> 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.
>>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 logarithmic rise has been in place for a long time. The likelihood that it ends in the near future, before long-range space flight, seems unlikely.
This is especially so because the resources and capabilities being unlocked by new innovations seem to be inherently expand human civilization's rate of innovation.
For example, the cutting edge of technology today, like reusable rockets, NN-based machine-learning, and 3D printing, seem very likely to exponentially increase the resources/productive-output of our civilization.
Intuitively, I don't see any reason this accelerating progress will stop until physical laws become the only major limiting factor, and these laws allow for an exponentially expanding, seafaring civilization.
Of course, I don't know for certain. It goes without saying that these sorts of discussions are speculative.
>>So everyone handles their part of the sphere? And how do we decide where to go once we get it moving?
We don't need to propel the entire Dyson Sphere. Some group(s) needs to create a massive laser emitter, and use it to propel an artificial craft.
>>In theory, there is little difference between theory and practice, in practice there is a hell of a lot of difference.
Theory tells us what is possible. History tells us what to expect in terms of long term trends.
Based on the longstanding trend and intuitions about the nature of technological/economic evolution, I think we can expect anything that is theoretically possible to do with a small fraction of the resources extractable by a Type II civilization, will be done by human civilization, and hence interstellar colonization will be possible.
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.