11–20 of 327 posts
Huh. I could've sworn the name and concept of the Dark Forest hypothesis predated Liu Cixin's book. Obviously I have it completely arse-about-face - I thought he developed the series based upon the concept, not the other way around.
My understanding was that Cixin's book gave it the name "Dark Forest," along with the eerie analogy.
Am I missing something, or is this article very narrowly missing the most damning criticism of the Dark Forest hypothesis according to the article's own logic? The first paragraph of the “ Criticism ” section says: > Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers…
Wouldn't the counterpoint be that those civilizations like us that do not obscure their location are quickly eradicated by others in the forest? So the forest also acts like a filter for those that are not careful enough.
Of course, this could always be explained by the distances involved and the limitations of light speed, but that would make the Dark Forest hypothesis redundant as an explanation as to why we haven't yet detected any alien civilisation(s).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the counterpoint be that those civilizations like us that do not obscure their location are quickly eradicated by others in the forest? So the forest also acts like a filter for those that are not careful enough.
I don't see there being that big a technological leap between annihilating another civilization and starting a colony in another star system. If you're the type of civilization that would be interested in killing a competitor off you're probably the type that's going to colonize and fill the entire galaxy in a few million years. We evolved, so that hasn't happened, in a galaxy thirteen billion years old. I suspect we…
Huh. I could've sworn the name and concept of the Dark Forest hypothesis predated Liu Cixin's book. Obviously I have it completely arse-about-face - I thought he developed the series based upon the concept, not the other way around.
This blurb has some citation links that suggest it predated Liu Cixin's book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Communication_is... My understanding was that Cixin's book gave it the name "Dark Forest," along with the eerie analogy.
Clearly I'd been unwittingly absorbing output from people who'd already read his books ahead of me!
- ed oh! I see The Killing Star's mentioned in the original linked article. It's worth a read, if you haven't already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the counterpoint be that those civilizations like us that do not obscure their location are quickly eradicated by others in the forest? So the forest also acts like a filter for those that are not careful enough.
I don't see that as a counterpoint, but more of a post hoc theory. How could the eradicators detect and destroy their victims before we detected any signal at all from the victims? And why haven't the eradicators come for us yet? Of course, this could always be explained by the distances involved and the limitations of light speed, but that would make the Dark Forest hypothesis redundant as an explanation as to why w…
And 2000 years is nothing timewise on scale of universe. Plus we talk about signal that can maybe travel few hundred / a thousand light years before they blend into galactic and intergalactic noise.
Am I missing something, or is this article very narrowly missing the most damning criticism of the Dark Forest hypothesis according to the article's own logic? The first paragraph of the “ Criticism ” section says: > Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers…
Attaining that technological level could be inherently linked with the ability to realize the dangers to begin with.
Am I missing something, or is this article very narrowly missing the most damning criticism of the Dark Forest hypothesis according to the article's own logic? The first paragraph of the “ Criticism ” section says: > Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers…
But IMO Dark Forest is bunk anyway, because it assumes that projecting power over interstellar distances is easier than defending yourself. That's not true within terrestrial history ... even though the arrival of colonists was massively disruptive to populations in (for example) the Americas, they couldn't have outright destroyed them. To survive, they had to trade and mingle with their neighbors, ultimately changing both cultures.
The sequels to The Three Body Problem kind of discuss this, and extend the dark forest idea to consider that any population that splits off from you is now a dark forest alien. I find that crazy xenophobic and ultimately an impractical black and white view of self vs other. On Earth, successful civilizations have been capable of trade and cultural exchange in addition to force.
Am I missing something, or is this article very narrowly missing the most damning criticism of the Dark Forest hypothesis according to the article's own logic? The first paragraph of the “ Criticism ” section says: > Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers…
If someone knocked on your door, quite unexpectedly, in the middle of the night, can I err on the idea that you would be quite panic-struck?
But if humanity got a signal from another civilization tomorrow, do you think it is safe to err on folks being quite happy?