This article is based on the assumption that we won't figure out a way to manage and/or refuel the sun, even in a billion years. Given the incredible technological progress since the industrial revolution (cooking by fire to walking on the moon and nuclear power in under two centuries), I am highly skeptical of this assumption.
You shouldn't be. Basing your argument on "incredible technological progress since the industrial revolution" and "a billion years" passing is mere extrapolation.
Extrapolation of this form is like saying "I ate 1 burger on Monday, 2 on Tuesday and 4 on Wednesday. Given this rate, I'll be eating billions of burgers by next week".
For one, early discoveries, when science started its' pacing were easier. They are "low hanging fruit". We got the most basic stuff in 2-3 centuries (electricity, magnetism, gravity, modern math, evolution, boolean algebra, sets, engineering), refined them in another (relativity, quantum physics, computing, DNA). At some point you reach a plateau. We are not increasing anywhere near the same pace as in the start in breadth and quality: mostly in volume (more research into various aspects of stuff) and detail (more detailed results).
Second, there are other limits. For example, handling stuff below or above some natural limits requires (by the physics of the thing) enormous energy -- and we either don't have that or couldn't use it without melting earth.
There are also limits to our resources -- the very stuff we use to make our tech. From minerals to water. And then there's social limits. We could have been wiped out from a WWIII style thing several times during the cold war -- and could be even worse going forward, if on top of the usual greed and diplomatic expansion games there's also something like a fight for natural resources (draught, famine, etc).
Comments
You shouldn't be. Basing your argument on "incredible technological progress since the industrial revolution" and "a billion years" passing is mere extrapolation.
Extrapolation of this form is like saying "I ate 1 burger on Monday, 2 on Tuesday and 4 on Wednesday. Given this rate, I'll be eating billions of burgers by next week".
For one, early discoveries, when science started its' pacing were easier. They are "low hanging fruit". We got the most basic stuff in 2-3 centuries (electricity, magnetism, gravity, modern math, evolution, boolean algebra, sets, engineering), refined them in another (relativity, quantum physics, computing, DNA). At some point you reach a plateau. We are not increasing anywhere near the same pace as in the start in breadth and quality: mostly in volume (more research into various aspects of stuff) and detail (more detailed results).
Second, there are other limits. For example, handling stuff below or above some natural limits requires (by the physics of the thing) enormous energy -- and we either don't have that or couldn't use it without melting earth.
There are also limits to our resources -- the very stuff we use to make our tech. From minerals to water. And then there's social limits. We could have been wiped out from a WWIII style thing several times during the cold war -- and could be even worse going forward, if on top of the usual greed and diplomatic expansion games there's also something like a fight for natural resources (draught, famine, etc).