4 ms·

I'm confused; every explanation of Dark Forest Theory I have read has asserted that aliens do not want to visit us, and would not try and invade our planet? (Ma

I'm confused; every explanation of Dark Forest Theory I have read has asserted that aliens do not want to visit us, and would not try and invade our planet? (Maybe I just don't understand Dark Forest theory?)

giantrobot 4y ago
The dark forest theory posits that you shouldn't advertise your existence because you're in a dark forest surrounded by competitors for limited resources. The idea being that a competitor will want to come destroy you when they find you since you're competing for the same limited resources. It's dumb because like I said Earth's biomarkers are already broadcasting out in space and have been for millions of years. Also space is stupidly large. It's a bit absurd to assume a species capable of interstellar travel on a scale to send invasion fleets could develop that technology but not the technology to fully exploit their home solar system and adjust their own growth to be sustainable. Even if such an unlikely species existed, they're already on their way. Their need for resources would be so great they'll send an invasion fleet the moment they find a world with biomarkers or whatever it is they want. They're not going to wait for radio signals or even industrial markers. So the dark forest theory as some policy to not develop technologies is extra dumb.
- subjectsigma 4y ago
  This isn't how DFT was explained to me. The differentiating points are: 1. Aliens would kill us because they cannot determine if we are an existential threat. If they assume we are friendly and we are not, they are dead. It isn't about resources, it is about destroying your enemies before they evolve the capability to hurt you. There is no good way to monitor or communicate with a civilization more than a couple dozen light years away, physics doesn't allow for it. By the time your message gets there the entire government, culture, etc of the planet has probably changed. 2. They would use long range missiles (e.g. an asteroid going sufficiently fast) to wipe out the planet, not an invasion fleet. This means that they don't have to have the capability to travel in deep space, just to throw big rocks. 3. This is all predicated on a few assumptions: that no aliens are living close(r than 400LY) to us, developing the capability to fling rocks at a star or planet isn't extremely difficult, and that once the big rock is in motion, there is no good way to defend yourself against it (except sniping it with another big rock, but that's probably magnitudes harder than hitting a planet). I don't know enough about biology to dispute the thing about biomarkers, but that would put a huge dent in DFT. And I agree using it to make policy decisions is dumb.

giantrobot 4y ago

The dark forest theory posits that you shouldn't advertise your existence because you're in a dark forest surrounded by competitors for limited resources. The idea being that a competitor will want to come destroy you when they find you since you're competing for the same limited resources. It's dumb because like I said Earth's biomarkers are already broadcasting out in space and have been for millions of years. Also space is stupidly large. It's a bit absurd to assume a species capable of interstellar travel on a scale to send invasion fleets could develop that technology but not the technology to fully exploit their home solar system and adjust their own growth to be sustainable. Even if such an unlikely species existed, they're already on their way. Their need for resources would be so great they'll send an invasion fleet the moment they find a world with biomarkers or whatever it is they want. They're not going to wait for radio signals or even industrial markers. So the dark forest theory as some policy to not develop technologies is extra dumb.

subjectsigma 4y ago
This isn't how DFT was explained to me. The differentiating points are: 1. Aliens would kill us because they cannot determine if we are an existential threat. If they assume we are friendly and we are not, they are dead. It isn't about resources, it is about destroying your enemies before they evolve the capability to hurt you. There is no good way to monitor or communicate with a civilization more than a couple dozen light years away, physics doesn't allow for it. By the time your message gets there the entire government, culture, etc of the planet has probably changed. 2. They would use long range missiles (e.g. an asteroid going sufficiently fast) to wipe out the planet, not an invasion fleet. This means that they don't have to have the capability to travel in deep space, just to throw big rocks. 3. This is all predicated on a few assumptions: that no aliens are living close(r than 400LY) to us, developing the capability to fling rocks at a star or planet isn't extremely difficult, and that once the big rock is in motion, there is no good way to defend yourself against it (except sniping it with another big rock, but that's probably magnitudes harder than hitting a planet). I don't know enough about biology to dispute the thing about biomarkers, but that would put a huge dent in DFT. And I agree using it to make policy decisions is dumb.