= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Open thread, July 29-August 4, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (381)
Most valuable of those resources is free energy. The sun is burning that into low grade light and heat at an incredible rate.
So does that imply that a rapidly expanding resource-saving FAI would go around extinguishing stars?
Seems prudent to do.
Unless it values the existence of stars more than it values other things it could do with that energy.
Upvoted for being the first instance I've seen of someone describing extinguishing all the stars in the night sky as being prudent.
I suspect using them is more likely. They certainly aren't going to just let them keep wasting fuel. Not unless they have the opportunity to prevent even more waste. For example, they will send out probes to other systems before worrying too much about this system.
Is that even possible!? The FAI would want to somehow pause the burning of the star, allowing it to begin producing energy again when needed. For example collapsing it into a black hole wouldn't be what we want, since the energy would be wasted.
Would star lifting be enough to slow the burning of a star to a standstill?