Comments on: Toward a Type I Civilization

By: Rohitassa

Rohitassa — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:50:33 +0000

There is a website promoting Type 1 Civilization. Please join this movement ….
http://www.unitedearthlings.com/vision/about-type-1-civilization/

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:45:22 +0000

Considering the individual and small-group orientation of human psychology, our ‘nature,’ combined with wealth accumulation and power dynamics I wonder if ‘Democratic Capitalism’ can ever truly steer us towards a Type 1.0 civilization?

Does ‘Democratic Capitalism’ evolve significantly if 100% of the world adopts it? When I picture today’s DC countries duplicated and supplanting everyone else it’s very hard to imagine ‘free knowledge’ or the political will to solve survival issues requiring resources and focus spanning multiple generations.

By: Running Gag

Running Gag — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:28:56 +0000

William Mook, I thoroughly enjoyed your posts. Thank you for being a shining beacon of intelligence in a tumultuous sea of utter nonsense.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:52:38 +0000

I dont think researching renewable energy would cost so much since we already have it. I think its the big coperations who already have their money preventing such things. We have wind,solar,hydro,thermal energies. If anything wouldnt it cost more to improve the technology?

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:29:50 +0000

To the contrary. Human civilization sat in a state of perpetual poverty until the American Revolution and the introduction of complete protection of property rights, including intellectual property. I also must object to the equating political discussion with the results of painstaking research. Such research can cost millions of dollars to produce and the type of system of government you would advocate would permit the cowardly theft of such work. Putting aside for the moment that not just research, but authors and artists of every type would stop in mass if condemned to slavery as reward for their contributions, the refusing of people access to the courts as a means of keeping that which is theirs is completely immoral. I can think of view notions more totalitarian than the idea that one does not even have the right to what goes on in their own mind. Sure, protect the land owners, protect the corporations, protect the factories, the farms, the mines, the home owners, the car drivers, these are all good things, but why do you say that the thinker shall be stripped of his rights?

By: Michael Andrew Thompson

Michael Andrew Thompson — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:54:42 +0000

On the scale listed above mankind managed to move right ahead WITHOUT copyrights and so I am confident that it would continue to do so without them. Think about it, everyone here has contributed to this “Book” and did so without demanding payment or copyright. Take a read on any scientific BBS and your mind will be put at ease in regards to life without copyrights.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:17:07 +0000

“Real” property rights being what, a right to what other people have?

Fascist.

Nothing could be more totalitarian than the notion that you do not even have the right to what is in your own mind.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:51:33 +0000

But that is against individual property rights

No it isn’t. Copyright is in opposition to (real) property rights.

By: William Mook

William Mook — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:16:53 +0000

# 1960′s: Howard Temin knew that retrovirus genomes were composed of RNA and observed that replication was inhibited by actinomycin D (inhibits DNA synthesis therefore he proposed the concept of reverse transcription (Nobel prize awarded to Baltimore and Temin, 1975).

# 1969: Huebner and Todaro proposed the viral oncogene hypothesis – the transmission of viral and oncogenic information as genetic elements (rather than as a pathogenic response to a virus) – explains the vertical (germ line) transmission of ‘cancers’, first observed by Gross, 1951.

# 1970s: Richard Nixon’s ‘war on cancer’ (post Kennedy space programme – the race to the moon) – failed to find any retroviral agents which cause human cancer (many false alarms – but did pump a lot of money into biomedical research).

# 1981: Human T-cell leukaemia virus discovered, the first pathogenic human retrovirus.

# 1983: Human immunodeficiency virus discovered.

Retroviruses which have been around for as long as humans have existed become a serious problem the very decades humans discover them and come to understand them.

This suggests some sort of causal connection between our understanding and the existence of these diseases.

What would motivate such a development? Why would anyone create such a STD?

Humans are facing a die off due to resource depletion and over-population. A new disease that sweeps through society and reduces population levels to 1/10th their current level might be considered a godsend – if one controlled the disease.

Society is facing fundamental shifts due to changing sexual mores rising from the ability to control reproduction at will. Many of these ancient mores find a new meaning in an era when sexual license runs the risk of certain death.

Obviously this isn’t proof of anything. Just interesting ideas related to the recent spread of this important retrovirus among humans.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 04:54:30 +0000

The economy is not a zero-sum game. Globalization is a win-win game, a world of trade and fair exchange. I recommend Mr. Shermer’s book “The Mind of the Market” on this topic.