How can game theory tell us that hiding from a malicious civilization is a safer choice than exposing ourselves to a benevolent civilization that could rescue us from some danger impossible for us to handle?
My opinion is based on different theories and hypotheses, but the prevalent opinion is that there can't be a benevolent civilization in the first place. And even if there are, they would continue hiding themselves.
Essentially, any alien civilization that survives in the long term is silent and hostile. But especially silent since being hostile can reveal your location.
> but the prevalent opinion is that there can't be a benevolent civilization in the first place.
You'd have to explain why. Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them. A civilization that happens to beat them would find among its attractive options a Nobunaga Gambit: taking on the vanquished foe's mission of unification (since it worked until it didn't - and the one time it didn't work, there was a terrifyingly good chance that it could have).
"The Dark Forest" as an idea is inextricable from its cultural origins, a China that's rather pessimistic about inter-civilizational contact because of its recent history. That it resonates amidst a zeitgeist of global instability doesn't make it universally correct. Gene Roddenberry's competing vision might seem optimistic, but it's not naive; beneath Starfleet's cheery veneer is the Neo Princess Serenitian realpolitik of, "Peace, or else."
> Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them.
I don't think saying "logically" and then an unsubstantiated claim constitutes a proof.
If two civilizations team up, whether that makes them stronger, weaker, or equally effective, is not certain IMO.
When two human companies merge, the result is often mistrust, poor communication, poor effectiveness, and sometimes ultimately failure. Sometimes the result of the merger is more effective.
A single, decisive government can run more effective than an indecisive coalition with no clear leader.
I just don't see how a definitive conclusion is possible any way. Surely it would vary case by case.
>When two human companies merge, the result is often mistrust, poor communication, poor effectiveness, and sometimes ultimately failure. Sometimes the result of the merger is more effective.
Those are all important considerations when talking about particular circumstances. Mathematically, however, 2 is greater than 1.
I say "logically" in the sense that, across a broad view of conflicts, the larger combatant usually does the most damage. The reason why is particular to each conflict (more bodies to throw, more brains devoted to tech development, more industrial output, etc.), and when it does not happen, the reason why is also similarly particular. You can also argue whether the circumstances truly yield a "win" (as in asymmetric warfare that ends with the smaller force driving out the larger one on logistical grounds, despite sustaining heavier losses). (Also note that "war" is not "business"; alliances are more important when the outcome of lost battles isn't just lost access to capital, but lost lives).
> Logically, the first two civilizations to "team up" would easily handle any single civilization that challenges them.
This assumes defense is possible. Two loud cooperating civilizations don’t seem like they’d stand much of a chance against a silent, hostile civilization that quietly chucks a few rocks at both homeworlds and any interesting-looking moons, timed to arrive at roughly the same time.
A silent, hostile civilization that applies the astronomical levels of energy to accelerate enough mass to cause an extinction level event at the target in any reasonable amount of time would very likely cease to be a silent civilization. It imagine it would be difficult to hide an energy expenditure of that magnitude; the target may even be capable of deflecting the incoming relativistic payload with one of their own given enough lead time. Also, if there are sufficient loud, cooperating civilizations paying attention to large bursts of energy in their neighborhood, the asshole rock-chucking civilization may find multiple such relativistic payloads heading for their home relatively soon after firing theirs.
Send an agent to an uninhabited star system and launch the rocks from there. Everyone that can see would see the energy expenditures, but they would get very little information other than the knowledge that a stealth based hostile civilization exists. This information would encourage everyone else to be less noisy.
The "stealthy" civilization has ceased to be stealthy, in this case. Launching an attack of any kind defeats the purpose, if anyone but the fully-wiped-out target can see. Your example suggests that a stealthy, hostile civilization isn't possible.
What would an observer see? It’s plausible that they would see an attack from an uninhabited solar system but not be able to find the home location of the attacker.
Ooh, that's the fun part. What (augmented) sense does the observer rely on? On what timescale? How was the attack coordinated? The attack surface of the operation - and the ability to trace it back to its origin - might be wider than you can plan for. "Plausible" is a shaky ground to be on with your civilization in the balance, if you suspect there's even a chance you can be discovered and have chosen to remain as hidden as possible heretofore. Dark Forest doctrine and hostility are incompatible, I think.
If you can achieve faster than light travel (worm holes?) and some sort of immortality (digital? consciousness quantum woo?) then maybe you transcend the worries of physical destruction…
How does this play out with two apex predators...? When you travel in bear-infested woods, the common refrain is to make your presence known -- better to let the other apex predator aware of your existence so you can both give one another a wide berth. Or the Teddy Roosevelt style - walk softly, but carry a big stick.
The theory is that there may be civilizations, or remnants (AIs), that have a vested interest in removing possible competition for resources, or in the case of the AIs, have been instructed to snuff out signs of life for the same reason.
If you are the first one and want to make sure to prevent all future advanced civilizations from evolving, you send out von Neumann probes. You can tell them to build relativistic kill missiles and destroy all planets. No planets = no new civs, probably.
There is no such thing. I think physics and economics dictates that you can't really be advanced enough for interstellar industry and yet backwards enough to have the type of resource scarcity which would compel interstellar resource competition.
If these aliens can not only travel but do resource extraction at interstellar distances, that implies having highly advanced fusion or annihilation reactors.
Minerals are just chemical reaction products, and therefore necessarily cost negligible energy to synthesize compared to interstellar travel. It's easier to just make the minerals you need.
Isotopes are finite in number, and we already know and largely understand all the ones are likely to ever be useful. "Island of Stability" nuclei may or may not be possible beyond that, but even if they're not only possible but also useful, they will almost certainly have halflives short enough that they will also have to be synthesized rather than mined. So, there's no competing over planets either way.
At the lower end of the tech levels where you can have interstellar industry, the only "amazingly high-energy isotope/mineral" is hydrogen fusion fuel. There's nothing in the Earth's crust or core that could be useful for them, because terrestrial planets are made out of spent nuclear detritus. Though maybe they can bring a big fusion candle and just run off with Jupiter, if they forget about their own gas giants and stars.
At the higher end of the tech scale, even hydrogen stops being a resource. Matter annihilation (e.g. via microscopic black holes) means that it doesn't matter what element or chemical your fuel is made out of when you're converting it directly to energy.
I think any resource competition argument for "dark forest" exopolitics really undersells how vast space is, and how abundant resources are. A single Jupiter with basic fusion reactors could easily sustain quadrillions of humans in enormously inefficient utopian living conditions for trillions of years. [1] It's going to need to get a lot more crowded before fighting over minerals is something that any sane interstellar civilization would worry about.
> If these aliens can not only travel but do resource extraction at interstellar distances, that implies having highly advanced fusion or annihilation reactors.
No, it doesn't. You don't know what you don't know. Aliens can have tech based on some rare isotope/mineral/whatever.
> Minerals are just chemical reaction products, and therefore necessarily cost negligible energy to synthesize compared to interstellar travel. It's easier to just make the minerals you need.
Unless these minerals require special rare isotopes or some other material we're not yet aware.
> Isotopes are finite in number, and we already know and largely understand all the ones are likely to ever be useful.
No, we do not. Google "island of stability".
> At the lower end of the tech levels where you can have interstellar industry, the only "amazingly high-energy isotope/mineral" is hydrogen fusion fuel.
That statement isn't a fact. Unless you magically synthesized all possible isotopes and materials. Which you didn't.
> There's nothing in the Earth's crust or core that could be useful for them
But maybe there was, that's the argument.
> Matter annihilation (e.g. via microscopic black holes)
Again, you're talking about known science. Not everything. You don't know what you don't know.
> A single Jupiter with basic fusion reactors could easily sustain quadrillions of humans in enormously inefficient utopian living conditions for trillions of years.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the argument we're having. It doesn't disprove that there might have been some rare resource (or maybe it's still here, we just didn't get to it).
Properties like the binding energies of molecules and nuclei are a direct and well-understood consequence of the laws of physics. Materials in the real world aren't like Star Trek, where dilithium and the omega molecule can be treated as an infinite energy source because the name sounds cool. In order for a material to be an energy source, that energy has to come from somewhere.
You can only put so much strain on a chemical bond before the electrons decide to stop sticking together anymore. You can only get as much energy out as the mass change from splitting an atom. You can only store as much energy in a heavy nucleus as was originally put into it by the supernova that created it. Anything else would violate basic laws of physics, to such a degree that everything in our universe would presumably immediately cease to exist.
> No, we do not. Google "island of stability".
I already addressed the hypothetical island of stability in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted. The term is relative. They are expected to have longer halflives than the instantly decaying superheavies like ununoctium, but even the longer predictions of their decay properties have them disappearing far too quickly to be mined as minerals.
I'll add now that there's also no reason to believe that island of stability substances, if they even exist, will have any more particularly useful or powerful properties than any other heavy metal. When was the last time you needed to use Mendelevium for something?
> Yes, but that has nothing to do with the argument we're having. It doesn't disprove that there might have been some rare resource (or maybe it's still here, we just didn't get to it).
It disproves the idea that there might be some useful resource which you would want to go conquering for. The resources available in any star system are already more than any conceivable civilization could ever use.
The other side of this is the difficulty of interstellar travel. Reaching relativistic speeds implies turning a significant fraction of your vehicle's mass into energy. With the ability to create and manipulate such power densities, you're better off just synthesizing whatever you need.
> No, it doesn't. You don't know what you don't know.
> But maybe there was, that's the argument.
> Again, you're talking about known science. Not everything. You don't know what you don't know.
If the argument for suggesting a complete break from the known laws of physics can be summarized as "You don't know what you don't know", then you may as well argue that the universe is secretly controlled by a giant space cat which will reward us with salmon if we all shine laser pointers in our retinas every third Thursday.
"Maybe there was" is not actually an argument, in the sense that there is neither anything specifically substantiating it which can be examined, nor any falsifiable conditions which may disprove it.
All your arguments are basically "we already know all of physics, there's nothing new to learn". Which is just wrong.
And then you engage in obvious logical fallacies like talking about mendelevium, as if it's exactly the same as hypothetical stable isotopes from the island of stability. You have no idea what you're talking about, you have not produced those isotopes, no human did.
And then you engaged in completely dishonest straw man with the space cat. I never claimed that there are such isotopes or other used yet unknown natural materials, I just suggested that there may have been some.
Considering how dishonest you are, I won't respond any more.
My argument is that based on everything which we do already know, it is unlikely that any material with the physical and economic properties like what you are suggesting can exist, and any "suggestion" that such a material does exist is completely arbitrary. Russell's teapot, and all that. There's plenty new to learn, but it'll probably be closer to strangelets and dark matter in exotic conditions than "baryonic rocks but amazingly shiny".
The entire point of "science" is that you can and should make reasonable predictions based on past observations. E.G. Mendelevium. Calling that a "obvious logical fallacy" is… Disturbing, frankly.
You know, I've yet to see you make a single point that's based on anything more than "Maybe", "No, it doesn't", or "How dishonest you are". Lots of rhetoric. Not much else.
It is your choice to interpret disagreement and contradictory information as "dishonest". Have fun with that.
Offense is easier than defense. How do you know some other civilization isn't going to, say, get angry at their own decline and unleash destructive Von Neumann machines on the galaxy?
By the time you know whether or not another civilization is hostile, it’s probably too late. “Interstellar war” sounds like a long dragged-out set of engagements when it’s more likely that one random day without warning your planet intersects a sizable chunk of tungsten traveling at 0.9c.
Another reason not to confine your civilisation to one planet, or to planets generally.
Much harder to wipe out a civilisation that's dispersed among hundreds or thousands of smaller space colonies. Especially if many of those colonies are hidden in an asteroid belt of millions of rocks.
Whatever scattered remnants that are left of humanity hanging out in the asteroid belt are going to have a hell of a time finding food to eat or oxygen to breathe.
Resources. Perhaps their star will soon (on a cosmic timescale) consume their planet and they're looking for another solar system to inhabit. Labor for their Dyson sphere. Who knows. But, if something goes out of their way to make contact, odds are it won't be a friendly hello.
> If you are a civ who is able to do it, surely you can grow whatever food you need at home and have advanced AI/robotics that can provide labour.
That's about as reasonable an argument as "if you drive a Tesla, surely you can afford to donate to my cause". Maybe they are way over-invested in their FTL technology and really have no choice but to look for external labour. Maybe they painted themselves into a corner with the FTL tech that can get them here, but they need our labour to enable their drives to restart for the trip back. Or maybe whatever reasoning they have is so _alien_ to us that we simply can not comprehend it.
Yes, it is possible that whatever FTL tech they are using will work with a living creature but not with some machine. Maybe they just encode human DNA to clone for slaves because their culture does not allow them to use their own DNA for slaves, and DNA is easy to send over their FTL tech.
When discussing aliens you have to consider that their reasoning, their culture, their motivations, their technology, their customs, their values are all _alien_ to us. You have to be open minded, for every excuse we can come up with for "why not" there are infinite explanations for "why so".
The thing is that culture, motivations, and technology are all shaped by constraints imposed by the laws of physics, which (by definition) can generally be presumed to be universal. Having plausible explanations for "why so" doesn't change the fact that doing so would likely be so inefficient that it would place their entire culture at a significant disadvantage.
Yet on a cultural level, I think the "food/slaves" narratives of alien invasion are actually failing to be open-minded enough. Mechanical labor and physical nutrition are the kinds of things that our newly industrialized post-colonial societies worry about. It's not actually a particularly "alien" idea. Thinking a much more technologically advanced society would come to Earth for the same reasons comes across to me as projecting our own anxieties and sins.
> If the rabbit is injured, making noise and hoping for humans to help is a fools errand as the fox is more likely to hear and eat the rabbit.
> This is engrained in our evolution.
Literally the exact opposite?
> Recent research has also shown that the acoustic properties of human screams can be reliably detected within noisy environments, something presumably indicative of having evolved in noisy environments, such as dense forests, where there is a strong adaptive pressure to reliably signal danger (Nandwana et al., 2015).
> Rabbit Basic Science: The only vocal sounds that are made are a loud high-pitched scream of terror or a range of growls and hums that denote pleasure or defence. Apprehensive or frightened rabbits will thump the ground with their hind feet. The loud thumping sounds acts as an alarm signal to other rabbits in the vicinity.
> Screaming among rabbits indicates alarm associated with fear, pain, and psychological distress. Your rabbit may scream because it is scared of being attacked or dying. Rabbits also scream when they’re in excruciating pain, or when they’re having a seizure. …it is a sign of extreme pain, terror, or calling out for help.
> Lima beans release volatile chemical signals that are received by nearby plants of the same species when infested with spider mites. This 'message' allows the recipients to prepare themselves by activating defense genes, making them less vulnerable to attack, and also attracting another mite species that is a predator of spider mites (indirect defence).
IMO "Dark Forest Theory"— The idea that (1) nobody would ever help anyone else and (2) nobody could ever understand anyone else because (3) we're all dumb forest animals capable of nothing higher than survival, so we may as well (a) hide and (b) kill anyone that tries to talk to us— That probably says more about the people arguing for it, or about our own providence, than it does about any probable intestellar ecology.
> Humans become a rabbit, the malicious species a fox, the benevolent species humans.
In fact, if anything, using humans as the example of a benevolent society points out the absurdity of assuming that more technologically advanced polities must necessarily be malicious.
Killers don't prosper in civilized societies. And technologically advanced societies ruled by killers don't last long.
