3 ms·

I have wondered about this too. I suppose the reasoning is that every solar system has a massive source of energy in the middle of it, and that mega civilizatio

I have wondered about this too. I suppose the reasoning is that every solar system has a massive source of energy in the middle of it, and that mega civilizations would be stupid to not utilize it. Sounds probable, but I can see many possible reasons not to bother. Not to mention it is speculating about technology so far ahead of our own that it seems silly. 50's predictions of rocket belts and nuclear powered cars come to mind.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> 50's predictions of rocket belts and nuclear powered cars come to mind. These are different kind of predictions. Rocket belts could work, but they don't make economic sense and there's a strong safety argument against it. It's the same reason we don't have flying cars either. Nuclear-powered cars could have worked; the failure wasn't predicting technology or its feasibility, but that nobody figured out humanity will collectively go insane and irrationally refuse to develop use of nuclear energy. Dyson spheres are a pretty obvious thing to do - every star is a free, self-maintaining fusion generator that just wastes almost 100% of its output. So the argument is really that when a civilization's need for energy gets larger than what can be supplied by burning whatever stuff they have on their planet, the next obvious step is their star. Barring some magic tech breakthroughs like pulling energy from "subspace" or whatever, you have a rather solid argument that's essentially: "as long as life is not limited from growing, it will eventually start blotting out the sun it orbits".
- mekkkkkk 6y ago
  The 50s analogy is only to point out how we like to extrapolate contemporary technical understanding into the future. The envisioned dyson spheres I've seen look like our current understanding and use of photovoltaics extrapolated in the same way. I don't disagree that the core idea of harnessing the suns energy seems likely. As the parent poster said, it's just the absolute confidence that people seem to have on the subject that's a bit curious. Maybe breakthroughs in energy generation will make it not worth the effort? Maybe becoming interstellar makes it obsolete since the energy requirements for a given civilization are spread thinner? Maybe there are other ways to harness the solar energy that would not show the same signs as we predict? Maybe civilizations trend to energy efficiency instead of just increased usage? Maybe not.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> 50's predictions of rocket belts and nuclear powered cars come to mind. These are different kind of predictions. Rocket belts could work, but they don't make economic sense and there's a strong safety argument against it. It's the same reason we don't have flying cars either. Nuclear-powered cars could have worked; the failure wasn't predicting technology or its feasibility, but that nobody figured out humanity will collectively go insane and irrationally refuse to develop use of nuclear energy. Dyson spheres are a pretty obvious thing to do - every star is a free, self-maintaining fusion generator that just wastes almost 100% of its output. So the argument is really that when a civilization's need for energy gets larger than what can be supplied by burning whatever stuff they have on their planet, the next obvious step is their star. Barring some magic tech breakthroughs like pulling energy from "subspace" or whatever, you have a rather solid argument that's essentially: "as long as life is not limited from growing, it will eventually start blotting out the sun it orbits".

mekkkkkk 6y ago
The 50s analogy is only to point out how we like to extrapolate contemporary technical understanding into the future. The envisioned dyson spheres I've seen look like our current understanding and use of photovoltaics extrapolated in the same way. I don't disagree that the core idea of harnessing the suns energy seems likely. As the parent poster said, it's just the absolute confidence that people seem to have on the subject that's a bit curious. Maybe breakthroughs in energy generation will make it not worth the effort? Maybe becoming interstellar makes it obsolete since the energy requirements for a given civilization are spread thinner? Maybe there are other ways to harness the solar energy that would not show the same signs as we predict? Maybe civilizations trend to energy efficiency instead of just increased usage? Maybe not.