How To Create an interstellar-Capable Civilization

[Stelio Kontos]

That's a civilization.

But an interstellar civilization is a group of species that collects scientific knowledge, creates technology from that knowledge and uses it to explore the universe. That is what an interstellar civilization is, their focus is on becoming a library of knowledge and trying to connect with all the other intelligent civilizations in the universe working towards a common goal and that is gaining more knowledge.

Why don't you let folks define what sort of civilization they'd like to be a part of? Science is not the be-all and end-all.

A "civilization" of cultureless, homogeneous, emotionless lab-tech drones with no music, art, culture, or anything meaningul sounds more like an insect hive and less like a true civilization.

- - - Updated - - -

And while we're at it, this is the perfect topic to pull out a quote from from another MMO-Champion poster, Tigercat:

"Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hatred, religion, war, or violence.
I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming."

[Deleted]

I have now summited this to NETFLIX.
you clearly have some kind of issues going on in your life, I suggest you find help.
unless you're some kind of Nobel prize winning mad man you have no reason to even consider such thoughts.
you need therapy.

[Deleted]

Why don't you let folks define what sort of civilization they'd like to be a part of? Science is not the be-all and end-all.

A "civilization" of cultureless, homogeneous, emotionless lab-tech drones with no music, art, culture, or anything meaningul sounds more like an insect hive and less like a true civilization.

Because it is science that has gotten us here and it will be the primary reason for our existence for a very long time until we can reach a state where we are immortal and no longer require science in order to function.

Knowledge is art, it is meaningful and beautiful at the same time. To learn what a single atom truly contains to learning just how vast and incredible our universe is, to learning about insane phenomenons such as black holes and what they could contain is absolute poetry in the purest form. It is enlightening and we should all learn to appreciate the fact that it is knowledge that has gotten us here in the first place through scientific research.

Music, art, culture are all things of the past. Things must change in order to allow our species to survive, it isn't an option but a necessity for our species. If we don't change our society and the way we think as human beings then we most certainly will die out. We must learn to let go of our toys and move on so our future generations don't live their lives in misery and possibly never reach the stars.

Our species has behaved like a multi-stage rocket, where each stage belongs to a period in human history that has boosted humans up to the next stage.

Caveman stage

Tribal stage

Medieval stage

Digital age stage (current)

Each one has been a stage in the rocket, pushing us towards the next period of human history allowing us to amass more knowledge, technology and discover more. Soon, the rocket cannot move any longer and the humans must use all the knowledge they've amassed from each stage to create a brand new rocket that will propel them further AKA my theoretical society. What I am saying is that we all have a duty to push our species to the next stage and let them take over from there.

[Stelio Kontos]

Because it is science that has gotten us here and it will be the primary reason for our existence for a very long time until we can reach a state where we are immortal and no longer require science in order to function.

Knowledge is art, it is meaningful and beautiful at the same time. To learn what a single atom truly contains to learning just how vast and incredible our universe is, to learning about insane phenomenons such as black holes and what they could contain is absolute poetry in the purest form. It is enlightening and we should all learn to appreciate the fact that it is knowledge that has gotten us here in the first place through scientific research.

Music, art, culture are all things of the past. Things must change in order to allow our species to survive, it isn't an option but a necessity for our species. If we don't change our society and the way we think as human beings then we most certainly will die out. We must learn to let go of our toys and move on so our future generations don't live their lives in misery and possibly never reach the stars.

Our species has behaved like a multi-stage rocket, where each stage belongs to a period in human history that has boosted humans up to the next stage.

Caveman stage

Tribal stage

Medieval stage

Digital age stage (current)

Each one has been a stage in the rocket, pushing us towards the next period of human history allowing us to amass more knowledge, technology and discover more. Soon, the rocket cannot move any longer and the humans must use all the knowledge they've amassed from each stage to create a brand new rocket that will propel them further AKA my theoretical society. What I am saying is that we all have a duty to push our species to the next stage and let them take over from there.

Nah, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd rather we get as far as we can while maintaining who we are rather than become mindless Borg drones in search of the next technological update.

[Deleted]

And while we're at it, this is the perfect topic to pull out a quote from from another MMO-Champion poster, Tigercat:

"Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hatred, religion, war, or violence.
I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming."

That quote is very true and that's exactly why I'm asking for help in developing this theory. Because while I may seem like I have all the answers, I don't. It is still a work in progress and I wish people would help me instead of try to fight me when it is about the survival of the human race.

[Stelio Kontos]

That quote is very true and that's exactly why I'm asking for help in developing this theory. Because while I may seem like I have all the answers, I don't. It is still a work in progress and I wish people would help me instead of try to fight me when it is about the survival of the human race.

Why? I'd probably be okay with attacking an illegal colony set up of machine-raised biological drones (not humans, since they lack culture or identity).

And if humans didn't attack them, you're making a huge assumption that no extraterrestrials, if they're out there stalking about, wouldn't attack them.

[Deleted]

Nah, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd rather we get as far as we can while maintaining who we are rather than become mindless Borg drones in search of the next technological update.

Your selfish traits are beginning to show, you would rather force the future humans to live a miserable life so you can keep your idea of what it means to be human for your own needs? Believe it or not but that's the influence and teachings of the four pillars of society kicking in there, you have learned to love this "this is who we are as humans" idea. But it is incredibly naive and sets us on a destructive path that helps nobody but yourselves while you have limited lives.

Do you not want to help your own species?

[Stelio Kontos]

Do you not want to help your own species?

Not really, especially if we lose everything that makes us human in the process.

Probably better to liquidate us before we become some bio-mechanical or cybernetic plague for other species to deal with.

[Deleted]

Why? I'd probably be okay with attacking an illegal colony set up of machine-raised biological drones (not humans, since they lack culture or identity).

And if humans didn't attack them, you're making a huge assumption that no extraterrestrials, if they're out there stalking about, wouldn't attack them.

Their identity would be their scientific knowledge, technology and what they've discovered. They would not be mindless drones like you think they would be, you are afraid of what you don't understand. You don't understand any other way to live except through your own society's way and that is what blinding us all from seeing the bigger picture and what we could potentially achieve.

You would be okay with murdering people just because they valued knowledge over selfish traits like culture? That is very disturbing, Stelio.

[Deleted]

Because it is science that has gotten us here and it will be the primary reason for our existence for a very long time until we can reach a state where we are immortal and no longer require science in order to function.

Knowledge is art, it is meaningful and beautiful at the same time. To learn what a single atom truly contains to learning just how vast and incredible our universe is, to learning about insane phenomenons such as black holes and what they could contain is absolute poetry in the purest form. It is enlightening and we should all learn to appreciate the fact that it is knowledge that has gotten us here in the first place through scientific research.

Music, art, culture are all things of the past. Things must change in order to allow our species to survive, it isn't an option but a necessity for our species. If we don't change our society and the way we think as human beings then we most certainly will die out. We must learn to let go of our toys and move on so our future generations don't live their lives in misery and possibly never reach the stars.

Our species has behaved like a multi-stage rocket, where each stage belongs to a period in human history that has boosted humans up to the next stage.

Caveman stage

Tribal stage

Medieval stage

Digital age stage (current)

Each one has been a stage in the rocket, pushing us towards the next period of human history allowing us to amass more knowledge, technology and discover more. Soon, the rocket cannot move any longer and the humans must use all the knowledge they've amassed from each stage to create a brand new rocket that will propel them further AKA my theoretical society. What I am saying is that we all have a duty to push our species to the next stage and let them take over from there.

Your selfish traits are beginning to show, you would rather force the future humans to live a miserable life so you can keep your idea of what it means to be human for your own needs? Believe it or not but that's the influence and teachings of the four pillars of society kicking in there, you have learned to love this "this is who we are as humans" idea. But it is incredibly naive and sets us on a destructive path that helps nobody but yourselves while you have limited lives.

Do you not want to help your own species?

in what way is it selfish to not forcibly alter a peoples way of life and not remove please from life for multiple planets worth of unborn humanoid insects?

[Deleted]

Not really, especially if we lose everything that makes us human in the process.

Probably better to liquidate us before we become some bio-mechanical or cybernetic plague for other species to deal with.

How would we be a plague when we would only want to learn more? We would try to meet other species to learn from them and hopefully merge with them.

What you think that makes us human is an illusion.

- - - Updated - - -

in what way is it selfish to not forcibly alter a peoples way of life and not remove please from life for multiple planets worth of unborn humanoid insects?

It isn't by force but by necessary change in order to allow us to survive and advance as a civilization to the next stage, which every single type 1 or 2 civilization has very likely done several million years ago when they were in our situation.

It's just the fact that you can't see past a world without your society, you are close minded and only see one way and you will likely use violence to achieve it. Does that not show you that your society is still primitive as it still brings out the primitive side in human beings? Do you not at least agree with that notion?

[Stelio Kontos]

OP, out of curiosity, are you on the spectrum?

[Deleted]

OP, out of curiosity, are you on the spectrum?

No, I understand what you're trying to say but it's very difficult to show you just how primitive and outdated our society is. You want to hold onto your old ideals and way of life even if it means the entire human race suffers and kills each other. Don't you understand that we won't be able to live like this for much longer, the Great Filter will force us to change our way of life or we will all be extinct within the next millennium.

I understand the sentiment and believe me, I actually like the little quirks of this society that makes us "imperfect" and everything. But from a purely logical standpoint, it's going to kill us. The sun is beautiful, but if you stare at it with your bare eyes for too long you'll go blind. It's that kind of thing, humans love the way their lives are at the moment but don't realize that it's deadly and will be the cause of our destruction.

[truckboattruck]

- - - Updated - - -



If the way you explain it is going to get you an infraction then I'm not entirely sure if we're on the same page here... Do explain anyway, lol.

i can't, there is always a mod looking to make uncle joe stalin proud.

suffice it to say, genetics dictate potential.
pretending otherwise has done nothing but hold us back and stifle progress.

[tiki854]

It's good that you like to think about such abstract concepts, and that you actually write your ideas down. Intellectual pursuit is a worthy cause both for yourself in the real world now, and as you briefly described in this post for all of us well into the future. How you've summarized your thoughts on the ideal potential for Man, both in how you present these thoughts and the reasoning behind them, is worrisome.

On your presentation, it is extremely arrogant to say that you've considered all possible outcomes and have deeply considered every potentiality of every suggestion you make. Each of these pillars of society that you wish to abolish, each one can be split into thousands of specific areas of study that warrant many lifetimes of rigorous examination before they can be so summarily dismantled and dismissed. Take, for example, the notion of no currency. It is highly unlikely that you've read all the literature surrounding this idea and have deeply and meticulously assembled all the arguments for having currency, why it's necessary, and then disassembled them one by one with flawless logic. No one person could achieve such an undertaking, and that goes for just one subset of arguments to be made about wealth, currency and trade, let alone the grand notion of removing currency altogether.

Let's try and consider one argument/scenario, though this may be repetitive for you as you've considered all that can be thought: Having food, water, shelter, and so on cannot be enough because there will always be luxury goods, things that are desired but rare. You will likely counter by saying that your humans would never desire any good beyond what they could efficiently acquire and thus no conflict from rare goods could arise. To that I'd counter that if all these humans are interested in is gathering knowledge, then things related to that pursuit that are un-shareable will be in conflict. To which you'd counter that they'd be shared and used to their maximum value. To which I'd counter by saying, think about a situation in which a rare item for scientific study suddenly comes about, and multiple researchers disagree on how to best put it to use for this grand pursuit of knowledge. They have differing ideas on how it could be most efficiently utilized, thus conflict arises. You might say that such a conflict would never happen, but does that mean everyone just agrees on everything? If there is no disagreement, then wouldn't scientific progress would be slowed to a near halt? And doesn't this possibly lend itself to the idea that conflict is one of the great inducers to the achieving of knowledge, and so the inequalities afforded by wealth and dreams of acquiring it spur greatness? Maybe you have an answer to that scenario, but that is one of infinite in just that small section of study that you so easily topple with arrogance. I haven't read your manifesto, but it cannot be that you've thought of everything, so possibly take that portion out of your spouting to make yourself and your ideas more credible.

Furthermore, the center of all of your arguments, the very core reasoning as to why this species would be the ideal, is that survival is of the utmost importance more than anything else. It's a classic argument made in different forms and to differing degrees. A pursuit of knowledge, as you have put it, is only as good as it extends the total life span of humanity. And to say that curiosity can be in its own realm of significance alongside survival seems drastically opposed to the cultureless, emotionless humans you've laid out that desire nothing more from an experiment than to spark another experiment. It all seems awfully grim to me, and I'm sure many others would agree, both alive today and the greatest minds past, that they'd rather see humanity's flame extinguished in the near future while it still flickers, rather than dim to an unbearably cold and grotesque gasp of darkness that seeks nothing more than its own feeding.

[Talsar]

Historically strife (read: war) and desire (read: greed, jealousy, etc) have been the greatest driving forces behind invention and scientific progress. What evidence have you that upon removal of those forces we will not, as a race, stagnate technologically, or at least slow down our progress by a large factor?

That aside, I agree that the human race limits itself by refusing to pool it's resources, however i disagree that cutting pieces out of people is the way to solve this. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, I think society will shift towards unity eventually. Look back on the progress in even the last 100-200 years. We have made great strides, I believe, though some nations have been left behind in this progress.

People who suggest such drastic measures seem to always be acting under the assumption that all humanity's problems need to be solved in one lifetime. This is entirely unfeasible and impractical (and as far as we know unnecessary). Civilizations don't change that quickly without being forced, and when people have such changes forced upon them they have a tendency to push back, violently.

We don't need to edit people's brains, or take away human rights. All we need to do is do our best to nudge society in the direction of unity in our own lifetimes, and educate our children to continue our work when we're gone.

[Deleted]

Historically strife (read: war) and desire (read: greed, jealousy, etc) have been the greatest driving forces behind invention and scientific progress. What evidence have you that upon removal of those forces we will not, as a race, stagnate technologically, or at least slow down our progress by a large factor?

That aside, I agree that the human race limits itself by refusing to pool it's resources, however i disagree that cutting pieces out of people is the way to solve this. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, I think society will shift towards unity eventually. Look back on the progress in even the last 100-200 years. We have made great strides, I believe, though some nations have been left behind in this progress.

People who suggest such drastic measures seem to always be acting under the assumption that all humanity's problems need to be solved in one lifetime. This is entirely unfeasible and impractical (and as far as we know unnecessary). Civilizations don't change that quickly without being forced, and when people have such changes forced upon them they have a tendency to push back, violently.

We don't need to edit people's brains, or take away human rights. All we need to do is do our best to nudge society in the direction of unity in our own lifetimes, and educate our children to continue our work when we're gone.

I never said this theory would happen in a short period of time, I said it wouldn't be likely to happen for another 500 - 1,000 years. Maybe even longer depending on the circumstances of what the future brings for us.

Also your idea won't work, that was my original concept for my theory which was to slowly integrate it into society over decades and centuries. But the fact that the human brain cannot let go of the old is why we must start fresh and anew by sending embryos to another world that will have a fresh, clean slate for a mind. The humans of the year 2500 will still be influenced by everything we have here today, and the humans of the year 3,000 will still have these kinds of influences around. It will never end until we "destroy the ring of power" once and for all. It's like the ring of power from the Lord of the Rings, it survives through the greed of men, while the ring lives men will forever be miserable and never advance.

Currency, religion, culture and government all feed on the emotions and desires of human being which is why they are still around today, they are like leeches.

[frogger237]

1. Emotion is one of the key motivators for invention.

2. Why would this new society even care about learning more knowledge?

3. If you are going to just create an emotionless machine race why not just create a robot that only cares about learning/inventing?

4. Even if you altered everyone and gave them super intellect you aren't guaranteed a break-thru and dividing resources between a couple million people working on X will most likely mean an even slower pace at learning something.

5. Who does what? You are going to need a government to tell people what job they need to do.

6. Eventually cultures will form on their own, you really think the engineer people are going to behave the same as someone studying planets and the races effects on the planet? Also your going to need to make em all one race and appearance or eventually they will have preferences for one appearance over another.

Prob more problems with your "theory" but its really long and you coulda prob not said theory as much as you did so I've forgotten most of the post.

[Deleted]

It's good that you like to think about such abstract concepts, and that you actually write your ideas down. Intellectual pursuit is a worthy cause both for yourself in the real world now, and as you briefly described in this post for all of us well into the future. How you've summarized your thoughts on the ideal potential for Man, both in how you present these thoughts and the reasoning behind them, is worrisome.

On your presentation, it is extremely arrogant to say that you've considered all possible outcomes and have deeply considered every potentiality of every suggestion you make. Each of these pillars of society that you wish to abolish, each one can be split into thousands of specific areas of study that warrant many lifetimes of rigorous examination before they can be so summarily dismantled and dismissed. Take, for example, the notion of no currency. It is highly unlikely that you've read all the literature surrounding this idea and have deeply and meticulously assembled all the arguments for having currency, why it's necessary, and then disassembled them one by one with flawless logic. No one person could achieve such an undertaking, and that goes for just one subset of arguments to be made about wealth, currency and trade, let alone the grand notion of removing currency altogether.

Let's try and consider one argument/scenario, though this may be repetitive for you as you've considered all that can be thought: Having food, water, shelter, and so on cannot be enough because there will always be luxury goods, things that are desired but rare. You will likely counter by saying that your humans would never desire any good beyond what they could efficiently acquire and thus no conflict from rare goods could arise. To that I'd counter that if all these humans are interested in is gathering knowledge, then things related to that pursuit that are un-shareable will be in conflict. To which you'd counter that they'd be shared and used to their maximum value. To which I'd counter by saying, think about a situation in which a rare item for scientific study suddenly comes about, and multiple researchers disagree on how to best put it to use for this grand pursuit of knowledge. They have differing ideas on how it could be most efficiently utilized, thus conflict arises. You might say that such a conflict would never happen, but does that mean everyone just agrees on everything? If there is no disagreement, then wouldn't scientific progress would be slowed to a near halt? And doesn't this possibly lend itself to the idea that conflict is one of the great inducers to the achieving of knowledge, and so the inequalities afforded by wealth and dreams of acquiring it spur greatness? Maybe you have an answer to that scenario, but that is one of infinite in just that small section of study that you so easily topple with arrogance. I haven't read your manifesto, but it cannot be that you've thought of everything, so possibly take that portion out of your spouting to make yourself and your ideas more credible.

Furthermore, the center of all of your arguments, the very core reasoning as to why this species would be the ideal, is that survival is of the utmost importance more than anything else. It's a classic argument made in different forms and to differing degrees. A pursuit of knowledge, as you have put it, is only as good as it extends the total life span of humanity. And to say that curiosity can be in its own realm of significance alongside survival seems drastically opposed to the cultureless, emotionless humans you've laid out that desire nothing more from an experiment than to spark another experiment. It all seems awfully grim to me, and I'm sure many others would agree, both alive today and the greatest minds past, that they'd rather see humanity's flame extinguish in the near future while it still flickers, rather than dim to a unbearably cold and grotesque gasp of darkness that seeks nothing more than its own feeding.

You read the other MMO-Champion thread? Because that's where I wrote the "I've thought of everything" bit, which I copied and pasted from my Notepad document and forgot to take that out. It was more like a personal diary comment where I was struggling to think of ways to dismantle my own theory.

I'll say it again; the four pillars of society are primitive concepts that cause a lot of friction and problems in society because of how they have a natural symbiosis with human emotions and desires. This causes humans to behave in certain ways and lead to conflict in every form.

Yes, you're right with how conflict can still happen. I never said my theory was perfect and I did say I needed help with it because I can't do it all alone. Remember when I said that I wrote in my personal diary about trying to dismantle my own theory? That's because I'm just one person and I need help from different scientists and people in different fields. But that's the problem exactly, you can't see a world without culture, religion and all the other four pillars of society. But I can, and it's a bright future full of wonderful potential and opportunities. Nothing like the grim world you consider it to be at all, it only seems grim to you because it's outlandish and you've never experienced it before yourself. It only seems grim because it is devoid of all the things you've been taught to treasure, value and love. Of course it'd seem creepy, grim and dark. But what about what the humans who would live in that society? How would they feel? Maybe to them, it's an amazing experience and they couldn't imagine a world without their values and dedication to science and knowledge.

I have already explained the multi-stage rocket analogy and how it applies to my theory and is an extremely crucial part; this theoretical society is not the be all and end of all for human civilization. It is simply another beginning, another stage to boost humanity to the next stage where they will create a new society completely different from the last to adapt to the technology and challenges they will face in their time. This theoretical society will serve as a home for the humans of that time for many centuries or millennia until the need to create a new society arises and what they may come up with could be extremely foreign to any of us, it may even sound illogical or insane. But because of the knowledge they've amassed over the years, they will most likely have the data to accurately create a perfect society that will adapt to their challenges in the future.

This multi-stage rocket does not stop until the human race finds a way to become immortal and be incapable of destroying themselves and at the same time be intelligent and mature enough to not attack others. That's the whole point of this theory like I've been saying so many times, it isn't the end of everything.

The humans are not even emotionless because they will retain happiness, excitement and all the other positive-type emotions that do not produce conflict in humans. So, I don't understand why everybody keeps saying they will be emotionless drones when they won't be.

What would really be nice is instead of attacking my theory and rejecting it because it goes against your values, try to see eye to eye with it and understand that it isn't about us but about the future humans. Their happiness, well-being and survival comes first before anything else because if we die out then all those years our species has been around for has all been for nothing. I wouldn't even be surprised if there was an intelligent civilization out there waiting for us to evolve and finally reach a type 1 civilization so they can contact us at last.

Don't you believe that every other intelligent civilization out there in the universe had to make drastic changes to their way of life and society in order to evolve and survive? Everything changes and we always view change as a bad thing because we're too used to our current iteration of things. Why are you so against change when it means that we could potentially discover amazing things, gain amazing knowledge and create amazing technology that will defy all known science today? And at the same time, the humans will be happy because all they know is how to be happy as seeing as all the negative-type emotions are eliminated.

[Rustedsaint]

Ya this will never ever happen to humans, and I actually hope it doesn’t because we would be nothing but animals dressed in sci-fi clothes
No currency is fine and there are ways are no government(massive internet polls for deciding group issues)
But no religion or culture? You will have to lobotomize the majority of the human race including yourself to achieve no culture, since spoiler alert you do have your own biases that your talking about right in this thread.
And religion will only die out when the last sentient creature dies in the universe, even the most die hard atheists would take a moment to pray the moments before their deaths.