3 ms·

I’m worried about a Dark Forest strike than an asteroid. But glad to see progress.

sgt101 3y ago
If these are your worries you live a blessed life! Remember that your (and my) ancestors lived in fear of too much rain, not enough rain, raiders, pestilence and the local overlord getting upset about something.
alex_suzuki 3y ago
I feel it‘s mandatory to mention „The Three-Body Problem“ by Cixin Liu here. What an amazing read.
- cpursley 3y ago
  3rd book in the series, incredible piece of writing.
jackcviers3 3y ago
The problem with the dark forest hypothesis is that there's already no way to hide from the techinically advanced malignant actors that could execute a Dark Forest strike in the first place. If your civilization is technically advanced enough to be a potential threat to such an actor, the highly energetic actions you are undertaking for interstellar travel will be visible to all of space via radio and infrared telescopes. Given that it will be economically infeasible to launch all of the payloads required to produce interstellar spaceships from within the gravity well of a planet, the orbital infrastructure required itself will lkely be visible as a periodic dimming of the planet's sun. It too, will give off infrared radiation detectable by a far-off technically advanced malignant actor. There is no hiding in space. Your only hope for species and evolutionary survival in a dark forest is to aggressively disperse to uninhabited target systems. However, this also increases the likelihood that one of those systems will go rogue and eliminate the other ones it knows about. Given this, the best strategy seems to be first avoidance of contact, then diplomacy, then detente, and finally alliance and assimilation in a Dark Forest universe. The allied powers can ensure that any bad actors that attempt elimination strikes are outnumbered and eliminated themselves. On top of that, space is infinitely large. There are an enormous amount of finite resources within a planetary solar system which are way more energetically economic to exploit than ones in other systems. Once a civilization is forced to expand for survival beyond its local system, it is likewise economically cheaper to avoid warfare to claim one particular planetary system for its resources than to fight an interstellar war that risks the annihilation of the conflict participants' civilizations. There are literally an infinite number of systems to choose from. There's no reason to destroy other competitors when the resources you are competing for are infinite. In such a scenario, which our universe seems to be an example, the only reason for conflict is malignant choice. The prisoner's dilemma between two or more civilizations presented in the series would never need to occur. The philosophy behind Three Body is just terribly cynical and illogical in the face of what we know of the existing universe. It makes for a great story, but the type of aggression posited in technical species doesn't provide an evolutionary advantage. It should be noted that the entire Dark Forest philosophy presented in the book came from an unstable, traumatized, suicidal, xenophobic, nihilistic genius. Not the sort of person who you want forming the zeitgeist for existing in a much larger ecosystem of other civilizations. If you accept the premise, then the series is great. But the premise assumptions are fundamentally flawed.
- cpursley 3y ago
  Yeah, I agree - the solution would seem to focus on spreading out.

If these are your worries you live a blessed life! Remember that your (and my) ancestors lived in fear of too much rain, not enough rain, raiders, pestilence and the local overlord getting upset about something.

alex_suzuki 3y ago

I feel it‘s mandatory to mention „The Three-Body Problem“ by Cixin Liu here. What an amazing read.

cpursley 3y ago
3rd book in the series, incredible piece of writing.

jackcviers3 3y ago

The problem with the dark forest hypothesis is that there's already no way to hide from the techinically advanced malignant actors that could execute a Dark Forest strike in the first place. If your civilization is technically advanced enough to be a potential threat to such an actor, the highly energetic actions you are undertaking for interstellar travel will be visible to all of space via radio and infrared telescopes. Given that it will be economically infeasible to launch all of the payloads required to produce interstellar spaceships from within the gravity well of a planet, the orbital infrastructure required itself will lkely be visible as a periodic dimming of the planet's sun. It too, will give off infrared radiation detectable by a far-off technically advanced malignant actor. There is no hiding in space. Your only hope for species and evolutionary survival in a dark forest is to aggressively disperse to uninhabited target systems. However, this also increases the likelihood that one of those systems will go rogue and eliminate the other ones it knows about. Given this, the best strategy seems to be first avoidance of contact, then diplomacy, then detente, and finally alliance and assimilation in a Dark Forest universe. The allied powers can ensure that any bad actors that attempt elimination strikes are outnumbered and eliminated themselves. On top of that, space is infinitely large. There are an enormous amount of finite resources within a planetary solar system which are way more energetically economic to exploit than ones in other systems. Once a civilization is forced to expand for survival beyond its local system, it is likewise economically cheaper to avoid warfare to claim one particular planetary system for its resources than to fight an interstellar war that risks the annihilation of the conflict participants' civilizations. There are literally an infinite number of systems to choose from. There's no reason to destroy other competitors when the resources you are competing for are infinite. In such a scenario, which our universe seems to be an example, the only reason for conflict is malignant choice. The prisoner's dilemma between two or more civilizations presented in the series would never need to occur. The philosophy behind Three Body is just terribly cynical and illogical in the face of what we know of the existing universe. It makes for a great story, but the type of aggression posited in technical species doesn't provide an evolutionary advantage. It should be noted that the entire Dark Forest philosophy presented in the book came from an unstable, traumatized, suicidal, xenophobic, nihilistic genius. Not the sort of person who you want forming the zeitgeist for existing in a much larger ecosystem of other civilizations. If you accept the premise, then the series is great. But the premise assumptions are fundamentally flawed.

cpursley 3y ago
Yeah, I agree - the solution would seem to focus on spreading out.