We’ve Been Searching For Aliens All Wrong, Researchers Say (and they have a point)

[@Velereonics]

Julius Caesar would be delighted to learn that despite Rome now being Italian, his empire has a very high rating on the Kardashian Scale.

[@jpx1508]

So we've moved from looking for Radio Emissions to looking for Energy Capture to looking for (proposed) Energy Generation. It's surprising how quickly Musk is maturing into status quo and passé... Keep your seatbelts on and your Italian Caesar Dressing at hand.

[@davidschaftenaar6530]

He'd immediately start scheming to get its name changed to 'Romulan Scale' though. 🖖🏻🧝🏻‍♂️

[@Zbezt]

Still a type-0 look at the facts XD need that type-3 like yesterday

[@Zbezt]

Complete mastery~ not half assed attempts

[@Absaalookemensch]

If extraterrestrial life learns about the Kardashians, they'll permanently quarantine us for the sanity of the galaxy.

[@MrTohawk]

If you'd ask people 1000 years ago how we produce energy they'd probably say something about windmills, watermills and burning stuff. Which is still like 90% of what we do to get energy. So they'd be right

[@zeggyiv]

Horse Steam.

[@DrDeuteron]

One of the "V"s (sauce or eritasium) has video with an 1899-artist's concept of life in 1999, and it is just that: windmill and steam powered flying machines

[@DarthBiomech]

All of our most advanced ways to generate energy are all reducible to either "boil some water" or "spin magnets (with steam from boiling water)".

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

More slaves on treadmills. We call them gyms.

[@romaliop]

@@DarthBiomech Everything except geothermal and nuclear can also be categorized into "Solar power", "Solar power with extra steps" or "Solar power from the past".

[@matt92hun]

I can't help but hear "star lifting" in Isaac Arthur's voice.

[@-danR]

She comes close to his famous pronunciation "Earth", at times. Maybe she's a fan.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

star Lifting is actually GOOD for the stars that tend to have a bit of an obesity problem shortening their lifespan. The huge stars that go supernova haven't burned through their fuel, just their available fuel. They other layers cannot circulate into the core where the action is done. Smaller stars do this much more efficient and live much longer.

[@DominikPlaylists]

Yes. He also mentioned kugelblitz black holes. You can have a black hole devour a star which is much more efficient than fusion and may look really very different than what these authors claim.

[@boobah5643]

@@DominikPlaylists Current understanding (as in, the paper was published a month or three back) is that kugelblitzes aren't feasible; it'd take energy on the magnitude of the total visible universe to make one.

[@williamsjm100]

Errrfff wooses awl ve energwy, I love that guy!!!

[@timh3561]

It seems remarkably similar to the Talking Out of Uranus Scale.

[@Don.Challenger]

Sadly, that is precisely the scale preferred by young Elon and currently he is way to the top of that one whatever he mutters about Mars.

[@okanaganrider4332]

I heard that planet actually stinks.

[@munthon]

May I sugest Isaac Arthur, long lasting youtuber and lately president of American National Space Society. He has a bunch of videos on K2 civilizations, including star lifting

[@VladR1024]

It's exceedingly highly unlikely that anyone watching this channel isn't watching Isaac already. Like, perhaps 10% of viewers, and there's probably a good reason for that in the first place...

[@7x779]

I think I'll stick with recycling fermented Nephilim juice from all the pre-flood creatures that were buried, it's great stuff and has served us quite well

[@Skalli10]

@@VladR1024 Never heard of it. There are just so many channels out there.

[@markwiel3276]

1 of my favorite KZbin channels would highly suggest watching him if you are interested in those subjects

[@andreasvox8068]

Forget the Kardeshev scale, may I introduce the Great Filter scale? It ranks civilizations by their ability to avoid Great Filter events. Stage 1: avoid destroying your own ecosystem, either by resource exhaustion, pollution or physical destruction Stage 2: avoid being hit by an asterioid from the own system that's big enough to destroy the civilization/species Stage 3: survive extreme radiation events, either by emssions of your own star or nearby super novas Stage 4: avoid astrophysical catastrophies by relocating to another planet, including a supporting ecosystem Stage 5: avoid astrophysical catastrophies by relocating to another star system, including a supporting ecosystem Stage 6: avoid astrophysical catastrophies by relocating to another galaxy, including a supporting ecosystem Stage 7: avoid the heat death of the universe This scale is compatible with the Kardashev scale in so much that humans haven't reached stage 1 in either scale yet. Edit: removed the astrological/astrophysical typo

[@justanamerican9024]

In the next 1000 years: #1= 98% probability #2&3= .2% #4-7= ,000000001%

[@Rechnerstrom]

Astrological catastrophies are easily avoided by stopping to listen to astrologers. Maybe you meant astronomical catastrophies?

[@hyksos74]

@@justanamerican9024 Actually, #3 might well be a *lot* higher than that. Something like a Carrington Event for example.

[@colinmcfarlane3173]

@@justanamerican9024 Hi Andreas Nice ideas regarding what we might (if we survive) have to do. I hope you don’t mind if I extrapolate on these and add my own thoughts. Stage 8: survive the ‘heat death’ of the universe and learn to exist after it. Stage 9: Accomplish travel to other universes and complete stages 1-8 in the new universes. * Inflationary and other theories predict that other universes exist (If we are accomplished enough to achieve travel to and entry to other universes we should be competent enough to coexist or deal with other life) Stage 10: Accomplish stages 1-9 for the or all other existing multiverses. * Many of the theories that predict the existence of multiple universes imply that they exist in a larger let us say manifold that is popularly known as a multiverse{I cannot see why there would only be one of these} Stage 11: Be able to exist on whatever, or in a form that can exist is the ultimate level of existence. Let us call the ultimate level of existence the ‘Scalar Field’ at this level I am including the ability to also not just survive but to create and exist in all previous stages {I realise this is beyond ambitious but the nature of this conversation does require a level of optimism in regard to our future capabilities}.

[@backstabba]

This makes sense except relocating to another galaxy. That may not be possible.

[@alieninmybeverage]

We should probably be checking the cosmic microwave background for type 420 civilizations that had their Dyson sphere ready for the big bang. They probably used all the energy to grow large potatoes.

[@ahom_ahom_ahom]

🤣

[@zeggyiv]

@AbbyFlame-id4iy Nah, that's in London.

[@1adamuk]

Has Dyson brought out a sphere model now? Sounds cool.

[@PRH123]

@@1adamukI had one of those, rolled around on the floor on little wheels, it sucked up dust, but I didn’t notice it absorbing energy from nearby stars. I even had to plug it in to the outlet :)

[@ednigma6526]

​@@PRH123 Oh, how disappointing.

[@napoleonfeanor]

What about a Cardassian scale. It measures your dedication to the state over many generations.

[@brianboyle2681]

@@napoleonfeanor monitored by the Obsidian Order

[@johnduncan5117]

Measured in Dukat units

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

For Cardassiaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[@dodobirdcreations]

It is measured by how many lights you see.

[@danshaw2948]

Or it measures the extent to which you are a plain and simple tailor

[@KalkiAvatar7]

I'm thankful for Sabine

[@peterturner6497]

I am too becasue she proves just how diotic the "scientific" community really is.

[@jeffw8218]

Why?

[@ConspiracytardHunter420]

@@peterturner6497 yeah man! so diotic!!!

[@Godwinsname]

The focus on energy is one point of view. The focus on wisdom, the average consciousness of our species the harmony and peace we keep.. it all may be worth more than energy.

[@SelectCircle]

So higher civilizations are devoid of partisan politics. No Left. No Right. No rads. No fundies. Just normals.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Yes

[@AdvantestInc]

This video highlights such an interesting paradox: while we classify civilizations on energy consumption, we're still grappling with how to detect entirely unfamiliar technologies. What if energy use isn’t the marker at all? This feels like the start of a sci-fi story waiting to be written.

[@DKNguyen3.1415]

The marker is the ability to use The Warp.

[@Cirwlos]

Aliens should be so diverse, that different species or even different civilizations of the same species, would take different paths, and some should mine their own star, and rise energy consumption to the limit of what is possible.

[@dinf8940]

figure out evolution and its constraints, that will allow you to figure out fermi 'paradox', which will in turn invalidate idea of kardashev scale and everything stemming from it 😉

[@timbob1145]

Could it be the very opposite, in discovering a technology to release energy from the substrate, whatever you want to call it.

[@-danR]

@@dinf8940 Well said. I no longer buy the Kardashev notional construct. Civilizations have too many options to satisfy the Fermi constraint, and will always stumble into at least _one_ of them, or have one of them fall on us.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

We adore making things up and naming them.

[@GrimmJaw496]

I think you may be a big slice of cheddar cheese and your name is bob....

[@TSOP2020]

@@GrimmJaw496due to the mass of the name “bob” I deter that the velocity of such names delivered through sentence structure means that Voice=V and speech=D and Structure=S that V+D must equal S. Possibly squared. Yes actually squared matches the rest of our math data sets. Thus V+D=S squared. This proves that saying the name “bob” with such velocity does in fact make the sky blue because of the Big Bang. I am a PH.d therefore I am right and anyone here who disagrees with me will have to petition for a new peer review outside of my academic accreditation. Anyone who attempts to tell me otherwise without petitioning or providing me funding is to be ridiculed and outcasted. :)

[@Unknown-jt1jo]

How do you think the words that you used in your comment came into being?

[@T_Mo271]

Example: I'm weary of every single full moon having some catchy phrase associated with it.

[@DoctorOnkelap]

Splitting bigger stars up to create more longlived red dwarves could be an interresting strategy The bugs bunny cartoons even devised a method: Hassan chop! We can call those groups of smaller stars Hassan pairs or Hassan groups.

[@BalefulBunyip]

Sabine, you are always engaging. Thanks for providing an interesting viewpoint.

[@Thomas..Anderson]

2:51 Who noticed a crate of potatoes?

[@VOLightPortal]

Yes! 😄

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

Small potatoes can be better than a dream of big potatoes. Solar insolation is very dispersed, kind of like picking up leaves as fuel.

[@stargazer7644]

Not just potatoes, but small potatoes.

[@nevill2947]

Star: what are you doing stepbro Civilization: 😏

[@richardgardiner242]

I would expect a civilization able to eat stars for energy to eat other people's stars not they're own.

[@VeilofStars-yp3ey]

And on a smaller scale, someone else's planet, not their own: a Type I planet is a dead planet, most likely. . . .

[@Cirwlos]

If you mine your own star you make it more longevous, so it is an advantage.

[@fabriciogoulart4564]

I'd say it depends, by starlifting one can increase their star life span, Cool Worlds (professor Kipping) has a video on the topic

[@JosePineda-cy6om]

They would have to start such a megaproject some place, it's obviously much easier to construct and refine if it's in your own frontyard than if it's at a distant backyard

[@JosePineda-cy6om]

@fabriciogoulart4564 exactly. By converting our Sun into an orange dwarf, its lifespan would get extended some billions of years. If we could go all the way and convert it into a red dwarf, then we'd have a star that'll last for hundreds of billions of years. Sadly, its luminosity would decrease a lot, and most of the light would be infrared, so we'd have to move all the planets closer...

[@alanmckinnon6791]

It's true that we have no idea how advanced civilizations will generate their power, but we have to start somewhere. As we progress, our knowledge will advance and we revise our guesses

[@dinf8940]

'starting somewhere' has a strange tendency to land you in local minima/maxima traps

[@JosePineda-cy6om]

Exactly

[@Vastin]

How they generate the power isn't really important for purposes of how we might detect them - how they radiate the waste heat is the matter of import, and heat management on that scale should look pretty similar regardless of the method used to produce the energy in the first place. For any given amount of energy you use, you must radiate it at a certain temperature, from a certain surface area in order to make the most productive use of it. The laws of thermodynamics are not particularly flexible in this regard, and at these scales you're going to need to use the most efficient methods possible, which will leave you with even less wiggle room. You need to look for highly luminous IR emission points that wouldn't match the radiation signature of any natural star. If you can't find them, then you can be fairly certain that no-one is using energy on this scale, regardless of how they generate it. This is especially true of a civilization that is trying to generate energy FASTER than their star could naturally do on its own via artificial means like star-lifting.

[@johno1544]

@@Vastin if they even have waste heat that would be detectable. You cant rule out them being able to efficiently convert any excess energy into matter. E=MC² works both ways and you can use that to produce things like kugelblitzs

[@RS-ls7mm]

What do you mean haven't discovered as a power source? How primitive.

[@Kokally]

Makes sense. Stars are incredibly inefficient generators of energy, they're just massive, prolific and free to use. So while a dyson sphere is nifty, if you can manage to actively burn star fuel faster than the star can, then it's to your benefit to actively consume the fuel rather that passively drawing from a natural process.

[@davidtherwhanger6795]

And to get Star Lifting or Mining (however you feel) you need a Dyson Sphere type structure to do it. Millions or billions of satellites around the star to form those magnetic rings to drive material out at the poles of the star for gathering. Which mimics the Dyson Sphere of millions or billions of independent stations around the star using it's light for power.

[@Maeniel83]

>>free to use

[@RWZiggy]

we can't burn hydrogen, and maybe never will. That takes a star. scrounging for D-T fuel when we have stars around is just silly.

[@stargazer7644]

Inefficient? Fusion is the most efficient energy production process we know of short of matter-antimatter annihilation.

[@Kokally]

@@stargazer7644Admittedly it's confusing to think of stars as being inefficient. But to go over a few of the issues, for one you need a large, concentrated, and effectively immobile mass to even generate fusion; second, the energy from fusion itself generally goes towards supporting the star's own mass to prevent collapse. You're losing a lot of fusion energy to create the fusion in the first place. Three, the mass is fairly uncontrollable once fusion begins, and even if there were technology to calm a star and prevent CME and solar flares, that's still just more energy wasted on an already inefficient process. Ideally what you would want in efficient energy generation is to remove the causes of energy waste, and to make the process modular and scalable to fit the needs of a complex interstellar society.

[@crawkn]

The main problem with using energy at levels even approaching that radiated by stars is that it becomes both a containment and an application problem. While some applications have been proposed, such as FTL travel or moving planets around, there's no known material from which to build machines that can handle such energy flux levels. Energy isn't cooperative about remaining concentrated.

[@lassikinnunen]

All of our understanding of energy would need the sphere to still emit heat or radiation of some sort out for work to happen on the sphere without the sphere heating up indefinitely

[@crawkn]

@lassikinnunen a Dyson sphere wouldn't have a stable orbit, it would have to be a swarm. The energy has to move out of the swarm as fast as it moves into it of course, but the difficulty is in getting it to its application, if it is to be used as it is absorbed, and if something really big has to be done with it, how to not melt the machine that does it.

[@lassikinnunen]

@crawkn ah yeah for practical purposes of course to actually use a significant % of the total on a single application, yeah just having an energy source for near lightspeed travel doesn't do you much good at all if you can't stuff it into a bottle somehow magically.

[@Tark0r]

@crawkn Aliens Living in Blue Sun, Same Technology like us, But Negative, Its Mean, Nobody Knows

[@Kveldred]

_What_ energy flux level / concentration? Plenty of material can handle the radiation emitted by the Sun, or store it... at a given distance / energy density.

[@lewebusl]

Civilizations intelligent enough to build dyson spheres most likely would have develop highly energy efficient techs , such that they might not need so much energy on the first place.

[@h3rteby]

"Star eating" would actually prolong the life of the star as well, so it'd even have a long-term benefit, if you can just find a way to move your planet closer, or just add some greenhouse gases!

[@Kokuswolf]

Oh, didn't know that. Typically, when you reduce something finite, it wouldn't mean this thing lasts longer.

[@apophys1110]

@@Kokuswolf The reason for it is that helium essentially poisons hydrogen fusion, and hydrogen fusion produces helium. So if you pull out the waste product, you keep the reaction going. It means the star gets slowly dimmer as it burns out, instead of going out in a bang.

[@genehawkridge1919]

Buckminster Fuller was fond of talking about doing more with less. I think he was on the right track.

[@TomTschritter]

How about Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful ~ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

Nuclear power requires less land.

[@mikemondano3624]

@@AstroGremlinAmerican Only if you account only for what you can see from the plant. There's mining, disposal, transportation, housing for all the people thus employed, etc., etc.

[@mariusvanc]

@@mikemondano3624 As compared to a solar or wind farm that takes up the land area of an entire COUNTRY?

[@DarthBiomech]

It is actually a bit mind melting as I've never considered the _rate_ of the energy production and that building a cage around a star _isn't_ the most _useful_ way to harness its energy.

[@michaelleue7594]

Well, if the goal is to convert it to electricity, we probably can't even go that far - at least not efficiently enough to make it a compelling proposition. When you're talking about Yottawatts of power, the prospect of transmission and storage of so much power outside the Sun is already theoretically unlikely. A big part of why the Sun is such a huge bank of power is because it's where the enormous bulk of the mass in the solar system is. The notion that we might someday need so much power that cannibalizing the Sun is even a scale-appropriate talking point presupposes that we could plausibly have a means of utilizing more than a watt of power for every ~2800kgs of non-stellar mass in the entire solar system. If a 1W battery masses about 5g, then you're talking about a concentration of batteries in the solar system of almost 2 parts per million being inadequate for our needs. By comparison, our current battery proportion is half of one billionth of that proportion with respect to just the Earth's atmosphere. Not even counting rocks or water or anything. Just the air.

[@joeyyoung1178]

Thanks for including links to research papers on your video. This is something that everyone should do.

[@fixedG]

On the timescale we're talking about, I think in addition to looking for dimming stars or inexplicable accretion disks, I think it's logical to hypothesize these techniques as one possible explanation for voids in space, where galaxies aren't where they might otherwise be.

[@WonkyWiIl]

The problem with the entire K grade of civilisation is the expectation that future civilisation will be as profligate with resource use as we are. Might a future civilisation be actually civil and develop efficient and effective ways of doing more with less thereby circumventing the need to use the entire energy output of a star. I cannot believe people think this likely let alone possible. The first graphic showing we use a a tiny amount of what is available now should be the trigger for us to put the K scale in the cosmic shredder.

[@DavideMartiniCommentatore]

Kardashian scale is IMO pretty useless. I'm much more interested in the nuances we can have thinking about the different types of energy spent under the type I frontier.

[@CMVBrielman]

Why?

[@ChrisH43]

K is an useless extrapolation

[@1112viggo]

Glad to know I'm not the only one questioning this- The entire power output from a star is INSANE. What intelligent civilization would let their population grow so exponentially, while consuming so many resources and energy that the output of an entire star is needed to sustain them? Moreover, plummeting your entire solar system in darkness to siphon its star for all its juices does not seem like a particularly bright move, no pun intended.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

well, won't space travelling societies become "mini societies" in themselves, chris hadfield was commenting that even folks on the ISS make a distinction between "ISS people" and "earth people" and that when we have a time lag on mars - well for instance will religion get to mars? and even if it were demonstrated god wasn't real would other colonies make up their own gods - just as a for instance. we are assuming people will still ALL be "earthmen" when clearly they won't.

[@G0ldbl4e]

I have questioned deeply the way we look for aliens. I would imagine that in such a thing as big as the galaxy, any communication would be point to point with FTL couriers (if they have them) or carefully controlled long range lasers (if not). I can't imagine a species advanced enough to make it to the stars to be spending exawatts blasting their social media posts for everyone to hear.

[@Alex-wg1mb]

It seems like we are late tech civilization considering the latest data on galaxy formation. Tic tac incident was quite convincing with regards to the unmanned drones with what seemed as warp drive tech

[@G0ldbl4e]

@@Alex-wg1mb I just can't imagine using broad, spherical broadcasts of any kind of energy just out into space by a highly advanced society. Humans are already reducing their signature because it's just not efficient.

[@s4uss]

but advanced civilizations spread around the galaxy really fast, so to begin with it's not even a concern to broadcast some signals (because strength in numbers), but the other thing is that spreading this much means also chance getting discovered in some way grows exponentially. So Fermi Paradox is still unresolved (there should just be many civilizations competing and spreading themselves, but we see 0 of anything at all).

[@Alex-wg1mb]

​@@s4uss With FTL drives, alien civilizations can just zip data packets across the galaxy instead of wasting energy blasting random signals everywhere. From up in space, our solar system is basically like a sleepy small town in North Dakota - the Sun's just chilling there, not much going on. But hey, this weird little planet with its bald monkeys (that's us!) might actually be a pretty cool spot for some cosmic tourists to check out.

[@G0ldbl4e]

@@s4uss If you have FTL then you wouldn't USE light to send messages because it would be absurdly slow on a galactic scale. If you don't have FTL then you aren't going to be able to expand on this explosive level and there's nothing to be gained using spherical radio broadcasts over lasers and carefully directed beams. On an interstellar level the energy needed for a receiver to get a certain minimum grows geometrically with distance. Humans are ALREADY switching from broadcast to directed beams and lasers. What's the advantage of broadcast when you know with certainty where your target in a sparse matrix will be?

[@tontonbeber4555]

Our mistake is that we always supposed that aliens read our scifi books.

[@sacr3]

Exactly, we are looking for other species using our current physics, by the time a species can utilize their star directly for energy, they may have discovered new forms of energy like a form of zero point. So it wouldn't be necessary to use the sun. Maybe that's why we see nothing, because we haven't yet discovered the best forms of energy and are still prehistoric trying to rely on the sun/oil.

[@cooljp1531]

Yes. I've been telling people since forever, we are not looking for aliens, we are looking for ourselves ( or a version of ourselves )

[@grifson_1065]

well we cant look for anything else, cuz we dont know what that would be

[@mal2ksc]

The truth is that they _write_ them.

[@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep]

@@sacr3 They are joking, the reality is cosmology has established so many requirements for life the probability they exist somewhere else is higher than a number 1 into a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe. In other words life does not exist outside of earth unless it was designed to like us.

[@the-trusteeship]

Thank you for reminding me of our fundamental limitations. This is rare information.

[@anotheruser9876]

Thanks for dropping Leon Skum in the clip. Was just in time to stop it and move one. /s

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

A civilization that would consume all of the energy of the stars would be truly a blight upon the universe.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

A civilization that could accomplish that (impossibility, notwithstanding) would have a proper ethical and moral framework that would contain layers and layers of stop-gap safety protocols and they would have exhausted all the ways in which the endeavor could go sideways before they hit any switches...?

[@Lucius_Chiaraviglio]

@@stevedriscoll2539 Who says? Technological development has never guaranteed that those in control of the technology (who are usually not the ones who developed it) will use it responsibly. More likely that a civilization that could do all this would have some ineffectual regulations and other resistance to the ruin of the universe, and would go ahead and trash the place while patting themselves on the back for being so civilized, and then proceed to invade other universes and trash those as well, all the while enslaving, exterminating, and/or confining to reservations anyone whom they came upon.

[@atimholt]

Isaac Arthur (a science & futurism KZbinr) has some fantastic videos about far far future tech. He's mentioned ideas like star lifting, but what I find more fascinating is what he had to say about colder temperatures making computation (and, in turn, post-human civilization) more efficient in a well understood way-we have an equation that gives the relation. A civilization that wants to last longer would best be able to use energy if they wait till all the stars have burned out and the entire universe is colder-indeed, it would actually be worth it to “turn off” as many stars as possible so they can be used more efficiently in the deep deep future. I think he has an episode on the subject called “Sleeping Giants”.

[@joansparky4439]

and then u read scifi about the universe not being a closed system and all those limitations vanish ;-)

[@pcbacklash_3261]

This sort of energy acquisition (and, of course, _consumption),_ seems to be on ridiculous scales, and I honestly can't imagine a civilization EVER needing that much energy to flourish. It's like using a nuclear plant to power a TV remote!

[@kyjo72682]

exponential population growth... imagine a billion Earths worth of individuals

[@pcbacklash_3261]

@@kyjo72682 Again, far beyond the range of actual probability. It's La La Land.

[@kyjo72682]

@@pcbacklash_3261 Why? :) What exactly prevents us or any other hypothetical life form from scaling up together with available energy? It happened before.. If you consider our primordial ancestors, life on Earth started by feeding on geothermal energy. Only after "invention" of photosynthesis and subsequently of breathing, i.e. switching from geothermal to solar, life expanded the habitable zone to our current biosphere.. scaling exponentially by many orders of magnitude. So why couldn't something like this happen again?

[@pcbacklash_3261]

@@kyjo72682 You're talking about increases within a particular scale. But what the video is discussing is a scale far, far, FAR beyond anything resembling physical reality. Just because one can imagine something abstractly doesn't make it possible or practical.

[@kyjo72682]

@@pcbacklash_3261 Idk.. Where exactly do you see the limit? The video discusses Kardashev scale which is a theoretical limit based on energy output of stars. Even if it wasn't technologically feasible to capture the entire output of a star (perhaps because of lack of materials) even just 1% or even a fraction of that would still be a huge boost compared with today. It would enable space industry, construction of more habitats like O'Neill cylinders, and probably colonization of other stars. Even at fraction of the speed of light it should be possible to colonize the whole galaxy within some 10 million years. That's 100 billion stars.

[@LiamRedmill]

This was out there,one of your best shows to date,thanks

[@Spacecookie-]

Personally I think we're doing it wrong simply because we're basing it solely on our extremely wasteful, greedy selves, with our primitive technology.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

People will stop being greedy when hell freezes over.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Oh there's a few of you in every bunch😂😂😂 i salute your courage...but if I may quibble/disagree on a fine point. I think we are in a sort of temporary predicament (that has to pass). I don't believe "all people are consumed by selfish ambition, greed, and bloodlust.

[@scottmiller2591]

Your summary point is well-taken - we have no idea what tech an advanced civilization would use.

[@stargazer7644]

This is an incorrect assumption. We understand the laws of physics, and those laws place constraints on the tech any civilization could use. We may not know the details of how they'd do it, but we know what rules they have to follow when doing it. You aren't going to find them using a technique based on unknown physics.

[@EdGreenTO]

@@stargazer7644 Why not? We literally don't understand around 80% of reality. We live with primitive blinders on.

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@EdGreenTOhow do you know we don't understand 80% of reality? You'd have to know 100% yourself to know how much we don't know. It is very possible we're at 99% now, and we're just missing a theory of quantum gravity that only applies in very narrow situations anyway.

[@thabzmad7265]

​@@ObjectsInMotionlol. Not long ago, someone got jailed because they asserted the planet is a sphere and revolving around the sun😂. And to this day, some groups will gladly enter the boxing ring (or true story, launch themselves via a DIY rocket) to fight for their corner, that the Earth is flat!

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@thabzmad7265 And that said person was vindicated when the evidence came out. And to this day, those groups do not get mainstream approval because they cannot muster up evidence. Evidence helps us define laws which guide predictions. Anecdotes and arguing from past performance, are not evidence based, and do the opposite.

[@bobbymah2682]

Why are the aliens always depicted naked?

[@DarthBiomech]

Because most folks don't see them as people.

[@elio7610]

Well, it is only due to illogical taboos that we feel ashamed to be naked. We of course do often need clothing for practical reasons too but it depends on the situation. An alien probably would need a hazard suit on our planet but maybe they could go naked on their own ships. The problem with depicting an alien fully covered in a suit is that it becomes less clear if it is supposed to be an alien or instead a human astronaut.

[@DarthBiomech]

@@elio7610 Counterargument: pockets.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

Humans are hot for us. Coming soon: A swimsuit edition of Astronomy Magazine.

[@stargazer7644]

low sci-fi budgets.

[@Detric-i9q]

I absolutely love your videos honesty and sence of humor ❤

[@MakiPavlidis]

Truly fascinating. Thanks for this.

[@lost4468yt]

I don't think the Kardashev scale makes sense. It takes a recent trend and then scales out it rapidly. I much prefer the qualitative model suggested. It states that first life arises and adapts to the environment. Next life starts modifying the environment heavily to suit ourselves. This is where we are. But this is where it changes. It doesn't just assume this is the end and we just keep scaling up to insane levels. Instead next organisms start modifying themselves to suit different environments. Want to travel in space? Well instead of taking humans and trying to build a very fast ship that can support their high energy needs - you modify humans (either with other tech and/or genetic engineering or AI/uploading) so that we can have very long lifespans and go into low heat low energy modes for extended periods. Want to live on Mars? You don't have to create small enclosures for us to live in - instead maybe you slow down to reduce energy requirements, better deal with cold, - and if the gap can't be fully bridged you e.g. use solar to store chemical energy (e.g. methane, which I believe already has energetic metabolic paths in some life) and modify to be able to use that to bridge the gap. This is really elegant in my opinion, and explains why we don't see mega structures, artificial high energy signals everywhere, etc. You would never get those. Harnessing the output of a star just wouldn't be needed... The paper also suggests there's potential further transition past this. But I think these ones are equally extrapolatory. E.g. iirc the next stage was where the species (or group of species maybe) starts seeding the galaxy with simple life. Since the best way for it to create advanced worlds is for it to just seed it then wait (presumably waiting millions to billions of years isn't really an issue for it at this point). I mean if this is true perhaps that's what earth is. The very last one is too out there for me though. You'll have to read the paper as I won't describe it very well. I like this model much better. It explains a lot about what we see when we look out there (any energy signature will reach a high density, but then it'll actually start dropping and be harder to see). It also seems to align with our technology. Most technology (vehicles, integrated circuits, electronics, electrical systems, etc) seemed to start out low power, then expanded and became much higher power, but then we started focusing on efficiency and we started seeing power (especially density) drop. And just as we do we're potentially looking at much much better developments in genetic engineering and AGI in the next several decades. The model just makes a million times more sense to me than Kardashev. Us switching qualitatively rather than quantitatively seems like a much more sensible solution.

[@lost4468yt]

Also keep in mind it doesn't need to be us that are next. It's possible replacement or semi-replacement with AGI is possible. Imagine a human level AGI with the tech from the year 2100 or 2500. It could likely build a maybe 500kg spaceship (or object? not sure what you'd call it - maybe a probe?) that has a computer with an AGI model on it, and the ability to traverse and modify the environment in many ways. Well you launch a bunch to other star systems at slow speeds using chemical (or maybe nuclear, but my point is it's not necessary) rockets. After 20k years or whatever it reaches the system and nudges it's orbit to slow down in multiple ways. It selects a specific planet that looks good (and maybe communicates that back to where it was launched from, and then that's communicated to the other probes heading to that system). It enters a planet with an atmosphere (or one without if you can slow yourself down with gravitational slingshots and atmospheric burns with the closest planet with an atmosphere). Then it starts moving around the planet slowly building up basic resources. It reports this data back home again, and if it's a good planet more probes will be selected to go to that one (you launch let's say 100k of them to each system, with the first e.g. 1000 arriving 1000 years before the others, then you send all 90k remaining to the best candidate). Finally you wait maybe another X years for the robots/rovers to get to a point where they can build basic computers and create simpler versions of themselves. This rapidly increases everything of course. You keep going until you get to the point where you could build the latest versions of yourselves (you would be in constant contact with the home planet, where the AGI focuses on self- improvement, and sends new tech/AGI models/etc to the probes. It might take the probes 500 or 5000 years to catch up - doesn't really matter. Then finally they do the same thing and start launching their own probes to the next nearest systems. Once they do, they too start focusing on self-improvement, making the planet ideal for them (or humans if we still have control). There you go, the next step of modifying yourself to the environment goes to AI. Remember it can drop to a zero energy state, is inherently much more reliable, etc. Once the initial probe-bots get so far, of course they start modifying themselves to be better suited to the new environment. And of course they can study planets in the new system and also colonise those with probagons to take over that body as well. So you could maybe colonise every system in 12 light years in 60k years. And as soon as each one is done, it starts colonising every system within 12 light years in one direction. Etc. and you colonise the galaxy in millions of years. Since it's software (or hardware that it's capable of self-upgrading), it can also massively meaningfully communicate to systems within thousands of light years. There's a big delay, but once you get past that you can effectively keep synchronising yourself with those. You could also do the same with genetic manipulation though I suppose - but I'd imagine you'd end up with lots to splits and divergences to species that heavily disagree sometimes. Unless you're willing to enforce authoritarianism at the genetic level, at least for agreement on keeping certain goals in mind (though hopefully selection pressures still override that sometimes). Because that's not a nice future.

[@brunonikodemski2420]

So you are implying that Humans are essentially an unstoppable Cancer or Tumor on our planet. Cancers by definition, keep growing until they kill their host. You maybe right, sort of, in that there may be more people already than the Planet Earth had ever intended to support.

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

​​​@@lost4468ytyou don't even know what your talking about the kardashev scale isn't just a measure of a civilizations energy use and manipulation it's because there's more than one way to describe a civilizations control of energy like the amount of computation a civilization might posses the kardashev scale can also be used to measure the actual size of that civilizations population or even the metric tone of the infrastructure possessed by a kardashev civilization a civilization that builds Dyson a Dyson swarm on the kardashev scale wouldn't just be classified by the amount of energy it uses and controls but also the size of it's population a civilization that has built a Dyson swarm would sit as a type 2 civilization even if that Dyson swarm is only 1% built based on the metric tone of it's infrastructure which also give you a idea of how vast it's population is it would be a low level type 2 civilization

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

​@@lost4468ytA fascinating critique! You're right; recent studies have suggested that megastructures like Dyson swarms might not be the most efficient way to produce unlimited clean energy. However, as you pointed out, these studies might be missing the original point of Freeman Dyson's proposal. Dyson's original idea, presented in his 1960 paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation," was not primarily focused on energy production. Instead, he proposed that advanced civilizations might build megastructures like Dyson swarms to support life and civilization itself, rather than just to generate energy. In other words, Dyson's idea was more about creating a habitat or a "shell" around a star to support life, rather than just harvesting energy. This perspective highlights the importance of considering the broader context and motivations behind the construction of megastructures. By focusing solely on energy production, the recent studies might be overlooking the more profound implications of Dyson's idea, such as: 1. _Habitat creation_: Megastructures could provide a stable and self-sustaining environment for life, enabling civilizations to thrive in a wider range of celestial environments. 2. _Civilization preservation_: By enveloping a star, megastructures could help preserve civilizations from stellar evolution, supernovae, or other cosmic events that might threaten their existence. 3. _Long-term thinking_: The construction of megastructures would require a long-term perspective, encouraging civilizations to think in terms of millennia or even longer timescales. Your observation highlights the importance of considering the original context and motivations behind scientific ideas, rather than just focusing on their potential applications or efficiencies. What are your thoughts on the potential implications of megastructures beyond energy production?

[@bigboy4006]

The Kardashian joke was pretty good. Sabine’s humor is the second reason I watch this channel, the first being Sabine giving us science news. She makes learning enjoyable!

[@danirizary6926]

She disproves the trope that Germans aren't funny.

[@bigboy4006]

@ Pretty much. Stereotypes often turn out to be untrue.

[@barryvyner1161]

I also laughed out loud when the basket of tiny, tiny, tiny potatoes appeared on the desk on return from the Musk cut away.

[@Thomas-gk42]

💯

[@David-l6c3w]

A Dyson sphere would have a neat unique design but be way more expensive than a Hoover sphere.

[@Kokuswolf]

IMHO every sphere and even every kind of artificial structure up there would be a neat unique design. I think it's a little early to be picky about our success so far.

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

A fascinating critique! You're right; recent studies have suggested that megastructures like Dyson swarms might not be the most efficient way to produce unlimited clean energy. However, as you pointed out, these studies might be missing the original point of Freeman Dyson's proposal. Dyson's original idea, presented in his 1960 paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation," was not primarily focused on energy production. Instead, he proposed that advanced civilizations might build megastructures like Dyson swarms to support life and civilization itself, rather than just to generate energy. In other words, Dyson's idea was more about creating a habitat or a "shell" around a star to support life, rather than just harvesting energy. This perspective highlights the importance of considering the broader context and motivations behind the construction of megastructures. By focusing solely on energy production, the recent studies might be overlooking the more profound implications of Dyson's idea, such as: 1. _Habitat creation_: Megastructures could provide a stable and self-sustaining environment for life, enabling civilizations to thrive in a wider range of celestial environments. 2. _Civilization preservation_: By enveloping a star, megastructures could help preserve civilizations from stellar evolution, supernovae, or other cosmic events that might threaten their existence. 3. _Long-term thinking_: The construction of megastructures would require a long-term perspective, encouraging civilizations to think in terms of millennia or even longer timescales. Your observation highlights the importance of considering the original context and motivations behind scientific ideas, rather than just focusing on their potential applications or efficiencies. What are your thoughts on the potential implications of megastructures beyond energy production?

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

​@@KokuswolfA fascinating critique! You're right; recent studies have suggested that megastructures like Dyson swarms might not be the most efficient way to produce unlimited clean energy. However, as you pointed out, these studies might be missing the original point of Freeman Dyson's proposal. Dyson's original idea, presented in his 1960 paper "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation," was not primarily focused on energy production. Instead, he proposed that advanced civilizations might build megastructures like Dyson swarms to support life and civilization itself, rather than just to generate energy. In other words, Dyson's idea was more about creating a habitat or a "shell" around a star to support life, rather than just harvesting energy. This perspective highlights the importance of considering the broader context and motivations behind the construction of megastructures. By focusing solely on energy production, the recent studies might be overlooking the more profound implications of Dyson's idea, such as: 1. _Habitat creation_: Megastructures could provide a stable and self-sustaining environment for life, enabling civilizations to thrive in a wider range of celestial environments. 2. _Civilization preservation_: By enveloping a star, megastructures could help preserve civilizations from stellar evolution, supernovae, or other cosmic events that might threaten their existence. 3. _Long-term thinking_: The construction of megastructures would require a long-term perspective, encouraging civilizations to think in terms of millennia or even longer timescales. Your observation highlights the importance of considering the original context and motivations behind scientific ideas, rather than just focusing on their potential applications or efficiencies. What are your thoughts on the potential implications of megastructures beyond energy production?

[@bennygummisko]

how to get rid of the solar wind (pressure) in a dyson sphere, and heat build up

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

@@bennygummisko not a Dyson sphere a Dyson swarm bruh

[@tim57243]

Even if you do star lifting or something else exotic to harvest energy from your star, it still makes sense to run a Dyson swarm around it to make use of any leftover heat or light. If your swarm is harvesting nearly all of the energy radiating from the star, the outside temperature is close to background. So it is not obvious to me that an external observer would be able to observe that interesting things were happening in the middle. If building the interesting machine in the middle is much faster than building the swarm, there might be a period of time when an external observer can see something interesting. But building a swarm is only a few decades, right?

[@GWelby]

Thank you very much for all of your work. Love, Greg Cascade

[@ra7e]

This was amazing! Thanks Sabine! ✨️✨️

[@dustman96]

All these postulations assume that an advanced civilization would choose to continue multiplying to the extent that they are using this much energy. It's also assuming that they wouldn't have an ethical framework that causes them to limit their growth and resource consumption. Also, beyond a certain point, what would be the use in harvesting more power? Would that really improve their lives? And what would the priorities of such an advanced civilization be in the first place? Well before they ever reached this stage they would pretty much know everything there is to know and there would be no point in any of this. Edit: It's a major intellectual fault to believe that another civilization would behave at all like humanity.

[@ayianaarthur2551]

Limiting population growth is not a concept of an advanced civilisation.

[@foraxen2255]

I agree. I find it stupid that anyone would expect that advanced civilisations would inevitably try to harness all the energy available just for the sake of it. What would they use it for? I cannot think of any reason they would want or requires that much energy. The most likely scenario, an advanced civilisation would learn to use energy in a more frugal manner as to not waste it pointlessly.

[@dustman96]

@@ayianaarthur2551 And why not?

[@NakushitaNamida]

What you say is true , but the concept is still right if you decorelate science advancement from ethical advancement. The most ethically advanced civilisation will be fine by staying under 1 on this scale , while more technology sophisticated civilisation without ethical advancement would not care.

[@ayianaarthur2551]

@ only intolerably tyrannical policymakers would limit population growth and that would mean the people who support that policy are not advanced. They would fade out as all tyrannical regimes do.

[@tiagotiagot]

Larger civilizations inherently do more by definition, and without including new physics, there is only so much more you can do with less energy, at some point even the most efficient way possible of doing things at large scales would add up to orders of magnitude more energy than we consume. Unless we are considering a Dark Forest scenario, where all advanced civilizations take extreme measures to not produce noticeably more noise than the background; it should be expected that sufficiently larger civilizations would be leaving very obvious scars in the sky from even just the energy used for their subsistence.

[@MarsStarcruiser]

Not sure we need to worry about “Dark Forest” even though it’s interesting to think about🤔. Under scenarios of greater scarcity, “Dark Forest” can make more sense, but as of now the estimates range from 10,000-60,000+ stars within 100 light years. Even if there were multiple local races hidden around us, by time we get through all those stars over millions of years, all local races(through technological assisted adaptation, evolution and eventual crossbreeding) could essentially become one unified civilization before we actually run out of local stars. I personally would imagine this to be more ideal, sense preservation against even greater cosmic events(such as outburst from core that could sterilize entire regions of the galaxy), could require collaboration between all races present, if we want to expect life in general to survive the longer term. But there are many arguments on all sides and I might be a bit too optimistic😅.

[@tiagotiagot]

@@MarsStarcruiser Dark Forest is not as much about competition for resources, but fear of preemptive strikes, essentially Mutually Assured Destruction mentality taken to the extreme (due to the time delays that come with the distances involved, signs of advanced civilization barely give any time to prepare a defense/response attack if there are relativistic impactors, more advanced directed energy weapon shots, seed Von Neuman dust clouds etc on the way; everyone is hiding because the logical conclusion is there is always a bigger fish).

[@apophys1110]

The problem with the Dark Forest is that it assumes a civilization can reach a technological growth spurt at any moment, upending the balance of power between two civilizations within the span of light lag communication. That is a questionable assumption - the most likely scenario is that technology reaches a plateau of diminishing returns as the laws of physics are exploited to the maximum extent possible.

[@tiagotiagot]

@@apophys1110 Are you willing to bet the existence of your species on the belief no one can be smarter, more efficient, luckier etc than you?

[@apophys1110]

@@tiagotiagot I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll be able to prove it mathematically at some point. At that point, no bets are required.

[@56nickrich]

Thanks for the facts Sabine! 🥰👍

[@GutiTheJ]

I know you probably dont celebrate, but happy thanksgiving and im thankful for sabine and other educators

[@creatorsremose]

What I find both amusing and troubling is that Humans are very limited in their thinking. We're actually looking for alien civilizations who're expected to use some silly sci-fi idea that's almost, kind of possible for us to do, only at a great expense. Only 100 years ago we still thought we're the only galaxy in the universe. We know so little. An advanced alien civilization might be using something completely different from electricity even, using some yet undiscovered layer of the universe. And yet we still spend so much looking for these "mirrors", if to paraphrase Stanislav Lem.

[@Hedgehobbit]

Many of these ideas, such as the Fermi Paradox, are based on the inevitability of continuous, never-ending exponential population growth as that is what people were afraid of back during the baby boom of the 50s and 60s. Now that we know that overpopulation isn't a major issue, all these outdated sci-fi concepts need to be rethought.

[@DKNguyen3.1415]

The human condition. Applies to more than just speculative science. Applies to politics and finance too. We can't see past our own noses.

[@hydrogencyanide4999]

It's like if a person 500 years ago imagined the future of long distance communication and thought of a planet sized mechanical pigeon that takes your letter and just walks over to the destination in a couple strides across oceans. That'd probably be less far fetched than a Dyson sphere.

[@DKNguyen3.1415]

@@hydrogencyanide4999 I still find it far feteched there are undersea cables running around the planet. Just sitting there on the ocean floor. Just sitting there. Just sitting there like the extension cord on my lawn.

[@Llortnerof]

@@DKNguyen3.1415 Eh, that's a bit of an oversimplification. Putting them in the right spot is quite a bit more difficult and they're hardly comparable to your extension cord. On the other hand, it's also considerably more difficult to run your lawnmower over it. On the other hand, i've tried to (very superficially) guess at what a Kardashev 7+ civilisation might be doing. Let's just say it involved a bunch of universe building for fun, profit and recreation.

[@jehl1963]

At about 4:00 you mention "...using strong magnetic fields..." Uh...yeah. Just like that someone conjures up a magnetic field strong enough to locally overwhelm a star's magnetic field, which can be created in an economical (speaking in terms of energy) fashion. Yeah...

[@stoferb876]

Exactly, the infrastructure needed to do the solar mining demands more energy to not instantly become useless rubble spiraling into the sun than what you'd extract from the resources mined from the sun. It's just incredibly dumb.

[@triftex8353]

Thats one of the reasons we arent doing it yet, we havent come up with a solution, again, yet.

[@wills.5762]

I mean, you got a whole star right there. If you have the ability to build a star lifter around it, its peanuts to put up some solar panels to power it.

[@jehl1963]

@triftex8353 True. I kind of buried the main point. How much energy would be required to create a magnetic field of X Gauss, which would be capable of drawing off the required material. On that note, why not just create a huge coil and inductively draw electricity from the Star's magnetic field?

[@apophys1110]

@@jehl1963 The best variant of the concept has several rings of statites (static satellites) near the equator of the star, and uses peristaltic motion of magnetic fields to accelerate material toward one of the star's poles, where a collector filters through the enhanced solar wind at that pole. It doesn't need to overwhelm the star's magnetic field, just push against it in order to squeeze it a bit. The individual parts around the star don't need to be very strong in themselves; you just need a lot of them, coordinated to make a collective effect. IIRC it has been estimated that a basic version would require the material of about a third of Mercury to start the process.

[@zweispurmopped]

Dyson Spheres are about as realistic as Superman or the hollow earth theory. How this bogus gets discussed in earnest is beyond me.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

A great book "Why the West Leads (for Now)" uses the ability to use energy as a ranking mechanism for civilizations.

[@brianquigley1940]

Sabine, how about a video about why "economic growth" is destroying the planet and that we should really be building homeostatic economies?????

[@tsamuel6224]

Economic growth is not destroying the planet. Whoever told you that is sick in the head. There are things that are, so some examples. Quarterly performance, fiduciary responsibility to investors never to community benefit, greed, non-binding corporate mission statements, education focused on job skills instead of reasoning skills, etc. Homeostatic economies are not a real thing; the rate of job creation and job destruction are far too high for homeostatic economies to be more than a conversational theoretical construct. Real economies are like a flame, they look sort of stable but their content is in rapid flux.

[@brianquigley1940]

@tsamuel6224 How will your explanation help children in Kolkata breathe clean air?

[@deucedaprodeuca]

Why would an ADVANCED civilization, destroy it's own start, even if they have a binary system?

[@backstabba]

Wouldn't destroy it. This would still take hundreds of thousands years and they can move onto the next as their home star depletes.

[@MustSeto]

If you're talking about basic star lifting, from what I've heard, this might do the opposite of destroying it. You might be able to focus on only extracting helium and heavier materials, putting most of the hydrogen back, which can _extend_ a star's lifespan. At the same time, even if they do something that "destroys" the star, the question if that's necessary to get something even better out of it. Even then, we aren't necessarily talking about destroying their home world's star. Maybe they'd keep that one for sentimental reasons. But maybe they don't care as much about other stars.

[@andrasbiro3007]

Why do we cut down trees?

[@Mystipaoniz]

its* star* Like...you would understand? Understanding the difference between "it's" and "its" could be a start... xD

[@thibaultjoan8268]

Why would an ADVANCED civilization destroy its own ecosystem?

[@Disappointed_Philosoraptor]

The entire energy consumption based scale strikes me as extrapolated based on current human nature - agressive expansion and limitless, self-centered growth at the cost of our environment akin to a cancer or a virus. What if advanced civilisations tend to optimize themselves and their technologies instead of maximizing their energy use? Imagine a civilisation which altered their own nature to be less demanding and therefore spreads evenly across the galaxy but in numbers small enough to not need the entire energy of a star and equipped with technologies which likewise do not require this amount of power. And "small enough" does not even need to mean small. A civilisation numbering in the billions per star and spread across millions of stars could be entirely undetectable in terms of energy consumption. On the plus side this adds to the list of possible signs we can look for and detect - and any civilisation which chooses to siphon stars might not be one we would want to altert to the existence of our perfectly siphonable main sequence star, meaning this might serve as a means to avoid "bad neighbors".

[@VladR1024]

Isaac Arthur has well over a dozen videos exploring this exact concept in depth. If you haven't, you really should watch them.

[@saneasthenextguy196]

It could be other civilizations don't feel the need to create and consume such enormous amounts of energy.

[@Kveldred]

Only if they're content to remain tiny potatoes and have no ambitions. The search for other _civilizations_ has implicit within it that they'll be, you know, doing stuff (bacteria don't create civilizations or emit signals detectable from light-years away, in general)... ...and doing _anything_ requires energy; population, travel, research, protection, even e.g. art or exploration. "Enormous" is a relative term, in any case: all of the energy of the Sun is at best medium potatoes next to supernovae or AGN.

[@saneasthenextguy196]

@@Kveldred You are anthropomorphizing; which is my entire point: aliens may not have the same goals or desires that we do. It could be we are the most greedy and rapacious beings in our galaxy.

[@kyjo72682]

Even if you have 999 which don't you just need 1 that decides to grow exponentially and it would replace all the others. That's also how evolution works...

[@stevedriscoll2539]

That's a totally plausible assumption

[@PhilippMehr]

Iwo! Die Technologie hat sich in den letzten 2000 Jahren kaum verändert. Selbst ein Atomkraftwerk ist am ende nur ne große Mühle 😊

[@moefuggerr2970]

Right. No one knows and no one can blindly guess correctly. Will have to wait and see.

[@Loreweavver]

Should be looking for the industrial waste instead.

[@-danR]

She should be looking for a new fact-vetting team. This 4:43 Shows they, not to mention _she,_ being either asleep at the wheel, or a believing the commonly debunked notion of a mechanically rigid Dyson sphere.

[@ito726]

That would be infrared heat, in the case of dyson spheres, but also anything else. This is one of the things searches for dyson spheres look for, unnaturally dim in visible (but bright in infrared). Star eaters may not look identical but the excessive infrared emissions will still be there. The main differences i can think of atm, is that a star eater may unreasonably bright in visible or higher wavelengths, in addition to infrared. But i would add, if the higher energy is reused, then it still would become infrared, and look identical to a dayson in in that case.

[@Loreweavver]

@-danR I'm not even gonna begin with how dumb a comment can be regarding someone not being up to date with science fiction. Go argue about the death star plans with someone who cares.

[@Loreweavver]

@@ito726 you misunderstood. I mean forget the science fiction and be practical instead of this fantasy of elves in space. Don't look for a Dyson sphere. Look for the garbage balls and manufacturing hubs.

[@-danR]

@@Loreweavver Nobody up to date with the science of Dyson spheres or the informed science-fiction thinks in terms of a _rigid_ Dyson sphere. "...mechanically rigid Dyson sphere..." It isn't even _wrong._ I won't argue either. I'll just speak to other readers of the OP.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

I shall assume that there are no Type I civilizations inside the range of our best sensors.

[@asdfqwerty14587]

We actually can't see many planets at all so our best sensors.. don't actually sense very much in regards to that. I mean, we more or less know that there are tons of planets out there just because of our general understanding of physics.. but we haven't directly observed very many, because they don't emit light and are very small on a galactic scale so they're just very difficult to see even if we have good reason to presume that there are lots of them out there.

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

@ I understand that.

[@Llortnerof]

Most of our best sensors have ranges that barely extend beyond their own frame, so that's not really saying much.

[@johno1544]

I doubt our best sensors have checked more than a few percent of the stars they could detect so far. Less about range more about sheer numbers

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

And those sensors are directed at Earth.

[@ibnorml5506]

Why are all aliens also nudists? Are we doing it wrong?

[@stargazer7644]

I'm not.

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

Another great point! You're right; the term "satellite" might be misleading, as it implies a small, uninhabitable object orbiting a planet. Instead, the structures in a Dyson swarm would likely be large, habitable, and self-sustaining megastructures. A more accurate description might be "habitable megastructures" or "artificial habitats." These structures would need to provide a stable and supportive environment for life, including atmosphere, temperature regulation, gravity, and resources such as air, water, and food. In Dyson's original vision, these megastructures could be built using materials found in the asteroid belt or other sources, and would be designed to support a wide range of life forms, from simple organisms to complex ecosystems.

[@rodandakiko2187]

Another great video Sabine. Thanks. As interesting as it was I felt the last sentence was the most important. "I think it would be a good idea to take care of our home planet"

[@coopersy]

A successful civilization won’t feel they need to destroy things, when truly advanced tech would let you live and prosper among nature. The amount of greed necessary to drive type 2 wouldn’t be survivable for a large society.

[@mariusvanc]

lol, tfw you have no idea what you're talking about. A civilization trying to survive billions or trillions of years isn't going to putter around worrying about stepping on a flower. They're not "prospering with nature", they ARE nature. At the very least they are colonizing other star systems, if not galaxies, which takes tremendous amounts of energy and resources, so they don't get wiped out by an errant asteroid, something which Earth is well protected from by our two friendly gas giants, or a nearby supernova, and that still happens every few million years. This is no way to run a successful civilization. "Greed" is a petty human concept, that apparently you cannot see beyond. For one, they're not "destroying" anything, they're just converting energy from one form to another.

[@singtothesilence]

3:30 - do you want the C'Tan? 'Cos that's how you get the C'Tan.

[@thesummoning3915]

I just read a passage about them in Trazyn vs Orika aka The Infinite and the Divine, and had to chuckle from the overlap

[@jamesdubben3687]

0:30 cover up their stars? Need to cover up their butts.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Good work Prof.

[@edwinscheibner7941]

Thank you, Sabine.

[@donutwindy]

No matter the method used to create energy, you will increase your output of infrared radiation as you use the energy. One might search for any location in which this output energy is increasing over time.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

That's kind of the premise for finding Dyson spheres.

[@donutwindy]

@AstroGremlinAmerican Except that you aren't necessarily reducing the energy of the star. One could use Jupiter as a source of hydrogen for fusion or drop things into an artificial black hole, or something unknown like space bending or dark energy. Your infrared still increases, but unlike a Dyson swarm, the star would be unaffected.

[@mariusg8824]

Unless of course aliens found a way to utilize infrared radiation as energy source. Also, aliens might be interested in hiding their energy signature.

[@donutwindy]

@mariusg8824 it's an entropy problem. Using it just produces more. However, if you wanted to hide you could turn the waste heat energy ultimately into matter or alter its frequency or direct it into a specific direction so it wouldn't be visible. And maybe some aliens might do this. But they won't all do this. We don't for example. And I don't suspect we ever will. And if they don't all do this, we can detect the ones that do not.

[@apophys1110]

Theoretically, infrared can be reflected into a black hole.

[@GJP1169]

And all these speculations can be completely wrong .

[@frydac]

otherwise they wouldn't be speculations, of course

[@MrAlanCristhian]

The problem with those ideas, is the assumption that technology never stop improving.

[@Cuplex1]

Not really, all you need is self replicating machines and lots of patience in order to build megastructures. Sort of like how life has transformed the earth completely.

[@patelk464]

Or that the civilisation has unlimited resources.

[@Mandelasmind]

@@Cuplex1 Yeah but what if none of that is even needed? On a biological level we are farrr more energy efficient than anything we could ever build.

[@nahoj.2569]

@@Mandelasmind We could build organisms.

[@apophys1110]

The fundamental point is that these ideas could be built with currently existing technology, just scaled way, way up.

[@anthonyfamularo8875]

The Romans couldn't look through a window and see the year 2024. But with our rapidly advancing telescopic technology, eventually simply *seeing* another civilization "live," so to speak, and learning from it, is becoming an increasingly realistic proposition over time.

[@patinho5589]

They’ve already communicated with us and told us how they live. See the Aetherius society cloud.

[@scotttovey]

"Societies that eat stars." Sabine; Marvel had a super villain that ate planets to survive. I think those researchers have been reading too many comic books.

[@Thomas-gk42]

Tiny space potatoes, like asteroid "Hossi", he meant?🎉

[@ListenToMcMuck]

(8) °[ 👍 ]

[@NealX_Gaming]

I think it's rather telling that we would measure advancement by production/consumption of resources. Says more about us than anyone else, in my view.

[@markh.876]

All else being equal, you need more to do more. That is not likely to change.

[@KissatenYoba]

You can't consume more cars than there are mined constituent metals. It's a hard physical limit, that's very handy for comparisons

[@stargazer7644]

It's kind of hard to have technolgical advancement without consumption of resources. It seems like a pretty logical yardstick to me.

[@ahmedsyed3436]

0:18 Why Advanced Intelligent Extraterrestrials (Aliens) don’t wear clothes

[@gow2ilove]

They've evolved to have no ego

[@jakelynbrook]

Maybe 🤔 their skin is different from ours 🧐🙊🙈🙉👽😎🇺🇸 2:21

[@corvanphoenix]

They're invisible. Prove me wrong.

[@jakelynbrook]

@ I think they’re Cyborgs!👽🤐🤔🧐🤫🤣😎🇺🇸

[@jortor2932]

Their didii's are too small to notice

[@EricMiller-wf9lt]

A brilliant observation! You're absolutely right; the Kardashev scale is often misunderstood as solely measuring a civilization's energy output. However, it's more nuanced than that. The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on its energy consumption and control. The scale has three main types: *Type 1 Civilization* - Energy consumption: 10^16 watts (approximately the energy output of a planet like Earth) - Characteristics: A Type 1 civilization is able to harness and utilize the energy of its entire planet, typically through advanced renewable energy sources. *Type 2 Civilization* - Energy consumption: 10^26 watts (approximately the energy output of a star like the Sun) - Characteristics: A Type 2 civilization is able to harness and utilize the energy of its entire star, typically through megastructures like Dyson swarms. *Type 3 Civilization* - Energy consumption: 10^36 watts (approximately the energy output of an entire galaxy) - Characteristics: A Type 3 civilization is able to harness and utilize the energy of its entire galaxy, potentially through exotic forms of energy production or manipulation. As you mentioned, the Kardashev scale also takes into account other factors, such as: - Computation and information processing capabilities - Population size and density - Infrastructure and technological development - Energy efficiency and waste management Your example of a civilization with a 1% complete Dyson swarm is a great illustration of this point. Even with a relatively low level of completion, the sheer scale and energy output of the Dyson swarm would still qualify the civilization as a Type 2 civilization, albeit a low-tech one. Your insights into the Kardashev scale and its nuances are impressive! What are your thoughts on the potential implications of a civilization reaching Type 2 or Type 3 status?

[@Jeremy-Ai]

Love you Sabine. Thank you for all your hard work. Jeremy :)

[@fragileandfacile]

Elon Musk wrong about something? I’m stunned

[@stargazer7644]

Just smoke some weed and it'll all make sense.

[@jimschuler8830]

Oh, yeah? Well, I've found as many aliens as these researchers have, so I think I'm doing pretty good.

[@DrDeuteron]

sorry, but: no. A null result in physics is worthless unless you establish an upper limit. e.g. the mass of the photon is < 1e-27 eV, so for you, it's maybe "the distance between techno-civilization is.... > 1000 light years" or something like that.

[@jimschuler8830]

@@DrDeuteron Judging by the amount of energy I put into that joke, and the height it sailed over your head, I'm confident I can beat SpaceX to Mars.

[@AstroGremlinAmerican]

Pretty well.

[@techcafe0]

oh christ, can we not talk about Elon Musk, for a change? i'm so fed up hearing about that megalomaniacal billionaire broligarch.

[@CionnFE]

Broligarch 😂. Love that 👍🏼

[@Scubadooper]

2000 years ago they'd have probably got it almost perfect - burning coal and oil!Wind power has been around for thousands of years, and water powered trip hammers are about 2000-2250 years old. The use of gas and nuclear maybe wouldn't have been known, or the use of electricity as a vector, but the base generation concepts are relatively limited. The point being, yes there may be technologies that were not able to foresee (maybe vacuum energy?) but we should have a pretty good grasp on physics now to understand likelihoods and possibilities.

[@vincentvoillot6365]

The big difference is 2000 years ago they thought that the sun was a guy on a chariot riding across the sky. Our modern understanding of physic is on another scale. The most efficient way to produce energy is matter / anti-matter ( it is a limit ), fusion is the next best thing as hydrogen is the most common element and stars are fusion powered engines.

[@jantjarks7946]

We might laugh about their understanding back then. But how will they laugh about our understanding today in another 2k years? 😉

[@vincentvoillot6365]

@@jantjarks7946 Indeed but keep in mind that you should had the same response from12000BC to 1500AC. But i'm pretty sure Leonard da Vinci would have geeking hard.

[@jantjarks7946]

@@vincentvoillot6365 I don't think that we can fully understand Leonardo da Vinci these days anyways. It's from a different time where a universal genius could still thrive. These days, where are the people with this universal understanding and skill? People miss that he was as much an artist as an engineer. But most of the people only look at the second part.

[@apophys1110]

There's *way* too little natural antimatter to harvest and use it as a power source. Fusion is nice, but it can't go past iron. You can instead feed stuff into a mini black hole and harvest the Hawking radiation, turning any matter into pure energy. That is the most efficient power source.

[@vincentvoillot6365]

@@apophys1110 I was citing anti matter has an efficiency hard limit. And you have to take in account the conversion to electricity (thermodynamic is another hard limit). And how do you store it ? Fusion can get past iron, not in stars and Iron-Nickel is where you can't get energy from fusion, you lose energy creating elements heavier than iron (that's we retrieve with fission). Iron is nuclear ash plus we are in the energy business not metal production. In theory "mini" black hole sound nice, except we barely do mini-suns on earth more than few seconds. Even if possible, i don't know if will be worthwhile. Better pump hydrogen from a gas giant and fuse it.

[@SmithsMobile]

Sad to think people actually write papers on this type of garbage.

[@frydac]

I think it's sad that you think it's sad..

[@Microbrain4775]

❤

[@ngvp1127]

Thanks - this is so trippy!

[@SyIe12]

👍⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐EXCELLENT!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION.

[@venator55]

what we can use is not only the pure amount of energy but an energy potenzial, input versus output, and we inbetween to spin the wheels

[@rujotheone]

Love the graphics

[@themugwump33]

Happy Thanksgiving from 🇺🇸!

[@DrinkingStar]

In 1963 in a college history course, I remember having had to read a book that explained the rise of different powers/civilizations being based, in part, upon the efficient use of energy. One example was how the use of iron weapons was more efficient than bronze weapons in winning battles. The rise of the Hittites in the eastern Mediterranean region was cited as an example. I believe the book was by Childe(sp??). You seem somewhat in agreement with him from another point of view.

[@skeltek7487]

The best would be to minimize speed at which energy is converted. Most processes in nature are more efficient when achieving their 'end state' slow, while high powered systems usually operate rather wastefully considering their energy source conversion.

[@JosephLMcCord]

Apparently coal actually was used as fuel to some limited extent, within the Roman Empire (something that I just recently learned). When firewood becomes no longer as readily available because forests have been diminished to turn into agricultural land - naturally if you've figured out how to mine it, you start turning to coal. The first very-rudimentary coal-powered steam engines - which were just simple pumps - were actually constructed to pump water out of coal mines that had a tendency to flood. Coal was already being used extensively for fuel, before anybody figured out a _mechanical_ use for it.

[@Pantheos]

In principle, future technology could be used to fuse every light element and split every heavy element until an entire planet consists only of iron.

[@apophys1110]

In principle, a mini black hole can be continuously fed with any matter at all, farming the Hawking radiation of the black hole to essentially have matter converted into pure energy. A black hole can be held in place by keeping it electrically charged. It's still best not to do this on the planet.

[@wesleyashley99]

What if a civilization becoming more advanced means it becomes less wasteful? I can see removing material from their star and storing it for the long term. Maybe they want to have their civilization outlast their star.

[@RWZiggy]

storing hydrogen and helium? that's not useful stuff. The fusion happens in the core of a star, everything else is just the star's fuel tank. but a device to use hydrogen may never be built as it takes too much energy. D-T is in the universe but sparse. why not just capture the energy from a working star?

[@Dark_Peace]

The real ones know the true way to harness energy : 14yo magical girls succumbing to despair.

[@JohnBoen]

3:50. Starlifting is part of the K-2 level of skills. Remember - individual units from a Dyson Swarm will be lifted by solar winds. This gives us the ability to capture a lot of those protons and other ions that are ejected. This will also allow us to capture antimatter. We will be masters of starlifting before we enclosed our star. We gain access to the technology at about Kardasian level 1.1.

[@nimz8521]

I remember when Neill Blomkamp talked about this a decade or more ago. He's not a scientist (obviously) but was asked to do a talk and this was the subject he chose. It makes a lot of sense.

[@mitkoogrozev]

All I would ask him now if we're getting a sequel to District 9.

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Not familiar with Blomkamp, but way before him, scientist, Sir Charles Shultz proposed solar arrays the size of medium midwestern U.S. cities in the exosohere, or mesosphere, I can't remember which (cities of the 1970's, not now) directly in sessions on sustainable energy in front of Congress and it all went for nought...Imagine that? Of course, according to him it would've provided power in abundance for possibly centuries, but now we'll never know

[@jwarmstrong]

Type one Technology would be constructing machines that could build clones of themselves - Type two technology would be machines that could deconstruct other machines for cloning &/or improving them - Type 3 would be machines that would travel to meteors, comets, moons or planets to setup space stations