The Dyson Sphere of Influence

By | March 23, 2006

Dyson Sphere.jpgFreeman Dyson, physicist and philosopher who gave us the Dyson Sphere, believes the future needs a few good heretics.

In the commencement address Dyson delivered last December at the University of Michigan, he presented his speech layered between the introduction and the conclusion of a fable containing the heresy that misfortune is a gift in disguise. Once he had his audience’s attention, he then proposed three heretical scenarios for the future:

First Heresy: Global warming is grossly exaggerated

“There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. The warming happens mostly in places and times where it is cold, in the arctic more than in the tropics, in winter more than in summer, at night more than in daytime. On the whole, the warming happens most where it does the least harm. I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.”

Second Heresy:Biotechnology will soon be domesticated.

“…there is a close analogy between von Neumann’s vision of computers as large centralized facilities and the public perception of genetic engineering today as an activity of large pharmaceutical and agribusiness corporations such as Monsanto. The public distrusts Monsanto because Monsanto likes to put genes for poisonous pesticides into food-crops, just as we distrusted von Neumann because von Neumann liked to use his computer for designing hydrogen bombs. It is likely that genetic engineering will remain unpopular and controversial so long as it remains a centralized activity in the hands of large corporations.

I see a bright future for the biotechnical industry when it follows the path of the computer industry, the path that von Neumann failed to foresee, becoming small and domesticated rather than big and centralized.”

Third Heresy:The United States has less than a century left of its turn as top nation.

“Since the modern nation-state was invented around the year 1500, a succession of countries have taken turns at being top nation, first Spain, then France, Britain, America. Each turn lasted about 150 years. Ours began in 1920, so it should end about 2070. The reason why each top nation’s turn comes to an end is that the top nation becomes over-extended, militarily, economically and politically. Greater and greater efforts are required to maintain the number one position. Finally the over-extension becomes so extreme that the whole structure collapses. Already we can see in the American posture today some clear symptoms of over-extension. Who will be the next top nation? You should be asking yourselves, not how to live in an America-dominated world, but how to prepare for a world that is not America-dominated. That may be the most important problem for your generation to solve.”

Read the entire transcript.

  • D. Vision

    Read Theodore Dalrymple’s essay on “After Empire”; relating how Britain’s status as the world’s lone hyperpower collapsed in less than a generation. Diagnosis: peaceniks and limp-wristed pansies peddling national guilt and remorse systematically destroyed the national will to remain on top.

    The US has its share of adultolescent naysayers insisting we’re about to lose our edge, desperately trying to give the rest of us to just give it over so they’ll feel better.

    It takes strength of character, thick skin, and willpower to stay on top, and the media and plenty others out there are rapidly trying to dismantle each one.

  • doctorpat

    2070? So we DON’T have to prepare to live in a world not dominated by the USA then. At least not for another 60 years, and who can predict that far in advance?

    Saying the USA loses top spot in 2070 is heresy, because that is much, much later than anyone else is predicting.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    D. Vision:

    Agreed.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    I don’t put much stock in linear progressions expanded out over the next few years. I would put even less in this kind of “pattern” where something should be expected to happen every 150 years just because it did before. (Which is arguable, anyway.)

    It could be that nation-states as a whole are on the wane. I highly recommend this book.

    UPDATE: I don’t usually write updates to my comments, but I just realized that there’s a mini-discussion going on over here about whether I like to indulge in linear thinking. It just seemed related is all.

  • http://beyondwordsworth.com Kathy

    Good points, Phil. And just because a nation declines in power, all of civilization doesn’t necessarily decline. I’d like to read this book. Does it mention how long the Anglosphere might exist as the model? Might the Anglosphere give us a better a chance of reaching technological stage of the Dyson Sphere?

  • http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog Michael Anissimov

    Nice to see that this guy is still active. His kids obviously are. The Dysons are one high-powered family. Freeman is still my personal fave out of the bunch.

    But thinking in terms of regular (rather than compressing) intervals for prediction of future events reflects an intuitive linear, rather than historical exponential view of the future. So of course I agree with Phil that Dyson is off-base on that one.

    The danger of global warming is indeed exaggerated. We would need to continue burning fossil fuels for over a century, and suffer from zero progress in energy technology, for it to be a serious threat.

  • Karl Hallowell

    OTOH, I think we discredit linear thinking too easily. For example, Moore’s Law is a linear relation between time and and the log of transistor density that has worked over time frames far longer than expected. On short enough time scales, linear thinking (and even constant thinking) is good enough. Dyson however probably isn’t working in such a time frame.

    D. Vision, staying on top also means not overextending oneself or squandering resources on parasitic elements. Britain by the time of the First World War had overextended itself. There were always “peaceniks and limp-wristed pansies” in England. IMHO, they didn’t gain power until the empire was already in decay and sustaining the empire no longer was feasible nor benefited the English people. Mr.Dalrymple’s conclusions seem suspiciously like those you’d expect from someone who has a similar axe to grind now.

    In a similar fashion, as long as the US hegemony benefits overall the US citizen, you’ll continue to see support for it. But support will rapidly dwindle when it’s not, especially if the hegemony is perceived to benefit some other group at the expense of the majority.

    Kathy, you wrote:

    Might the Anglosphere give us a better a chance of reaching technological stage of the Dyson Sphere?

    I don’t think anything resembling the “Anglosphere” will still exist by the time a Dyson sphere (I’m thinking here a cloud of mirrors and/or solar cells) is constructed around the Sun. I think it’ll be a vastly centralized project, partly because uncoordinated efforts would probably result in a lot of collisions and other manifestations of “tragedy of the commons”, and because such a project would probably be built very close to the Sun and hence would have to overcome the objections (and perhaps military might) of Earth and other Solar System residents.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Kathy –

    Bennett devotes a fair amount of space in his book to explaining how the Anglosphere nations are driving the Singularity — which, of course, draws us closer to the realization of things like Dyson Spheres.

  • Micah Glasser

    I think that any kind of discussion that tries to predict who will “be in power” 70 years from now cannot be had by singularitarians. Once one internalizes the significance of a technological singularity event such mundane questions of the relative “power” of some “nation-state” become incoherent. Any one ingaged in such thinking has not allowed him/her self to fully confront the radical nature of the technological transformation that has gripped the evolution of human society on this planet. I think a more appropriate prediction would be that within 30 years what goes by the name of politics and economics will either have been trasfomed beyond recognition or we will have destroyed the world civilization that we are only now entering into fully.