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.
Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
21–30 of 327 posts
Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#22If such a technology is possible at all, only the very first advanced civilization had the ability to hide from all others. And only if they were able to develop it before any other civilization had been able to track them.
To some extent it might nevertheless be a reasonable strategy to keep as quiet as possible. But this strategy is less and less useful for the latecomers. If they were already tracked by a multitude of other advanced civilization they would hardly benefit from keeping quiet. Unless they (wrongly) think that they are an early advanced civilization.
However, if a couple of these civilizations start to openly seek contact to others, what can the hidden ones do? If a hidden civilization starts to fight one of these latecomers, it would need to leave its cover and make itself known to all other civilizations in its vicinity. If it follows the dark forst hypothesis, it could only do so, when it is sure that it is the only dangerous civilization in its forest.
This leaves me with the following alternatives:
- The forest is dark, because there is only one civilization out there that is very capable in hiding and has the ability to exterminate any latecomer efficiently and without traces.
- The forest appears dark, because it is thinly populated and we just have not looked enough for the others.
- We are the only ones in our cosmic vicinity.
Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#23Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#24Am 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…
As other commenters have said, we can't take our own viewpoint as an example of what kinds of civilizations survive because our technological age is so young. 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 populatio…
This seems really obviously true to me. Accelerating a rock to relativistic speeds is pretty easy, defending against a rock potentially coming from anywhere in space traveling at relativistic speeds is extremely difficult.
Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#25In the near future it is more likely we will wipe out ourselves either due to Nuclear War, Global Warming, rogue AI or similar, than some hostile alien civilization will get us. It seems that we are those hostile aliens for ourselves.
Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#26Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#27Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#28Re: Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
#29I'm not sure this constraint is so strict to force a strong competition for survival, given how vast the universe is. It seems to me this projecting our earth-bound mentality of limited resources to a whole different scale, where it may not really apply.