> Scientists used to be aristocrats interested in truth. These days they're just
> interested in grants.
I'm not sure if that's actually what you're advocating, but personally I'm very much against science only being the domain of rich people who can afford to do it as a hobby.
If you had never listened to a professional play piano before then you'd have no idea what level of performance is possible. Similarly, if you had never seen skilled skaters perform on TV.
But we have done these things, so it's obvious that they're doing something that's very difficult.
Sometimes the things we find most impressive, in a demonstration of a skill we don't have, aren't the most difficult things.
I remember being absolutely blown away by some aerial circus tricks and stunts I saw at shows. Later, I started studying and eventually performing myself, and it's often the case that the most crowd-pleasing stunts are some of the easiest to perform.
As a performer, you could always tell which members of the audience knew their stuff, because they'd be the only ones applauding the tricks that might not have looked so spectacular, but were actually the most difficult.
There's plenty. The vast majority of the 'shell' would be solar concentrators - basically aluminium foil or something like it. You can make a LOT of that by dismantling a few asteroids, never mind a planet or two.
Isaac Arthur's youtube channel goes into this in some depth (and is generally excellent, IMO). Here's an episode on Dyson Spheres:
I'm not sure if that's actually what you're advocating, but personally I'm very much against science only being the domain of rich people who can afford to do it as a hobby.