[onlyrealcuzzo]

It's a bit absurd the idea that humans living on earth are going to produce more energy than the Sun.

Maybe I'm naive and simple minded. But that just seems insane.

If I'm doing the math right, at 2.3% growth = we produce more energy than the Sun in 4500 years.

It doesn't matter how many years it is. It's never happening.

Just look at how damn hot and inhospitable the sun is. We're not producing more energy here!

It'd be infinitely more plausible to build a Dyson sphere around the Sun, and call me naive on that, too, but I'm skeptical that's ever gonna happen either.

[wudangmonk]

Not a Dyson sphere, a Dyson swarm makes more sense and its doable since it can be very sparse at the beginning and grow denser with time.

[mrexroad]

Satellites (points), swarms, rings, sails along a spherical plane (e.g. spherical lune w/ axis along ecliptic)… seems like ”realistic” progression.

In a far-future where a TNG-inspired Dyson structure were somehow feasible (1AU size, habitable surface on interior, etc.), it’d be incredibly disappointing if we applied the (unrealistic) science and (unrealistic) resources towards building such a thing, rather than interstellar efforts. Buuuut maybe I’m just projecting my disappointment with our planet’s current approach to science and resource utilization.

[Nevermark]

100-500 years from now is enough time for AI to develop small nuclear and/or laser sail micro spacecraft that can colonize other systems at a good fraction of the speed of light.

Which would leave 4000 years or so to colonize every system with 1000 light years.

In each system collecting and engineering with low gravity material (asteroids, centaurs, smaller moons, etc.) and using that to capture solar energy will get routine.

Gas giants are basically massive hydrogen nuclear energy depots.

Earth and even our solar system don’t form any kind limit to resource growth on time scales like that.

[SEJeff]

And it’s been said that the mass requires to build a Dyson sphere around our sun would necessitate destroying all of the planets: not gonna happen.

[mnemonicsloth]

The estimates I've seen suggest maybe just Mercury.

Which is good, because Mercury is mostly metal, whereas e.g. Mars is mostly rock and thus not useful for this kind of work

[TwoCent]

Would Mercury be a good candidate, given how far in the sun's gravity well it sits? Perhaps better to start with the asteroid belt.