7 ms·

How can game theory tell us that hiding from a malicious civilization is a safer choice than exposing ourselves to a benevolent civilization that could rescue u

How can game theory tell us that hiding from a malicious civilization is a safer choice than exposing ourselves to a benevolent civilization that could rescue us from some danger impossible for us to handle?

m_a_g 2y ago
My opinion is based on different theories and hypotheses, but the prevalent opinion is that there can't be a benevolent civilization in the first place. And even if there are, they would continue hiding themselves. Essentially, any alien civilization that survives in the long term is silent and hostile. But especially silent since being hostile can reveal your location.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  If you can achieve faster than light travel (worm holes?) and some sort of immortality (digital? consciousness quantum woo?) then maybe you transcend the worries of physical destruction…
- underlipton 2y ago
  > but the prevalent opinion is that there can't be a benevolent civilization in the first place. You'd have to explain why. Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. A civilization that happens to beat them would find among its attractive options a Nobunaga Gambit: taking on the vanquished foe's mission of unification (since it worked until it didn't - and the one time it didn't work, there was a terrifyingly good chance that it could have). "The Dark Forest" as an idea is inextricable from its cultural origins, a China that's rather pessimistic about inter-civilizational contact because of its recent history. That it resonates amidst a zeitgeist of global instability doesn't make it universally correct. Gene Roddenberry's competing vision might seem optimistic, but it's not naive; beneath Starfleet's cheery veneer is the Neo Princess Serenitian realpolitik of, "Peace, or else."
  - stouset 2y ago
    > Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. This assumes defense is possible. Two loud cooperating civilizations don’t seem like they’d stand much of a chance against a silent, hostile civilization that quietly chucks a few rocks at both homeworlds and any interesting-looking moons, timed to arrive at roughly the same time.
    - nmeagent 2y ago
      A silent, hostile civilization that applies the astronomical levels of energy to accelerate enough mass to cause an extinction level event at the target in any reasonable amount of time would very likely cease to be a silent civilization. It imagine it would be difficult to hide an energy expenditure of that magnitude; the target may even be capable of deflecting the incoming relativistic payload with one of their own given enough lead time. Also, if there are sufficient loud, cooperating civilizations paying attention to large bursts of energy in their neighborhood, the asshole rock-chucking civilization may find multiple such relativistic payloads heading for their home relatively soon after firing theirs.
      - bitmasher9 2y ago
        Send an agent to an uninhabited star system and launch the rocks from there. Everyone that can see would see the energy expenditures, but they would get very little information other than the knowledge that a stealth based hostile civilization exists. This information would encourage everyone else to be less noisy.
        underlipton 2y ago
        The "stealthy" civilization has ceased to be stealthy, in this case. Launching an attack of any kind defeats the purpose, if anyone but the fully-wiped-out target can see. Your example suggests that a stealthy, hostile civilization isn't possible.
ggffjhgftg 2y ago
If you reduce down your idea to an animals in the woods you will quickly see why. Humans become a rabbit, the malicious species a fox, the benevolent species humans. If the rabbit is injured, making noise and hoping for humans to help is a fools errand as the fox is more likely to hear and eat the rabbit. This is engrained in our evolution.
- yreg 2y ago
  Fox obtains value from hunting a rabbit (food). What value is there to get from going into interstellar war (provided such a thing is even practical).
  - bufferoverflow 2y ago
    The value is that no other civilization will rise to wipe you out.
    - Intralexical 2y ago
      Tell that to Space NATO.
  - DistractionRect 2y ago
    Resources. Perhaps their star will soon (on a cosmic timescale) consume their planet and they're looking for another solar system to inhabit. Labor for their Dyson sphere. Who knows. But, if something goes out of their way to make contact, odds are it won't be a friendly hello.
    - yreg 2y ago
      There's an abundance of resources in the countless uninhabited systems.
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        Mineral resources, possibly. But how about labor resources? Or food?
Log_out_ 2y ago
https://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc https://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc
adastra22 2y ago
He read a sci-fi story with a catchy title that claimed it, that’s why. Game theory doesn’t show hiding to be an optimal strategy.
tshaddox 2y ago
Fictional game theory can certainly help you reach fictional conclusions.

m_a_g 2y ago

My opinion is based on different theories and hypotheses, but the prevalent opinion is that there can't be a benevolent civilization in the first place. And even if there are, they would continue hiding themselves. Essentially, any alien civilization that survives in the long term is silent and hostile. But especially silent since being hostile can reveal your location.

monero-xmr 2y ago
If you can achieve faster than light travel (worm holes?) and some sort of immortality (digital? consciousness quantum woo?) then maybe you transcend the worries of physical destruction…
underlipton 2y ago
> but the prevalent opinion is that there can't be a benevolent civilization in the first place. You'd have to explain why. Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. A civilization that happens to beat them would find among its attractive options a Nobunaga Gambit: taking on the vanquished foe's mission of unification (since it worked until it didn't - and the one time it didn't work, there was a terrifyingly good chance that it could have). "The Dark Forest" as an idea is inextricable from its cultural origins, a China that's rather pessimistic about inter-civilizational contact because of its recent history. That it resonates amidst a zeitgeist of global instability doesn't make it universally correct. Gene Roddenberry's competing vision might seem optimistic, but it's not naive; beneath Starfleet's cheery veneer is the Neo Princess Serenitian realpolitik of, "Peace, or else."
- stouset 2y ago
  > Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. This assumes defense is possible. Two loud cooperating civilizations don’t seem like they’d stand much of a chance against a silent, hostile civilization that quietly chucks a few rocks at both homeworlds and any interesting-looking moons, timed to arrive at roughly the same time.
  - nmeagent 2y ago
    A silent, hostile civilization that applies the astronomical levels of energy to accelerate enough mass to cause an extinction level event at the target in any reasonable amount of time would very likely cease to be a silent civilization. It imagine it would be difficult to hide an energy expenditure of that magnitude; the target may even be capable of deflecting the incoming relativistic payload with one of their own given enough lead time. Also, if there are sufficient loud, cooperating civilizations paying attention to large bursts of energy in their neighborhood, the asshole rock-chucking civilization may find multiple such relativistic payloads heading for their home relatively soon after firing theirs.
    - bitmasher9 2y ago
      Send an agent to an uninhabited star system and launch the rocks from there. Everyone that can see would see the energy expenditures, but they would get very little information other than the knowledge that a stealth based hostile civilization exists. This information would encourage everyone else to be less noisy.
      - underlipton 2y ago
        The "stealthy" civilization has ceased to be stealthy, in this case. Launching an attack of any kind defeats the purpose, if anyone but the fully-wiped-out target can see. Your example suggests that a stealthy, hostile civilization isn't possible.

ggffjhgftg 2y ago

If you reduce down your idea to an animals in the woods you will quickly see why. Humans become a rabbit, the malicious species a fox, the benevolent species humans. If the rabbit is injured, making noise and hoping for humans to help is a fools errand as the fox is more likely to hear and eat the rabbit. This is engrained in our evolution.

yreg 2y ago
Fox obtains value from hunting a rabbit (food). What value is there to get from going into interstellar war (provided such a thing is even practical).
- bufferoverflow 2y ago
  The value is that no other civilization will rise to wipe you out.
  - Intralexical 2y ago
    Tell that to Space NATO.
- DistractionRect 2y ago
  Resources. Perhaps their star will soon (on a cosmic timescale) consume their planet and they're looking for another solar system to inhabit. Labor for their Dyson sphere. Who knows. But, if something goes out of their way to make contact, odds are it won't be a friendly hello.
  - yreg 2y ago
    There's an abundance of resources in the countless uninhabited systems.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      Mineral resources, possibly. But how about labor resources? Or food?

Log_out_ 2y ago

https://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc https://akkartik.name/post/2012-11-21-07-09-03-soc

adastra22 2y ago

He read a sci-fi story with a catchy title that claimed it, that’s why. Game theory doesn’t show hiding to be an optimal strategy.

tshaddox 2y ago

Fictional game theory can certainly help you reach fictional conclusions.