Live data from Hacker News

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

universetoday.com

191–200 of 327 posts

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

#191
post #98

To me the most likely back of the napkin answer to the Fermi paradox is that aliens are elsewhere in time. The Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across but about 13.5 billion years old. So it’s like 135,000x deeper in the time direction than the distance direction. 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…

That and the fact that civilizations probably only broadcast EM radiation out into the void for a short period of time before they start getting into energy efficiency and switch over to more efficient communication technologies.

Even broadcast emissions aren't detectable at long distances. If you parked an Arecibo-class telescope in orbit around Alpha Centauri the only signals you'd detect coming from Earth would be intentional directional transmissions from an Arecibo-class (or Goldstone class) radar.

Our television and radio broadcasts aren't detectable by an Arecibo-class telescope out much past Jupiter let alone outside the solar system. Even our high powered radar systems wouldn't be detectable out even half a light year from the solar system.

The only civilizations that can be detected with a SETI-like program would be ones intentionally transmitting directional signals. Even then out past a thousand light years even a multi-terawatt (EIRP) signal would be difficult to detect.

Like inverse square law is as unforgiving as the rocket equation. Anyone hand-waving either of those principals is not trying to have a meaningful discussion about interstellar communication or travel, they're just writing about science fiction.

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

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If civilization as we know it ends but humanity survives it would be very difficult for future generations to reestablish because we've used up all the easy to access hydrocarbons. Without easy to reach coal there won't be another industrial revolution and humanity would be stuck for millions of years until the hydrocarbons reform.

That is some kind of Oil centric thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. Renewables and fusion can do the much better better job at any point. By the way coal will not form ever again, only reason why coal/oil formed is because bacteria has not learned how to decompose cellulose at the time. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fanta...

I don't think renewables and fusion will be an option in a post apocalyptic society. After a few generations of anarchy the knowledge will be lost.

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

#193
post #54

What makes the dark forest hypothesis not so conving to me is that it has the presupposition that it is indeed possible to hide. An advanced civilization close to us that is surveying the sky for signs of life would have very likely identified earth as a very promissing candidate due to the presence of methane and oxygen in its atmosphere at the same time. So our star system would have long been under surveillance, b…

I agree with your logic but would add one more thing to it: There is no compelling reason to wait until a planet conclusively proves it has intelligence on it to nuke it into oblivion with a kinetic kill projectile. You don't really know how long it will take for an intelligent species that could compete with you to arise. Humans have moved pretty quickly on cosmological scales, there's no particular reason to believ…

(Major spoilers for The Expanse below.)

> There is no compelling reason to wait until a planet conclusively proves it has intelligence on it to nuke it into oblivion with a kinetic kill projectile.

Or send a technologically engineered molecule that can hijack single-cellular life to help establish your needed technology in the target solar system.

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

#194

What makes the dark forest hypothesis not so conving to me is that it has the presupposition that it is indeed possible to hide. An advanced civilization close to us that is surveying the sky for signs of life would have very likely identified earth as a very promissing candidate due to the presence of methane and oxygen in its atmosphere at the same time. So our star system would have long been under surveillance, b…

>However, if a couple of these civilizations start to openly seek contact to others, what can the hidden ones do?

Stay hidden or destroy anyone close enough to put you at risk along with themselves. This is a spoiler, but IIRC from the books the ultimate safety net was to make your solar system not only invisible... but impenetrable in either direction but essentially trapping yourself in a black hole... thus removing yourself from the equation and hopefully satiating anyone watching.

The time scales and distances involved meant that you weren't really perceived as a threat until you approached the ability to reach light speed, which made you stick out enough to be noticed in far corners of the universe. We broadcast radio, but it's not loud or far-reaching enough to be noticed by the far-out civilization destroying overlords. It was loud enough for a different nearby civilization to come destroy us in an attempt to save themselves from being destroyed along with us.

Of course, when applied in reality who the hell knows.

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

#195
My theory, and I don't know why this is never mentioned: all societies eventually retreat into inhabiting a purely simulated universe (Matrix/Holodeck), where EM emissions and space exploration become a thing of the past, and the society just "goes dark".

The dynamic that guarantees it is that great stuff is almost always cheaper/easier to experience via simulation than in reality. We already know that TV plots and video game situations are endlessly more entertaining than our real-world lives. Arranging computing power that can fool our eyes and ears is way easier than mustering the materials to get ourselves into space.

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

#196

Over enough time and space, probabilities other than 0 and 1 become rare; i.e., things that are not impossible become inevitable. Bracewell-von Neumann self-replicating interstellar probes are not impossible. I think we're not too far away from being able to create and launch them ourselves, if we survive. Has any technical civilization in galactic history launched a BvN probe? It only takes one launch of a BvN probe…

I'm not convinced von Neuman probes are actually feasible. For one, you'd need general artificial intelligence because the task of setting up a production line on a different planet is incredibly complicated. Then you'd need to move a lot of mass across star systems. Tiny replicators are not going to survive the harsh conditions on other planets, and then find and extract all the resources you need to build bigger ma…

I don't think that planets are good targets; you'd want to use asteroids for raw materials and stay in microgravity, no?

But yes, if BvN probes are impossible at any level of technology, that would explain their apparent absence.

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

#197
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is it _probable_? AFA we know we've been insanely lucky up to this point (as earthling life we went past multiple mass extinctions, we got multi-cellular life, multiple brains iterations, a society which still didn't wipe itself out etc) What makes it more likely for the filter to be ahead of us rather than behind us?

Modern civilization is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. We've already passed peak conventional oil production, and we're now surviving on EXTRAORDINARY technical means of enhanced oil recovery. If we can't make the complete transition to renewables in the next thirty years, it's game over for a VERY long time. Future civilizations won't enjoy the benefit of Spindletop. Cheap energy sources won't be available near…

> Cheap energy sources won't be available near the surface of the crust for another > 50 million years.

Wrong. We already have one: nuclear energy.

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

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on this, because biofuels are a viable substitute in almost every situation. I'm fairly certain that our accumulated knowledge would make a second industrial happen even faster in spite of fossil-fuel-lack (but it might play out slightly differently, because of higher fuel costs...)

Doubtful that there's enough biofuels to produce high quality steel in large quantities and that's a pre-requisite to a post-apocalyptic neo-Industrial Revolution. Only coal burns hot enough and was available the huge quantities necessary.

Sure, producing iron without coal sucks; but there is already enough scrap metal around to power several additional industrial revolutions, and an arc furnace is really simple, especially if already know how electricity works beforehand.

Long term, there are alternative routes that could be taken (capable of processing fresh ore) but using scrap metal just seems easier/more likely to me.

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

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> humans are extremely adaptable This is a strange claim I see repeated over and over, but it has very little evidence to justify it. The only piece of evidence people present is: > people had colonized the whole planet, except for Antarctica This is true of a fairly large number of organisms on Earth. On top of this humans have only been around for ~200,000 years, that's not long at all. Humans have not survived a s…

> his is true of a fairly large number of organisms on Earth Is it though? How many other large, multicellular, organisms live on every continent without humans having brought them there?

Seals. Birds.

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a feeling or rather educated guess is: That general AI going rogue if it gets conscious is small, more probable is narrow AI that has mistake in setting goals, given too much power by either military or corporations. Global Warming is highly probable but we still have chance if we find energy to cooperate around mutual goal. Key points: - Siberian permafrost and releasing huge amount of CH4 topping up all effort…

> "doom-erisam" and similar shaming terms is nothing better than those person First: I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that: 1) I fully agree that global warming is a massive problem. But assuming that it's going to lead to human extinction is IMO straight up delusional . The only plausible mechanism is full-runaway "hot-ven…

> I use the term because I see NO factual basis for assuming that humankind is going extinct. Your post did not change my view on that:

There is a huge difference between I do NOT want to see, and there is NO factual basis.

From https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities only 1170 cities have population of 2,179,929,822, RS-28 Sarmat yield is 10 heavy warheads, each yield of 1.5Mt. Currently there is 3,700 nukes deployed and 13,132 nukes total. We do not know what China has so those number are without it. With the new hyper-sonic weapons time to react and go to shelter which in London practically does not exist except underground transport, so to get to nearest station you would need 30 min but nuke needs 15 min to arrive. Let's suppose that one Sarmat is enough to level town size of London or Paris. So only with firstly deployed there would be 2200 nukes to spare. But what about heavier nukes those 10Mt yields, what about revamping Tsar Bomba with 50Mt (8km fireball, 68 km mushroom cloud and shock waves circling Earth 3 times). So, what exactly will intercept hyper-sonic? So when you say estimate 1.6 to 3bn I would rather say it is very optimistic, and that only from the blasts. Next goes fallout... are you saying no one will die out cancer in full exchange? It will be all ok after 5 years? EMP would wiped out grid and internet, what will exactly pump water? What are you going to drink? Quickly made filter from charcoal and that will do? And to what hospital are you going to go if you scratch on rusty nail for instance? Next, what are you going to eat, 80% of food in UK is imported, https://www.businessinsider.com/no-deal-brexit-percentage-br... there is no more ships with food and oil? Where are you going to get money banks are out, no plastic cards, cash does not worth anything? do you have silver or gold? How many will die out of hunger in next 10 years?

And what about nuclear power plants 450 of them? They are not the same like nukes, nukes burn their fission material, but as we know from Fukushima Daiichi Accident and Chernobyl disaster, they were quite tricky, and there we managed to do something about it. Who will go to "fix" nuclear power planets after exchange, so plenty of fallout there?

As I said it would not be extinction but 99% reduction, and those who survive would wish they have not. By the way I am not trying to convince anyone people have had too many video survival games with happy ending, and to test reality you just need to go to near by woods for 7 days without food and water, and what ever experience you have just multiply by 300 times.

Going back to first line,

> your post did not change my view

I somehow find more frighting and delusional that way of thinking, as it leaves possibility to use mentioned as solution for fixing problem as people optimistically believe they are the one that will survive.

There is a reason why "Mutually assured destruction" and "nuclear deterrence" exist as such, as no one will ever attempt any such idiotic thing. As what we model usually does not correspond with reality. And when you know that everyone will loose like in the move "War games" then only way to win is not to play a game. And if current narrow AI can do it today I hope you as far superior intelligence can come to the same conclusion.

Post reply on HN