6 ms·
or 3) the assumption that advanced civilizations consume more energy is wrong.
by 317070 3y ago
or 3) the assumption that advanced civilizations consume more energy is wrong.
- vkou 3y agoOr 4) - interstellar mega-engineering is impossible, or essentially impossible, or it's ROI is negative. Which seems to be the most likely explanation to me.
- midoridensha 3y agoThe really advanced civilizations developed their technology just enough so they could build a really safe and reliable Matrix to live out their lives in.
- adastra22 3y agoThey would still consume their local stars to extract and store the energy so their matrix can survive for trillions of years, rather than a few million or billion.
- adastra22 3y agoWe may not have the capability to build a Dyson cloud around our own star (yet), but we do already have the technology. You could do so with 21st century tech, and the ROI would be positive.
- ben_w 3y agoEven then, there are two issues: 1. disassembling the stars to make them live a thousand times longer 2. it only takes one expansionist civilisation seeking interstellar exponential growth — even if 99.9% of civilisations are quiet, that's just 3 digits of the 22-digit number of stars in the observable universe.
- shuger 3y ago> disassembling the stars to make them live a thousand times longer Why would they do that when there are insane amounts of start with billions of years of life ahead of them. What purpose would that serve at this point in time?
- adastra22 3y agoThat was (1) new physics. Because otherwise, entropy is a bitch.
- 317070 3y agoAlready today, having passed peak-child a few years ago, we can see that there are futures possible where humanity doesn't grow. I.e. humanity might be fine advancing with a fixed amount of power. In that case, the stars are not 'waste'. Historically, this idea of growth as method for advance is only a few centuries old. It's not hard to see its end as efficiency keeps increasing.
- adastra22 3y agoThat'll change once we solve disease and aging.