|
Kilroy posted:Simply put you can do more stuff with more energy, so if you can consume more energy why wouldn't you? Yes, they can live lives of fabulous luxury by our standards, but if you're already consuming 40% of the energy output of your star to perform computations, why wouldn't you want to do that one trillion more times if you could? And that's not even getting into the arms race aspect of it: once they get to the point where they can make the jump to a type-III galactic civilization, choosing not to is equivalent to waiting around to be gobbled up by the first civilization that does make the jump. I think the main problem in speculating on the motivations of long-lived civilizations is that we have a total sample size of one for civilizations in general and zero for long-lived ones. The idea that more energy = more better is sensible enough, but I still can't help feeling like a caveman speculating on Cold War geopolitics. There could be all sorts of social and political factors governing these civilizations we haven't really thought of.
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You say that as if space colonization was possible with modern technology. There is only one closed biosphere that we know of.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 07:03
|
|