Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?

TLDR: The forest analogy fails because civilizations are not singular entities (like animals are) but rather complex structures which can merge and evolve. The supposed technological and societal barriers can very well not materialize in which case the theory falls apart.

Details below...

> Suppose a vast number of civilizations distributed throughout the universe, on the order of the number of observable stars. Lots and lots of them.

"On the order of observable stars" is extremely wide. Perhaps there is one life-bearing planet per galaxy. Perhaps there is one per 100 stars. Those are vastly different outcomes.

> Survival is the primary need of civilizations.

On individual level humans have no hope to "survive" (i.e. live immortal lives). Yet despite that fact we don't commit mass suicide. The "primary need" of human civilization to survive is merely emergent behaviour due to other factors. Perhaps advanced civilizations would be happy to achieve some grand undertaking and then perish.

Now for the second "axiom":

> Civilizations continuously grow and expand ...

Expansionist civilizations with unlimited space certainly can do that. But does it really bring any benefits? The more complex the societal structure, the harder it is to change. Perhaps there is a critical mass above which it becomes detrimental to multiply beyond and all "sane" civilizations will stay below it.

> ... , but the total matter in the universe remains constant.

It may be finite, but perhaps most of it will be "stranded" anyway - so far away that access to it becomes non-feasible anyway.

> ... In other words, the finite nature of resources will ultimately pit one civilization against another as they all struggle to sustain their growth.

This part I believe is the biggest logical fallacy of all. What is civilization if not a set of societal structures? And we can easily imagine merging of two such structures - they are already composed of other structures; what is just another level of complexity? If we merge two "competing" civilizations suddenly we have a single larger civilization... supposedly without conflict? The amount of resources is the same as before but not we only have a single contender: the merged civilization.

This paradox stems from the failure to account for the internal race for resources inherent to all civilizations. The civilizations are not unitary entities. Treating them as such and assuming blind dedication to it from its members is short sighted and lacking imagination.

> If open communication exists, then conflict could be averted and tensions diffused. But given the time-lag involved with any attempt at interstellar communications, civilizations that are light-years apart are unlikely to resolve their fears quickly.

Sufficiently advanced civs can simply send AI envoys or do mind upload of their representatives with the speed of light. This makes the learning of language, communication etc. very quick. Perhaps FTL communication can exist too. Etc. etc. Endless ways to break another assumption.

> By the time they arrived, the attacker’s technology would not have matured one bit, while the defender would have decades or centuries to progress.

It may be possible that advanced technology does not progress as fast as it does now. See our experiments with fusion and particle accelerators. What used to be easy now takes years and billions in funding. Perhaps going at some point getting any kind of advancement will be nearly impossible and all technology will become "old". In this scenario the centuries of technological advancement are moot. OTOH potential gains from trade from foreign civs is very real possibility.

On the other hand, only total extinction might be truly "irreparable".

This stuff doesn’t need sci-fi style new physics, just the kind of infrastructure we could actually build.

We’re in the light cones of all the stars we can see, and as far as we know, we can’t get out of them. If a civilization ended even 100 years earlier than our equivalent “now” in their light cone, we wouldn’t have seen them. And if they became visible even 1 year later than our equivalent “now,” we would not have seen them yet.

We’re proceeding through time at 1 sec per sec and basically if we’re going to see an alien civilization at this point, I think the only way would be if one happens to achieve the necessary technology to be detected while we’re looking at it. If there were existing civilizations that were easy to see, we would have seen them already.

I think it’s far more likely we will confirm alien life first by indirect means, for example spectroscopically detecting free atmospheric oxygen on an exoplanet, or finding tiny fossils on Mars.

In the first book the earth is attacked by Von Neumann probes launched preemptively by a civilization that wants to destroy potential agressors before they develop the technology to become a risk. The "benefactor" civilization group organises rescue and counter-assaults as a means of pan-civilisation trust building. The second book looks at the ethics of destroying a civ based on decisions it may have taken in its distant past.

Anvil has something of a young adult style, but the game theory and strategy elements are quite satisfying I think.