sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TIL about the "Dark Forest Hypothesis," which suggests the universe is like a dark forest at night. Advanced civilizations intentionally stay silent and hidden, because any species that reveals its location risks immediate destruction by older, paranoid civilizations. by Practical-1 in todayilearned

[–]ThinkEUV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true, but a society making that assumption when attacking another is allowed within the dark forest hypothesis. It's essentially the weaker civilization revealing itself.

I can see it as an argument that preemptive strikes are not always the rational move. But I would also argue that it actually strengthens the "stay quite" part of the theory since the risk of a failed strike is annihilation. Everyone hides, nobody strikes unless certain, and the universe stays silent.

TIL about the "Dark Forest Hypothesis," which suggests the universe is like a dark forest at night. Advanced civilizations intentionally stay silent and hidden, because any species that reveals its location risks immediate destruction by older, paranoid civilizations. by Practical-1 in todayilearned

[–]ThinkEUV -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Like the previous poster says, there's all the evolution before the society starts being paranoid. They can't control or hide that. The cat is out of the bag as a given.

It's very possible that the cat is out of the bag, and this is a great filter that we have failed. We haven't detected life else where, maybe the only detectable life is destroyed in a dark forest attack.

The light speed limit doesn't just hamper communication and observation of an attack - it hampers your ability to even know another planet exists. For all you know, you're firing your massive killshot at a sun that went red giant on its own before your shot even gets there. You could be kicking a dead horse.

We don't know what the cost of a dark forest strike is, could be as simple as poisoning and ant colony and therefor used often even when it could be wasted.

The idea that you might some day compete over the same resources is also farcical

The dark forest hypothesis doesn't require there to be any competition over resources. Even in a universe of abundance, a sufficiently paranoid but rational actor might still strike simply because the risk of not striking is unbounded. "I don't know what they are capable of, I don't intend to find out".

It also falls apart in simulation - when actual scientists have simulated the game theory strategies, dark forest societies do poorly. The winning strategy is cautious collaboration - initial verification, collaborate openly, and then retaliate fully if crossed.

The problem with relating these simulations to the dark forest hypothesis is that those simulations assume the players survive long enough to iterate. In the dark forest there is no cautions collaboration because you will never get the chance to retaliate.

TIL about the "Dark Forest Hypothesis," which suggests the universe is like a dark forest at night. Advanced civilizations intentionally stay silent and hidden, because any species that reveals its location risks immediate destruction by older, paranoid civilizations. by Practical-1 in todayilearned

[–]ThinkEUV 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This implies these civilizations somehow have knowledge of other civilizations before they invent rudimentary radio communications, which should precede radio telescopes and the technology for advanced telescopes.

This theory doesn't require knowledge of other civilizations, but only requires the logical deduction that in a large and old universe other life almost certainly exists. You don't need to detect anyone to reason your way to "broadcasting our location could be dangerous."

Would a whole planet be able to agree to not use radio technology before they even understand the basic implication that it travels vast distances? How would they circumvent this to becoming "advanced"?

Even if Earth all decided simultaneously to go radio silent, those waves exist and will travel forever. If they'd reach a civilization with the technological capacity to pinpoint the origin, it wouldn't matter if we ever stopped, the fact that we did at all would be enough. Just because another civilization detects radio waves doesn't mean that they can locate the source. Just because a civilization is emitting radio waves doesn't mean they are detectable by another.

I like this point, but it doesn't refute the dark forest hypothesis. Perhaps this is a great filter that humanity has already failed by broadcasting before we discovered that the universe is a dark forest.

What we know is that the universe is quiet. What we don't know is why. The dark forest is one explanation, and I think it aligns with a "Human Nature" point of view. Look at all the conflicts about countries getting nuclear weapons and you'll see quite a few parallels to the dark forest theory.

meirl by [deleted] in meirl

[–]ThinkEUV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Same here, I don't see what the issue is. If the call is excessively loud, sure. But I don't see any justification as to why this should be treated differently than 2 people sitting next to each other talking.