5 ms·

To quote from the book: > “First: Survival is the primary need of civilization. Second: Civilization continuously grows and expands, but the total matter in th

by cbau 6mo ago

To quote from the book: > “First: Survival is the primary need of civilization. Second: Civilization continuously grows and expands, but the total matter in the universe remains constant. One more thing: To derive a basic picture of cosmic sociology from these two axioms, you need two other important concepts: chains of suspicion and the technological explosion.” 1. you can never know the intentions of other entities, and they cannot know yours (chain of suspicion) 2. technology level grows unpredictably (technological explosion) 3. the goal of civilization is survival 4. resources are finite but growth is infinite As soon as you identify another entity in the forest, even if they cannot annihilate you at present and signal peace, both could change without warning. Therefore, the only rational move is to eradicate the other immediately. (Especially if you believe the other will deduce the same.) Elimination in the book is basically sending a nuke, not a costly invasion force. not sure it actually is true, but that's the argument in the book

bethekidyouwant 6mo ago
That’s true among human societies as well, but trade leads to more prosperity.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
jmull 6mo ago
I really liked those books, for all the creative ideas... it's fine that they don't all work, but the Dark Forest has to be among the worst of them. It was unfortunate it was highlighted. Some rebuttals, going point by point... 1. you can know the intentions of other entities by observing and communicating with them. 2. technology explosions, like pretty much exponential phenomena, are self limiting. They necessarily consume the medium that makes them possible. 3. and 4. civilizations aren't necessarily sentient (ours certainly isn't) and don't have an agency, much less goals. Individuals have goals, and some may work for the survival of the civilization they belong to. But others may decide they can profit if they work with the aliens. 4. Multiple civilizations may well come into competition over resources, but that's more of an argument about why the forest would not be dark. Practically speaking, a civilizations that opts to focus on massive, vastly expensive efforts to find and exterminate far flung civilizations because they may become a rival in the future may be easily outcompeted by civilizations that learn to communicate with and work with other civilizations they encounter.
- recursivecaveat 6mo ago
  Cleansing is basically free for advanced civilizations in the books. The alien (Singer) who wipes out Sol in the 3rd book doesn't even have to answer any questions from their manager about doing it, that's how cheap it is. While its true that individuals desire cooperation, I think you can assume that civilizations will keep a lid on people who will completely destroy them (or failing that, be destroyed). It seems like expansion of civilizations is not really an option. The Singer's civilization only has 1 colony world and they're already in some kind of extremely destructive war with them. Presumably the idea is once your own people expand multiple light years away, all the logic about aliens applies to them too. On the other hand if you can't expand why do you not run scorched earth on the galaxy? There definitely is some weirdness about observation and communication: Singer's civilization can wipe out Sol with a flick of the wrist, but while they can observe the number and type of Earth's planets, that seems to be their limit. The sophon enables FTL communication and observation between Earth and Trisolaris, but the more advanced civilizations don't seem to make use of them? You could be absolutely certain of someone's threat level and intentions with one. Maybe something about the technology can be traced back to its origin system, so they are too risky to use. I think it's all reasonable in the books, especially as a self-reinforcing state. It does definitely require a highly specific set of universal laws / technological constraints though. If the FTL drive didn't also broadcast your position to the whole universe for eg, it would crack everything wide open.
- iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
  To an extent, rebuttals land. However, 1. You are assuming a lot in the sense that you assume presence of intention -- not something guaranteed to be a feature of an alien civilization, which is, well, alien. People think that anthropocenrism only applies to body shape and having legs, because the way it tends to express itself in popular culture is robots on legs and human body shape in aliens. And same point goes to communication; just assuming you could is a big leap. 2.Bold assumption that they are self limiting. I think the real question is what , exactly, tends to limit it. I think the answer tends to be resources, which is the foundation of dark forest argument theory to begin with. What I am saying is that it is not a rebuttal you think it is. 3. :D yes 4. You may be again imposing human perspective on as scale that goes a little bit beyond it. I will end with a.. semi-optimistic note. I am not sure dark forest theory is valid. We are speculating mostly based on human tendencies. By the same token, I posit that we are about as likely to be turned into an art exhibit by a passing alien artist not unlike some ants that had molten metal poured into their nests [1]. Any real alien reasons would be alien to us. [1]https://laughingsquid.com/ant-colony-sculptures-made-by-pouring-molten-metal-into-ant-nests/ https://laughingsquid.com/ant-colony-sculptures-made-by-pour...
AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
It's first-order thinking. Second-order would be to question whether trying to eradicate another race might motivate them to eradicate you, when they weren't motivated to do it before.
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  the point is that eventually one of them will have that intention. and they will likely shoot first. so do you wait, and hope, that you're able to tease that out correctly, or do you just shoot first yourself? what good is a Galactic Republic if eventually someone builds a Death Star and blows up your planet? With monumental effort they managed to beat them back, only for them to return later.

by cbau 6mo ago

bethekidyouwant 6mo ago

That’s true among human societies as well, but trade leads to more prosperity.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

jmull 6mo ago

I really liked those books, for all the creative ideas... it's fine that they don't all work, but the Dark Forest has to be among the worst of them. It was unfortunate it was highlighted. Some rebuttals, going point by point... 1. you can know the intentions of other entities by observing and communicating with them. 2. technology explosions, like pretty much exponential phenomena, are self limiting. They necessarily consume the medium that makes them possible. 3. and 4. civilizations aren't necessarily sentient (ours certainly isn't) and don't have an agency, much less goals. Individuals have goals, and some may work for the survival of the civilization they belong to. But others may decide they can profit if they work with the aliens. 4. Multiple civilizations may well come into competition over resources, but that's more of an argument about why the forest would not be dark. Practically speaking, a civilizations that opts to focus on massive, vastly expensive efforts to find and exterminate far flung civilizations because they may become a rival in the future may be easily outcompeted by civilizations that learn to communicate with and work with other civilizations they encounter.

recursivecaveat 6mo ago
Cleansing is basically free for advanced civilizations in the books. The alien (Singer) who wipes out Sol in the 3rd book doesn't even have to answer any questions from their manager about doing it, that's how cheap it is. While its true that individuals desire cooperation, I think you can assume that civilizations will keep a lid on people who will completely destroy them (or failing that, be destroyed). It seems like expansion of civilizations is not really an option. The Singer's civilization only has 1 colony world and they're already in some kind of extremely destructive war with them. Presumably the idea is once your own people expand multiple light years away, all the logic about aliens applies to them too. On the other hand if you can't expand why do you not run scorched earth on the galaxy? There definitely is some weirdness about observation and communication: Singer's civilization can wipe out Sol with a flick of the wrist, but while they can observe the number and type of Earth's planets, that seems to be their limit. The sophon enables FTL communication and observation between Earth and Trisolaris, but the more advanced civilizations don't seem to make use of them? You could be absolutely certain of someone's threat level and intentions with one. Maybe something about the technology can be traced back to its origin system, so they are too risky to use. I think it's all reasonable in the books, especially as a self-reinforcing state. It does definitely require a highly specific set of universal laws / technological constraints though. If the FTL drive didn't also broadcast your position to the whole universe for eg, it would crack everything wide open.
iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
To an extent, rebuttals land. However, 1. You are assuming a lot in the sense that you assume presence of intention -- not something guaranteed to be a feature of an alien civilization, which is, well, alien. People think that anthropocenrism only applies to body shape and having legs, because the way it tends to express itself in popular culture is robots on legs and human body shape in aliens. And same point goes to communication; just assuming you could is a big leap. 2.Bold assumption that they are self limiting. I think the real question is what , exactly, tends to limit it. I think the answer tends to be resources, which is the foundation of dark forest argument theory to begin with. What I am saying is that it is not a rebuttal you think it is. 3. :D yes 4. You may be again imposing human perspective on as scale that goes a little bit beyond it. I will end with a.. semi-optimistic note. I am not sure dark forest theory is valid. We are speculating mostly based on human tendencies. By the same token, I posit that we are about as likely to be turned into an art exhibit by a passing alien artist not unlike some ants that had molten metal poured into their nests [1]. Any real alien reasons would be alien to us. [1]https://laughingsquid.com/ant-colony-sculptures-made-by-pouring-molten-metal-into-ant-nests/ https://laughingsquid.com/ant-colony-sculptures-made-by-pour...

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago

It's first-order thinking. Second-order would be to question whether trying to eradicate another race might motivate them to eradicate you, when they weren't motivated to do it before.

red-iron-pine 6mo ago
the point is that eventually one of them will have that intention. and they will likely shoot first. so do you wait, and hope, that you're able to tease that out correctly, or do you just shoot first yourself? what good is a Galactic Republic if eventually someone builds a Death Star and blows up your planet? With monumental effort they managed to beat them back, only for them to return later.