THE SCALE OF KARDASHEV AND OUR (JOINT) FUTURE PART III - CONTROL OR CARE FOR? (A to-think-about-article) Kees Deckers October 2011 In the earlier two articles about the Scale of Kardashev and what the levels of civilisation on this Scale may mean for our (joint) future, I  have looked at what is necessary to reach these levels of civilisation. Money or Energy? And: Technology or Biology? The answer on the first  question is, of course, energy. First of all, because the entire idea of the Scale is based on the control of energy and sources of energy. But  secondly, also because money can be manipulated always. It can be created ad infinitum, if need be virtually or simply by printing extra  zeroes on banknotes. 50,000,000 German Marks Internet reference (25-08-11): Or it can be ostensibly in very short supply, for instance by linking it to one or other rare element, like gold. But this can be manipulated as  easily by letting this cost 10,000 euros per ounce at one moment and 1 euro the next. And the funny thing is, the gold stays exactly the  same.  At present most countries in the world have huge debts. And America, because of the alleged economic importance of the dollar, may almost  with impunity continue to create money, while each citizen on average has a debt of more than 46,000 U.S. dollar. At this moment from birth  or when emigrating to this union, people are saddled as so-called American citizens with this average debt.  But money has nothing to do with energy. And especially not with the energy of human beings themselves. Look for instance at the energy a  human puts into so-called paid work. Each human has on average, let’s say, 50 hours a week of energy, she can put into so-called paid work.  But even so one human being earns at most 50 euros a month with this energy input, while another gets 10,000 euros or more a month for  the same amount of energy input. A discrepancy, which has nothing to do with energy, but has everything to do with people's behaviour  toward each other. That money, or our economy, is linked to energy, as is propagated by some experts, is therefore complete nonsense. The answer to the second question is much more complicated. Biology (= the study of living organisms, including the structure, workings,  origin and evolution, classification, distribution and interrelationships, or the doctrine of the living beings, life forms and phenomena of life), is  related to the "living nature". This "living nature" is a pure necessity for human beings. Without this subset of the total nature human beings,  who themselves are "living nature", simply would not exist. Human beings need an own, close-by environment to live and survive and this  environment is (for the time being) predominantly dependent on the biosphere, ergo the "living nature", of Earth.   In addition it is apparent from the entire history of humanity, that humans as a part of "living nature" have been tool-makers from the start.  The impression is, that people are "naturally" aimed at (re-)creating all of nature, whether it is nature outside of themselves or within  themselves. The influence of this "natural" behaviour is so large, that it has led to an almost complete (re-)creation of their own, closeby  environment today. It also leads to pushing further and further away the not by humans themselves created "living" and "non-living nature”.  Mountains are moved literally, lakes are drained, rivers are diverted. With all the consequences it entails. How far may human beings go? This  is a pressing question that evokes many emotions between nature-fanciers and technology-fanciers. Or maybe better between not-by-  humans-created-nature-fanciers and by-humans-created-nature-fanciers.  If human beings don’t want to exterminate themselves and want to try to become a Type I Civilisation, they have to find an answer to both  questions, "Money or Energy?" and "Technology or Biology?", in which responsibility and care for themselves and for their own, close-by  environment, now of a size as large as the Earth, have to come first.  Therefore, in this last article the question is: If we want a joint future as humanity, do we achieve this through "control" or "care for"?  Control or care for? Is for the survival of humanity "control" or "care for" the way to go?  The term "control" means "restrain", "have in his power", “inhibit” and "rein in". The term "care for" means "taking care of and having  responsibility for something", "maintain" and "look after". The big difference between these two words is that the first word is purely aimed at  selfishness, purely aimed at the self-interest of the acting person, the tool-making human being. With the second word the acting person is  not only looking for his self-interest, but also has responsibility for and takes care of that, which he leads or directs and in which he thinks he,  as tool-making human being, has to make “enhancements”.  To me the answer is right away "care for". But many people think quite differently. The reason that in the title of these three articles the word  "joint" has been put between brackets, is because we human beings still prefer to stick to all kinds of pigeonholing, from racism and  nationalism to gender discrimination and religious and ideological fanatism. This mentality requires that we are constantly on a war footing  with every other human being, to be able to ”control” the situation. Power, status and appearance are therefore more important to most  people than working together, living together, and especially sharing together. It may be evident from this immediately, what most of the  energy is used for: The creations of weapons for defence or attack. We may see this mentality as a remnant of the evolution and history of  humanity up till now. The question, though, is if human beings will ever be capable to let go of and leave this mentality behind them. All  things considered it seems the only thing in the history of humanity that changes is his tool-making, technique and technology.   So what is necessary to change the situation from a "control" to a "care for" and in this way to reach the level of a Type I Civilisation? In my  opinion, it is about five key conditions. None of them easy, but none of them impossible.  5 key conditions for a  Type I Civilisation  As I have pointed out in my first article, we have in our near future the choice between roughly two possible forms of globalisation: a  capitalistic oligarchic based globalisation of our planet and its biosphere, the way we are following at the moment, or a globalisation from the  principle of proportionality, in which all humans and the nature of Earth may develop themselves together at a planetary scale. The last asks  of humans that they live together, work together and share together at a planetary level.  Especially the sharing together is still constantly opposed tooth and nail at both national and international level, but also at individual human  level. The internet, for instance, that should be a system of information exchange, accessible for all humans on Earth, and that has been  initially developed as so many other techniques and technologies from idealistic motives, has rapidly become no more than a shouting-each-  other-down-system. For 90% the internet is about no more than advertising for one’s own self-interest and for 9% to offend, rob, lie, cheat,  threaten and subvert each other. The image the internet evokes is that of a globalised medium, on which virtually everyone screams that globalisation is bad. On this medium  people also scream at each other every day how bad globalisation is. The one from his perspective that it is all based on capitalistic based  globalisation and will only favour just a small group of so-called leaders. The other from her perspective that it is a by communist, socialist  and so-called "greens" machinated globalisation and will make her and others a grey mass of slaves. The idea is apparently that those who  shout the loudest and hit the hardest wins. Both are right. But not in their opposition to globalisation, but in their opposition to the kind of  globalisation. We all want a closeby, own environment that is as safe as possible. The larger that environment, the safer we feel ourselves. A  closeby, own environment on an Earthly level therefore is ultimately the most safe.  What if we are going to do it differently now? What if we really are capable of doing it differently and are willing to do so? What if we do not  abuse each technique and technology, but use these in a good way to interact and deal with each other? Is a globalisation according to the  principle of proportionality then possible? As, at the moment, this principle of proportionality is just about possible on the internet, while it is  tried on all sides to let the internet fall into the hands of the loudest ranter.  In short, may a globalisation be possible then? Which means that we together, as a total human community, make the step towards a Type I  Civilisation. In stead of just an elitist group of so-called superiors, knowing how to reach this on the backs of the rest of humanity. As Richard  Dolan, for example, indicated in his speech at the conference "Secret Space Program - Breakaway Civilization" in Amsterdam on April 3,  2011. Internet reference (25-08-11): What conditions are needed for this then? Let us assume that we strive for a Type I Civilisation, which in addition to being able to “care for” the total energy capacity of the planet  Earth, at the same time looks for ways to leave this planet at some point. Which looks for new, safe environments, possible on other planets,  inside asteroids or elsewhere. Or in other words, which already takes into account the next step, the second type of civilisation on the Scale  of Kardashev. That is, in my opinion, except for the cowardly continuation of eradicating large numbers of people, the only way for a  constantly-growing and evolving humanity: The way to other planets and places in our universe. Is there something wrong with that?  According to me, the main conditions to this end are: 1. A globalisation on the basis of the principles of proportionality and equality;  2. A planetary ethics;  3. Free energy;  4. Terraforming; 5. Humaforming.  A sixth main condition could be the encounter with extraterrestrials and the possible exchange of information, forms of energy and so on. But  it remain humans themselves, who have to make their her own choices. These kinds of civilisation from outside of the Earth can only offer  advice and help to humanity, the same way one human being can offer advice and help to another human being. Unasked for advice and help  are and will stay simply interference. They are not appreciated by most humans. Especially not by the "spoiled child", about which Michio  Kaku speaks on page 324 in his book "Visions, How science will revolutionize the 21st Century", (First Anchor books Edition, New York,  U.S.A., October 1998, I.S.B.N.: 978-0-385-48499-2): "Furthermore, a Type 0 civilization is like a spoiled child, unable to control its self-  destructive temper tantrums and outbursts." The Type 0 Civilisation, which we are, can be compared to an adolescent, who knows everything  better and who does not accept one thing, without a struggle. In addition, it is the right of every individual human to be and to live as independently and self responsible as possible.  How can each of the five main conditions contribute to achieving a real, Earthly Type I Civilisation? In the following I give some incentive for  reflection.  1. A globalisation on the basis of the principles of proportionality and equality  A globalisation of humanity on the basis of the principles of proportionality and equality, the entire biosphere of the Earth included. What does  that mean?  "Proportional" means: Equal, harmonious, equally, in equal proportion.  The principle of proportionality stands for: Principle of proportionality - precept of the ruling of men, based on the idea that every member of the community is equivalent with respect to the distribution of the  conditions of pleasure and pain.  Internet reference (28-04-11):  A globalised or Earthly humanity is certainly capable of living together, working together and sharing together on the basis of this  principle. The fact that at this moment there exist a few hundred smaller and larger countries, which all more or less try to prove they are  able to do this, in part already points to this. On the other hand, probably all these countries at the same time are more based on the  self-interest of all the people living there, and especially on the self-interest of the so-called leaders of these countries, than on common  sense. Before everything else comes the unilateral tooth and nail defence of this self-interest.    As "examples" for their "compatriots" the so-called leaders enrich themselves on that basis in unprecedented ways. They create by this an  imbalance and disproportion, which can only end in a fatal way.  How much energy could we save, if we would not constantly be at the brink of war with each other on all kinds of levels, and even make war,  because of this self-interest? Let so-called scientists calculate this for a change, in stead of calculating how many humans they can maim and  kill with one stone, the newest "human swatter".  How much energy could we save and use in a better way if we humans would be one commonality, which lets each human being participate  equally in the advantages and disadvantages? A commonality does not mean uniformity, nor a “grey multitude”. If we go from the fact that  we in our "own country" with all the members in that country form one society, to what extent then do we see a “grey multitude”, uniformity?  Besides, a society does not thrive and grow by this, it grows only through diversity. From diversity spring up new ideas, thoughts, fantasies  and ultimately possibilities. Diversity, though, does not mean that members in such a commonality should be treated unequally. The daily  baking of bread and growing fruit and vegetables is as important as running a country in a proper way. The leader of a country is nothing,  without a good piece of bread and without healthy vegetables and fruit. Make him bake his own bread every day, grow his own fruit and  vegetables. How much time and energy does he then still have left, to play being a leader, according to the present-day accepted form?  Every human exists of a more or less equivalent amount of energy. Every human therefore can only put each day more or less the same  amount of energy into work for the commonality. And every human needs for this, every day again, more or less the same amount of energy  to be able to keep alive and functioning. It is on this that the distribution of benefits and burdens needs to be based. Not on the fantasy that  some humans are exalted above the many. One speech can reach thousands of people at the same time. But it is one and the same speech.  One book, one music D.V.D. and so on can be copied millions of times, while the writer needs to write it down only once and the musician  needs to record it only once. Bread, though, needs to be baked piece after piece. It is the baker, who again and again has to put his energy in  the making of each bread, and it is the farmer who each year again has to sow and to reap.  Up Next page