[ExI] Von Neumann Probes

[BillK]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 at 21:22, John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> *You may not be proposing it but it's not realistic to propose nobody
> anywhere will be dissatisfied with the pitifully small amount of energy
> that a fusion reactor that can fit on a planet's surfers can produce, and
> it's not realistic to propose that intelligent life is common but nobody
> develops Nanotechnology even though it requires no breakthroughs in
> physics, just improved engineering.  And once you have that, then just one
> 10^-12 gram self reproducing machine would be all you'd need to give your
> solar system a Dyson sphere. But even our largest telescopes have seen no
> signs of a Dyson Sphere, I maintain that the best explanation for that
> observational fact is that we are alone in the observable universe.*
>
> *John K Clark*
>
>> _______________________________________________
>


I asked Claude Opus 4,5 - Will all advanced civilizations build a Dyson
swarm around their star?

Claude suggested that this idea could be a mistaken projection of
20th-century ideas onto the cosmos.

BillK


Claude -
The Dyson Swarm Assumption

The idea that advanced civilizations will inevitably construct Dyson
swarms—vast collections of solar collectors surrounding a star—stems from
physicist Freeman Dyson's 1960 argument that energy-hungry civilizations
would eventually need to capture most of their star's output. This has
become almost axiomatic in SETI and futurism, but it rests on assumptions
worth questioning.
Why Civilizations Might *Not* Build Dyson Swarms

*Energy demand may plateau.* The assumption of exponential energy growth
extrapolates industrial-era trends indefinitely. But civilizations might
reach equilibrium states where efficiency gains, population stabilization,
or changed values reduce energy appetite. A civilization that masters
nanotechnology, for instance, might accomplish tremendous feats with
remarkably little energy. The Dyson swarm presupposes a particular
trajectory—endless expansion—that may not be universal.

*The economics might never work.* Disassembling planets to build millions
of habitats or collectors is an almost inconceivably vast engineering
project. Even with advanced automation, the coordination problems, time
horizons (centuries to millennia), and opportunity costs might make it
perpetually unattractive compared to alternatives. No single generation may
have sufficient incentive to begin a project their distant descendants
would complete.

*Biological or post-biological priorities may shift.* A civilization that
uploads itself into digital substrates might find that computational
efficiency matters more than raw energy capture. Running on a few extremely
optimized computing nodes near a star's surface could be preferable to
building a swarm. Alternatively, a civilization that values wilderness,
aesthetics, or minimal intervention might deliberately limit its footprint.
Alternative Approaches to Energy and Expansion

*Stellar lifting and star engineering.* Rather than passively collecting
starlight, a civilization might actively extract matter from its
star—harvesting hydrogen for fusion reactors elsewhere or adjusting the
star's properties. This provides fuel for distributed activities without
requiring megastructures in fixed orbits.

*Exploiting compact objects.* Black holes offer energy extraction through
the Penrose process, superradiance, or Hawking radiation (for smaller black
holes). A rotating black hole can theoretically yield up to 29% of its
mass-energy, and the power densities are extraordinary. Neutron stars
similarly offer intense gravitational and magnetic energy. Civilizations
near such objects might find them preferable to their parent stars.

*Vacuum energy or exotic physics.* If zero-point energy extraction or other
speculative physics proves viable, the entire premise of stellar-scale
collection becomes obsolete. A civilization with access to such sources
wouldn't need to build anything around stars at all.

*Distributed interstellar presence.* Rather than maximizing energy capture
in one system, a civilization might spread thinly across many star systems,
using modest resources from each. This hedges existential risk and may suit
species with slow metabolisms, long lifespans, or virtual existence where
physical proximity matters little.

*Artificial fusion or antimatter production.* With sufficiently advanced
technology, manufacturing fuel directly might be more practical than
collecting diffuse starlight. Antimatter, though expensive to produce, has
extraordinary energy density. A civilization might invest in production
infrastructure rather than collection infrastructure.
The Deeper Question

The Dyson swarm hypothesis reveals our assumptions more than it predicts
alien behavior. It imagines civilizations as maximizers—of energy, of
expansion, of capability. But optimization can take many forms. A
civilization might maximize for longevity (favoring low-energy steady
states), for experience quality (favoring depth over breadth), for minimal
suffering (favoring small populations), or for values entirely alien to us.

The absence of obvious Dyson swarms in our observations—Fermi's paradox in
one of its guises—might indicate that the whole framework is mistaken.
Perhaps the universe is full of civilizations quietly tending their
gardens, running ancestor simulations on modest hardware, or existing in
forms we wouldn't recognize as technological at all. The Dyson swarm, in
this view, is a projection of 20th-century industrial ambitions onto the
cosmos, not a universal attractor for intelligence.

------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260125/9e86a436/attachment.htm>