←back to thread

214 points SkyMarshal | 6 comments | | HN request time: 1.1s | source | bottom
1. Jeff_Brown ◴[] No.28234054[source]
Burning planets for energy, if using the energy from stars is indeed a viable alternative, will be a truly sad waste of the beauty and interesting ordered structure of space.
replies(2): >>28235932 #>>28236030 #
2. nwah1 ◴[] No.28235932[source]
Luckily, there's a lot of planets. And dematerializing one is difficult.
3. leonroy ◴[] No.28236030[source]
I would hope in any future scenario we'd avoid burning a living world like the Earth and instead harvest resources from a dead planet like Mercury or Venus.

That said, seems the Earth was once inhospitable around the time Venus was 'alive'. Good documentary which lends weight to what you said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p07922lr/the-planets

replies(1): >>28236438 #
4. Jeff_Brown ◴[] No.28236438[source]
It certainly would be much worse to burn a living planet, but even a hellhole like Venus is a uniquely beautiful and mysterious scientific wonderland.
replies(1): >>28238403 #
5. jjk166 ◴[] No.28238403{3}[source]
You say that now when your entire civilization is limited to a single planet. But I would imagine the novelty wears off after you've explored billions of venus-like planets. For a galaxy spanning civilization, it would be equivalent to destroying an acre of the Sahara.
replies(1): >>28238871 #
6. Jeff_Brown ◴[] No.28238871{4}[source]
An appropriately stiff integalactic tax on entropy, enforced only above some enormous threshold like burning a planet, could be optimal.

Because you're right -- at some scale, for some payoff, burning a Venus is the right decision. But ceteris peribus, harvesting from the entropy already present is better than adding to the universe's entropy.