Live data from Hacker News

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

universetoday.com

311–320 of 327 posts

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

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's entirely doubtful that humanity could be self-sustaining on Mars even in principle, it is certainly not possible with known technologies. Citation needed. What's the blocker here? Energy production on Mars? Why not Solar or Simple Stirling Engines. Food/Closed ecological systems? Hard, for sure yeah, but even not particularly well funded small ecosystems like Biosphere2 worked for several years. The biggest iss…

For a self sustaining colony on Mars you need to span a huge part of the Martian globe to get access to enough raw materials to build things like the microprocessors required for basic life sustaining devices. But the more you scale to reach the required resources, the more of those resources you will need - especially when you'll more or less have to tunnel your way everywhere if you don't want everyone to die of ca…

I appreciate the thought you put into this response. You make good points.

>For a self sustaining colony on Mars you need to span a huge part of the Martian globe to get access to enough raw materials to build things like the microprocessors required for basic life sustaining devices.

I don't see any reason that microprocessors are required for basic life sustaining devices. They are certainly convenient and valuable. Even if there were required, a simple microchip fab is a known technology. Expensive but does not require new technology.

An interesting question here is how big such a colony needs to be to be self-sustaining.We have clear answers because our present complex Terran economy assumes a planet wide network of trading industrial economies. Perhaps other, smaller solutions exist but we haven't bothered exploring them here because there is no market for it on Earth. Then again I suspect that as long as Earth has an industrial space faring civilization, there will be continuous trade between Earth and Mars. We might not be able to determine how self-sufficient Mars ever is because trade between Earth and Mars may never be shut off.

>And one of the biggest potential limiters is water: we don't actually know how much water there is on Mars.

I agree with you here and it is important point. If it turns out that extracting useable water on Mars is exceptionally difficult, a self-sustaining Mars colony is much harder to create. However we don't really know how true this is. This degree of uncertainly does not support the statement given earlier that "it is certainly not possible with known technologies."

>You'll also need massive ecosystems to sustain an industrial chain with 0 access to fossil fuels, since you'll need to be able to produce bioplastics and biofuels in addition to food. Again, you'll consume huge quantities of water to achieve this.

Yep, strong agree this is why most of these architectures assume large quantities of usable water. I wonder when we get the answer to this question?

>But the more you scale to reach the required resources, the more of those resources you will need - especially when you'll more or less have to tunnel your way everywhere if you don't want everyone to die of cancer in their thirties.

You tunnel for living spaces, you tunnel for resources, a self-sustaining Mars colony will likely require a sufficient investment to get going. Part of that investment will be in energy used for tunneling. Light weight nuclear batteries and generators. Bootstrapping a self-sustaining Martian colony would be extremely difficult but taking a dependent colony and growing it to a self-sustaining system seems easier.

Probably the longer Earth sustains it, the cheaper it will be to become fully self-sustaining.

>Finally, energy production will be extremely difficult, as solar panels are extremely inefficient, efficient forms of solar require boiling water compounding your water problems (and so does nuclear), and both wind and solar of any kind will have massive dust problems, probably insurmountable with today's technology.

I don't know the science but I would assume wind is out because of the thin atmosphere. Solar might be inefficient but how much electricity do you need? I suspect you want to build farms and living spaces that can survive at least a few days to a few weeks without electricity. Low electricity usage and dependency is probably a critical component of robust martian colony architectures.

You can run nuclear on things other than water. US and Soviet Submarines use liquid metal cooled reactors [0]. Why not run underground breeder reactors on Mars, if something goes wrong collapse 5km of soil on them?

While I think fusion is going to play a big role on Earth, I suspect it won't be well used on Mars for a while due to its inherent complexity and dependence on rare materials.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_metal_cooled_reactor#Pr...

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Great Filters, natural extinctions like impact events or gamma ray bursts you know what really alarms me? these things are only chances on a very, very short-time scale. they are inevitable, yet no one seems alarmed when meteors come between us and the moon and we dont see it coming until hours beforehand. sun bursts blowing out the electric grid, nuclear war, antiobotic resistance, crop and animal monoculture, cli…

> you know what really alarms me? these things are only chances on a very, very short-time scale. they are inevitable, yet no one seems alarmed when meteors come between us and the moon and we dont see it coming until hours beforehand. That is why Elon is so hell bent on making humanity multi planetary.

Carl Sagan had a similar take. From Pale Blue Dot:

> These are the missing practical arguments: safeguarding the Earth from otherwise inevitable catastrophic impacts and hedging our bets on the many other threats, known and unknown, to the environment that sustains us. Without these arguments, a compelling case for sending humans to Mars and elsewhere might be lacking. But with them—and the buttressing arguments involving science, education, perspective, and hope—I think a strong case can be made. If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species venture to other worlds.

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

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far away from earth is it still possible to detect oxygen and/or methane levels in the atmosphere?

Light years with the right telescope. It’s just spectroscopy.

Yes but only a tiny fraction of our sun's light would pass through earth's atmosphere on its way out of the solar system, I didn't think spectroscopy would be possible very far away.

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

#314
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We very likely obliterated a few along the way but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Humans had the power to exterminate many more but chose not to, and continue to choose not to.

Is that really true though? Saying "we didn't kill them all" doesn't exempt the fact that we did it for many of them. There's no easy answer to this. We are what we are. But it points to the disregard powerful beings have over weaker ones when they get in their way.

Sure, but the interesting thing is that the powerful beings typically do not have disregard. Why do we care for all the species that we have power to exterminate?

Especially the predators that compete with us.

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

#315
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think people are alarmed I think your view is skewed. Every single person I've talked to about this as looked at me like they are bored. Of course, here on HN, I've found many like-minded people. That's great, but I think very few humans, especially humans in the power structures that run this planet, care about this issue.

> I think your view is skewed I suspect it's more that we have different definitions of how widely a feeling of alarm should spread before saying this. I agree the absolute number of people who are worried about the problem is small. I guess I think about it in terms of "what proportion of the population that would be directly involved in solving this problem"? I would suspect that is close to 100%. Anyone involved i…

I think there's a correlation between the age of politicians and how much they care, and we have far too many old politicians. (I'm old, btw.) We need more young people to get involved and get into positions of power. They have a vested interested in seeing solutions implemented, rather than the current crop who know they'll be dead when the real shit hits the fan and they're just letting things stay as is, because they want to maximize their benefits between now and death.

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

#316
post #94

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…

This is the L constant of the Drake equation. Probably the hardest to find a value for until we've actually discovered other intelligent life or remains of such. The confounding part of it is that we can only guess at things that may end a civilization so completely that it will never recover. Things like the so called Great Filters, natural extinctions like impact events or gamma ray bursts, or other more speculativ…

> The tricky part is that our existence seems to fly in the face of such events so far.

We've only been here for a few minutes. We aren't really making any efforts to save the planet or colonize space. It's totally possible that we will wipe ourselves out before our TV and radio signals ever make it far enough to be detected by aliens, even if there are a ton of them out there.

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

#317
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…

Why get a factory to the target system when you can launch kill projectiles to all the systems in the galaxy from home?

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

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're currently undergoing the largest mass extinction event that will easily rank in the top 6 of life on this planet and could possibly compete with the end-permian. What makes you think we could possibly survive? Because we're the cause? Plenty of species in the past that have caused extinction events also perished. It seems far more questionable to assume we won't risk extinction in the geological near term. The…

I think the parent comment was downvoted because it's not really contributing anything besides pessimism. As for us, I don't doubt the likelihood of a serious mass extinction, including possibly a severe drop in human population, but I can't see it being so severe as to cause an existential threat to us. No other species on this planet has had the ability to change the environment to suit it, or the ease of mobility…

We need the pessimism. Irrational exuberance clearly doesn't work.

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

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generalization. Would be interesting discussion with details. Pop is growing. What's your concern - global warming, fertility rates, pollution, nuclear arsenal, running out of resources? Doesn't seem like we are doing that badly and that pop can't drop if get below renewable resource level or adjust to new ways of making energy/food, etc. Does seem likely that on an extremely long time scale, we need to get multi-pla…

Agreed. The great filter and collapse theory in general are fascinating in theory and can motivate some great positive action but they can't undermine the fact that humans beings are doing better than they've ever done in our history by almost every imaginable metric.

Cooperation is the key metric I'm considering. It's becoming more critical that we learn to, and we are not even trying.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would that be a "favorite" answer? It's just one of the hypotheses. Drake's equation and how exactly must it be applied has been fiercely discussed for decades. Unless, of course, saying it's your "favorite" is your way of saying "I like to believe in this one hypothesis".

It removes the paradox without requiring additional hypotheses, just refining the math. That makes it the most convincing solution to the paradox for me.

I disagree. It looks like you simply choose to believe one of the hypotheses. Or need I mention other areas of life where choosing one hypothesis eliminates all others? Hint: it's the "R" word. ;)
Post reply on HN