> implicit assumption that two civilizations cooperating would develop no faster than a single civilization From memory, the basic tenant of dark forest theory

> 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.'