Kardashev's Blind Spot

In 1964, Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev proposed a system by which to classify civilizations based on their energy consumption: the more energy a civilization is able to harness and expend, the more advanced they are classified.

The idea has found fertile ground in science fiction, where it forms one of the assumptions by which some writers develop their alien worlds. Extreme resource use is shown as shorthand for advancement or power. The so-called Kardashev Scale contributes to the way we envision a future for humanity, and how that future is shaped around technological complexity, energy management. Everything is plugged in, everything is charging up, everything draws from a source.

There’s a glaring issue with this fundamental element of science fiction theory: the baked-in implication that societies which consume more energy are more advanced. This mistake has two prongs: the social element, and the efficiency element.

The efficiency mistake—
A society which is technologically complex can also develop methods to conserve energy such that the total expenditure and draw are minimized, and in fact, is pushed to do so in order to maximize energy use efficiency, but such an efficient society would not be building massive Dyson Spheres or other global or stellar – scale megaprojects until necessary. The Goldblum joke from Jurassic Park is in play: “Just because you could do it, doesn’t mean you should do it.” They would rate lower on the Kardashev scale accordingly, despite having better organized their energy relationship.

The social mistake—
The second element, the social one, is more nuanced and, I feel, even more forgotten in analysis of societal advancement. The misplaced assumption in the first element is that one should maximize energy exploitation. The second element is the mistaken assumption that energy exploitation is intrinsically more advanced than a society that forgoes or limits their energy use in favor of other developments. Physicist Michio Kaku proposed instead a ranking based on the exchange of knowledge as a measure of advancement, which escapes some pitfalls but ensnares itself in others.

However, there is a deeper issue entirely: the notion that social civilizations can be ranked in some manner of comparable advancement at all. This presupposes a common goal, a common ethos, and assigns arbitration to the proposing entity of the classification system. It’s the behavior of imperialists to want to put things into boxes, neatly labeled and separated, because in this way they are able to conquer their fear of the unknown, to render familiar and classifiable. Imperialists feel unfettered expansion, control, and dominion are signs of superior organization. That all must be ranked and placed accordingly in the established hierarchies of power and influence. Those other civilizations on distant worlds are probably looking back toward us and doing the same thing, congratulating themselves on being so smart, too.