4 ms·

I couldn't help but read that with historical-political overtones, which in light of 19th century Chinese history and the modern CCP seemed terrifying. I also

by ethbro 8y ago

I couldn't help but read that with historical-political overtones, which in light of 19th century Chinese history and the modern CCP seemed terrifying. I also took issue with the implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization. Or, another way, that all civilizations would climb the same technology ladder the same way. On Earth, historical competition between nation-states has suggested a very different reality.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> I also took issue with the implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization. I don't remember that assumption; I felt the implicit assumption was that development of any civilization can experience unpredictable rapid acceleration, so even if two civilizations cooperated, it doesn't help them much against others out there. > Or, another way, that all civilizations would climb the same technology ladder the same way. That I think was explicitly denied in the basic axioms of Dark Forest theory - again, civilization's technological level can jump unpredictably. > historical competition between nation-states has suggested a very different reality The core axiom of Dark Forest theory is that lack of FTL makes communication delays be of the same length as periods of possible technological leap-aheads, which makes cooperation unlikely and contact too dangerous. On the scale of our planet, that never applied. Communications between civilizations that knew about each other were on the order of months, and technological developments tended to make that delay shorter. Dark Forest translated to Earth would be as if I noticed your sail ships, sent you a hello from my steam civilization, only to get preemptively hit by an ICBM you've managed to build in 200 years it took for my message to reach you. -- Maybe there was more historical politics in this book than I noticed; I'm not well versed on history of China, and thus lack necessary context. I'd love to learn more, if that is so.
- ethbro 8y ago
  > implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization From memory, the basic tenant of dark forest theory was 'In the time it takes to communicate, you could become more powerful than me.' My point is that if two+ interacting (I don't believe cooperation is strictly necessary) civilizations make technological progress at an exponentially faster rate than a single civilization, then they are highly unlikely to be outclassed. Furthermore, this provides a disincentive (where 3BP notes none) to wipe out other civilizations, as you're giving up their potential benefits. > history of China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Qing_dynasty_(AD_1644%E2%80%931911) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Qing_dynasty_... tl;dr - late-Qing+ China (like the Muslim world) goes from a thriving, scientifically leading, expansionist trading society to an isolationist stagnant one, then suffers 200 years of being taken advantage of by foreign powers. Culminating in both the British and Japanese invading with radically advanced military hardware and imposing their will. It's hard not to see parallels, but a bit terrifying that the 3BP take-away is 'you should launch a first strike on your enemies the second you can obliterate them without retribution.'

by ethbro 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> I also took issue with the implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization. I don't remember that assumption; I felt the implicit assumption was that development of any civilization can experience unpredictable rapid acceleration, so even if two civilizations cooperated, it doesn't help them much against others out there. > Or, another way, that all civilizations would climb the same technology ladder the same way. That I think was explicitly denied in the basic axioms of Dark Forest theory - again, civilization's technological level can jump unpredictably. > historical competition between nation-states has suggested a very different reality The core axiom of Dark Forest theory is that lack of FTL makes communication delays be of the same length as periods of possible technological leap-aheads, which makes cooperation unlikely and contact too dangerous. On the scale of our planet, that never applied. Communications between civilizations that knew about each other were on the order of months, and technological developments tended to make that delay shorter. Dark Forest translated to Earth would be as if I noticed your sail ships, sent you a hello from my steam civilization, only to get preemptively hit by an ICBM you've managed to build in 200 years it took for my message to reach you. -- Maybe there was more historical politics in this book than I noticed; I'm not well versed on history of China, and thus lack necessary context. I'd love to learn more, if that is so.

ethbro 8y ago
> implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization From memory, the basic tenant of dark forest theory was 'In the time it takes to communicate, you could become more powerful than me.' My point is that if two+ interacting (I don't believe cooperation is strictly necessary) civilizations make technological progress at an exponentially faster rate than a single civilization, then they are highly unlikely to be outclassed. Furthermore, this provides a disincentive (where 3BP notes none) to wipe out other civilizations, as you're giving up their potential benefits. > history of China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Qing_dynasty_(AD_1644%E2%80%931911) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China#Qing_dynasty_... tl;dr - late-Qing+ China (like the Muslim world) goes from a thriving, scientifically leading, expansionist trading society to an isolationist stagnant one, then suffers 200 years of being taken advantage of by foreign powers. Culminating in both the British and Japanese invading with radically advanced military hardware and imposing their will. It's hard not to see parallels, but a bit terrifying that the 3BP take-away is 'you should launch a first strike on your enemies the second you can obliterate them without retribution.'