3 ms·

The more significant 'silence' is the fact that every star in the Milky Way galaxy has not already been colonized and turned into a Dyson sphere. Species with

The more significant 'silence' is the fact that every star in the Milky Way galaxy has not already been colonized and turned into a Dyson sphere. Species with language and toolmaking capabilities seemingly grow in technological sophistication at an exponential rate, so on the geological timescale, will quickly acquire space flight, grow to populations of trillions, harness the resources of their star system, then move onto settling a new star, and so on.

bena 6y ago
Why do you believe that? You're making the assumption that the problems involved with prolonged space travel are solvable with the time and resources we have here. It could not be. It could be too expensive to colonize beyond the immediate area. If even the immediate area can be colonized. There's also the assumption that there's going to be a good reason to make a non-returnable investment. Because, at some point, that's what it is. The speed of light is a limit we have not even come close to exceeding, much less approaching. And even if we do, and the people on the ship, time dilation, yadda, yadda. It does not matter. The people on Earth will still experience time normally. It taking the ship no time at all does not matter if it takes 1000 years on Earth. Or even 50 years. The return has to be phenomenal or the cost negligible.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  I assume the cost of settling other stars would become negligible at some point. If our solar system becomes a Dyson Sphere, and we have a population of thousands of trillions of people, I can't imagine how launching laser propulsion spacecraft that can travel at 0.2c toward other stars wouldn't be easily within reach of any moderately wealthy coalition of space enthusiasts. You're right though. I haven't actually done a careful estimate of the resources required vs the resources available to a Type II civilization. If the former is significant relative to the latter, and there is no Return that can motivate that magnitude of an investment with the type of investment structures that will evolve on a solar-system-wide economy - where investment time horizons have no need to be extraordinarily long - then maybe interstellar colonization is not inevitable.
  - bena 6y ago
    This is getting close to imagining a perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless environment. Why do you assume the cost of settling other stars would become negligible? Our solar system is not a Dyson Sphere. What makes you think it will become one? We don't have a population of thousands of trillions. Why do you think we'll get there in a manner in which all of them will be coordinated under one banner? What makes you think that laser propulsion will be practical for such applications? Considering we haven't had a single laser propelled craft used in space exploration. Also, 0.2c is a clever way of not saying 20% the speed of light. Or 100 million miles per hour. How long do you think it will take to get a person to that speed? At 3g, it would take over a month of pure acceleration. The human body can withstand 3g for about an hour. You'd have to accelerate closer to 1g once you've broken Earth orbit. And now you're talking months. Months to accelerate, months to decelerate. So yes, if we solve all of these other really, really, really, really hard problems, some of the other problems aren't that hard.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      >>Our solar system is not a Dyson Sphere. What makes you think it will become one? Because 1. of the accelerating rate of technological progress that we've seen over the last 2 million years, and 2. the deduction that preferential selection leads to economic systems that harness more energy and replicate themselves becoming more common >>We don't have a population of thousands of trillions. Why do you think we'll get there in a manner in which all of them will be coordinated under one banner? They wouldn't need to all be under one banner. >>What makes you think that laser propulsion will be practical for such applications? Because we understand the physics of it. It's theoretically possible, and assuming sufficient advances in science and engineering, will become practically possible. >>And now you're talking months. Months to accelerate, months to decelerate. I don't see such a requirement preventing interstellar colonization.
      - bena 6y ago
        > Because 1. of the accelerating rate of technological progress that we've seen over the last 2 million years, and 2. the deduction that preferential selection leads to economic systems that harness more energy and replicate themselves becoming more common So, in other words, no clue, just wishing. You've seen a logarithmic rise and don't even consider that it could level off in the same fashion. The graph of technological advancement could be an arctan. > They wouldn't need to all be under one banner. So everyone handles their part of the sphere? And how do we decide where to go once we get it moving? > Because we understand the physics of it. It's theoretically possible, and assuming sufficient advances in science and engineering, will become practically possible. In theory, there is little difference between theory and practice, in practice there is a hell of a lot of difference. Also, I'm not granting your assumptions. Why do you believe those assumptions? You've not given a reason besides that you believe that we will continue progressing at an exponential rate. > I don't see such a requirement preventing interstellar colonization. Then you don't understand the problems.

bena 6y ago

Why do you believe that? You're making the assumption that the problems involved with prolonged space travel are solvable with the time and resources we have here. It could not be. It could be too expensive to colonize beyond the immediate area. If even the immediate area can be colonized. There's also the assumption that there's going to be a good reason to make a non-returnable investment. Because, at some point, that's what it is. The speed of light is a limit we have not even come close to exceeding, much less approaching. And even if we do, and the people on the ship, time dilation, yadda, yadda. It does not matter. The people on Earth will still experience time normally. It taking the ship no time at all does not matter if it takes 1000 years on Earth. Or even 50 years. The return has to be phenomenal or the cost negligible.

CryptoPunk 6y ago
I assume the cost of settling other stars would become negligible at some point. If our solar system becomes a Dyson Sphere, and we have a population of thousands of trillions of people, I can't imagine how launching laser propulsion spacecraft that can travel at 0.2c toward other stars wouldn't be easily within reach of any moderately wealthy coalition of space enthusiasts. You're right though. I haven't actually done a careful estimate of the resources required vs the resources available to a Type II civilization. If the former is significant relative to the latter, and there is no Return that can motivate that magnitude of an investment with the type of investment structures that will evolve on a solar-system-wide economy - where investment time horizons have no need to be extraordinarily long - then maybe interstellar colonization is not inevitable.
- bena 6y ago
  This is getting close to imagining a perfectly spherical cow in a frictionless environment. Why do you assume the cost of settling other stars would become negligible? Our solar system is not a Dyson Sphere. What makes you think it will become one? We don't have a population of thousands of trillions. Why do you think we'll get there in a manner in which all of them will be coordinated under one banner? What makes you think that laser propulsion will be practical for such applications? Considering we haven't had a single laser propelled craft used in space exploration. Also, 0.2c is a clever way of not saying 20% the speed of light. Or 100 million miles per hour. How long do you think it will take to get a person to that speed? At 3g, it would take over a month of pure acceleration. The human body can withstand 3g for about an hour. You'd have to accelerate closer to 1g once you've broken Earth orbit. And now you're talking months. Months to accelerate, months to decelerate. So yes, if we solve all of these other really, really, really, really hard problems, some of the other problems aren't that hard.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>Our solar system is not a Dyson Sphere. What makes you think it will become one? Because 1. of the accelerating rate of technological progress that we've seen over the last 2 million years, and 2. the deduction that preferential selection leads to economic systems that harness more energy and replicate themselves becoming more common >>We don't have a population of thousands of trillions. Why do you think we'll get there in a manner in which all of them will be coordinated under one banner? They wouldn't need to all be under one banner. >>What makes you think that laser propulsion will be practical for such applications? Because we understand the physics of it. It's theoretically possible, and assuming sufficient advances in science and engineering, will become practically possible. >>And now you're talking months. Months to accelerate, months to decelerate. I don't see such a requirement preventing interstellar colonization.
    - bena 6y ago
      > Because 1. of the accelerating rate of technological progress that we've seen over the last 2 million years, and 2. the deduction that preferential selection leads to economic systems that harness more energy and replicate themselves becoming more common So, in other words, no clue, just wishing. You've seen a logarithmic rise and don't even consider that it could level off in the same fashion. The graph of technological advancement could be an arctan. > They wouldn't need to all be under one banner. So everyone handles their part of the sphere? And how do we decide where to go once we get it moving? > Because we understand the physics of it. It's theoretically possible, and assuming sufficient advances in science and engineering, will become practically possible. In theory, there is little difference between theory and practice, in practice there is a hell of a lot of difference. Also, I'm not granting your assumptions. Why do you believe those assumptions? You've not given a reason besides that you believe that we will continue progressing at an exponential rate. > I don't see such a requirement preventing interstellar colonization. Then you don't understand the problems.