4 ms·

Check out the Dyson Dilemma for a well-reasoned theory as to why it is a high probability that there is no space-faring intelligent life anywhere in our galaxy

• sulam 7y ago
  There are holes wide enough to fit a solar system through that argument. Reductio ad absurdum. Here, I'll construct an argument in a similar form. People don't like mosquitos, for various reasons including that they transfer deadly diseases. Therefore the presence of mosquitos says there's a high probability that the planet isn't actually inhabited by us, because we would have killed them by now. After all, we have the technology. Maybe, by the time we get around to wanting to construct a Dyson Sphere, we will have found a better alternative. Maybe they aren't a good idea for any number of reasons (if you need one, read the Cixin Liu "Dark Forest" series). Any argument of the form "X is inevitable but hasn't occurred, therefore Y" first needs very strong proof of the inevitability of X.
  • fastball 7y ago
    To be honest, I've never really understood how a Dyson sphere would be superior to many nuclear fusion reactors that you can move around / turn off and on / build more of / etc
    • michaelmrose 7y ago
      The sun is 99.9% of the mass in the solar system. Most of the rest of the mass is in Jupiter. If you are ultimately bounded by energy requirements then solar is where most of the available energy is even if you literally cannibalize the gas giants.