In the books, each civilization can have a hiding gene and/or an exterminating gene. At the beginning of the story, humanity has neither. The idea is that civilizations without the hiding gene won't last long. So it's not rational for a civilization to become "Space Hitler", there are other options, they can hide.
I found the hypothesis to be convincing in the story. By the time you figure out if a civilization is friendly, they may have advanced to the point where they could destroy you. Everyone has to hide. Not everyone has to exterminate.
Clearly, having discovered no other civilizations in the universe, we don't have enough information, so it's all guesswork and fantasy.
Prisoner's dilemma, or even better than that. Cooperation is ignored despite having significant advantages laid out in the likes of Star Trek and Babylon 5.
This falls apart pretty rapidly when you move beyond one person—groups of people don't tend to act collectively rationally. Hell, the entire reason "capitalism" is a thing at all is it provides some consensus in the face of byzantine faults even if it fails to represent our collective needs with any accuracy.
I'm pretty sure capitalism is a thing because it provides a means of legal ownership and the growth of one's exercise of power through the exploitation of that ownership. Consensus would exist due to the power of the state regardless of the economic system.
Power drives consensus. Capitalism is just a means to allocate this power within a functioning state. But even in a non-Capitalist state consensus still exists due to allocated power.
Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.
Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created.
Power is able to manipulate consensus, but ultimately it exists despite consensus. Its existence is relative by definition.
> Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.
False
> Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created
There are of course other means of consensus. For whatever reason these means are not available to us now, allegedly.
Cooperation is essential to build a society that can reach space. Every spacefaring race should have cooperation genes like us (but also like us they may be occasionally genocidal). One of the reasons for human success is cross-species cooperation, mostly with dogs and horses
> So if Liu’s hypothesis is right, it makes sense for the galaxy’s top civilizations to just look at every star, see if there’s a civilization there, and wipe it out if so.
If resource are scarce, destroying stars and planets seems counterproductive. Why not just colonize as the Trisolarans made steps to do to Earth?
Are resources really scarce? Other than stars and planets, there are plenty of resources in the astroids and gas giants, and interstellar space. We can argue that the most scarce resource is organic matter. In universal scale, wood is exponentially more scarce than gold.
> It is estimated that the amount of gold present in the entire universe is about 50 billion tons, with about one ounce for every 150 billion tons of Earth.
According to Alexander Budianto on quora[2] the earth is ~6.58310^21 tons ~ 710^21
710^21/(15010^9) / 10^9 = 46 billion
So that is ~46 billion ounces of gold on earth, rounded up 50 billion. Maybe that is where they obtained 50 billion from?
This...cannot possibly be right. It's estimated that there are a minimum of 200B galaxies in the observable universe (up to 2 trillion). 50B tons of gold in the universe would mean 0.25 tons per galaxy (shared among the ~100B stars, and let's guess 500B planets)--but we've already extracted ~250k tons from earth alone.
50B tons seems like a suspiciously low number even just within our own galaxy.
I think there is a hypothesis going on, that the Earth has an above average quantity of gold because of some novel cosmic event, e.g. neutron star activity that just happened to be in our neighborhood ~5 billion years ago during the formation of our Solar System.
My layman understanding of Astrophysics is that we understand things up to Iron pretty well. Beyond that there is a lot of conjecture.
I've never heard it explained very well, the best I can find is a 40 year old PBS show. Thanks to Virginia Trimble.
...one supernova can produce 7.4e22 kg of gold (the moon's mass), while a neutron star to neutron star collision can produce 1.9e27 kg of gold (a Jupiter's mass worth). 50e9 tons is 4.6e13 kg.
Yeah, and the nature of the Dark Forest galaxy would mean that no civilization could get anywhere close to utilizing a significant share of total resources--or even a significant share of the total resources in their backyard--because doing so would attract attention and lead to their extinction. If everybody is busy hiding and being as quiet and careful as possible then resources would be abundant for lack of use--and thus it would not be worth it to fight over resources in the short term.
If resource are scarce, destroying stars and planets seems counterproductive.
Just stick with destroying life bearing planets. Over 99% of the matter in the Solar System is in the Sun.
Why not just colonize as the Trisolarans made steps to do to Earth?
If one is technologically advanced enough to move to the next star system 4 LY away in a huge generation ship fleet, one is advanced enough to build O'Neil cylinder space colonies and dominate the solar system. Going after Earth makes no sense.
In the book, the entire system would be sacrificed. It's many orders of magnitude easier to target a star than a planet, and the tool used permanently altered spacetime itself in a sphere expanding at lightspeed (similar to vacuum decay, but I can't recall the exact mechanism).
I don't recall it expanding at light-speed, and the tool flattened 3D-space into 2D-space, permanently. (The implication being that eventually, the entire universe would flatten down to 2D space, since the process can't be stopped.)
And that was just one possible weapon, used by one possible species, I think?
In the local zone it was at light speed, which is why only the ships which use a propulsion system which slows the local speed of light could escape. Though oddly some higher dimensional spacetime could still intersect with the newly collapsed spacetime in the future, so I don't think the mechanism was fully thought out.
You're right on the rest, which makes me wonder why bother going through any of the rest of this instead of just making everything two-dimensional the moment you invent the technology in order to wipe everyone else out from the get go. I guess the reason not to is that this wouldn't stop new 2D species from evolving and eventually threatening you, so it's better to only use on an as needed basis. But if that's the case, then it's better to actually look into whether a species is capable of threat (physically or psychologically) or not before striking them.
> I don't think the mechanism was fully thought out.
There was a lot in those books that wasn't fully thought out, imo. In general, I thought the first book was good and interesting, especially the bits about Chinese history & culture, but overall I think the concepts have been done better, by better authors.
It feels a little bit like Harry Potter. It was a lot of people's first exposure to something (for HP, reading, for DF, science fiction) and so it'll forever have this nice feeling of nostalgia, and I'm glad they got to read something and enjoy it - but if you start looking at the details, things begin to not quite add up, things don't quite make sense, and the internal world-building begins to show its seams quite heavily.
> why bother going through any of the rest of this instead of just making everything two-dimensional the moment you invent the technology in order to wipe everyone else out from the get go.
My understanding from the book is that life is impossible in two dimensions; the people using these weapons are permanently poisoning the universe, presumably under the assumption that their species won't last long enough to deal with the consequences.
> My understanding from the book is that life is impossible in two dimensions
I recall that alien species specifically talking about making the transition to 2D. And that the gunner who used the weapon against Earth speculated that this is what their own government figures had decided to do (otherwise the gunner's superior wouldn't have signed off so readily on use of the weapon). I.e. it takes an advanced technology to make life possible in 2D, but it isn't impossible.
It may have been slower, but I'm not sure why it would be or what the mechanism was. Regardless, it had the effect of consuming the entire system didn't it? As you say, it was deployed with reckless disregard for the fate of spacetime itself as it was irreversible and unstoppable, that's the important part.
Could be that other species had more targeted tools, but to me the implication was that Dark Forest Theory basically encourages an overwhelming and rapid response, so taking more time/effort to specifically target a planet is disincentivized on pain of extinction.
> If resource are scarce, destroying stars and planets seems counterproductive.
Resources aren't scarce, they're just finite. If there are 19 uninhabited systems for every inhabited one, it may seam reasonable to obliterate 5% of systems if it helps you control the other 95%.
As others have pointed out, this is the most absurd thing. Resources are not scarce. Once you're out of your gravity well and have the tech to stay out of it, energy is effectively unlimited and probably any solar system has all the elements you'll need for whatever the thing is you do.
All of this kind of sci-fi is just projecting earthbound colonialism/imperialism motives built around the profit motive and resource scarcity and power out into a universe where none of that makes sense. They're good stories by analogy but have nothing to do with the "reality" of the future-worlds they purport to describe.
Well...and even during the most competitive and severe colonialist/imperialist periods on earth, extermination was very much the exception and not the norm.
There were instances of deliberate disease warfare in America, but that was already centuries after something like 80% of the population of the Americas was killed by diseases that early European explorers didn't even know they were spreading.
We used to think that the idea of humans wiping out species was absurd; after all, there are so many animals out there that us puny humans can't possibly kill all of them. Maybe its the same with interstellar resources; once we master space travel, our energy needs will grow to an absurd amount.
This isn't a convincing argument. A few thousand years ago North and South America would have been thought of as effectively unlimited resources.
In living memory a gig internet plan would have seemed like an effectively unlimited resource in a world of 56k modems. YouTube and Netflix couldn't have even been a PoC when everyone was using AOL 2.5. I fully expect there to be ground breaking changes in my lifetime to the Internet if we get for instance speeds capable of downloading the equivalent of the entire Internet today.
We don't know what other forms of life might do, but when humans have the ability to effectively consume a resource we push and find new ways to consume it all to make our lives better. Today we are only thinking of slowing progress (but definitely not stopping )on Earth because we seem to be making the planet unliveable eventually. If we begin colonizing other planets I don't see why we wouldn't continue the trend and end up in a galaxy where every liveable planet is populated and used like in Foundation eventually if there isn't some other form of life pushing back like in 3 Body. If we don't need to actually live on the planet we would likely accelerate the resources usage.
I don't think it has anything to do with resources. It's more to do with anyone in the galaxy can decide to end your planet, do you really want to bet your civilization on ALL other civilizations being friendly? It could be rational, game theory, "grabby aliens", religious reasons, etc.
The other issue is you could meet a perfectly sane looking alien civilization, but lose track of them, and before you check in again (say after 100 years) they could be a completely different civilization. Just imagine if the USA can go from far Obama to Trump in a year (or a day), how far you might get in 100 years.
Combine the high latency communications and impossible defense against a good offense (near light speed weapons) leads to the dark forest hypothesis.
Yes, my recollection of the books is that it isn't about the need to keep consuming resources, it is about the premise that it is impossible to judge if another civilization is hostile or going to turn hostile
If your civilization can annihilated in a single strike, the only civilizations that survive have the strategy to a) avoid being detected and b) destroy anyone who has detected them (which results in destroying everyone, to eliminate uncertainty).
The idea being that assuming the actual survival of your species is at the top of your moral pyramid, all kinds of atrocities in its defense are justifiable.
Well it's all a side effect of nearly unlimited energy (I.e. enough to accelerate a mile wide asteroid up to nearly light speed) which cause asymmetry in warfare favoring offense. I'm sure humans would kill anyone outside their village/city if defense was impossible and anyone that wanted to kill your city/village just had to push a button.
Its not about resource scarcity, its about first strike capability in the face of inability to communicate. You think we would have avoided buclear armeggedon up to now if there wasnt a red phone in the kremlin and in the oval office to allow the ussr and us leader to directly communicate? What do you do when you can't communicate but you possess galaxy ending stealth weapons and you can't tell if the other guy also posses them? Shoot first, ask questions later
Alien civilisations were destroying entire stars for just being suspicious, and did it within a few decades of receiving information, which means (due to the speed of light limitation) that star destroying weapons were spread around the galaxy every few dozen light years. This means resources were extremely abundant, so it's absurd that a civilisation that can do this simply can't send a probe to every star to check for civilisations.
Darn straight. And then colonize or subjugate any existing populations.
I think the books obliquely addressed this by having one of the major civilizations mention a comparable civilization that was its antagonist. But even so, subjugation or incorporation of other intelligent species shouldn't have been impossible.
The theory is that any civilization can become as powerful as you are and then you are at constant threat of first strike attack.
So you need to first strike before they will ever get that chance.
You cannot make an assumption about other side. They can be pacifists or a hive mind with no morals.
> Why not just colonize
Why bother, you are already star destroying apex species.
Trisolarans were relatively low tech civ in the book.
In the book and theory of dark forest only most ruthless civs will survive. Civ that will make contact with others might thrive for a while, until they get discovered by ruthless civ.
I can't be the only person who absolutely doesn't care about intelligent life. Either it makes its relevance clear or it doesn't. I see no particular reason why "intelligence" is noteworthy enough to look for in the first place.... maybe that's just a quirk of self-organization rather than a common route to it.
You seriously don't understand the difference between finding alien microbes vs finding aliens that can build guns and point them at us? Or for that matter, aliens that can actively teach us new things. I just... no, I don't think you're the only one who has this position, but it's the kind of wanton ignorance that doesn't need to be shared.
I mean, I'd also like to find elves. I don't see any reason to suspect either exists. There's an assumption that intelligence is a natural progression for evolution of life, which seems irrational. Why is intelligence so special compared to other mechanisms of self-organization?
That's not an answer to my question, it's just different a wrong assertion.
To answer your new point,
Life has never once failed to become self-aware and capable of space travel in the entire history of the universe, as far as we know. What could possibly make you think it's irrational to expect it could happen again?
I didn't say every living thing became technologically advanced, but that life on earth did. It only takes one species for a planet like our to be screaming at full volume in every direction simultaneously.
We don't need a Dark Forest hypothesis to explain Why No Aliens... because the reality is, the distance between solar systems is so incredibly massive, and the impossibility of FTL so real, it doesn't even matter. They'll never make it here, and we'll never make it there, even if we somehow were to communicate.
We will be alone in this system forever, get used to it. Maybe a machine or two of ours might make it out someday, but we'll be gone by then anyways.
They wouldn't have to be that much more capable. If every 10,000 years humans could reach a habitable planet and start a society there, in a few billion years humans would be everywhere.
And if actual history and real biology are anything to go by, you'd end up with a zoo of civilisations (and remnants thereof) that don't resemble humanity in the slightest and might as well be aliens.
the distance between solar systems is so incredibly massive, and the impossibility of FTL so real, it doesn't even matter
That also doesn't matter. Another star is going to come close enough to any given star, often enough, that the entire galaxy could be colonized without ever having to travel that far that fast. (Look up Issac Arthur's "Crawlenizing the Galaxy" idea.)
we'll be gone by then anyways
It's the combination of distance AND civilization longevity that does it. Considering that we are in an exponential process of change, it doesn't seem like we'll be around long enough in our current form as a civilization.
A colony 5 light years away means 10 years before you get a response.
For all intents and purposes most colonies will be independent and unable to act efficiently in unison with other colonies towards a strategic objective.
Similar to how humans migrated out of Africa and then discovered each other again after they had created different cultures, belief systems and ways of living.
Right, but how could colonies over such great distances have any meaningful commonality or purpose?
Homo Sapiens evolved ~300k years ago.
The Milky Way is ~100k light years across.
It’s possible you’d have different species colonizing different sectors of the galaxy. And those species might be just as likely to compete with each other rather than cooperate.
Your assertion is wrong (because you're 100% confident about something not knowable), but what's worse, it doesn't even address the question of "Why no aliens?". If alien intelligences were abundant but just "really far away", we'd still expect to have seen them by now.
Ships powered by pulse fusion reactors can certainly reach other worlds. Robust AI systems could tell us what's going on and be back in time for the year 2100.
> the distance between solar systems is so incredibly massive, and the impossibility of FTL so real
Those things, and the likely temporal separation of civilizations - where they miss because one peaked one million years before its nearby neighbours. E.g. Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, which per Wikipedia, is 200 million years older than the sun, so a civilization there which matured at the same speed as ours, would likely be long gone.
Not really. Unless you assume a couple of things: indestructible, perfect technology and methods to either suspend or prolong lifespans to geological time scales. Even system hopping would have at the very least the requirement of a basically unchanging (both biologically and in terms of politics/society) civilisation.
If either of those aren't practically achievable, the idea falls apart quickly.
Not absurd if you consider enslavement. Anyone worried about AI alignment will be in the dark forest camp. You simply can't trust the universe to care about you any more than it already does.
Enslavement only matters if your level of productivity is still on roughly the same order of magnitude (as in, up to minus a few) of your masters. e.g. you are a cow, a jug of your cow milk is still worth a few dollars in human markets. That means it's still worth it to keep you around.
If you're a mosquito OTOH... even enslavement is not worth it. It's eradication.
I tried to read the books in Russian, in English but they just don't click for me.
Also I just cannot accept any analogy of dark forest with empty and dead place. Anyone who've been to the forest or even seen any documentary knows/hears/sees that it's also full of life
> Anyone who've been to the forest or even seen any documentary knows/hears/sees that it's also full of life
All books I've read about the Amazon rainforest describe it as an extremely harsh place almost devoid of easily spotted pray or food. Anything that falls to the forest floor is consumed very quickly. There's a ton of life there, it's just ruthlessly competitive and therefore beyond easy sight.
I think the Dark Forest concept fits perfectly here. We see "empty" space wherein fact life could be just behind the curtains of "self preservation".
> Also I just cannot accept any analogy of dark forest with empty and dead place.
Huh? I don't even know what you are talking about.
First of all dark forest is not about empty and dead place. Its about being able to blend in with the forest so no one can discover you. Once spotted you become dead, once you spot someone else in your best interest is to destroy them if you can do it without being spotted.
In the books there are several civilizations, and hits that there were plenty more living in higher dimensions.
After reading the books, I thought that there was some sort of underlying political meaning with the way Liu incorporates both philosophy, religion, and real world events (ie, the Cultural Revolution). Then I read the afterword and author interview transcripts where the author explicitly says that there is no such meaning.
> “As a science fiction writer who began as a fan, I do not use my fiction as a disguised way to criticize the reality of the present.”
Given that the author lives under an authoritarian government, I'm not sure if Liu's words should be taken at face value. But officially, a political interpretation of the book wouldn't be the authors intention.
Was looking for this, had to scroll a long way to find it. The "dark forest" is a metaphor for growing up in an authoritarian regime. Paranoia and zero trust, because crimes against the state are absolute, and you never know who is reporting on you.
Then it mixes that with the US - China relationship mirroring first contact with the aliens.
Not everything lines up 1 to 1, but all the themes are there. Amazing how many people take it at face value instead of looking for context.
Although, it seems it's only going to cover the first book (which makes sense, given how difficult the other two would be to film). The real magic for me was in book 3. It was inspiring to see someone think so far out, so boldly.
> It was inspiring to see someone think so far out, so boldly.
It's not that unusual in SciFi (and even some Fantasy).
I didn't like the way this series did it. I personally prefer Asimov's take in The Last Question. It's all well and good to ask the elderly to commit mutual suicide for the sake of the yet-to-be-born, but assuredly there would have been newborn young species (not to mention the youth of old species) even in an old universe. Sorry youngins, to Moloch you go!
If we look at human history through the lense of a Dark Forest hypothesis and resource scarcity, you’d expect to see a variety of behaviors: aggression, defensive isolation, cooperation, etc.
And as on Earth, in Space, distance may help keep the peace.
Its the opposite actually, distance increases the information latency.
The higher latency the more uncertainty (and paranoia about what other side will do).
You will notice your neighbor slowly changing their attitudes and ideas because you can see it happen. You can intervene or prepare for whats happening, but
At space distances by the time you see those changes, their relativistic weapons were already fired. And even if there was some cultural shit and they regretted firing it, its already too late to do anything
The Dark Forest theory being popular right now is more a reflection of our society and our fears.
Stanislaw Lem has a good take on the subject of biological systems evolution in his "Summa Technologae".
Carl Sagan and Shklovsky also wrote a lot on the topic ("Intelligent Life in the Universe" for example). But they also represent a different time, the Cold War.
[TW: SPOILERS] I don't understand how something like this can be critical, but 'conveniently' ignore fundamental conceits of the narrative that led the characters to the formation of the Dark Forest Hypothesis, such as the technological explosion capacity of advanced galactic civilizations, which was a huge talking point in the trilogy. It was literally the reason why the Trisolarans utilized the Sophons /to halt technological progress of human research past a certain boundary/ by having the Sophons manipulate the results of any microscopic-scale particle experiments of scientists across the globe. (You know, the thing that causes a bunch of scientists to kill themselves and spur the plot of the first book into action)
Also disclaimer: didn't read past the paywall because lol paywall
As the author of this article says at the top it makes for a fun science fiction, but doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense in reality. So why do people fixate so much on how not realistic this particular science fiction concept is? Writing science fiction isn't about making realistic theories of how reality is. It's about writing interesting things that are only loosely related to actual science.
It's also worth noting that this hypothesis is not an original idea of Liu's it just wasn't called a Dark Forest previously.
It is not absurd. It depends on the type of beings at play. Plants don't kill each other, but animals do on a daily basis, from whales to mosquitoes, they're all part of a macabre annihilation dance where strength, intelligence and mimetism play important roles.
Through different eras, men have traveled long distances to kill, subjugate, enslave other people, and to consume everything that can be consumed, we won't change if we start going to the outer space. Being the most advanced species on earth doesn't make us different, as spiders, fish, birds, wolves, anything that moves is determined to kill or be killed, so it's not only a human trait.
Is it a dark forest? We don't know, it may just be an open battleground where intelligence is the final conqueror and that's exactly what rides on top of the arrow of evolution.
They absolutely do. From simple concepts like resource competition in which trees deplete the ground or outcompete each other for sunlight (e.g. any forest floor is usually not covered in grass) to parasitism and strangulating vines and whatnot, these guys are hostile and deadly to one another. They just don't run around much.
> through different eras, men have traveled long distances to kill, subjugate, enslave other people
I know lichens are considered "symbiotic" but I'm not sure what you would call a fungus that breeds algae cells and consumes them for nourishment. In that vein we're also symbiotic with pigs, which I find an inappropriate term.
Either way, my point is: Animals aren't remotely as unique as many people think.
Importantly, Liu’s books basically abandon the very same idea in the second and third books of the series (aliens that very actively battle across the galaxy and have many many opportunities to interact, which kind of undermines the premises of the dark forest argument)
If "the singularity" is a real thing that can happen, it seems like there is an incentive for species that fear "the singularity" to preemptively wipe out any civilizations they find which seem close to achieving AGI
If "the singularity" is a real thing that can happen
The way you're talking about it, the only way to win is to become "the singularity" yourself.
However, as it's used in mathematics and in the context of exponential growth and accelerating change, it's not a real thing. In math, it's where the math breaks down. In this context, it just describes the point at which standard Homo sapiens can't predict or deal with the speed of change.
107 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 96.4 ms ] threadI found the hypothesis to be convincing in the story. By the time you figure out if a civilization is friendly, they may have advanced to the point where they could destroy you. Everyone has to hide. Not everyone has to exterminate.
Clearly, having discovered no other civilizations in the universe, we don't have enough information, so it's all guesswork and fantasy.
This falls apart pretty rapidly when you move beyond one person—groups of people don't tend to act collectively rationally. Hell, the entire reason "capitalism" is a thing at all is it provides some consensus in the face of byzantine faults even if it fails to represent our collective needs with any accuracy.
What does this mean? Genuinely confused what you think a state is in the modern age if not the infrastructure necessary to support a market.
Power drives consensus. Capitalism is just a means to allocate this power within a functioning state. But even in a non-Capitalist state consensus still exists due to allocated power.
Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.
Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created.
Power is able to manipulate consensus, but ultimately it exists despite consensus. Its existence is relative by definition.
> Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.
False
> Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created
There are of course other means of consensus. For whatever reason these means are not available to us now, allegedly.
> False
You're making the word "consensus" do too much work on its lonesome.
If resource are scarce, destroying stars and planets seems counterproductive. Why not just colonize as the Trisolarans made steps to do to Earth?
The estimate for gold in the universe is 50B tons.
There's 550B tons of organic matter on earth - I'm assuming most of that being plant mass.
And that's if you're certain Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that has organic life.
That is a wild underestimate. Our galaxy alone has around 100 million Earths worth of gold [1].
[1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/astronomers-ta...
But I see there's an estimate that there's more gold than that just in our Sun.
> It is estimated that the amount of gold present in the entire universe is about 50 billion tons, with about one ounce for every 150 billion tons of Earth.
According to Alexander Budianto on quora[2] the earth is ~6.58310^21 tons ~ 710^21
710^21/(15010^9) / 10^9 = 46 billion
So that is ~46 billion ounces of gold on earth, rounded up 50 billion. Maybe that is where they obtained 50 billion from?
[1] https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/natural-sciences/che...
[2] https://www.quora.com/How-much-is-the-mass-of-the-earth-in-t...
This estimate is off by many orders of magnitude.
50B tons seems like a suspiciously low number even just within our own galaxy.
My layman understanding of Astrophysics is that we understand things up to Iron pretty well. Beyond that there is a lot of conjecture.
I've never heard it explained very well, the best I can find is a 40 year old PBS show. Thanks to Virginia Trimble.
https://youtu.be/0byMj2VrT2g?t=565
https://www.quantamagazine.org/did-neutron-stars-or-supernov...
...one supernova can produce 7.4e22 kg of gold (the moon's mass), while a neutron star to neutron star collision can produce 1.9e27 kg of gold (a Jupiter's mass worth). 50e9 tons is 4.6e13 kg.
The issue of course is that most of that gold is at the center of the Earth, not accessible to us.
So that's not 50B tons per universe, but rather, per rocky Earth-type planet.
That's the claim in the linked article.
Just stick with destroying life bearing planets. Over 99% of the matter in the Solar System is in the Sun.
Why not just colonize as the Trisolarans made steps to do to Earth?
If one is technologically advanced enough to move to the next star system 4 LY away in a huge generation ship fleet, one is advanced enough to build O'Neil cylinder space colonies and dominate the solar system. Going after Earth makes no sense.
And that was just one possible weapon, used by one possible species, I think?
You're right on the rest, which makes me wonder why bother going through any of the rest of this instead of just making everything two-dimensional the moment you invent the technology in order to wipe everyone else out from the get go. I guess the reason not to is that this wouldn't stop new 2D species from evolving and eventually threatening you, so it's better to only use on an as needed basis. But if that's the case, then it's better to actually look into whether a species is capable of threat (physically or psychologically) or not before striking them.
There was a lot in those books that wasn't fully thought out, imo. In general, I thought the first book was good and interesting, especially the bits about Chinese history & culture, but overall I think the concepts have been done better, by better authors.
It feels a little bit like Harry Potter. It was a lot of people's first exposure to something (for HP, reading, for DF, science fiction) and so it'll forever have this nice feeling of nostalgia, and I'm glad they got to read something and enjoy it - but if you start looking at the details, things begin to not quite add up, things don't quite make sense, and the internal world-building begins to show its seams quite heavily.
> why bother going through any of the rest of this instead of just making everything two-dimensional the moment you invent the technology in order to wipe everyone else out from the get go.
My understanding from the book is that life is impossible in two dimensions; the people using these weapons are permanently poisoning the universe, presumably under the assumption that their species won't last long enough to deal with the consequences.
I recall that alien species specifically talking about making the transition to 2D. And that the gunner who used the weapon against Earth speculated that this is what their own government figures had decided to do (otherwise the gunner's superior wouldn't have signed off so readily on use of the weapon). I.e. it takes an advanced technology to make life possible in 2D, but it isn't impossible.
It may have been slower, but I'm not sure why it would be or what the mechanism was. Regardless, it had the effect of consuming the entire system didn't it? As you say, it was deployed with reckless disregard for the fate of spacetime itself as it was irreversible and unstoppable, that's the important part.
Could be that other species had more targeted tools, but to me the implication was that Dark Forest Theory basically encourages an overwhelming and rapid response, so taking more time/effort to specifically target a planet is disincentivized on pain of extinction.
Resources aren't scarce, they're just finite. If there are 19 uninhabited systems for every inhabited one, it may seam reasonable to obliterate 5% of systems if it helps you control the other 95%.
All of this kind of sci-fi is just projecting earthbound colonialism/imperialism motives built around the profit motive and resource scarcity and power out into a universe where none of that makes sense. They're good stories by analogy but have nothing to do with the "reality" of the future-worlds they purport to describe.
In living memory a gig internet plan would have seemed like an effectively unlimited resource in a world of 56k modems. YouTube and Netflix couldn't have even been a PoC when everyone was using AOL 2.5. I fully expect there to be ground breaking changes in my lifetime to the Internet if we get for instance speeds capable of downloading the equivalent of the entire Internet today.
We don't know what other forms of life might do, but when humans have the ability to effectively consume a resource we push and find new ways to consume it all to make our lives better. Today we are only thinking of slowing progress (but definitely not stopping )on Earth because we seem to be making the planet unliveable eventually. If we begin colonizing other planets I don't see why we wouldn't continue the trend and end up in a galaxy where every liveable planet is populated and used like in Foundation eventually if there isn't some other form of life pushing back like in 3 Body. If we don't need to actually live on the planet we would likely accelerate the resources usage.
The other issue is you could meet a perfectly sane looking alien civilization, but lose track of them, and before you check in again (say after 100 years) they could be a completely different civilization. Just imagine if the USA can go from far Obama to Trump in a year (or a day), how far you might get in 100 years.
Combine the high latency communications and impossible defense against a good offense (near light speed weapons) leads to the dark forest hypothesis.
If your civilization can annihilated in a single strike, the only civilizations that survive have the strategy to a) avoid being detected and b) destroy anyone who has detected them (which results in destroying everyone, to eliminate uncertainty).
The idea being that assuming the actual survival of your species is at the top of your moral pyramid, all kinds of atrocities in its defense are justifiable.
I think the books obliquely addressed this by having one of the major civilizations mention a comparable civilization that was its antagonist. But even so, subjugation or incorporation of other intelligent species shouldn't have been impossible.
The theory is that any civilization can become as powerful as you are and then you are at constant threat of first strike attack.
So you need to first strike before they will ever get that chance.
You cannot make an assumption about other side. They can be pacifists or a hive mind with no morals.
> Why not just colonize
Why bother, you are already star destroying apex species.
Trisolarans were relatively low tech civ in the book.
In the book and theory of dark forest only most ruthless civs will survive. Civ that will make contact with others might thrive for a while, until they get discovered by ruthless civ.
Do you care about yourself and consider yourself intelligent?
Yes. I'm showing that the commenter does care about one example intelligent life!
To answer your new point,
Life has never once failed to become self-aware and capable of space travel in the entire history of the universe, as far as we know. What could possibly make you think it's irrational to expect it could happen again?
We will be alone in this system forever, get used to it. Maybe a machine or two of ours might make it out someday, but we'll be gone by then anyways.
That also doesn't matter. Another star is going to come close enough to any given star, often enough, that the entire galaxy could be colonized without ever having to travel that far that fast. (Look up Issac Arthur's "Crawlenizing the Galaxy" idea.)
we'll be gone by then anyways
It's the combination of distance AND civilization longevity that does it. Considering that we are in an exponential process of change, it doesn't seem like we'll be around long enough in our current form as a civilization.
A colony 5 light years away means 10 years before you get a response.
For all intents and purposes most colonies will be independent and unable to act efficiently in unison with other colonies towards a strategic objective.
Similar to how humans migrated out of Africa and then discovered each other again after they had created different cultures, belief systems and ways of living.
Not for carpeting a galaxy with descendants of humans.
Homo Sapiens evolved ~300k years ago.
The Milky Way is ~100k light years across.
It’s possible you’d have different species colonizing different sectors of the galaxy. And those species might be just as likely to compete with each other rather than cooperate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion#Proje...
Those things, and the likely temporal separation of civilizations - where they miss because one peaked one million years before its nearby neighbours. E.g. Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, which per Wikipedia, is 200 million years older than the sun, so a civilization there which matured at the same speed as ours, would likely be long gone.
If either of those aren't practically achievable, the idea falls apart quickly.
If you're a mosquito OTOH... even enslavement is not worth it. It's eradication.
Also I just cannot accept any analogy of dark forest with empty and dead place. Anyone who've been to the forest or even seen any documentary knows/hears/sees that it's also full of life
All books I've read about the Amazon rainforest describe it as an extremely harsh place almost devoid of easily spotted pray or food. Anything that falls to the forest floor is consumed very quickly. There's a ton of life there, it's just ruthlessly competitive and therefore beyond easy sight.
I think the Dark Forest concept fits perfectly here. We see "empty" space wherein fact life could be just behind the curtains of "self preservation".
Huh? I don't even know what you are talking about.
First of all dark forest is not about empty and dead place. Its about being able to blend in with the forest so no one can discover you. Once spotted you become dead, once you spot someone else in your best interest is to destroy them if you can do it without being spotted.
In the books there are several civilizations, and hits that there were plenty more living in higher dimensions.
> “As a science fiction writer who began as a fan, I do not use my fiction as a disguised way to criticize the reality of the present.”
Given that the author lives under an authoritarian government, I'm not sure if Liu's words should be taken at face value. But officially, a political interpretation of the book wouldn't be the authors intention.
Then it mixes that with the US - China relationship mirroring first contact with the aliens.
Not everything lines up 1 to 1, but all the themes are there. Amazing how many people take it at face value instead of looking for context.
Although, it seems it's only going to cover the first book (which makes sense, given how difficult the other two would be to film). The real magic for me was in book 3. It was inspiring to see someone think so far out, so boldly.
It's not that unusual in SciFi (and even some Fantasy).
I didn't like the way this series did it. I personally prefer Asimov's take in The Last Question. It's all well and good to ask the elderly to commit mutual suicide for the sake of the yet-to-be-born, but assuredly there would have been newborn young species (not to mention the youth of old species) even in an old universe. Sorry youngins, to Moloch you go!
And as on Earth, in Space, distance may help keep the peace.
Its the opposite actually, distance increases the information latency.
The higher latency the more uncertainty (and paranoia about what other side will do).
You will notice your neighbor slowly changing their attitudes and ideas because you can see it happen. You can intervene or prepare for whats happening, but
At space distances by the time you see those changes, their relativistic weapons were already fired. And even if there was some cultural shit and they regretted firing it, its already too late to do anything
Also disclaimer: didn't read past the paywall because lol paywall
It's also worth noting that this hypothesis is not an original idea of Liu's it just wasn't called a Dark Forest previously.
Yes, Greg Bear explores the concept in Forge of God (1987) and Anvil of Stars (1992), twenty years before Liu. David Brin also covered it.
Anvil of Stars really explores the moral quandary from the perspectives of a civilisation that can take revenge in such an environment.
it's called "science" fiction because there is an attempt to extract scientific theory and thought, and it's implications.
Otherwise it's fantasy, space opera, or just plain ole magical fiction.
Through different eras, men have traveled long distances to kill, subjugate, enslave other people, and to consume everything that can be consumed, we won't change if we start going to the outer space. Being the most advanced species on earth doesn't make us different, as spiders, fish, birds, wolves, anything that moves is determined to kill or be killed, so it's not only a human trait.
Is it a dark forest? We don't know, it may just be an open battleground where intelligence is the final conqueror and that's exactly what rides on top of the arrow of evolution.
The trajectory of history suggests that it’s easier to trade than to steal and easier to ally than to fight.
They absolutely do. From simple concepts like resource competition in which trees deplete the ground or outcompete each other for sunlight (e.g. any forest floor is usually not covered in grass) to parasitism and strangulating vines and whatnot, these guys are hostile and deadly to one another. They just don't run around much.
> through different eras, men have traveled long distances to kill, subjugate, enslave other people
I know lichens are considered "symbiotic" but I'm not sure what you would call a fungus that breeds algae cells and consumes them for nourishment. In that vein we're also symbiotic with pigs, which I find an inappropriate term.
Either way, my point is: Animals aren't remotely as unique as many people think.
The way you're talking about it, the only way to win is to become "the singularity" yourself.
However, as it's used in mathematics and in the context of exponential growth and accelerating change, it's not a real thing. In math, it's where the math breaks down. In this context, it just describes the point at which standard Homo sapiens can't predict or deal with the speed of change.
https://grabbyaliens.com/
> Advanced aliens really are out there, and we have enough data to say roughly where they are in space and time, and when we will see or meet them.