very simple, and a long discussion of energy sources, e.g., is confusing and adds little.  Minor: Asimov's Galactic Empire is Type II - many (~25 million) stellar systems using a small fraction of the energy of each star. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * whether less content means less confusion I have to agree... example "An eagle is a type of bird" simple, elegant, and concise... what needs more be said other than it's not descriptive. Whether it should be deleted, whether it's redundant or irrelevant are all matters of your opinion. Yours, not mine, and not necessarily the view of community. This issue has not been resolved. I intend to refrain from editing article until we can come to an agreement. If you continue to edit the article and refuse to restore the article to it's previous state before the dispute, I will ask for it's protection until the time as we can agree or compromise. I've stated how I feel about each of your edits, I even agree with some of them. I'm willing to come to an agreement. But, I feel your opinions are insufficient to merit the deletion of much of the previous content. Please state the reason you disagree with my criticism of each edit, so that we can talk about it.--Sparkygravity (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this? What might make sense is start a new article on fictional super-civilizations. I think this makes sense on several grounds. It's where much of the material under dispute should go, and it also makes sense since a civilization can be super based on many more axes than just pure, raw, energy usage. Since it may contain references un-related to Karashev types, it makes more sense to start it from scratch rather than bulk up this article then try to split it. Also, to me (this is probably OR) it seems short-sighted to make energy use the main factor. After all, in the last few hundred years on Earth alone, the relative levels of civilization has been thought to depend on land area, natural resources, number of citizens, GDP, and now information metrics. So picking a single axis to rate civilizations that are both hypothetical and far in advance of ours seems futile. Fictional super-civilizations could hold all these issues, but Karashev types cannot. LouScheffer (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lou, good points. Sparky, please understand that a single article can't contain all the material you seem to want to add.  Splitting it off into another article is a good idea - and if that is the end objective, it must be done from the beginning, rather than cluttering up an otherwise good page. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * well I wouldn't call it fictional super-civilizations, I mean if you think about it Kardashev scale is completely fictional to begin with. No evidence has been ever found that any civilization has ever fulfilled the requirements (a civilization must maintain the power production all year, not just in a flash, like a bomb). No civilization has qualified, ever. But I think that your suggestion has tremendous merit. The feasibility or energy developments, our "progression" towards type I, it all leaves the science of Kardashev's scale in a muddy place and I'd rather separate it. So I'm fine with splitting the article. However, I worry that you might miss an important point which is that Kardashev's scale is not science, it's just a theory but in the end it's not factual. Science is a box where provable, verifiable, reproducible, facts go. Kardashev scale is a tool. It was a tool developed for scientists, not sci-fi writers, but it was a tool developed for scientists to think "outside" the box. We can't verify that a Type I, Type II, or Type III civilization exists. We're not reproducing one either. Does that make sense? That Kardashev's scale will always be fictional, until we become Type I, or we discover a technologically advanced alien race?
 * so I can agree that the article could be split, what do you guys think? What does everyone else think? But before we do that(meaning just us), I'm going to try to ask some others who work on the article they're input.--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments, Kardashev scale, scienctific vs. fictional aspects of the article. Where should this article go, and be about?
The best intro is probably this sentence "The Kardashev scale is of use to SETI researchers, science fiction authors, and futurists as a theoretical framework"

Currently Kardashev's scale is completely fictional, it's speculative in nature, it's a scientific theory with no evidence, but our own civilization. But Kardashev's scale was developed with not just us in mind.

But because of the scales' nature this page is on the border, and only a few of us are currently working on it. There's been some discussion on where the article should go. If you could look at the article, it's history for the last 2 to 3 months, and leave a comment on where you think the article should go, that be great. This is my first RfC so I hope I did it right, and didn't offend any of you.--Sparkygravity (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing unscientific about discussing things that could exist, as far as we know, but have not been discovered yet, provided they follow the laws of physics as we know them. The definition of the Karashev scale, and the methods by which various levels might be achieved, are of this form. Lots of things in astronomy have this character - exo-planets, neutron stars, and gravitational waves were discussed long before they were observed. SETI likewise, the Drake Equation, exo-biology, etc. So the basic idea is not fictional at all, in my opinion. On the other hand, the 'fictional civilization' part seems more fiction than science to me, and so belongs in another article (title to be determined) LouScheffer (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right which is ultimately my point. The Kardashev scale is scientific, but is so speculative in nature, that a great deal of scientific speculation can and should be represented by this article.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Starting a Fictional supercivilizations article is a wonderful idea, and then Sparkygravity can re-download all that wonderful material that he created about the future development of supercivilizations. My favorite supercivilization is the Krell from Forbidden Planet. I also like the future civilization of Earth depicted in the Dancers at the End of Time trilogy by Michael Moorcock.Keraunos (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm against calling the article fictional supercivilizations, I'd probably split the article into Kardashev scale pertaining strictly to science nameing it Kardashev scale. And then one for the speculative futurists, which still will mainly include science verified material. I'd be up for calling the split Kardshev scale (fiction) or Kardashev scale (futurist). I've been reviewing what happens to articles once they split, and in the end I don't actually believe it'll help the article. Mostly likely it'll be split, content will be removed from both articles, then they will be merged sometime in the future and both sections will again lose content, or be deleted altogether. So it's not the best option, it's just a compromise.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Revisions Feb 19, and a summary.
This is a summary. Marks made by (PD) will mean previously discussed. This for those who don't want to read the entire talk page to understand what's being discussed.

Mike's rationale for improving article(as I understand it, mike please change if I got this wrong, or incomplete)
 * 1) It's better to have a short article, than one that requires tags. The article should be relevant and encyclopedic.
 * 2) Article material should be removed if it is tagged, or if it's redundant, irrelevant, or speculative.

oki doki, so I'm changing, restoring, or reverting several changes made by User:Michaelbusch but I'm also keeping a couple. I'm doing this for four main reasons.

Sparky's rationale
 * 1) I think that adding content to the page, helps makes the page better, more interesting, and representative of current scientific speculation.
 * 2) I've feel justified in keeping much of the content rather than purging it based on several wiki guidelines which I'll try to detail.WP:NOTPAPER, WP:WIP, WP:DP, WP:SUMMARY, WP:POVFORK, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and WP:FACR. All these I've talked about in the discussion page above, and I will quote a few pertinent lines later.
 * 3) The article prime players are SETI researchers, scifi authors, and futurists. Plenty of science, whole section of fictional civilizations, not much science speculation... So the article is disproportionate, and doesn't have much futurist representation (justification WP:POVFORK, WP:UNDUE). (Article need scientific speculation, needs to be sourced and relating to Kardashev scale WP:NOR, WP:VER)
 * 4) I feel the reverts are necessary. I was hoping that the reverts would be done by Mike, because I asked him to do so voluntarily as a compromise. We didn't make much progress in talking about the previous edits of Dec 27. So I was hoping that he'd revaluate some of the edits from Jan 30&31 and meet me half way. There is another compromise we've talked about and you can read that above. I will not be reverting all the edits, since I do wish to compromise. However at this point I feel my WP:1RR philosophy is making me seem like a pushover.

Edit 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=188005483&oldid=187946840 (→Current status of human civilization: removing images that aren't directly relevant)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)World Energy Consumption maps. These are irrelevant to the Kardashev scale. All that matters is the sum total, which is given in the table.
 * Sparky's reason for revert.
 * These images make the article better. They're something for readers to relate too, and the images are relevant. One is a 10 year study, more reliable, but out of date. The second is more up to date, but less reliable, since it is only a total from a single year. So they are neither irrelevant, nor redundant. I'm putting them back in for reason 3 under WP:FARC
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)your reason for the removal of the two images was they were not directly relevant... however since the images are the power consumption and supply of the human race... and under the section labeled #current_status_of_human_civilizatioin. I feel that they are directly relevant because as the images show, there is a disparity per capita between power usage in developed countries versus developing countries. If we all generated the same power per person as Americans or Australians do, we might already be Type I, or very close to it. Furthermore, if it is your desire to improve the article you wouldn't mind keeping them since having relevant images, is one of the main topics brought up in WP:FA discussions

Edit 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188007239 (removing tags, as I feel the material that needed those tags shouldn't be here at all and so removed it.)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)Cite-needed, OR, out-of-date, and split-apart tags. My removals were designed to purge cite-needed material and OR, the out-of-date tag doesn't make much sense because the Kardashev scale is an old idea, and when I removed the OR and speculative material, the article didn't need to be split.
 * Sparky's reason for revert.
 * This article isn't anywhere near Featured Article status. But I'm not making a full revert since I feel that the OR tag can go, since mike made the purge. Tags going back in citation tag, out-of-date tag, split tag, and graph. The citation need tag is going back in because this article is a work in progress WP:WIP, it really needs citations in some places, flag to those who add speculative content that references will be required and in many instances it needs better citations than the ones the article has currently WP:RS. Article is out of date see discussion: last three comments on Talk:Kardashev_scale and links in above section. Not a lot of people have responded to the RFC yet, and the split compromise is still on the table. Graph is going back in as an introduction image, graph is Earth POV (I'll be changing image label) but will serve as an intro for reason 3 under WP:FARC, until someone can find a more suitable image. I agree with User:Ben_Standeven's later restoration/movement of the Sagan extension.
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)so in this edit you, deleted the intro picture that User:Ben_Standeven was kind enough to redo, and clarify due to previous criticism of the picture that was there before it. I don't support your deletion of it, because it provides an intro picture to the article. It's directly relevant to our civilizations progress towards a Type I civilization... sure it's earth POV, man I wish it wasn't, but we humans love to compare sizes. I'd rather have a real, reliable, and relevant intro pic, than none at all. Perhaps most fustrating to me, but could be just me, is your philosophy of deletion which stated "removing tags, as I feel the material that needed those tags shouldn't be here at all and so removed it." This is different from what I believe, so maybe your right, and I'm wrong, but I believe that contributing to wikipedia, means... contributing. While I think deletion can improve articles, the only way to add content, is to add it! I believe that your level of deletion is hurting the article not making it better.

Edit 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188192903 (→Current status of human civilization: if we're going to use the figure, well and good, but then we don't need the table.)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)N/A Edit was done after, discussion
 * Sparky's reason for revert.
 * Table is a clear and readable source of media WP:FARC. Table dates from Dec. 2004, and has endured over 700 page edits (major and minor). Several edits have been made to the table alone, I feel this represents WP:CONSENSUS for its inclusion. Additionally the graph, is a representation of the table. The table is the primary source, and results in from Sagan's Formula found in Kardashev_scale. You might even call it needed by WP:RS and especially by WP:Independent_sources. I don't feel the article is bogged down with media if I can refer to the media in terms of table, graph, and picture 2... rather than table 5.12, graph 3, or picture 19.
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)N/A Attempted to abstain from changes or discussion of further changes, until current dispute could be resolved

Edit 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=prev&oldid=188200052(→Extensions to the original scale: clarify)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)N/A Edit was done after, discussion
 * Sparky's reason for edit.
 * This actually does not clarify things for me. Because I was looking for some kind of media (a scale, graph, or table) to clarify what continuous-scale modification meant. I think he meant Sagan's logarithmic formula. So I'm changing it to read "...or by its K value using Sagan's logarithmic formula (described above)."
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)N/A Attempted to abstain from changes or discussion of further changes, until current dispute could be resolved

Compromise 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188006835 (→Classifying fictional civilizations: minor adjustment)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)Asimov's Galactic Empire is Type II - many (~25 million) stellar systems using a small fraction of the energy of each star
 * Sparky's compromise:
 * After rereading the first 3 books of the Foundation series, I think the empire is capable of reaching type III, but only uses a fraction of the stars for power generation. So edit stands.
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)Why did you demote the fictional example? It reads "The Galactic Empire of The Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov is a galaxy-spanning civilization which possesses the technology necessary to harness energy on a planetary and stellar level. " This in combination with a previous statement... before you removed it, read " Type III civilizations might use the same techniques employed by a Type II civilization[11], but applied to all of the stars of one or more galaxies individually, ". So if a civilization could harness energy equal to a star(stellar level), and then repeat that process/method to each of it's colonies it would the elevate itself from Type II, to Type III... which is why Asimov's example was in Type III, before you demoted it.
 * By this reasoning, we are a Type III also; we are already putting satellites into orbit which get power from the sun, so all we have to do is build thousands of them, put them into earth orbit facing the sun, and we'd be Type I. Then build trillions more of them and give them nudges into solar orbits and soon we'd be Type II.  Then, we'd do the same thing all over again and soon (a mere few million years) we'd be type III.  My opinion: don't call it a type III until it is.  "Galaxy-spanning" hardly implies that every solar system is inhabited or even a noticeable proportion.  A civilization with one planet on one side of the galaxy and another on the other side would technically be galaxy-spanning.


 * I have a similar problem with the Borg being considered a Type III. Consider the Earth in 1808, compared to now, 2008.  How would an at-all-costs war go (as opposed to a standard Geneva Convention war)?  The K-scale difference between 1808 and 2008 (200 years) is only a few percentage points.  Based on that, it seems fairly clear that the Borg are only slightly (decades) beyond the Federation and/or are grossly low on resources or excessively spread out.  The fact that the Borg use transwarp conduits to travel, and the Federation is already able to understand how they work (according to some stories) also indicates a small difference, because our current technology, only 200 years separated from 1808, would surely seem like magic to people of 1808.  My conclusion is that unless someone can find a clear flaw in my logic, Kaku's comment about Borg being type III should be discarded unless someone else can be found to support him.  This sounds like just an off-hand comment from him, without any serious thinking behind it.  Saying that it's so never makes it so, other than in fantasies.  Even Nobel prize winners are expected to back up their serious statements with clear facts and evidence.  If all else fails, the fact that a number of people question this is a sure sign that it should be left out.
 * Scott McNay (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188008071 (→Extensions to the original scale: Kaku's statement here seems largely irrelevant)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)Removed reference to Kaku and extracting useful work from dark energy. While this is cited, I'm not sure what it adds, and I'm also not sure that it makes physical sense.
 * Sparky's compromise:
 * I can understand how it's not relevant to Extended civilizations, but I don't think the material is irrelevant, just misplaced. Since it's a remark made by Michio Kaku, a respected scientist WP:RS, and is relevant to a mode of energy production by a Type IV civilization... it should go in the Kardashev_scale section. Problem solved. (will be changing ref. so it complies with WP:CIT guidelines)
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)I don't feel it's irrelevant, it may be not be alot of information about Type IV civilizations currently in this section (see reverts done in above link), but if Kardashev_scale is to be expanded, then I'd prefer to show that it's being expanded by scientists (which I intend to do by adding cites by Dyson, Tipler, and Barrow) and not just science fiction writers. Which is why it was there, to establish some level of scientific precedence.

Compromise 3
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188039316
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)Removed section comparing the Kardashev scale to the work of Leslie White. While the comparison is interesting, it isn't well worded - I don't think we need give a laundry list of White's ideas - and I see several key differences between the two.  I think this comparison is sufficiently complex that it violates no original research to include anything on it unless there are third-party sources that discuss it - in which case we need to cite them.
 * Sparky's compromise:
 * My editing philosophy doesn't really cover deleting sections whole-cloth. But I suppose someone has to do it. This edit doesn't sit well with me, but in the spirit of compromise... edit stands.
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)Quite a bit of work there to just be deleted.

Compromise 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188199432 (→Energy development: removing cite-needed - this is discussed in the linked articles.)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)N/A Edit was done after, discussion
 * Sparky's compromise:
 * I'm completely baffled why you deleted sourced citations of Antimatter, deleted other sections that needed citations tags; then decided remove the citation needed tag, and keep solar power. Seems inconsistent. I mean just because it's discussed in another article doesn't mean it strictly reliable WP:VER. But I have a streak of inclusionism in me. So I'll let edit stand and try to find the reference later.
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)See Compromise 5 last sentence

Compromise 5
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188005483 (→Energy development: cleaning up some, removing speculative and redundant)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reasons:
 * (PD)'All such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point' - I'm being pedantic here. If a Kardashev 1+ civilization exists anywhere, it isn't hypothetical.  My re-wording probably needs to be tweaked.
 * (PD)Methods by which a civilization could feasibly advance to Type 1:
 * (PD)removed antimatter as definitely not feasible within current physical understanding. Even under the most optimistic situations, antimatter isn't a net energy source - you need to make the antimatter in the first place, and to do so requires making just as much or slightly more matter, so the amount of power you put in is less than or equal to the power you get out.
 * (PD)removed geothermal because, as was stated, it isn't sufficient.
 * (PD)condensed hydroelectric, ocean thermal, and wind into solar, because they are indirect means of tapping solar energy and are insufficient on their own.
 * (PD)removed synthetic biology and transhumanism on grounds of lack of feasibility. The former may be arguable, but would probably hit OR.  The latter doesn't make much sense, because it is non-specific.
 * (PD)Removed black hole energy source under Type II. This is uncited.  It may be feasible for someone who is able to seriously consider building a Dyson sphere, but I'd still like a reference of the idea before it goes back in.
 * (PD)Removed 'but applied to all of the stars ... power mechanisms not yet proposed.'. The first part seems trivial from the definition of Type III, the last trivial on a basic level.
 * Sparky's compromise:
 * There will be additions in Kardashev scale to add relevant content which includes speculation. This is to resolve the WP:UNDUE problem. As User:LouScheffer points out "There is nothing unscientific about discussing things that could exist, as far as we know, but have not been discovered yet, provided they follow the laws of physics as we know them." this is directly related to the WP:POVFORK issue that this page has. Plus the Future Energy Development has merged with Energy development, the gap between Industrial reality and science speculation was big, got bigger. Energy needs to be talked about when concerning the Kardashev scale but not violate WP:EMBED.
 * Reverting Antimatter change. We know antimatter exists, can be made, stored, and used as a power source (theoretically). We can't make it large quantities due to engineering issues but theories do exist. Material present was added myself and cited from CERN which is about as reliable as they come WP:RS.
 * Edit stands concerning Geothermal energy, Transhumanism, and Ocean energy. The reason they were listed was that if any civilization able to logistically achieve this level of energy efficiency could just lite a few cooking fires and then be over the threshold and achieve Type I. Especially if combined. I could just say they're discussed in the articles like solar power, but this information wasn't added by me, just rewritten, and wasn't sourced. Personally I'd rather stay under WP:WIP and worked on. I will see about restoring these in the future. See second response (PD)
 * Adding Black hole reference back in. Found citation from NASA, found power output in A First Course in General Relativity By Bernard F. Schutz p. 304, 305, and a wikilink called Penrose process.
 * Reverting 'but applied to all star... not yet proposed.'. The first part because these very thing lead to our disagreement over whether Asimov's Galatic Empire was Type II, or III. The first part is not trivial at all, since it requires no new technology to reach Type III only its implementation. The second half I'll leave out in the interest of compromise, but these things may seem trivial and obvious to a Cal tech student, but not necessarily to an 8th grader.
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)you practically removed the entire section calling it redundant, and speculative. The information is not redundant because the info. in future energy development is earth POV, and this section was not. It's speculative nature keeps the article NPOV, because half of this article is for sci-fi users. Additionally this article isn't meant to be just for you, I think why you feel information is redundant is because it's spelled out. It needs to be spelled out, so that even 12 year old kids with C+ grades have a chance to understand it. All references to earth's level technology were meant to be a comparison so that non-expert readers could understand the differences in power requirements. What you call irrelevant, is covered in future energy development, as real energy strategies... all the citation needed}} stamps all over the place, I put up myself, because it's important to link those energy developments with Interplanetary studies whenever possible, such as the [[AIAA, NASA, SETI, and BIS. Which I need to do, or need help in doing. Deleting it whole cloth does not help the article, IMO. Also what completely baffles me is why did you leave the solar power method when you deleted all the others, why did you just leave one?
 * (PD)Sparky's second response
 * (PD)But you admit yourself that you haven't followed up on the discussion because you've been busy, that's cool. But the section plastered with templates on anti-matter, geothermal energy, etc. etc. I put all those  templates up myself. I will go find the articles, but I'm busy trying to diversify the links away from Dr. Michio Kaku, because if that page links to only one scientist repeatably then your previous statement of WP:undue will be correct. well I've found some. But your deleting the sections faster than I can find proper cites for them all, cuz I've been busy too. I admit the article needs work, which is why it had the this article may contain OR template at the top. The reason I keep putting up  templates is because I'm hoping some more people will help me find them.

Agree 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188007065 (→Criticism: removing apparently unsuitable link)
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)Removed link to www.futurehi.net. This is a blog, without assertion of notability, and therefore it doesn't meet either WP:NOTE or WP:RS
 * Sparky agrees
 * I wouldn't classify www.futurehi.net as a reliable resource either WP:RS
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)I'm fine with that removal, I didn't like that link either.

Agree 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kardashev_scale&diff=next&oldid=188195601
 * (PD)Mike's primary reason:
 * (PD)Sagan's information-content measurement. While this is good to link to, and should be mentioned in the article, as it was, it was disconnected from the surrounding text.  A section on other methods of characterizing civilizations would be good to have, and this would go there.
 * Sparky agrees
 * Nice addition!
 * (PD)Sparky's first response
 * (PD)N/A Didn't see change, upon first review

Replaced anti-matter with fusion.
"Cheap anti-matter" violates physics as we know it, as far as I know. You might as well say "Provided we can find a cheap way to feed and harness 1017 hamsters, we can achieve type I". Unless you can find a reference to even a theoretical way to make cheap anti-matter, then I think this should be removed. But fusion is certainly possible, and there is plenty of hydrogen to do this for a long time. LouScheffer (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Readding antimatter. Did you know, that an ounce of aluminum used to cost more than a pound of gold? Did you know, that they can now fit as many transistors in a thumb-sized chip than they could in an entire room, in the 1960's. Did you know that, Enrico Fermi and other scientists used Uranium for his nuclear experiments at Chicago labs for 8, but nobody knew how to purify it enough to make a bomb?(that one is still a secret)


 * My point is that antimatter production is still a problem for application as a power plant. But it's a material science problem, not one with theory. If a civilization could get it's hands on antimatter in larger quantities then it would have a feasible method to advance power structures. That might include mining it from space. (See links below). But scientist are already thinking of using antimatter as a power source. One that is similar to the Ion pulse engines found in modern space craft. (See links below). It's addition is speculation, but it's scientifically based. I found link 10 subject links in a mater of 10 seconds using google, if you want I'll search around and find more. But until there's a need, I hope this will suffice.


 * I'm not sure which of these citations you may want to add into the article as a reference so I'm just going to list them and leave it at that for awhile.


 * - talks about how our ability to produce antimatter is increasing. And states that a Antimatter pulse drive may be feasible with in the next few decades.


 * - Talks about antimatter scalability. Implies that large scale production of antimatter would be for Type II civilizations but doesn't elaborate.


 * - An actual scientific and conference memorandum complete with conclusion of feasibility, and production cost.


 * - You don't need to produce antimatter, if it simply exists in large quantities. New study points to asymmetric distribution of positrons.


 * - NASA looks at collecting antimatter from space. If a civilization was near the Galactic center antimatter fuel might not be as hard to come by.


 * - It might be that any civilization needs to be near galactic center in order to collect antimatter cheaply. This small abstract explains that collection might be possible with any planetary magnetic field. Thus humanly possible, if not currently feasible.


 * I hope this establishes that while antimatter "production is still beyond our civilization's ability to utilize as a power source" it might not be that way in the coming future. I also hope this establishes that a different civilization would have cheaper access to antimatter, due to a fortuitous placement in the galaxy.--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing un-physical about using anti-matter for rockets - it's a compact way to store energy. But it does not help you become a type-I civilization, since it takes more power to make than you get out.  Your only hope is to find it.  The anti-matter collected in planetary fields is hopelessly small.  They are talking milligrams collected over long time periods, and even a type I takes about 2 kg/second.  So it's short of a type I by at least 6 orders of magnitude.


 * How about the galactic center? The paper Positron Annihilations at the Galactic Center: Generating More Questions Than Answers says that 10^50 positrons annihilate per year.  That's about 10^37 joules per year, or about 1000 star's output.  That sounds promising.  But the region subtends 8 degrees from here, so at a distance of 20,000 light years the region is 2500 light years on a side.  This size region will contain tens of millions of stars, so the energy density is about 1/10000 of starlight.   So anything big enough to collect enough antimatter could collect 10,000 times as much energy from starlight.


 * So though anti-matter is a nifty concept, there is no way in current physics that you can use it to become a type I. Once you are a type I, you can use your energy (obtained somehow else) to make anti-matter that you will use in your rockets, but it does not help you to get there.   If you can find a reference on how to *make*, not *use*, it, or a reference on how to find large concentrations of it, then maybe it should go here.  Otherwise it's just wishful thinking.  LouScheffer (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I do think there is enough research to be found, that antimatter should be taken seriously as a mode of energy. I have read a couple of things that would put antimatter production or collection, at a level higher than Type I. However looking for this I'm not just looking for power output, I'm looking for methodology directly relating to the Kardashev scale. There is a major problem with this!
 * Imagine I live in the year 1910 and I've seen the zeppelins starting to travel the globe. If I speculate on the science known, I could speculate two different ways, one based on a general theory, and another based on methodology (or the engineering of science). I'd be very proud, pompous and wiser-than-thou and say something like "based on our so-great advancements in aviation, theory speculates that air travel can be an important and vital commodity of the future!" Now someone in 1910 has no way of knowing diddly, but because of the wording, he could say it, get away with it, and be right. But if my pompous self were to say, "Because of our so-great advancements in aviation, we can be assured that in the future our great zeppelins can cover the globe, bigger, and faster". If I said that, not only could I get away with it, but because no once could possibly refute me, since blimp technology would already be known, I would be much more technically secure, but I'd be wrong.
 * In this position I can say, scientists know antimatter reactions can be very energetic. I'm cool with this statement. I don't feel like I can possibly know when civilizations can hope to use antimatter as a main power source. If we had antimatter in large quantities we could use it, we wouldn't have to be anymore advanced than we are now, that means it could be a energy mode for type I, type II, type III and whatever. If you want me to tell you when we might possibly be able to make it in enough quantities... I can cite this, or that, but really I know diddly, and on much more shaky ground. In this link http://seti.sentry.net/archive/public/2002/May/0004.html Kaku puts large scale antimatter production at Type II. I don't know why, looking for sources, but he does. I'll see if I can find more on 'when' a civilization might be able to produce antimatter in large quantities. Personally I feel doing so even more speculative than just keeping it where it is.--Sparkygravity (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An excellent example of futurists talking about the Kardashev scale, relating to antimatter. Not that it means anything or is useful.http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73623--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your a cal student you should know. Do you know how much energy is required to break charge C and charge-parity CP invariance? Also at what point does baryogenisis become asymmetric?--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The several citations I've made in this section indicate that if a civilization has antimatter in large quantities it can be used as a main power source. Whether you want to argue about whether it's Type I, Type II, or Type III technology, that's fine, because I haven't found anything specific other than Kaku's reference to type II. But until you find more sources to verify that antimatter can and will never be able to be used as a power source, then the antimatter should remain in... since the citations above indicate that it's possible.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! What you say is perfectly true, *IF* you had large quantities of anti-matter, it would be a great power source.  The references you provide cover this angle in more than enough detail.  The problem is this section says plausible methods to *become* a type I.  This means you need a way to *get* the large quantities of anti-matter.  All the references you provide say explicitly that it takes more energy to produce than it yields (so it does not help you become a type I, no matter how useful it is).  The alternative is to collect it, but all the references I've seen (including those in your list, and many more) list only extremely diffuse sources.  If you can find *any* reference on how to obtain anti-matter with less energy expenditure than it yields, I'll take this back, but as of current knowledge (not technology), anti-matter technology won't help. LouScheffer (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll be a bit busy through the weekend but I'll find the sources required and post them up by March 6th. As far as antimatter production from what I've read the expeditures in energy cost is greater than the gain for a Type O, Type I, up until a civilization is a Type II. Unfortunately these have not been thorough studies, just off hand comments by Kaku and Dyson. As far as antimatter collection, using planetary magnetic fields a civilization placed in a fortuitous location (ie, in a part of space with more free-floating antimatter) would be enable to use a type of passive collection system above the planets orbit that would condense the antimatter to a density where the cost of the project would be far less than the gain. I have no clue to whether that collection project would be Type I, Type II, or Type III, because I haven't found anything on the web, or in the library that discusses proposed energy budgets or relates to Kardashev.--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So I basically said that I would do some work find some references and rewrite, reference or restructure the antimatter section... which I have not done, I have not put in the work, I've been distracted by other things. I apologize for not doing what I said I was going to make time for. That being said, I still am distracted by other things, I feel that the antimatter section should reflect the scientific perspective that humans can't and don't know how to use antimatter as a power-plant level fuel, but that futurists believe that this restriction is science from earth POV and the theory would give the scientific weight to the futurist comments on antimatter. I feel that this is important because this article is both a scientific and futurist article and needs to be represented in a way both sides are find satisfactory. I don't know whether I'll find the time to do this in the immediate future but I hope I will do the work in the near future. If you have concerns that my methodology is hurting wikipedia, then I need to know because that is not my intent. It's simply that wikipedia is a hobby of mine and I want to treat it, and it's users with respect, but my work on it will always take a secondary role to my being a productive member of society. So let me know and I'll try to put time into this section as soon as possible.--Sparkygravity (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply to a request from Sparky
Sparky left a polite and informative request at my user page. He asked:


 * 1)Is the article presently fine the way it is?
 * 2)After you read it, did you get the impression that it was a science article or a science fiction article?
 * 3)Was it too long, too short, easy to understand?
 * 4)Was the article interesting, was it boring, did it feel jumbled or was it concise?
 * 5)What do you think might be needed to be added to this article, what do you think needs to be edited out?

Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My answers are:
 * 1)The article is informative as it stands, but needs work -- addition, not deletion.
 * 2)The difference between science and science fiction is not always a big one. Science progresses by hypotheses, which is a polite way of speaking about guesses or speculations. Given that Kardashev provided the scale simply as a way of quantifying entities (civilizations) that have not as yet been identified, it necessarily interacts with the hypothetical, which is what science fiction often is.
 * 3)I found the article easy to understand. However, it raised more questions for me than it answered, which means it either needs more text to finish what it starts, or it needs to trim out asides that only multiply issues. In general, it is hard for articles to be "too long". If everything is accurate and on topic, laid out logically, people can ignore bits that don't grab their interest. Let the reader decide what info they want. Is Wiki too big? How can it be? It is laid out logically, you don't need to read entries that don't interest you.
 * 4)The article is interesting TO ME. I am fascinated by astrophysics, and this topic touches on that. I love galactic empire scifi, and it touches on that. I'm interested in the future of human society, it touches on that. But interest is less important than "jumble" or "concise", it is also subjective. On the other hand, the article doesn't just feel jumbled, it IS jumbled and it is TOO concise. Those are objective facts, but they are relative. There is tangential material that undermines being concise, but there is a lot more missing. There is logical structure, but it is not comprehensively provided or transparent.
 * 5)The golden question is where to "draw the line" around the content of an article. I would suggest almost all tangents that have been included in this article over its history ARE relevant, and should be briefly mentioned in a systematic way, linking to other articles that cover those topics in detail -- Fermi paradox, Anthropic principle, etc. The danger in this article is it becoming a forum for POV and OR synthesis of Alternative energy source literature, SETI hypotheses, and an endless, growing list of SciFi civilizations (why wasn't Dune mentioned, lol).

Strictly speaking this entry need only be a few paragraphs. Author proposed scale for civilization based on energy consumption, published by, date. Other authors have used this scale -- list. Some have criticised (Sagan, too crude, need intermediate levels 2.3 etc, etc). Historical energy budgets in human civilization are discussed in Wiki articles ... Proposed high-tech energy harnessing techniques are discussed in Wiki articles ...

Finally, although it pains me to say it, although classifying SciFi civs according to Kardashev is actually a natural, logical and interesting thing to do, and can be done responsibly, with quotes, it will always be original research unless these books explicitly mention the scale, or unless someone publishes such research. In many cases an educated layman can place a SciFi civ on the scale from a quote, but unless this has been through a publishing procedure, it is always open to error. Of course, published works contain errors too! Asimov's Foundation, are they Type II or Type III? I'm not sure, and won't be quoting Wiki on the subject. Star Wars Empire, Type III or Type II? Ditto. Time Lords are Type IV in a published source. However, Dr Who does not go into any serious detail about the physics of energy usage involved. Dr Who is fiction aimed at entertaining using scientific language rather than exploring serious hypothetical possibilities. I'm old enough to remember "ray guns", kids like me didn't care how they worked, they were just more zappy than bullets -- entertainment. Asimov, however, explores social implications of technological change in a kind of thought experiment, but with strong classic novel plots. I'm sure there'll be a published article on Asimov saying exactly that.

Better stop there, I hope my comments help crystalize issues rather than merely repeat issues that keep coming up. There's a lot of quality work in this article. Thanks for teaching me stuff I didn't know, and genuinely grabbing my interest as well. Best luck with progress. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Charts of global energy consumption
I came back to this article after a long absence, and found that Sparky had added back the charts showing the distribution of energy usage across the planet. I'd thought we'd addressed this last time I edited here: total global energy consumption (formally, the fraction convertable into information-bearing radiation) is all that Kardashev measures. The distribution of that power across a planet, solar system, or galactic spiral arm is irrelevant and confusing to the idea. So those charts should not be here - not to mention that they aren't referred to in the text in any way (for the reasons given). The link to the article on energy consumption is fine, but nothing else on the subject needs to be here. Michaelbusch (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's take this image for example

What if we asked ourselves the question - Would human civilization be Type I, if all the countries in the world produced power like they do here in the U.S.A? well lets see! we'll assume US citizens use 5,000kg of oil/year and the human population to be 6x109... okay so 5,000kg/year per capita *1tonne ofoil/1,000 kg= 5 toes/year per capita... 5 toes/year per captia * 6x109 people in world = 3x1010toes/year * 11.630x106Whr/toe * 1day/24hr * 1year/365 = 3.98x1013W.... good, so ((log 3.98x1013) - 6)/10 = .76 K
 * Cool, but .76 isn't too much from .73, but it does indicate that in 2003 if everyone ate up energy like us yanks, we would have an energy footprint larger than the world estimate in 2030. That's significant. Lets do another, but lets assume everyone ate up energy like they did in Iceland or Dubai. blah,blah, math... = .89 K! holy cow .89 that's a more significant energy disparity than the energy difference produced today (2008) than human civilization produced in 1850.

Presently, we are advanced enough that our civilizations type is determined more through individual power usage than any level of technology or number of years. Kardashev scale is just as much about how much a civilization could produce, as it is how much it does produce. A civilization could be a Type III like Asimov's the Galatic Empire in Foundation but is instead a Type II because as you pointed out, they only use a portion of all the star systems. These images reflect important undercurrents about what it means to be a Type I, or Type II... This is why they are relevant, and why they should be present. In addition to the using different media to describe the topic... which is a requirement for all articles trying to reach featured article quality.... which is the goal of every article!!!!--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sparky, your above discussion is interesting, but it is original research and therefore unacceptable for inclusion in the article - unless you find notable third-party sources that discuss this. Kardashev and Sagan weren't talking about 'how much a civilization could produce, as [well as] how much it does produce'.  They were talking about one parameterization of the Fermi paradox, how to constrain the barely understood problem of the properties of extraterrestrial life.  This isn't an exercise in exponential notation or the disparity of energy consumption across human society. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

your right it is OR! I looked at a picture and did some math and said "Presently, we are advanced enough that our civilizations type is determined more through individual power usage than any level of technology or number of years. " But you know what, I wasn't going to add that the article... Just the picture... that's it, the picture isn't OR, it's just power consumption, but it is relevant. I'll look for 3rd parties later. When I first saw the picture, I understood immediately what it meant in relationship to the Kardashev scale. And again your absolutely right, Kardashev scale has nothing particular to do with earth. But we still have to talk about it, so that others less educated than you and I can understand it. Which means relating it too a picture. Relating to earth.--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how it helps people's understanding to make the problem more complicated. 'Human civilization has a Kardashev value of 0.73 as of 2008 and here is what it was in the past' is the only connection that is sensible.  The distribution of power across the Earth isn't relevant, and is merely confusing (this is my trying to read as a naive viewer).  If you can find notable third party sources making the connection, fine, but I don't know of any. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Micheal. The whole idea of the Kardashev scale is to very roughly rank civilizations on the power they control - that of a planet?  a star?  a galaxy?  Looking at the details of exactly how the power is distributed goes against the point of the simplification. LouScheffer (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to SparkyGravity
Sparkygravity, I got your note today. Haven't been on WP in a while. I wrote this referring to the article, not the comments; after writing, I see others have had similar comments to some of what I've said below. My comments are not necessarily intended to be included in the article, but more like food for thought for those who are editing.

The Kardashev scale seems to be outdated. I know of no hard references explicitly supporting this thought; I'm just suggesting adjusting the wording appropriately. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

1. Computers: Many SF authors originally wrote of city-sized computers. Now, we see computers shrinking at the same time that they increase in functionality. In most cases, shrinking means lower power usage.

2. von Neumann machines: von Neumann machines (universal constructors), once they become practical, could do work of any scale that you desired, including running large-scale experiments to figure out how to do something. With a von Neumann machine, budget concerns might disappear, since you could send a von Neumann machine to another solar system or even another galaxy, and have it build whatever infrastructure is needed, followed by the actual project; the limit, of course, would be time. Would the power used by such endeavors be considered as part of the total energy use of the civilization? I suppose it must.

3. Future theories: I've read where people state that much SF is BS because it's impossible to travel faster than light. This cannot be a true statement, because we do not have a proven, all-inclusive theory-of-everything. The same applies to things other than faster-than-light travel. Thus, some of the things that we currently think might need Type II or III or IV power levels might be easily done with a used Mr Fusion (power device from future in "Back To The Future") and a shortcut mechanism that we don't know about now.

Might want to review the article with these thoughts in mind. Some of the things that our descendants do, we might find unbelievabably wasteful and therefore virtually inconceivable, and vice versa. For example, they might find flushing with water to be grossly wasteful of water and maybe disgusting (probably criminal, the way things are going), and we might find flushing with a Mr Fusion to be grossly wasteful of power.

Consider that it might be possible, using shortcuts that we are currently ignorant of, to do stellar, galactic, or universal manipulations with only a used Mr Fusion; there are some SF stories (many by reputable scientists) that explore this general idea without explicitly extending the consequences to large-scale stuff.

Consider that we are already effectively doing terraforming, albeit not deliberately, and not with results that we want/like.

I've read in a number of places (may or may not be good references) that human civilization is headed towards a singularity, where we cannot predict what will happen beyond it, very soon (well within a century). I notice that the predictions of the environmentalists seem to indicate that the environment will likewise pretty much collapse before the century is out. For technological predictions of the future it seems like you might as well use a crystal ball. In some ways, many of the things that are predicted never seem to happen, but at the same time, other things happen that no one dreamed of and tend to be far more interesting. I suspect that talks of technological singularities refer to the crystal ball accuracy, not to anything in particular happening. How is this relevant? Not sure; food for thought, mostly. Eat up, you look hungry. :)

In the article, it currently says: "In sufficiently large number of stellar systems, absorbing a small but significant fraction of the output of each individual star." This does not seem to pass my common sense test, though: this means that a couple of zillion iron-age cultures spread throughout the universe would fit the definition, but that does not feel right. I think this should be either left out or qualified.

On the Criticism topic, the article's subject is only intended to deal with power levels and is strictly a theoretical construct, as I note above, and has nothing to do with whether any advanced civilization would ever actually get to level I or much past it. Our own current experiences, plus the fact that it took so long for multicellular life to develop, may indicate that it's virtually impossible to get to level I without essentially first falling prey to a externally-induced (like a super-meteor or nearby nova) or self-induced mass extinction, whether from environmental problems, or medical (germs becoming resistant to modern antibiotics, triggering a population collapse, which might in turn trigger an economic and industrial collapse, which in turn might trigger a technological collapse).

Considering the speed of light, I see no way to harvest the energy of a galaxy within 5800 years, considering that the galaxy is 100,000 light-years across, unless you take dilated time into account (and you'd still need von Neumann machines reproducing at a ridiculous rate) and/or use currently-unknown physical laws to travel from point A to B in short time (you'd have the same problem with von Neumann machines), or find an alternate source of energy (after which we'd need a handy river to dunk our heatsinks into).

I just read the Zoltan Galantai article, and see that his discussion is along similar lines to some of my thoughts.

Hydrogen as an energy source
The page states that fusion power using the earths oceans as a source of hydrogen would be feasible, yet wouldn't it take more energy to split the water than you would get from using it in fusion? --Turksarama (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Splitting water is a molecular event. Fusion is an atomic event.  The power levels involved are nowhere close. Scott McNay (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Moorcockian extrpolation
The "Dancers at the End of Time" doesn't specify where or how much power they have, I think, merely that they can appear to make the stars move. Rich Farmbrough, 14:35 2 November 2006 (GMT).