Anyone knows some good tiers or ratings of civilization advancement

Tier 1: Advanced, capable of space travel
Tier 2: Advanced but not capable of space travel
Tier 3: Primitive, not capable of space travel
Tier 4: No civilization

>>43519515
Kardashev scale.

The Kardashev scale is one of the most well known and widely used, especially in a lot of fiction.

>>43519556
>>43519552

I posted the second quoted post, I wanted to ask this:

Isn't the KS wore about infrastructural development? It focuses on the energy harnessed by a civ based on space(Planet, Solar System, Galaxy), not on development itself.

What I'm trying to say is that a very advanced civilization could harness only the power of it's homeworld while being much more advanced than a solar-system spanning civilization.

>>43519515
GURPS has a scale but I've never used it myself.
Diaspora's scale is kinda game specific, but I personally like it.

>>43519515
Tier 0: No higher mental functions, no tools, no science, no writing. Unintelligent animals.
Tier 1: Some higher functions, minor tools, simplistic shelters and basic writing. Some apes, most african tribes, australian aborigines.
Tier 2: Obvious signs of intelligence - writing, sophisticated tools, machines, large stone structures. No FTL travel. Encompasses everything from Classical Greece or Rome all the way up to present day.
Tier 3: As Tier 2, but possess FTL travel.
Tier 4: An exclusive grouping of the most developed secies in the galaxy, with complex rules and regulations governing classification as such. These species possess such marvels as instantaneous teleportation of goods and/or people, high-functioning artificial intelligences, mastery of matter, functionally limitless energy.
Tier 5: Gods.

Anything Tier 1 or lower can be cleared out without moral qualms for the development of habitats for higher life.

>>43519673
>Google Abo IQ to know if this is just strayan /int/ bantz
>62 average IQ
>Literally chimp-tier

What in the actual fuck.

>>43519739

Given the fact that aboriginal communities suffer extreme poverty and a significant lack of opportunities, a lack of education is much more likely to blame than any bullshit biotruths.

>>43519770
>62 IQ

You do not understand what this means. Chimpanzees do as well without concepts of hygiene, economics or social hierarchies. They should have at least an IQ of 70 for me to believe you.

>>43519770
I'm no expert but wasn't iq mostly dependend on genetics/specific person than ones education? Correct me if I'm wrong never researched the topic.

>>43519806
Education and other conveniences of developed world(like sufficient nutrition at all stages of development) make a huge difference. There's a reason the average measured intelligence(not IQ, since IQ is standardized so 100 is always the average) has been going steadily up in the developed world, and it's NOT because the genetics have been improving(if anything, the genetics have been DEGRADING steadily for the past century or more, since intelligent people tend to have fewer children).

Traveller has a good one

TL0: Stone Age
TL1: Bronze Age
TL2: Iron Age
TL3: Renaissance
TL4: Industrial
TL5: Atomic Age
TL6: Golden Age of Space(Something akin to 1960's)
TL7: Pre-Stellar(Age of Information)
TL8: Pre-Stellar(Age of Space Exploration)
TL9: Pre-Stellar(Interlude to FTL)
TL10: Early Stellar(Early FTL)
TL11: Early Stellar(Age of Space Colonization)
TL12: Average Stellar
TL13: Average Stellar(Power Armor goes here or something)
TL14: Average Stellar(Interlude to High Stellar. Flying Cities and portable nuclear guns.)
TL15: High Stellar(Late FTL.)
TL16+: Not taken into account, presumed to be hyper-advanced at this point.

I know it's not very informative with me putting it here, but I can probably get a scan of the page if needed.

>>43519903
I like it

>>43519806
Well...

IQ is dependent on education and your socioeconomic background. Not surprisingly, being from a rich family does you favours.

IQ is also not static, and measures a specific skill set. This is from the words of the creator of the rules. It's a measurement of a set of skills at a specific time, and these are expected to rise. As I recall it, the comparative IQ scores have risen in the developed countries since the scale's introduction, which have caused the scale to be adjusted. A 130 today is higher than 130 some 30 years ago.

In short, genetics certainly plays a part (obviously if you've got brain damage you're not usually going to score high) but better food, housing and teaching* during younger years have provably kicked those scores up. I mean, unless you believe immigration has the biggest net good effect on it.

*Of course, the downside of education (though it might be physiological development thing) has been that kids start becoming less creative with ideas and problem solving.

>>43519961
>Kids become less creative due to education

By 2025 half of american kids will be autistic. Aren't they more creative?

>>43519901
We also have a crap load more lead in the atmosphere because people didn't like knocking noises in the engines. I believe on the whole we're living in cleaner cities due to increasing pollution restrictions, but that lead is probably not great for the brain.

Not entirely sure whether the "stupid have more kids" idea is entirely truthful. Extremely successful people do seem to have fewer children, though if successful people have only 1-2 kids, those kids are going to be extremely well off and probably end up successful.

>>43519673
Seems a bit uneven.

>>43520006
>uneven
How so?

>>43519995
>By 2025 half of american kids will be autistic. Aren't they more creative?
1) That's a made up factoid and trend. The number of autistic have not increased, the diagnosis is fairly recent and it has been shown that historically it could have been applied to about the same amount of people.

2) Autistic can be creative, but not necessarily?

3) Are you perchance autistic or on drugs/drunk? You're not really making any sense and you're not funny.

>>43520040
Engrilch is not my first language. Care to explain why I don't make sense?

Tier One - Own civilization
Tier Two - Our allies.
Tier Three - Our enemies.
Tier Four - Everyone else.

>>43520016
Tier 1 is basically most of the time humanity has existed as a genetically separate species - some 190 000 years.
Tier 2 is some 8000 years of humanity if we're counting from the earliest cities (technically Sumer is noted from 5500 BC, I know)

Tier 3 can be anything from 100 to 500 years, depending on how feasible the next step is

Tier 4 is sort of the same as step 5, it's just a matter of fine tuning.

I mean, I kind of like the 2001-style of it, but that tier 1 is a large span of time and the rest get progressively smaller, and not super comfortable with putting ancient Greece on par with current day tech. Also getting out of the mentioned tier 1 is basically a time/luck thing, from what I gathered thus far (ofc the black death did seem to set the wheels of modern society in motion).

>>43520006
How long does lead stay in the atmosphere? My guess would be that most of it is gone already.

File: 2001_7.jpg (105KB, 1194x776px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1194x776px

>>43520057
Well it's more of a... what's the point of the statement? Seems like a wild tangent. I know that's part of /tg/'s thing but... Yeah I really don't know.

>>43520179
You said that kids become less and less creative due to education, I said that autism might help to fill this creative "gap"

>>43520157
Here's my take:

Tier I - Sentient animals without tech - Sort of like humans in the ice age.
Tier II - Sentient animals with rudimentary manually-controlled mechanisms(Pulleys). Ancient Greece.
Tier III - Sentient animals with decent manually-controlled mechanisms(Siege weapons). Last days of Rome.
Tier IV - Sentient animals with advanced manually-controlled mechanisms(Clockwork). Renaissance
Tier V - Sa. with rudimentary self-driven mechanisms(Steam power).
Tier VI - Sa. with decent self-driven mechanisms(Petrol-fueled engines)
Tier VII - Sa. with advanced self-driven mechanisms(Electric cars)
Tier VIII - Sa. with rudimentary sentient, self-operating machines(AIs slightly better than ours)
Tier IX - Sa. with decent, sentient, self-operating machines(Pre-singularity)
Tier X - Singularity

Anything beyond is 2hard2calculate

>>43520160
>How long does lead stay in the atmosphere?
Last numbers I checked, from maybe 15 years ago years ago*, put the level at about 600 times the levels before we started using leaded fuels.

EPA notes the levels have decreased by some 87 percent since 2000. So, uh, about 78 times the original amount in the atmosphere?

>>43519903
This does assume FTL, but I personally like having some more granularity.

*In Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"

>>43520281
>Increasingly efficient fusion power

This is retarded and wrong. Imagine someone in the Victorian Era saying that from his perspective on increasingly efficient steam power will keep being developed forever,

>>43520304
It's more like a victorian saying that I dunno... solar panels will keep becoming more and more efficient forever.

>>43520232
>You said that kids become less and less creative due to education, I said that autism might help to fill this creative "gap"
Ah. Sorry, misunderstanding then. Well, it's not that increased education has decreased creativity further, from what I can tell. It's just a possible side effect of education - though I think it depends on the schooling.

From what I can tell part of the issue schools have with teaching "correct facts" in many subjects rather than do both that and provide tools for critical thinking. Also teachers which focus on discipline rather than learning - the former is a tool, not the means for education.

But I digress.

>>43520336
>Victorian
>Solar panel

U wot nigguh

>>43520352
Solar power would be more appropriate analogy, but we don't even HAVE working fusion power yet.

>>43520281
>>43520304
>Increasingly efficient fusion power
I'd put in matter/antimatter-plants, then probably "for us unknown energy sources" (dark energy? graviton-based?)

Yeah that is pretty bad.

>>43520372
I'm saying that we will eventually discard fusion power for something renewable, because, you know, there's not an infinity of radioactive shit out there.

Unless I'm retarded and only fission requires radioactive things.

>>43520232
Isn't that scale a little too, uh, specific for a space faring civilization? Not to mention how it seems to be more of a scale for measuring AI progress.

>>43520405
Not generally AI progress, it's technological progress.

But I will admit I neglected space travel - mostly because FTL is purely theoretical and it's better to focus on what's certain.

>>43520390
You are retarded. Fusion works best with deuterium and tritium(or helium-3, but unless/until we make a lunar colony, we have a very limited supply of that), of which deuterium is plentiful in water, and tritium can be created in the fusion reactors. And if we keep progressing fusion, we'll probably move to normal hydrogen eventually.

>>43520304
>>43520376
It's an assumption that past this level (in the system that uses it) tech level is just a matter of efficiency. But I can see where you're coming from, and I suppose it only really makes sense in the traveller system.

>>43520390
In 'Traveller The New Era' (which is the system that uses this tech table) you can use any source of hydrogen, for example water (which then gets refined into fuel grade stuff) to fuel a fusion plant/engine.

>>43520390
Nah, fusion doesn't necessarily require radioactives. Theoretically all that's needed for Fusion is hydrogen, which is literally everywhere. Of course, this is just theoretical until someone actually makes a fusion plant.

>>43520445
>Using water
>It's already rare enough

Bad idea tbqh.

Hydrogen would be more easy to obtain and less retarded to consume.

>>43520461
You can also just refill from a gas giant, the system makes it ridiculously easy to get fuel if you're in the right place and have the right tech.

>>43520461
>Hydrogen would be more easy to obtain

Nvm I'm retarded

Assburgers has consumed me.

>>43520461
What are you talking about? Water is literally everywhere in the solar system. It's liquid water that's rare, not water itself.

>>43520470
Final post - I mean that water is already at our disposal, but hydrogen is more abundant in the cosmos.

>>43520484
Theoretically, how much could it sustain humanity if that water is also used to terraform Venus and Mars?

>>43520506
if we had tech to terraform Mars and Venus we'd also be on level of creating water from shit our sun shoots all the time no need for draining our own

>>43520506
Mars doesn't need water, it already has more than enough trapped in the polar ice caps and underground. What it needs is a thicker atmosphere and a magnetic field to prevent solar winds from stripping it away.

I'm less certain about Venus, but the main problems facingi it are the literal acidic atmosphere and the lead melting surface temperature, neither of which can be resolved by "dumping more water on it".

>>43520594
>it already has more than enough trapped in the polar ice caps

I have to say those are some summary ice caps, then. Much smaller than the earth's.

But Mars is colder, so I would guess less water is needed lest it gets even colder.

>>43519545
>highest tier is the least advanced
current civilisation is the highest tier

>>43520594
well theoreticaly if you dumped enough of anything that counducts heat that would reduce overall atmosphere temperature

>>43520613
That's really not how terraforming works. It's a planet, not a house, you can't just dump water on it to cool it down.

The major issue with terraforming Mars is it's lack of magnetic field and it's thin atmosphere. To terraform it, we need two things, 1, a shitload of greenhouse gasses, and 2, a way to prevent the atmosphere from being stripped away by solar winds. Neither of which strictly requires water.

>>43520660
just rename it as "class" and it'd sound better

>>43520675
I wasn't exactly referring to dumping water - more like redirecting comets to the planet itself.

And, aren't there ways to strengthen a magnetic field with current tech?

>>43519671
found my diaspora scale.
The scale is based on the FATE system so there is a reason it goes from -4 to +4

-4 Stone Age
-3 Bronze/Iron Age
-2 Industrial Age
-1 Atomic Age
0 Exploring the system
1 Exploiting the system
2 Slipstream (FTL) use
3 Slipstream Mastery
4 Threshold of Collapse.

The last one is because part of the setting is a constant cycle or renissance and collapse. After tech reaches a certain point, the society collapses, either because of a tech fuck up, society not handling the changes, or moving beyond this form of existence.
Capacity of weapons, armor and ships was tied to tech level.

>>43520720
>And, aren't there ways to strengthen a magnetic field with current tech?

Err, no. Not on a planetary scale anyway. All the plans I've seen either require the use of theoretical super-materials or more energy than the entire output of Earth combined.

>>43520778
energy output of modern day earth let's see what the numbers would look like in 1000 years... provided we'll be still around

>>43519545
Tier X: Primitive, capable of space travel

>>43519611
Sure, what the Kardashev scale does is placing a lower bound on how advanced a civilization is.
A type 1 civilization could be more advanced than a type 2 for example, but the type 2 has to be at least advanced enough to harness that much energy.
Though it's likely that the amount of energy harnessed coincides with how advanced the civilization is.

>>43519671
Did you mean GURPS' tech level? I don't think they're much use, especially since even in the book, many of their examples are "civ of TL so, except retarded in this and that field, and advanced in that and this".

TL7 Nuclear Age (1940+)
TL8 Digital Age (1980+)
TL9 Microtech Age (2025+?)
TL10 Robotic Age (2070+?)
TL11 Age of Exotic Matter.
TL12+ Whatever the GM likes!

Previous scale as in 3e:
7. Modern (1951-2000): nuclear energy, computer, laser, rockets
8. Spacefaring (2001-2050?): slower-than-light space travel, fusion power, implants
9. Starfaring: faster-than-light star travel, sentient computers, longevity, deteronic frombotzer
10. Antimatter: antimatter power, artificial gravity, slow FTL radio
11. Force: force screens, tractor beams, fast FTL radio
12. Gravitic: contragravity, grav compensators, personal force screens 13. Worldbuilding: full terraforming of planets
14. Dysonian: construction of worlds, ringworlds and so on
15. MT: matter transmission, cosmic power
16+. As you wish . . .
It's a bit wonky because it dates from ~1985 and some of the things they marked as ~for the far off future~ already exist, and are used by everyone. 4e is more recent and a bit better, even though it missed smart phones' development and stuff, IIRC.

>>43519770
>biotruths

This is how I know you've literally never interacted with an abbo in your life.

>>43519806
IQ is based on a combination of factors, genetics provides your total potential, some people can become a Hawking, or an Einstein, but without the proper resources and opportunities, they could end up just being an average person, or if they are at a significant detriment of resources and opportunities, they could be straight up stupid even though their genes have the potential for genius.
The potential to have high IQ is everywhere, but only in middle and upper class families is the trait actually fostered to the point of becoming obvious.

>>43520006
The "stupid have more kids" isn't true, but less civilized places have more kids, and this is also true for poorer areas in general.. So not necessarily stupid->more kids

>>43520984
>I don't think they're much use, especially since even in the book, many of their examples are "civ of TL so, except retarded in this and that field, and advanced in that and this".

Kindof necessary, as GURPS has settings like Alexander Athanatos, where clones of Alexander the Great created by scientists discovering TL3+4 genetic manipulation (extremely fine glass knives and good enough lenses) during his lifetime rule an increasingly ossified grecian superpower.

Same for any setting really.

Star Wars has FTL, light augmentation, shitty computers and pre-internet style communications.

Star Trek has incredibly potent replication and holographic technology, but has no meaningful human augmentation and regularly interacts with primitives with hypertech.

The only setting with a single TL describing it is Earth, and even then that's only accurate for certain regions.

>>43523145
Mostly I meant other systems usually have more defined and strict tech levels, so that it wouldn't be of much use to rate civilizations quickly.

>>43523145
Because star trek thinks human augmentation is evil

>>43520091
So similar to the Cold War then?

>>43523145
This is a fair point. Not all civilizations could be expected to progress in the same areas the same way. Steam power and primitive fire arms have been around for a long while, but hadn't been focused on due to better immediate options.

>>43519515
Kardeschev scale isn't great until you get to multi-galactic fights.

>>43519611
Well the Kardashev scale is more of a metric of development than strictly tech level. You could conceivably (however unlikely it is) have a homeworld-bound civilization with a more complete mastery of metallurgy/energy science/chemistry/etc. than the next door solar system civilization puttering around in chemical thruster spaceships with shit for radiation shielding. The Kardashev scale doesn't care, because the latter civilization is almost certainly more widespread and using more resoirces. It's not a hard and fast line though, because more advanced technology will pretty much always require more energy to run.

Funnily enough, our high gravity world and our bodies being particularly susceptible to radiation is sort of forcing us into the former category. We need a very high tech level to get off our planet and stay alive out there afterwards. A hardier species on a lower gravity world could've easily.colonized their solar system with60s era tech.