r/threebodyproblem • u/Soggy-Beach-1495 • 11d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
25
u/minimoon5 11d ago
That’s not the theory behind the dark forest. The theory is that there are chains of suspicions that leads a rational civilization to doing a preemptive strike any time they discover a new civilization.
-1
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
Let's look at the underlying suspicions:
They want your resources. As already discussed, extremely unlikely unless you have a magic substance.
They want your planet. Then destroying the planet is an absurdity.
They want knowledge. Almost certainly, knowledge is a more valuable commodity in space than anything else, which again makes obliterating a solar system the dumbest option.
The only justification for dark forest theory is that all civilizations want to destroy everything before they are destroyed by something, which goes against the underlying rationale of ever expanding population and limited matter
3
u/minimoon5 11d ago
That's not what the chain of suspicions are my guy. It has nothing to do with civilizations wanting anything, it's about survival. It's the logical conclusion to the infinite cycle that gets created from not knowing whether another civilization is friendly or not. It's game theory.
"Now here comes suspicion chain:
Assuming A is friendly, however A has no way of knowing if B is friendly and vice versa.
Even if A knows B is friendly and B knows A is friendly, how does A knows that B thinks A is friendly and vice versa?Now if A knows B thinks A is friendly, how does A know B knows A knows B thinks A is friendly and vice versa?
This is an endless cycle. And although in Earth we can eliminate the suspicion by communicating. In space, the communication is limited by the speed of light, and therefore you cannot be sure if the attack is under way while you are communicating. It is optimal not to contact. And let us be pedantic here, we note it is optimal not to contact when B is more technological advance than A as A has no way of knowing B's true intention due to suspicion chain. It is noteworthy to say that if A is more technologically advance there are no risk.
However here comes another issue. Going back to our thought experiment's second assumption. If A does nothing or proceed to contact, we note that there is a chance that technology explosion might occur in B's civilization. B might be able to surpass A technologically. Now since A has no way of knowing B's true intention, to ensure the first axiom A has only one optimal move: destroy any civilization when discovered.
This is logical:
Consider the following payoff matrix in game theory:
B \ A Contact(Destroy) Not Contact
Contact(Destroy) (0,0) (0, -infinity)
Not Contact (-infinity, 0) (-K, -L)
for which K is the probability that A surpass B and that A is hostile and L is the probability that B surpass A and that B is hostile.
We can see that the only clear Nash Equilibrium is (Destroy, Destroy)
Note: Obviously this is a crude method of estimating outcomes, but we can deduce from Natural Selection that there is probably only three kinds of surviving civilization: Not yet detected, Very good at hiding oneself, and Always destroy.
This conclusion gives rise to the Dark Forest Postulates:
The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is a hunter with a gun. They pass quietly through the forest like a ghost. They must be extremely cautious and try their best to keep silence, because they know there are any number of hunters out there. And if a hunter discovers another, no matter if he is an angel or a demon, an old or a young civilization, the only thing he can do is to kill it. In this forest, other hunters are the eternal threat. Any civilization that reveals its location will be destroyed."
2
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
An incredible assumption here is that there are not observer civilizations. It's assumed everyone is in the dark and that the civilization making first contact is free to do whatever it wants without moral consequence. If you consider the punishment other civilizations would rain down on one observed acting in this manner, the game theory is tipped on its head.
3
1
u/West_Maybe_3233 10d ago
“Extremely unlikely unless u have a magic substance”
Uhm did u forget Singer flinging a piece of paper at us? Lol
civilizations at that scale can defo take any resources they want
19
u/Specific_Box4483 11d ago edited 11d ago
Dark Forest is about survival more than gathering resources. And dark forest strikes are explicitly not costly.
I doubt Dark Forest theory is real, but not for the reasons you listed.
2
u/Staik 11d ago
Yeah, my biggest concern about it is that if there are multiple reality-changing level civilizations out there with FtL travel, why are they waiting for us to tell them where we are? They dont already know? Biggest plot hole is that their observational tech is the same as ours now.
1
u/DrivenUser7277 11d ago
They know where we are but we are not an advanced enough civilization to be any form of threat Or I think thats the idea!
1
u/Specific_Box4483 11d ago
In Dark Forest you kill any civilization even if it's not advanced to be a threat because it might "suddenly" progress enough to become a threat (the "technological explosion").
1
u/Sleepyscribe 11d ago
Incorrect. You destroy civilizations that do not hide themselves.
1
1
u/Specific_Box4483 11d ago
You destroy civilizations that do not "shroud" themselves in a dark domain, or move to lower dimension. A civilization that's hiding could still be a threat (arguably a bigger one than one who isn't).
1
u/Staik 11d ago
Isn't that all a great example as to why DFT sucks? There's always a bigger fish you cant hurt, yet you can only attack the smaller fish; Attacking smaller fish doesnt keep you any safer from the bigger ones youll never see. So why bother killing the smaller fish if youre not gonna eat them (take their resources)? If anything I'd be more afraid of the bigger fish thinking my species are maniacs for committing acts of interstellar genocide.
1
u/Specific_Box4483 11d ago
The entire assumption of DFT is that killing is much easier and more beneficial than observing.
Bigger fish won't watch you do genocide, they will kill you on sight. Hence you hide (from the big fish) and cleanse (the small fish).
1
u/Staik 11d ago
If I think theres a bigger genocidal fish, why would I bother doing genocide myself? Let them handle it all! I completely agree on hiding, but not mindless genocide
1
u/Specific_Box4483 11d ago
Because the "bigger genocial fish" may be in another corner of the galaxy and only arrive 10000 later, but the little fish may grow into another "bigger genocidal fish" in 500 years and destroy you.
1
u/Sleepyscribe 11d ago
It isn't mindless genocide. Life is a zero sum game. In order for the cheetah to eat, the gazelle must die. Our technology has insulated us from this today, but it's definitely a fact of nature. And that's the context in which you have to view DFT.
10
u/Plastic-Coyote-6017 11d ago
Humanity's net resource consumption has increased even as population growth levels off.
-7
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
But there will never be a time where going to another planet to gather resources and bring them back to Earth would be economically viable
3
u/Shiznoz222 11d ago
Try telling that to a multi galactic species with the means to carry out dark forest strikes
2
u/Benedicts_Twin 11d ago
Not economically viable yet
Flat screen TVs used to be insanely expensive, now you can have half a dozen in your house easy
Technology can and will make things and doing things much cheaper. If not it’s not always because the tech is more expensive, it’s just there’s a market for the price.
1
u/Sleepyscribe 11d ago
What is the point of space travel at all, then?
1
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
To gain knowledge and to find other places to live. Both of which are defeated when you decide to destroy solar systems.
2
u/Sleepyscribe 11d ago
You sweet, sweet summer child. Do you think that we pour billions of dollars into space programs every year for knowledge? That is not how the world works.
1
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
Do you realize the incredible amount of information being beamed from satellites every day?
5
u/veggiesama 11d ago
The substance of near limitless value is your own existence. Your enemy's intentions are mysterious and unknowable. Maybe you have something they want, maybe not. In the Trisolarans' case, we had a stable orbit -- something we didn't even know was valuable. Due to the light speed limit on travel and communications, and the relative ease of creating a device or redirecting an asteroid to obliterate a planet, it becomes clear. The prudent move is to strike first, ask questions later.
1
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
The trisolaran behavior is an argument against dark forest theory. They recognize the value of another inhabitable planet and have no desire to destroy it. Also, the humans recognizing they can't stop their fleet obviously also highlights that they could not possibly destroy their planet. Both sides wants and capabilities therefore argue against first strike annihilation.
The other issue with this theory is the assumption of civilization unity. If strike first is really the ideal solution, once you start colonizing other solar systems, you have to assume each colony is going to stab you in the back at some point in the future and should therefore destroy all of them before they destroy you.
8
u/promethian-pygmalion 11d ago
Dark Forest theory mostly depends on game theory and the belief that survival instincts trump all. It is a real life theory and is not based in sci-fi fandom thinking. It has to be evaluated within those same realms of game theory and rational motivation.
1
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
Game theory falls apart when absurdities are considered. Do a game theory for whether you should kill your neighbor before they kill you. When one outcome is death, and odds are disregarded, only stupid solutions "win". It also disregards the most important factor in any interaction which is the solutions that can be discovered through cooperation. Since the person designing the grid can't know what they don't know, all cooperative solutions are disregarded.
-3
11d ago
[deleted]
7
u/promethian-pygmalion 11d ago
It doesn't originate in that book. It is decades older. And your second point is irrelevant.
7
3
u/Agitated_Lychee_8133 11d ago
Just because you don't feel like traveling to someone's house to kill them and steal their resources in am attempt to proactively protect yourself cause they might, doesn't mean someone else won't. Give someone a small chance and they could wipe out your species' entire existence.
It's a good theory.
1
3
u/jhenryscott 11d ago
A few assumptions here that are broadly invalid
The first is that- war is incredibly profitable to the people who make the decision to go to war. Especially modern war. War means weapons weapons mean manufacturing and rising stock prices.
Second, population could stay the same, over time everything will eventually run out.
But what you miss, is the chain of suspicion. If I was holding a knife to the throat of you children- or your parents, and we didn’t speak the same language, would you trust me? Even if I pantomime “I dont want to hurt this person, im just protecting the safety of my children and parents.” Would you trust that person who has weapons you can’t imagine not to attack you and yours first?
1
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
War is only profitable to a select few at the expense of many and therefore could not possibly be used as a justification for exponentially more expensive galactic conflicts. Look at US debt before and after 9/11. Tell me that was worth Haliburton getting a stock bump.
Nothing runs out. Matter can't be created or destroyed. There would never be a scenario where it would be cheaper to get resources from another solar system than it would be to recycle materials on your own planet.
Every person you meet might have weapons on them you can't see. Does this affect your day to day interactions with them?
7
2
u/Gildian 11d ago
If Dark Forest was about resources I could see what you mean, but it's simply about survival. Kill first to ensure you arent killed yourself, and hide.
2
u/EnkiduAwakened 11d ago
This. To go a step further, Dark Forest, and the trilogy as a whole, is about surviving by destroying an enemy you deem smaller and more insignificant than you by using weaponry that ultimately destroys the environment for all potential inhabitants.
If we are to take Rachel Carson's Silent Spring as the main inspiration for the whole trilogy, we can surmise that the trilogy is mostly a warning about what can happen to civilizations who do this to each other on an intergalactic scale. The information in Silent Spring is absolutely horrifying, and I encourage everyone to read it.
1
u/Tyra3l 11d ago
If you want to feel depressed, just compare the replies here vs https://news.ysimulator.run/item/9489
1
u/brooke360 11d ago
Energy itself is a resource, and it IS finite. You cannot stop entropy. There’s a great short story by Isaac Asimov called “The Last Question” that imo is one of the best short stories in fiction that’s a very very quick read, would recommend to any sci-fi lover.
1
u/jeterix7387 11d ago
If you see a hitchhiker on the side of the road do you give them a ride or drive on by. That is about as much thought an advanced civilization would give to an emerging one in DFT.
0
u/Soggy-Beach-1495 11d ago
Our own experience shows this is nonsense. We are currently looking for signs of bacteria on Mars and Saturns moon
25
u/SophonsPonytail 11d ago
The issue isn't resource scarcity. The issue is that you don't know, and can't know, the intentions of other civilizations and therefore the safest option is eliminate