3 ms·

> 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 villag

by 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.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > Farmers already made that choice by sending the message. Whoever wants to attack will be prepared to the point of full domination. Part of the setup for this particular game is that there is no being prepared to the point of "full domination". There is only first strike, and whoever attacks first wins. This is a huge part of why every player is incredibly careful - there is no surviving, enduring, or being prepared for an attack. Bear in mind that this discussion is not people advocating national or global policy around guns versus butter. This is people wrapping their heads around a particular model explored in some science fiction works. The model you prefer and advocate can be found in a different set of science fiction works. Not every model used in every work of literature will produce outcomes preferred by every person. Not every game has an outcome or stable state that everyone likes under the rules of the game. That's fine. That is, after all, why we have different models and explore their consequences. Though I understand if some reject this and seek for a way for every model to produce their preferred outcome. It's a very human response.
    - max76 8y ago
      > There is only first strike, and whoever attacks first wins. This is a huge part of why every player is incredibly careful - there is no surviving, enduring, or being prepared for an attack. There are three key attributes to a dark forest strike. They are increadibly cheap for the attacker, they are abosultely devastating to the victim, and they do not give away the attacker’s position. Given these attributes a few hunters could set up conditions where civilizations that decide to communicate would be quickly eliminated. Being friendly would be a trait conditions would select against. It’s an interesting game, and a truly horrifying answer to Femi’s paradox.
southerndrift 8y ago
Betrayal is not cheap. If it is a winner-takes-it-all game then the chance of winning as a single hunter is extremely small. However, once you found one partner to cooperate, you significantly increase your chance of outnumbering all the other uncooperative opponents. Unlike the prisoners dilemma, there is no third party involved who disrupts the balance of power.
- Kalium 8y ago
  You're right! There is no third party who disrupts the balance of power here. There's just all the games you - and everyone else - are simultaneously playing against one another. In the context of this particular game, part of the very basic setup is that attacking is cheap and easy as measured in immediate resource costs. As other comments point out, attacking does not automatically create vulnerability, making collective retaliation against attacks unreliable. Further, there is no true win condition. There is only continuing to play. There is also the knowledge that attempting to communicate with any other player requires becoming vulnerable to an attack from anyone who detects you. Even assuming you can establish meaningful communications and trust, is far more likely to get you annihilated by some other player than to lead to a desirable outcome. That there's a non-zero chance of being detected by more than one player only makes the odds against you longer - it only takes one attack. Within this extremely harsh set of rules and interpretations, most rational players will likely conclude that the balance of risks does not favor trying to find friends with their entire civilization at stake. I understand if some people might choose to find otherwise.

by Kalium 8y ago

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.
- Kalium 8y ago
  > Farmers already made that choice by sending the message. Whoever wants to attack will be prepared to the point of full domination. Part of the setup for this particular game is that there is no being prepared to the point of "full domination". There is only first strike, and whoever attacks first wins. This is a huge part of why every player is incredibly careful - there is no surviving, enduring, or being prepared for an attack. Bear in mind that this discussion is not people advocating national or global policy around guns versus butter. This is people wrapping their heads around a particular model explored in some science fiction works. The model you prefer and advocate can be found in a different set of science fiction works. Not every model used in every work of literature will produce outcomes preferred by every person. Not every game has an outcome or stable state that everyone likes under the rules of the game. That's fine. That is, after all, why we have different models and explore their consequences. Though I understand if some reject this and seek for a way for every model to produce their preferred outcome. It's a very human response.
  - max76 8y ago
    > There is only first strike, and whoever attacks first wins. This is a huge part of why every player is incredibly careful - there is no surviving, enduring, or being prepared for an attack. There are three key attributes to a dark forest strike. They are increadibly cheap for the attacker, they are abosultely devastating to the victim, and they do not give away the attacker’s position. Given these attributes a few hunters could set up conditions where civilizations that decide to communicate would be quickly eliminated. Being friendly would be a trait conditions would select against. It’s an interesting game, and a truly horrifying answer to Femi’s paradox.

southerndrift 8y ago

Betrayal is not cheap. If it is a winner-takes-it-all game then the chance of winning as a single hunter is extremely small. However, once you found one partner to cooperate, you significantly increase your chance of outnumbering all the other uncooperative opponents. Unlike the prisoners dilemma, there is no third party involved who disrupts the balance of power.

Kalium 8y ago
You're right! There is no third party who disrupts the balance of power here. There's just all the games you - and everyone else - are simultaneously playing against one another. In the context of this particular game, part of the very basic setup is that attacking is cheap and easy as measured in immediate resource costs. As other comments point out, attacking does not automatically create vulnerability, making collective retaliation against attacks unreliable. Further, there is no true win condition. There is only continuing to play. There is also the knowledge that attempting to communicate with any other player requires becoming vulnerable to an attack from anyone who detects you. Even assuming you can establish meaningful communications and trust, is far more likely to get you annihilated by some other player than to lead to a desirable outcome. That there's a non-zero chance of being detected by more than one player only makes the odds against you longer - it only takes one attack. Within this extremely harsh set of rules and interpretations, most rational players will likely conclude that the balance of risks does not favor trying to find friends with their entire civilization at stake. I understand if some people might choose to find otherwise.