4 ms·

This is probably a better explanation by the guys at Bigthink: https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory-a-terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-

This is probably a better explanation by the guys at Bigthink: https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory-a-terrifying-explanation-of-why-we-havent-heard-from-aliens-yet https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-dark-forest-theory...

southerndrift 8y ago
>The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds another life—another hunter, angel, or a demon, a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod—there’s only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them. Very interesting. What this theory doesn't take into account are the non-hunters. A single farmer is at risk in a world full of hunters - see Robinson Crusoe. However, a village full of farmers who can store heavy weapons in their houses has almost nothing to fear from a small group of hunters. If each but one civilization dies in a hunter universe, making noises is worth the risk to meet others who are willing to cooperate.
- forkLding 8y ago
  Yea it's basically applied game theory because you are never sure if another player wants to cooperate and if they truly mean to cooperate or are just waiting to backstab you once your guard is lowered so you end up competing against others for your own interests even though cooperation is the best outcome.
  - southerndrift 8y ago
    They don't have much time to backstab you. Once there are several civilizations cooperating, the backstabber is up against everybody else. Cooperation means you trade your minimal chance of winning a winner-takes-it-all game for the risk of meeting a player who doesn't understand that cooperation is the best move. Given that the other players are space-exploring civilization, I would say that they at least give us the chance to cooperate. The problem may be that it's not them being evil but us being unable to cooperate.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- scarejunba 8y ago
  In the context of the story, destruction is vastly cheaper than protection. Imagine the same system except everyone has instant access to a perfectly guided bunker buster. It doesn't matter if you're better armed. The bunker buster will bust your bunker. And while you need to discover to bust bunkers likewise you only have to be discovered to have your bunker busted. So the farmers die instantly even if they find others like them to band together. The darkness of the forest is key too. I imagine the effect is similar to the effect air power had on castles.
  - southerndrift 8y ago
    If you cooperate you have two bunkers so you have a second strike on whoever attacked you unnoticed.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      In the context of the story, attacking doesn't necessarily reveal and also there are attacks that are not traceable (they damage the path they arrive on).
- Kalium 8y ago
  > What this theory doesn't take into account are the non-hunters. A single farmer is at risk in a world full of hunters - see Robinson Crusoe. However, a village full of farmers who can store heavy weapons in their houses has almost nothing to fear from a small group of hunters. Is it perhaps possible that it might actually account for exactly these points? A single farmer is like a hunter, except unarmed and not stealthy. They cannot be expected to live long as they will be treated only as another hunter. You're absolutely right about the hypothetical power of an organized village! Yet, in this scenario such a thing never comes about and can never come about. A village requires collaboration and trust, things the hunters do not posses. As a result, there are no farmers to speak of. They don't last long enough to matter. The only survivors are the hunters. Are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma? This is one where trust is impossible, betrayal is cheap, and cooperation risks your entire civilization on someone else's cheap betrayal.
  - max76 8y ago
    > You're absolutely right about the hypothetical power of an organized village! Yet, in this scenario such a thing never comes about and can never come about. A village requires collaboration and trust, things the hunters do not posses. The books highlight that trust cannot be established. All civilizations are very alien to each other, the huge differences and the lack of a common culture makes establishing trust almost impossible. Imagine sending the first message “I am a farmer, and would like to collaberate with other farmers.” How would you determine if the responder was a farmer, or a hunter pretending to be a farmer? There are other aspects of the fictional world that makes a farmer collaboration impossible, but I wouldn’t want to spoil it.
    - southerndrift 8y ago
      >How would you determine if the responder was a farmer, or a hunter pretending to be a farmer? Farmers already made that choice by sending the message. Whoever wants to attack will be prepared to the point of full domination. That said, why should space faring civilizations be incapable of cooperation? Without leaving the solar system, we are already in a state of post-modernism and multiculturalism. A civilization that can travel between solar systems can be even more advanced in respecting other cultures. If there is a risk then it is us, not pouring more resources into research so that we have nothing to offer once somebody else comes along.
mr_toad 8y ago
> The reasoning is laid out best in the science fiction novel The Dark Forest, by Liu Cixin. It annoys me than no credit is given to earlier authors who covered almost exactly the same ground, including Fred Saberhagen, Greg Bear, and Alistair Renyolds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(Saberhagen) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(Saberhagen) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forge_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forge_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_Space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_Space

southerndrift 8y ago

>The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds another life—another hunter, angel, or a demon, a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod—there’s only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them. Very interesting. What this theory doesn't take into account are the non-hunters. A single farmer is at risk in a world full of hunters - see Robinson Crusoe. However, a village full of farmers who can store heavy weapons in their houses has almost nothing to fear from a small group of hunters. If each but one civilization dies in a hunter universe, making noises is worth the risk to meet others who are willing to cooperate.

forkLding 8y ago
Yea it's basically applied game theory because you are never sure if another player wants to cooperate and if they truly mean to cooperate or are just waiting to backstab you once your guard is lowered so you end up competing against others for your own interests even though cooperation is the best outcome.
- southerndrift 8y ago
  They don't have much time to backstab you. Once there are several civilizations cooperating, the backstabber is up against everybody else. Cooperation means you trade your minimal chance of winning a winner-takes-it-all game for the risk of meeting a player who doesn't understand that cooperation is the best move. Given that the other players are space-exploring civilization, I would say that they at least give us the chance to cooperate. The problem may be that it's not them being evil but us being unable to cooperate.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
scarejunba 8y ago
In the context of the story, destruction is vastly cheaper than protection. Imagine the same system except everyone has instant access to a perfectly guided bunker buster. It doesn't matter if you're better armed. The bunker buster will bust your bunker. And while you need to discover to bust bunkers likewise you only have to be discovered to have your bunker busted. So the farmers die instantly even if they find others like them to band together. The darkness of the forest is key too. I imagine the effect is similar to the effect air power had on castles.
- southerndrift 8y ago
  If you cooperate you have two bunkers so you have a second strike on whoever attacked you unnoticed.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    In the context of the story, attacking doesn't necessarily reveal and also there are attacks that are not traceable (they damage the path they arrive on).
Kalium 8y ago
> What this theory doesn't take into account are the non-hunters. A single farmer is at risk in a world full of hunters - see Robinson Crusoe. However, a village full of farmers who can store heavy weapons in their houses has almost nothing to fear from a small group of hunters. Is it perhaps possible that it might actually account for exactly these points? A single farmer is like a hunter, except unarmed and not stealthy. They cannot be expected to live long as they will be treated only as another hunter. You're absolutely right about the hypothetical power of an organized village! Yet, in this scenario such a thing never comes about and can never come about. A village requires collaboration and trust, things the hunters do not posses. As a result, there are no farmers to speak of. They don't last long enough to matter. The only survivors are the hunters. Are you familiar with the prisoner's dilemma? This is one where trust is impossible, betrayal is cheap, and cooperation risks your entire civilization on someone else's cheap betrayal.
- max76 8y ago
  > You're absolutely right about the hypothetical power of an organized village! Yet, in this scenario such a thing never comes about and can never come about. A village requires collaboration and trust, things the hunters do not posses. The books highlight that trust cannot be established. All civilizations are very alien to each other, the huge differences and the lack of a common culture makes establishing trust almost impossible. Imagine sending the first message “I am a farmer, and would like to collaberate with other farmers.” How would you determine if the responder was a farmer, or a hunter pretending to be a farmer? There are other aspects of the fictional world that makes a farmer collaboration impossible, but I wouldn’t want to spoil it.
  - southerndrift 8y ago
    >How would you determine if the responder was a farmer, or a hunter pretending to be a farmer? Farmers already made that choice by sending the message. Whoever wants to attack will be prepared to the point of full domination. That said, why should space faring civilizations be incapable of cooperation? Without leaving the solar system, we are already in a state of post-modernism and multiculturalism. A civilization that can travel between solar systems can be even more advanced in respecting other cultures. If there is a risk then it is us, not pouring more resources into research so that we have nothing to offer once somebody else comes along.

mr_toad 8y ago

> The reasoning is laid out best in the science fiction novel The Dark Forest, by Liu Cixin. It annoys me than no credit is given to earlier authors who covered almost exactly the same ground, including Fred Saberhagen, Greg Bear, and Alistair Renyolds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(Saberhagen) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker_(Saberhagen) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forge_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forge_of_God https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_Space https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_Space