-
Posts
3067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by The Bookwyrm
-
Oh, I should probably say:
My eleven year old sister is now current in Stormlight. WoK through RoW, and novellas in between.
She's now reading Shadows of Self.
-
Me half the time:
Spoiler
-
Wait, does Connection work faster than light?
-
The Remembrance of Earth's Past series by Liu Cixin is very good. I just finished book two of three.
Contained in this spoiler box is your daily dose of horror.
But it's space nerd horror.
SpoilerLet's talk about the Dark Forest Theory.
The Fermi Paradox is one of the biggest scientific questions of our time. Based on the number of planets in our galaxy and universe, and based on estimated probabilities for a number of factors, there should be a whole bunch of civilizations within our neighborhood, with many of them at a capacity to visit, or at least transmit, to us.
Despite this, the space around us is completely silent. There is no evidence of any other advanced civilizations. At all. This bring the paradox so aptly (mis)quoted by Enrico Fermi: "Where is everybody?"
There are a huge multitude of possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox. I'd recommend going here for more information.
But I want to focus on one.
The Dark Forest theory was outlined in Book Two of the series I mentioned above, titled The Dark Forest. (Aptly named.) The theory comes from the basis of two "axioms", as they're called, about civilizations in the universe:
- The primary interest of any civilization is survival.
- Civilizations grow exponentially while the amount of matter in the universe remains constant.
From these two axioms we can create a series of conjectures. And we have to understand two more things for the Dark Forest Theory to make sense: Chains of suspicion and technological explosions.
Let's assume for a moment that there are two planets in the universe, each with an intelligent civilization. One is more advanced than the other. The more advanced one is also aware of the other one's existence. Left to this advanced civilization are two basic choices: Benevolence, and Malice. Benevolence: Leave the other alone, let them live in peace, or Malice, destroy them utterly.
Let's say the more advanced civilization chooses benevolence. "Even if they turn out to be hostile," they reason, "we're more advanced than them. We can just destroy them if they become hostile."
But here's the problem.
On the grand scale of the universe, technological development is not a slow and steady process; it's a sudden burst. Achieving what we have in only centuries? That's a huge exponential growth in a time period less than a blink of an eye on the grand scheme of things. Civilizations are like strings of firecrackers; charges of technological development waiting to suddenly explode when something lights the fuse.
This means that at any given moment, though a civilization may be more advanced than it's neighbors, it's neighbors could overpass them in the great time it takes to communicate and travel across light-years.
So, the benevolent option for our more advanced civilization in the scenario does not seem so wise anymore, because at any moment the other civilization could grow more advanced, and choose to wipe them out in turn.
This creates a sort of prisoner's dilemma. Even if a civilization wants to be benevolent to others, and even if they want to believe that other civilizations are also benevolent, the only true option to ensure their own survival is to adopt paranoia and assume that every other civilization in the universe both has the capacity to destroy them and will destroy them if given the chance, because they also assume that other civilizations have reached this same conclusion.
The safest actions based on these assumptions are this: remain silent, and when another civilization proclaims themselves, destroy them as soon as possible.
It's not that aliens aren't out there. It's that they're too afraid to say anything, because the moment they do, another civilization will immediately wipe them out in a desperate effort to ensure their own survival.
"The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care. The hunter has to be careful, because everywhere in the forest are stealthy hunters like him. If he finds another life—another hunter, angel, or a demon, a delicate infant to tottering old man, a fairy or demigod—there’s only one thing he can do: open fire and eliminate them."
This is the Dark Forest Theory.
- Show previous comments 12 more
-
-
@CalanoCorvus, your point of view makes perfect sense. Ethically speaking, it would be the best option to extend diplomacy and try to resolve conflict. Once that bridge existed, it wouldn't be difficult.
The problem is paranoia based in the assumption that everyone else is equally paranoid. Even if every civilization desperately wants to be friends with every other one, they don't know that about the others. We don't know that about the others. If we do as much as say "hello" we risk destruction because we have no idea how paranoid they are of us destroying them. And so the only truly safe option is paranoia ourselves.
But I agree. I don't like the theory. It's just interesting. And only one explanation; the truth could be far different.
-
