Why not kill your neighbor? After all, there's no telling when he'll get it in his head to come kill you. Might as well go ahead and murder anyone you bump into, they might be a murderer themselves!
Spoiler alert for the dark forest trilogy but the overall series thesis revealed at the very end is that the human capacity to extend goodwill towards the unknown principally rescues us from the dark forest.
It was the oppressed daughter of the scientist whose first act of extending trust to an uncontacted alien species set on course the events that would be uniquely ours in defiance of the dark forest theory.
Ultimately, our two species do come to peacefully cohabitate. This would not be possible if we all thought as the unknown third species who destroyed the star targeted by the spell.
> Everything is probabilities and risk, but can we really accept any risk when it comes to something as important as the future of the human species? That's the part of the Dark Forest that gets me - the game theory of uncertainty. No player in this game wants to destroy the other. But the risk of another civilization taking into their head that they want to spread their culture at the end of a ray-gun is too great.
I'm ignoring the depraved morality of this stance for the sake of argument. But I wouldn't ignore the depravity of it if it were something we really had to face.
This logic is incredibly flawed. Everything is indeed probability and risk, but deciding to wage war on any civilization we detect even if they don't exhibit aggression is taking the chances that they'll be hostile from something less than 100% to exactly 100%. Then add the risk that we'd lose that war, and the decision to attack in the absence of hostility becomes a much greater risk than the decision to wait until they exhibit hostility first.
Also, as an aside, if we take the author's logic as sound, then we absolutely have to destroy all genAI companies. The genAI industry has been constantly telling us about how there's a substantial risk that their product will destroy us, after all.
I have always found the dark forest theory silly. What is the idea there? If you are silent, hungry night predator will not find you? Because that is how evolution has built them - in odrer to survive they need their food to actively advertise its location?
Somehow all those theorists imagine the space civilization that likes to kill - yet has not discovered any ways to find something killable. So the apex space predators hope that the prey will send the signals into space. That's how they became the killing machine - by never searching.
This also reminds me of the catch 22 of space colonization - the civilization whose genetics promote conquests and colonization will most likely kill itself in internal wars way before colonizing any noticeable part of the space. And peaceful civilization has time to grow to power but does not have colonization needs.
The space predator civilization will most likely die in nuclear war before they have chance to gather together and make peace to pursue space colonization as one.
They're not really predators, they exterminate out of fear, and they don't get anything out of doing it besides a little extra safety. The economics of it are certainly a little dubious though.
Spreading as close to the speed of light as possible with von Neumann probes generally defeats the dark forest, no? Either you win (spread to every star system) or the forest stops being dark from the border wars between alien probes and their manufacturing systems.
The real dark forest is not the fear of alien species but because the species that think like that wipe themselves out long before any interstellar travel is possible
Let's not be so naive about this, it happens all the time and humanity is not permanently lost. Example USA vs Indians: At first you come up with some justifications for the bad stuff you are doing, then you kind of forget about it over the centuries.
I still think that killing anything that lives out there "just in case" is a terrible idea, mind you.
"Xenos could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this solar system before. There could be Xenos anywhere." The hot plasma wind felt good against his dispersion field. "I HATE XENOS" he thought. Sweet Dreams are Made of These reverberated his entire ship, making it pulsate even as the $9000 wine circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of alien species after perihelion. "With an FTL drive, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.
I'm sorry for poking fun at it, but this sort of argument is hard to take seriously and always has been. 'If we discover an alien civilization, maybe we should pre-emptively wipe it out. I mean, suppose they did something crazy, like wipe out our entire civilization???!'
As well as being paranoid, this is line of reasoning is stupid. Imagine we discover this alien species and they seem far in advance of our (near future) technology, making them horribly scary. We decide to pre-emptively wipe them out by firing a relativistic mass into their star, as he describes reading about in his new favorite sci-fi book. All good, right? But what if the aliens have already spread out from their solar system, take note of the destruction of their homeworld, and do the same thing to us? We all die anyway, and the rest of the sentient universe thinks it's justified because we launched an unprovoked effort to destroy another civilization.
If we're going to compare our interstellar FTL future with the fate of indigenous people in the Americas during the age of exploration, this is like saying 'if the Aztecs had been smarter, they would have not only killed the conquistadors, but launched a preemptive expedition against the kingdom of Spain, wiping out the Spaniards and securing their own posterity!'
Now perhaps I'm being uncharitable here and the author means we should be more like the Sentinelese, the (mostly) uncontacted tribe in the Indian Ocean that lives in blissful ignorance of the modern (world (except for aeroplanes) and reliably kills and religious or sensational entrepreneurs who attempt to land on their island. But that's much more like the scenario in the movie Predator, which the author dismisses as silly compared his preferred eschatological scenarios.
What really bothers me here is the fundamental premise that advanced civilizations will inevitably wipe out others that they come in contact with, which seems to me like an extreme case of path dependency based on a shallow reading of colonial history. Most westerners are unaware that during the 15th century China was also having n age of exploration, with admiral Zhang He sailing as far west as the east coast of Africa, making contact with what is now Somalia. Why didn't these explorers go on a rampage, wiping out everything in their path in line with the author's understanding of game theory? It's not because they were just a tiny expeditionary force that got blown off course. Zhang He led a huge fleet with hundreds of ships, a total crew of about 25000 men, and his ships were large enough that he brought exotic animals like giraffes back to China. Nor were they short of military technology; the Chinese had invented and largely perfected the crossbow 1000 years before Europeans did, and were likewise in possession of advanced tactical and strategic military doctrine.
The Chinese didn't halt their era of exploration by wiping out everyone they encountered or because they anticipated being wiped out, but for domestic political considerations; the cost/benefit analysis didn't make sense to them and they wanted to visert resources to defending against one of the periodic invasions from Mongolia.
I read this essay as an example of the Hofstader's paranoid style*, which is rooted in a combination of geography, technological asymmetry, hubris, and eschatology - a style that is going through one of its periodic resurges due to American anxieties about global rivalries, the end of US technological dominance, and fears of imperial decline. It's the same mindset that has some pundits claiming opposition to data centers is organized by communist infiltrators (rather than arising from objections to pollutiona nd infrastructural overhead), or that it's so important for the US to retain its lead in AI that we should consider pre-emptive kinetic strikes on Chinese data centers.
To be blunt, I do not think that crafting game-theoretic rationalizations for pre-emptively destroying competing civilizations is logical or sensible. It demonstrates a half-assed understanding of game theory, assuming a lot of conclusions as starting premises and neglecting to consider the possibilities of iterative rounds, multilateral actors etc. Rather than engaging with the challenges (and opportunities) of complex systems, it reders all decision-making down to an atavistic adversarialism. Approaching all risk and uncertainty as an existential issue isn't healthy.
Why not kill your neighbor? After all, there's no telling when he'll get it in his head to come kill you. Might as well go ahead and murder anyone you bump into, they might be a murderer themselves!
Because your neighbor is the same species and so you have some idea of what it's like inside their head.
When your neighbor is a different species, this is pretty much exactly what humans do: kill it. The more unfamiliar, the faster it gets killed.
Is it bad for the ecosystems, biodiversity, your soul? Yes on all counts. But it's pretty consistent human behavior.
We don't have any idea what's inside Americans'head when they voted again for Trump.
We should preemptively nuke America now.
Well, hm, for the best of the world you may have a point.. :)
because we know that our neighbors are not very likely to kill us
Spoiler alert for the dark forest trilogy but the overall series thesis revealed at the very end is that the human capacity to extend goodwill towards the unknown principally rescues us from the dark forest.
It was the oppressed daughter of the scientist whose first act of extending trust to an uncontacted alien species set on course the events that would be uniquely ours in defiance of the dark forest theory.
Ultimately, our two species do come to peacefully cohabitate. This would not be possible if we all thought as the unknown third species who destroyed the star targeted by the spell.
Are you sure you finished the third book? Book 2 ended as you describe.
> Everything is probabilities and risk, but can we really accept any risk when it comes to something as important as the future of the human species? That's the part of the Dark Forest that gets me - the game theory of uncertainty. No player in this game wants to destroy the other. But the risk of another civilization taking into their head that they want to spread their culture at the end of a ray-gun is too great.
I'm ignoring the depraved morality of this stance for the sake of argument. But I wouldn't ignore the depravity of it if it were something we really had to face.
This logic is incredibly flawed. Everything is indeed probability and risk, but deciding to wage war on any civilization we detect even if they don't exhibit aggression is taking the chances that they'll be hostile from something less than 100% to exactly 100%. Then add the risk that we'd lose that war, and the decision to attack in the absence of hostility becomes a much greater risk than the decision to wait until they exhibit hostility first.
Also, as an aside, if we take the author's logic as sound, then we absolutely have to destroy all genAI companies. The genAI industry has been constantly telling us about how there's a substantial risk that their product will destroy us, after all.
I have always found the dark forest theory silly. What is the idea there? If you are silent, hungry night predator will not find you? Because that is how evolution has built them - in odrer to survive they need their food to actively advertise its location?
Somehow all those theorists imagine the space civilization that likes to kill - yet has not discovered any ways to find something killable. So the apex space predators hope that the prey will send the signals into space. That's how they became the killing machine - by never searching.
This also reminds me of the catch 22 of space colonization - the civilization whose genetics promote conquests and colonization will most likely kill itself in internal wars way before colonizing any noticeable part of the space. And peaceful civilization has time to grow to power but does not have colonization needs. The space predator civilization will most likely die in nuclear war before they have chance to gather together and make peace to pursue space colonization as one.
They're not really predators, they exterminate out of fear, and they don't get anything out of doing it besides a little extra safety. The economics of it are certainly a little dubious though.
Spreading as close to the speed of light as possible with von Neumann probes generally defeats the dark forest, no? Either you win (spread to every star system) or the forest stops being dark from the border wars between alien probes and their manufacturing systems.
This persons understanding of “life out there” seems to be heavily painted by pop culture.
The real dark forest is not the fear of alien species but because the species that think like that wipe themselves out long before any interstellar travel is possible
As a side note game theory don't dictate to genocide everything under your eyes, but to be cooperative at first then react in kind to other's kind
I think the only way discovering aliens will end well for them or us is if they’re equal to us in intelligence and military capability.
What if aliens and us have completely different requirements for life / entertainment? Fighting would be pointless if we do not compete for resources
This is just plain evil.
Hear me out: If we survive at the price of our humanity, what's the point? What value does our survival have then?
Let's not be so naive about this, it happens all the time and humanity is not permanently lost. Example USA vs Indians: At first you come up with some justifications for the bad stuff you are doing, then you kind of forget about it over the centuries.
I still think that killing anything that lives out there "just in case" is a terrible idea, mind you.
"Xenos could be here" he thought, "I've never been in this solar system before. There could be Xenos anywhere." The hot plasma wind felt good against his dispersion field. "I HATE XENOS" he thought. Sweet Dreams are Made of These reverberated his entire ship, making it pulsate even as the $9000 wine circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of alien species after perihelion. "With an FTL drive, you can go anywhere you want" he said to himself, out loud.
I'm sorry for poking fun at it, but this sort of argument is hard to take seriously and always has been. 'If we discover an alien civilization, maybe we should pre-emptively wipe it out. I mean, suppose they did something crazy, like wipe out our entire civilization???!'
As well as being paranoid, this is line of reasoning is stupid. Imagine we discover this alien species and they seem far in advance of our (near future) technology, making them horribly scary. We decide to pre-emptively wipe them out by firing a relativistic mass into their star, as he describes reading about in his new favorite sci-fi book. All good, right? But what if the aliens have already spread out from their solar system, take note of the destruction of their homeworld, and do the same thing to us? We all die anyway, and the rest of the sentient universe thinks it's justified because we launched an unprovoked effort to destroy another civilization.
If we're going to compare our interstellar FTL future with the fate of indigenous people in the Americas during the age of exploration, this is like saying 'if the Aztecs had been smarter, they would have not only killed the conquistadors, but launched a preemptive expedition against the kingdom of Spain, wiping out the Spaniards and securing their own posterity!'
Now perhaps I'm being uncharitable here and the author means we should be more like the Sentinelese, the (mostly) uncontacted tribe in the Indian Ocean that lives in blissful ignorance of the modern (world (except for aeroplanes) and reliably kills and religious or sensational entrepreneurs who attempt to land on their island. But that's much more like the scenario in the movie Predator, which the author dismisses as silly compared his preferred eschatological scenarios.
What really bothers me here is the fundamental premise that advanced civilizations will inevitably wipe out others that they come in contact with, which seems to me like an extreme case of path dependency based on a shallow reading of colonial history. Most westerners are unaware that during the 15th century China was also having n age of exploration, with admiral Zhang He sailing as far west as the east coast of Africa, making contact with what is now Somalia. Why didn't these explorers go on a rampage, wiping out everything in their path in line with the author's understanding of game theory? It's not because they were just a tiny expeditionary force that got blown off course. Zhang He led a huge fleet with hundreds of ships, a total crew of about 25000 men, and his ships were large enough that he brought exotic animals like giraffes back to China. Nor were they short of military technology; the Chinese had invented and largely perfected the crossbow 1000 years before Europeans did, and were likewise in possession of advanced tactical and strategic military doctrine.
The Chinese didn't halt their era of exploration by wiping out everyone they encountered or because they anticipated being wiped out, but for domestic political considerations; the cost/benefit analysis didn't make sense to them and they wanted to visert resources to defending against one of the periodic invasions from Mongolia.
I read this essay as an example of the Hofstader's paranoid style*, which is rooted in a combination of geography, technological asymmetry, hubris, and eschatology - a style that is going through one of its periodic resurges due to American anxieties about global rivalries, the end of US technological dominance, and fears of imperial decline. It's the same mindset that has some pundits claiming opposition to data centers is organized by communist infiltrators (rather than arising from objections to pollutiona nd infrastructural overhead), or that it's so important for the US to retain its lead in AI that we should consider pre-emptive kinetic strikes on Chinese data centers.
To be blunt, I do not think that crafting game-theoretic rationalizations for pre-emptively destroying competing civilizations is logical or sensible. It demonstrates a half-assed understanding of game theory, assuming a lot of conclusions as starting premises and neglecting to consider the possibilities of iterative rounds, multilateral actors etc. Rather than engaging with the challenges (and opportunities) of complex systems, it reders all decision-making down to an atavistic adversarialism. Approaching all risk and uncertainty as an existential issue isn't healthy.
https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-am...
https://www.heritage.org/technology/commentary/china-working...
https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/superpowers-and-ag...
[dead]