Humanity destroying a Type III civilization

[stijnovic]

I would think that a Type III civilization could support many different levels of intelligence and moral, much like our current Type 0.xx civilization. So it would depend on coincidence which individual we would meet.

The scenario described by the OP, is more based on the difference in size of the individuals of a civilization, not the size/type of the civilization.

[Brabbit1987]

Oh yes. Iam mechnical engineer, i understand machines, not people. so it is entirely possible that i dont know much about this. If you are psychologist or sociologist than its certain, that you know far more about this than me.

Everithing i present here is just theory. And i presenting it for only two reasons:

1. i enjoy such discussions

2. i Strongly dissagree with this wydely acceptet idea, that more inteligent/advanced automaticaly means more moral. Because my experience with people, says otherwise.

I am not a psychologist, nor a sociologist, but I do study this sort of stuff either way. The problem is, do you consider people intelligent? You are absolutely right when you say your experiences with people say other wise. However, remember, we are not even a type I just yet.

Now is it possible, a type III could have bad morals? Yes, I suppose, but I feel it so unlikely due to the wars humanity already has with each other. Imagine if our morals stayed the same and we continued to do this, as our weapon get even more powerful. We could very well eventually destroy ourselves. Actually that is a big worry many theoretical physicists have about us becoming a type 1. Can we handle the transition from going to a war like race, to a peaceful working together race? That is pretty much what is required to transition with out destroying ourselves.

Now let me point this out to you. As time goes on, and humans become more intelligent, less wars occur. The human race used to go to war constantly stealing land all the time. Back during the time of the Romans, fighting used to be an entertainment for them. We used to own slaves. We used to kill people for being witches. We used to stone people to death. We used to kill anyone who didn't follow a certain god. Yet here we are, and it is nothing like that anymore, and you are telling me morals have nothing to do with intelligence? Try and think about that again. Our morals have already seen a massive change as our intelligence increased. It will only continue to happen more and more. Eventually no one will kill another person for some stupid reason.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[DrDima]

My geek sense is tingling, I have to joint the discussion now.

Let's assume that it takes two things to achieve type 3. Time and intelligence. Time, meaning a civilization probably would have to survive for many times the amount of time we've been around. And as Darwin says survival means adaptability. Meaning the civilization we would encounter would probably be very tough, and have specialized into different species who would be better at doing different things. Just as the cells in our body have specialized to do certain things, and just as different species on earth have specialized to deal with different things(and to a lesser extent, how people specialize to solve very large problems). As a relatively young civilization, we commonly use dogs, bacteria, mice, insects, etc.. to make our life easier and increase our chance of survival. Not to mention the fact that we've been enhancing ourselves with computers for the past half century.

Just as computers help us survive and be more efficient, I expect any lifeform to do the very same thing. Meaning we wouldn't face ONE genetical or mechanical strain, but probably a variety of them, some fast, some slow, some the size of a mountain, some smaller than a dust particle. So OP, sorry but I don't think the analogy works as scifi, it does make for a very fun script though.