6 ms·

It's a great book but I'm surprised by how many people find the dark forest theory convincing -- it pretty clearly makes this assumption that all (or, at least

It's a great book but I'm surprised by how many people find the dark forest theory convincing -- it pretty clearly makes this assumption that all (or, at least many) alien civilizations are ruthless, calculating game theorists, and don't share any moral concepts with us. Of course, they don't have to, but I find it unlikely that societies that made it so far wouldn't have the same basic concepts around "don't kill people for less-than-justifiable reasons" as we do. I like the follow up novel Redemption of Time for this reason, it has some passages about maybe there are other galaxies where the dark forest isn't at all the case, and I find that concept about the same level of plausibility.

raverbashing 7y ago
Yeah, I'm pretty surprised how people just bought this idea strongly. How advanced of a civilization you would need to have so that "shooting" into a different solar system is cheap and inconsequential? And you can detect transmissions telling you about one civilization but not where this is being sent from? Doubt The dark forest theory was the underwhelming part of the 3BP series to me.
SkyMarshal 7y ago
Even if you discard the notion of morality as human-only, and assume alien civilizations would not necessarily develop it too, there is still a game-theoretical reason for why the Dark Forest state is not inevitable. The Dark Forest state depends on the resources of the universe being scarce relative to their need/demand by all the sentient species in the universe. In the novels, survival of your species requires killing any other species that would compete with you for those resources. But given the extraordinary abundance of resources in the universe, it's not a given that demand would overwhelm supply so much as to necessitate such an extreme survival strategy. There is a massive amount of matter and energy in the universe. Further it's likely that super-advanced species with the technology to manipulate the Strong Force of matter, as even the relatively less advanced Tri-Solarans could in the novels, will have developed the ability to recycle and reuse resources far more effectively than we have today. The ability to build things using the Strong Force implies the ability to disassemble and reassemble them at the subatomic scale. That pretty much solves all known problems with recycling. Think Star Trek replicators on a massive scale. Now that resource starvation is no longer such a problem for species, participating in continuous mutual destruction of other species is far less optimal. It needlessly increases your own species' danger value to all other species, and the likelihood of being pre-emptively attacked and destroyed, for no good reason. Rather I suspect the optimal strategy is similar to what evolved on earth - develop effective technological deterrents, be they nukes, photoids, or dimensional collapse attacks or whatever, and then don't use them. Their highest value is in your enemies knowing you have them, but that you will not use them unless attacked first. Keep your own threat level relatively low, but without leaving you completely helpless and vulnerable.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Your optimal solution fails under the other axiom of Dark Forest theory - technological jumps. A species that's too powerful for you to deter needs to face the possibility that you may suddenly experience a period of rapid progress, making them unable to defend from you, and they may not even know it before your weapons reach them. So the optimal strategy for them is to get rid of you while they still have the advantage.
- beat 7y ago
  I didn't read it as competition for scarce resources. I read it as preemptive war against an existential threat. The Dark Forest suggests that any alien species presents a potential existential threat, and the safest thing to do is to (if possible) exterminate them before they even know you're there. It's kind of related to the Prisoner's Dilemma. And you don't need every species to play Dark Forest, either. As long as one species is playing Dark Forest, all the others learn to hide, or play themselves, or get exterminated. That's the fate of those who want to be nice.
notSupplied 7y ago
They have no choice but to be ruthless & calculating because it takes far longer to communicate (multiple round trips @ light speed) and establish what kind of relationship you're going to have with that other civilization, rather than sending a photoid/foil over. This is why the early history of the universe was described as "Edenic", because communication then would have been nearly instantaneous and Dark Forest may not have applied then.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> I'm surprised by how many people find the dark forest theory convincing Me too, and the evidence against is pretty much all of human history. Yes, there have been some genocides, but on the whole even though humans compete for resources we trade and work together more often than not. One might argue that humans have always been on roughly the same level technologically but that's a) wrong, and b) irrelevant to the philosophical concept that one should murder anything that competes with one's own genetic lineage [0]. [0] which, according to all known physics, is ultimately futile anyway since even the universe will eventually die.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Humans are all very close generic relatives, compared to humans vs. other terrestrial animals, and even humans and the most distantly related terrestrial life are close genetic relatives compared to humans vs. extraterrestrials. The idea that human-human interactions have anything to say about relations between species from different worlds without common origin based on relations between genetic lineages ignores the radically dissimilar situation with regard to genetic lineages. Now, I don't think genetic lineages should be the prime determinant of whether you should murder another life form, but if you are considering that question, you can't use interactions between close genetic relatives to explain what should occur between non-relatives.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Even regarding different species, we haven't intentionally wiped out very many of them and even engage in conservation efforts. We quite literally devote resources we could use to less advanced beings. This is antithetical to the philosophy governing the Dark Forest. Now we could consider other earthly life to be a "close genetic relative" I suppose, but if we're capable of making that extension of our concept of self, then why not also extend it to other intelligent life?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Like 'SkyMarshal, you too are forgetting the second axiom of Dark Forest theory - unexpected, rapid jumps in technological advancement. Us humans, we've eliminated or learned to protect most of the fauna that poses any danger to us. But if we would be realistically worried, that tomorrow the bears or wolves might start carrying firearms or beam weapons, we'd wipe them out to the last, out of justified sense of self-preservation.

raverbashing 7y ago

Yeah, I'm pretty surprised how people just bought this idea strongly. How advanced of a civilization you would need to have so that "shooting" into a different solar system is cheap and inconsequential? And you can detect transmissions telling you about one civilization but not where this is being sent from? Doubt The dark forest theory was the underwhelming part of the 3BP series to me.

SkyMarshal 7y ago

Even if you discard the notion of morality as human-only, and assume alien civilizations would not necessarily develop it too, there is still a game-theoretical reason for why the Dark Forest state is not inevitable. The Dark Forest state depends on the resources of the universe being scarce relative to their need/demand by all the sentient species in the universe. In the novels, survival of your species requires killing any other species that would compete with you for those resources. But given the extraordinary abundance of resources in the universe, it's not a given that demand would overwhelm supply so much as to necessitate such an extreme survival strategy. There is a massive amount of matter and energy in the universe. Further it's likely that super-advanced species with the technology to manipulate the Strong Force of matter, as even the relatively less advanced Tri-Solarans could in the novels, will have developed the ability to recycle and reuse resources far more effectively than we have today. The ability to build things using the Strong Force implies the ability to disassemble and reassemble them at the subatomic scale. That pretty much solves all known problems with recycling. Think Star Trek replicators on a massive scale. Now that resource starvation is no longer such a problem for species, participating in continuous mutual destruction of other species is far less optimal. It needlessly increases your own species' danger value to all other species, and the likelihood of being pre-emptively attacked and destroyed, for no good reason. Rather I suspect the optimal strategy is similar to what evolved on earth - develop effective technological deterrents, be they nukes, photoids, or dimensional collapse attacks or whatever, and then don't use them. Their highest value is in your enemies knowing you have them, but that you will not use them unless attacked first. Keep your own threat level relatively low, but without leaving you completely helpless and vulnerable.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Your optimal solution fails under the other axiom of Dark Forest theory - technological jumps. A species that's too powerful for you to deter needs to face the possibility that you may suddenly experience a period of rapid progress, making them unable to defend from you, and they may not even know it before your weapons reach them. So the optimal strategy for them is to get rid of you while they still have the advantage.
beat 7y ago
I didn't read it as competition for scarce resources. I read it as preemptive war against an existential threat. The Dark Forest suggests that any alien species presents a potential existential threat, and the safest thing to do is to (if possible) exterminate them before they even know you're there. It's kind of related to the Prisoner's Dilemma. And you don't need every species to play Dark Forest, either. As long as one species is playing Dark Forest, all the others learn to hide, or play themselves, or get exterminated. That's the fate of those who want to be nice.

notSupplied 7y ago

They have no choice but to be ruthless & calculating because it takes far longer to communicate (multiple round trips @ light speed) and establish what kind of relationship you're going to have with that other civilization, rather than sending a photoid/foil over. This is why the early history of the universe was described as "Edenic", because communication then would have been nearly instantaneous and Dark Forest may not have applied then.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> I'm surprised by how many people find the dark forest theory convincing Me too, and the evidence against is pretty much all of human history. Yes, there have been some genocides, but on the whole even though humans compete for resources we trade and work together more often than not. One might argue that humans have always been on roughly the same level technologically but that's a) wrong, and b) irrelevant to the philosophical concept that one should murder anything that competes with one's own genetic lineage [0]. [0] which, according to all known physics, is ultimately futile anyway since even the universe will eventually die.

dragonwriter 7y ago
Humans are all very close generic relatives, compared to humans vs. other terrestrial animals, and even humans and the most distantly related terrestrial life are close genetic relatives compared to humans vs. extraterrestrials. The idea that human-human interactions have anything to say about relations between species from different worlds without common origin based on relations between genetic lineages ignores the radically dissimilar situation with regard to genetic lineages. Now, I don't think genetic lineages should be the prime determinant of whether you should murder another life form, but if you are considering that question, you can't use interactions between close genetic relatives to explain what should occur between non-relatives.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Even regarding different species, we haven't intentionally wiped out very many of them and even engage in conservation efforts. We quite literally devote resources we could use to less advanced beings. This is antithetical to the philosophy governing the Dark Forest. Now we could consider other earthly life to be a "close genetic relative" I suppose, but if we're capable of making that extension of our concept of self, then why not also extend it to other intelligent life?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Like 'SkyMarshal, you too are forgetting the second axiom of Dark Forest theory - unexpected, rapid jumps in technological advancement. Us humans, we've eliminated or learned to protect most of the fauna that poses any danger to us. But if we would be realistically worried, that tomorrow the bears or wolves might start carrying firearms or beam weapons, we'd wipe them out to the last, out of justified sense of self-preservation.