Comparing Different Civilizational Scales
Onwards and upwards, a better way to measure civilization.
I recently saw two good articles discussing the Kardashev Scale. The first was Scaling Kardashev by J.K. Lund, and the second was Rethinking the Kardashev Scale by Peter Hague. So I decided now was a good time to put forward my thoughts on the topic, which I originally published 5 years ago on Medium. I’ve been told by some that it’s a tad dry, but I think it’s a fascinating topic. It’s very lightly tweaked and updated, but otherwise remains the same. Hope you all enjoy!
As we stand on the edge of expanding humanity outwards into our Solar System, it is worth thinking about our path to this point, and where we might go from here. How can we evaluate ourselves as we leave our homeworld, and how can we chart our continued progress as we go? Having a way to measure where a civilization is at would be a useful tool—and despite the glaring differences in our world, we are now for most intents and purposes a single civilization. At the very least such a tool could help us set goals for ourselves to achieve, and perhaps even give us specifics to aim at. It might also help us characterize, at least in broad strokes, where we have come from in the past. A further use could be in preparing us for the possibility of one day meeting other intelligent species out there amongst the stars—if any exist. If there are not, it would still be something to measure ourselves against, to see if we’re moving forward.
The Kardashev Scale
Such means of measuring the development of a civilization have been proposed. The most common one many are familiar with is the Kardashev Scale; which bears the name of its creator, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev. It is often cited not just in popular media and science fiction, but also in more authoritative sources such as peer reviewed scientific journals. The original scale as outlined in his paper was split into three civilizational levels based on the amount of energy they are able to exploit. A Type I (Planetary) Civilization is able to capture all the energy that reaches its home planet from its local star; though presumably methods other than solar panels could be used to help reach this point, nuclear power for instance. Moving on up, a Type II (Stellar) Civilization is capable of utilizing the entire energy output of its star, in our case, the Sun. Construction of a Dyson Sphere (proposed by the late physicist Freeman Dyson) has been suggested as a way to do this, though the technology required is likely centuries or millennia ahead of where we are now. Lastly on the traditional scale is a Type III (Galactic) Civilization, which is capable of harnessing not just the power of a single star, but an entire galaxy’s worth of them.
There are numerous variations on the Kardashev Scale, but the most common simply extend it by a couple of levels. After Type III comes a Type IV (Universal) Civilization; which is intergalactic to the point of being able to utilize the energy output of the entire universe. With a Type V (Multiverse) Civilization, we move into the realm of pure speculation. A civilization at this level of development would be able to move between and expand into multiple universes—if the multiverse actually exists, which I happen to doubt—and command their entire combined energy output; perhaps even outlasting the end of any single universe. Some tack on a Type VI Civilization, capable of controlling—even living outside of—space and time. At this point though you are essentially postulating a God or gods, which is fine, but your discussion will henceforth be sounding a lot more metaphysical or even theological. For most purposes then, only considering the first three types is more than adequate; and has the advantage of keeping the discussion in a realm we can at least imagine.
You’re probably wondering where we currently sit on the Kardashev Scale. Unfortunately, Earth doesn’t yet qualify as a Type I Civilization. To elaborate further involves adding one more level: Type 0; which means that a civilization is essentially using no power at all. Carl Sagan suggested in his book Cosmic Connection that humans on Earth today are around a 0.7 on the scale. Today we are a little further along, sitting at roughly 0.73 according to the formula he devised where K = the Kardashev Scale level of a civilization, and P = its power use (measured in watts).
So, we are well on our way to becoming Type I, but not there yet. Physicist Michio Kaku said in The Future of Humanity that given our annual average increase in energy usage, we might achieve a full Type I Civilization in a century or two, and continue on to Type II in the next few millennia. Possibly even achieving Type III sometime within the next million years.
Problems With Kardashev
Despite being the most common way for measuring the development of a civilization, there are some significant issues with the Kardashev Scale.
For instance, the problem of classifying a civilization purely by energy consumption may lead to some odd comparisons; with some cultures landing in the same category despite having vastly different sizes and capabilities. It’s perhaps helpful to think of the Kardashev Scale like a basic physics problem—where you deal with mathematical points, perfect spheres, and no wind resistance. A Kardashev Type I Civilization behaves itself and stays put on its homeworld until fully mastering the energy resources it contains. Only then does it venture out into its local system and begin exploiting resources there. Similarly, a Type II society does not even contemplate interstellar expeditions until it has constructed a Dyson Sphere (or the equivalent), fully gathering the energy of their home star. Real life is never so tidy. There is no such thing as a perfect sphere rolling down a perfectly smooth incline with no friction or wind resistance. There is also very little chance a technologically developed intelligent species stays on its homeworld until it has learned to capture every incoming watt of energy from its star. Humanity will almost certainly have spread across much of the Solar System before achieving full Type I. It is conceivable that in the century or two it takes us to reach that status we may have even spread to a few neighboring stars.
Classification via energy use would also lead to troubles in comparing cultures that grew up around different types of stars with different energy outputs. A hypothetical civilization around a cooler (than the Sun) K-type star might achieve Type I status earlier than us even though we may have similar technological capabilities. A society developing on Mars otherwise identical to ours would reach Type I more rapidly simply because less Solar energy falls on the planet—meaning less total energy usage would be necessary to qualify for Type I standing. Living around a smaller, cooler star would also allow a civilization to be classified as Type II more readily than one around a hotter G or F-type, even if at a given point in development they commanded identical amounts of energy and had similar levels of technology.
Alternative Scales
There are numerous, less well known scales that have been proposed both by scientists and science fiction writers.
Carl Sagan
One alternative to Kardashev was suggested by Carl Sagan when he wrote, “But there may be more significant ways to characterize civilizations than by the energy they use…An important criterion of a civilization is the total amount of information that it stores.” He proposed a lettered scale from A to Z where each letter meant an order of magnitude increase in the volume of information a society holds. When he wrote the book in the early 70s, Earth was an ‘H’ on the scale. We are now somewhere around an ‘R,’ and are continuing to move rapidly on down the alphabet due to exponential increases in computer speed, along with data generation and storage technologies. Though in principal not a bad idea, Sagan seems to have underestimated how rapidly we are creating new data, and as of 2024 we’d already hit with 149 zettabytes (a zettabyte is 1 with 23 zeros after it), with projections that it could grow to 394 zettabytes by 2028. It is also difficult to determine what data should count. For instance, if a million copies of a best selling book are printed, does every letter in every book only count once, or a million times? Or if a digital picture is shared widely, perhaps as part of a viral meme, does it count once or is every new share a piece of data?
John Barrow
Another interesting proposition made by astrophysicist John Barrow suggests comparing civilizations by the decreasing size of objects they are capable of manipulating. A Type I-minus society can control large scale objects; doing things like building, breaking and combining materials into useful implements and structures. This level would include all of human history until about the middle of the 1900s. Type II-minus civilizations engage in endeavours like genetic engineering, and organ transplantation (natural or artificial); essentially giving them increasing control over the molecules and processes of life. Type III-minus can manipulate molecules and create metamaterials, which means that our current status is pretty much a combination of Types II and III-minus. A Type IV-minus culture has mastered nanotechnology and the ability to create artificial life; both of which we may achieve this century. Beyond that, a Type V-minus culture can engineer the nucleus of atoms, allowing for things like easy transmutation of elements. Such a knowledge base would literally allow one to fulfill the alchemist’s dream of turning lead into gold (which we actually just did, if only briefly). The last two levels are Type VI-minus, who are able to control matter at its most basic level of elementary particles; and Type Ω-minus which can alter space and time to their hearts content.
Being inverted relative to most other ways of measurement makes it interesting, but some issues crop up with Barrow’s scale—one being that a civilization could easily undertake levels II through IV simultaneously, as we more or less are. Also, it is rather ambiguous in places. Does the development of fission and fusion qualify us for Type V-minus status? They allow us to transform elements under some circumstances, though we certainly cannot yet engineer the nuclei of atoms at will. Thirdly, it will always be problematic trying to predict future technologies far beyond where one’s society is at. For instance, we know that advanced nanotechnology and the creation of artificial life is almost certainly possible, and something we will probably master. But is it possible to engineer subatomic or elementary particles at will? Maybe, maybe not.
Arthur C. Clarke
In his book The Fountains of Paradise, Arthur C. Clark outlines a civilizational scale based on humanity’s conversations with an intelligent alien probe they christen ‘Starglider.’ The species which built Starglider decided that due to the almost infinite variety of possible cultures, the only objective way to classify them was based on level of technology—“Humanity was interested to discover that it came in Category Five on a scale that used these approximate stages: 1) Stone tools. 2) Metals, fire. 3) Writing, handicrafts, ships. 4) Steam power, basic science. 5) Atomic energy, space travel…Six, characterized by the ability to convert matter completely into energy, and to transmute all elements on an industrial scale.” There is apparently a category seven, but unfortunately for our purposes here Starglider was forbidden to reveal it to humanity. Which was actually a good decision on Clarke’s part in terms of making a useful scale; because as mentioned before, it is extremely difficult to know how technological ability will advance in the centuries and millennia ahead.
Predicting future developments in science and technology is a little like forecasting the weather. The short term is fairly accurate, though surprises are always possible; but the further out you look, the more you’re just guessing. Arthur C. Clarke wisely saw that, and his scale reflects it. Whether those specific technological brackets are the best for grading cultures is up for debate; but the idea of using groups of roughly contemporaneous technological developments is a helpful one. So long as you do not try to forecast too far ahead.
Star Trek
Though it does not give a detailed breakdown of levels, any discussion of civilizational progression would be incomplete without looking at Star Trek. In all its incarnations, the biggest cultural divider is between warp and pre-warp civilizations. Interference in pre-warp societies is forbidden by the Prime Directive, and despite numerous episodes premised on this rule getting bent or broken, it remained one of the basic tenants of the United Federation of Planets. In the Star Trek movie First Contact the inventor of warp technology on Earth, Zefram Cochrane, pilots his experimental warp-capable ship, thereby inadvertently attracting the interest of some nearby Vulcans; who realize that humans are technologically advanced enough to contact. Now as far as we know, there is no galactic community association watching till we reach a certain threshold of development before they contact us—but who knows, maybe when the first human explorers arrive at Alpha Centauri there will be a coterie of alien ships waiting there to welcome us to the club.
In addition to the development of a faster-than-light warp drive, other qualifications of an advanced society are mentioned throughout the various series; like a unified planetary government, and the end of money—at least when it comes to affairs within the Federation. Captain Picard declares that “We’ve overcome hunger and greed, and we’re no longer interested in the accumulation of things.” Definitely goals worth striving for in our own civilization; and just maybe one day we’ll crack the problem of warp speed travel too.
Robert Zubrin
Lastly, consider the measurement scale set out by Mars Society founder Dr. Robert Zubrin. In his book, The Case for Space, he classifies civilizations roughly as follows: Type 1, a planetary civilization characterized by exploiting the resources of one’s home planet. All civilizations would by default start as an early Type 1, with hunter-gatherer societies being at the bottom end, or barely registering at all. The advent of agriculture and building permanent (or semi-permanent) villages being as good a spot as any to declare the beginning of a civilization’s climb towards a mature Type 1 society; which would be characterized by the mastery of resources on the homeworld. Right now, we are a fairly mature Type 1 civilization, both capable of and actively exploiting most any resource on Earth that we either require or desire.
A Type 2 civilizations is one actively using the riches of its stellar system. This means it has expanded beyond the bounds of its homeworld, and is busy colonizing the system, and mining resources from asteroids and moons. Right now, we are at the edge of becoming a young Type 2 civilization—right on the cusp of building bases and even settlements on the Moon and Mars. There is every reason to expect asteroid mining within the next decade or two as well. This would make us an immature Type 2 civilization, even though on the Kardashev Scale we would not yet be a Type I.
Type 3 Civilizations are interstellar. They have spread beyond their home system and have begun to colonize neighbouring stars. With current technology, it is possible we could already send small probes to nearby systems. Indeed, the Breakthrough Starshot initiative proposes to do exactly that with banks of lasers pushing tiny “nanocraft” with attached solar sails to significant fractions of the speed of light, enabling them to reach Alpha Centauri within a couple decades. However impressive and fascinating a project like that is, accomplishing it is not enough to lift us to Type 3 status. Just like sending numerous space probes throughout our own Solar System didn’t make us a Type 2 civilization, so transforming ourselves into a Type 3 interstellar one will require more than sending a few probes to nearby stars. We will need to go in person and begin to build lives for ourselves and our children under the light of other suns.
A Better Scale
It could be argued that compared to most other scales Zubrin’s is less rigid, but that appears to be somewhat the point. Real life—and real civilizations—have few hard boundaries and are tougher to put in a tidy box than a scale like Kardashev’s would suggest. Out of all the methods for comparing civilizations discussed here, Robert Zubrin’s is probably the one that best reflects the actual path taken as our society developed, and where it’s likely headed. Though we can’t know for sure until we find one, it’s reasonable to assume that if intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations exist they’ll develop in a broadly similar manner to ours. Meaning they’ll start as planetary societies, move out into their system, and eventually if all goes well colonize other stars. If more detail is desired when attempting to classify a civilization, some version of the specific technology-based method used by Arthur C. Clarke could be enlisted to add subcategories to the one offered by Zubrin. Ultimately of course any scale attempting to measure the level a civilization has reached will be somewhat arbitrary; but as Clarke observed, the only way to classify a culture as objectively as possible—whether our own or that of another intelligent species—is to use a technological scale to do it. Any other criterion will simply be too subjective to forge a useful measurement tool.
I’ll be back next Saturday with your regular Techno-Optimist newsletter. Thank you all for reading—and until next time, keep your eyes on the horizon.
-Owen
This is a great article, Owen. I hadn't known about all of these other scales for measuring the progress of civilizations.
As I was writing my recent essay, Scaling Kardashev, it became clear that it's exceedingly difficult to measure progress over long time scales. GDP and GDP per capita seem to be good proxies for progress in the short term, as we expect that economic growth is both a consequence of and a contributor to human advancement.
Kadashev's genius was to create a more fundamental metric, tying the measure of progress to energy capture, which holds better across longer timescales. But a focus solely on energy use seems incorrect and can be misleading.
Ian Morris modifies Kardashev by adding three other metrics to try and resolve this sole focus on energy consumption, though, as I wrote, I am not too thrilled about the metrics he chose. He seems to be trying to measure proxies for knowledge alongside energy use, whether he realizes it or not.
As I was writing this, I began to wonder if we could create a new metric that would be even more accurate. Seems to me, Progress = Energy x Knowledge. We all agree that energy and knowledge are key components to progress. I also think they are the most fundamental metrics from which we can measure progress.
We can have knowledge, but without energy, we cannot do anything with it. We can have energy, but without knowledge, we cannot do anything either. Both depend upon the other and unlock the other. It's almost as if we could build a better scale by blending the Kardashev scale (energy) with Zurbin's (knowledge).