A hypothetical Earth scenario would be an early industrial empire contacting an age-of-sail empire across the ocean via letters sent on whales, only to have the latter suddenly respond with an ICBM.
This is a great conceit for a sci-fi novel (two, actually) but I wouldn't take it too seriously as a real-life argument. To begin with, it's a theory about essentially evolutionary imperatives. It says that every civilisation, regardless of species, location, or any other condition, will eventually reach the same conclusion about the nature of the universe and the rules defining the co-existence of civilisations inside it.
To put it lightly, that is a very long stretch. We have no way to know anything about how a non-human civilisation will think, or even if it will "think" in the same sense that we do (they may be space-faring social insects without a real capacity for conscious thought, say- a classic sci-fi trope). We have no way to know what are the goals and rules that such a civilisation might choose for itself. Some may see it as their duty to protect and help life in the universe, as something unique and irreplaceable. Some might indeed see it as a survival imperative to go out and destroy or conquer other civilisations. Some might choose to develop along a sustainable path that will not end up in them exhausting their local systems' resources (eliminating the second axiom of cosmic sociology).
It's a huge universe. There's space for any number of different outlooks on life, the universe and everything. I don't doubt that the Dark Forest theory is one thing that may well have arisen somewhere, somewhen, but to assume that everything that is conscious in the universe will have "developed the hiding gene and the cleansing gene", that's just assuming way, way too much (and first of all- about the way genetic information is transferred).
We don't know anything about other technological civilisations. Cautiousness is well advised, but part of that is not assuming that we understand how they will necessarily think.
But those who don't reach it are exterminated.
There are about 100 other parameters whose relative balance determine game theoretical solutions to the problem. And as with many things, Cixin Liu handwaves away all that complexity in service of narrative.
Don't confuse fiction with reality.
Look at the Drake Equation as a much simpler example. Even given its simplicity, small tweaks in assumptions produce wildly different projections.
Name three.
I'm by no means an expert on game theory, but accepting the two axioms that are quite explicitly stated in the story, "dark forest" seems to follow quite naturally.
2. The rarity of habital planetoids.
3. How quickly civilizations spread within their local area.
I don't object to anyone handwaving away complexity in service of narrative. Virtually all authors do that. (Two exceptions that come to mind are Tolstoy's War and Peace, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.)
A big point in TDF is that the speed of light limits our ability to communicate and understand other civilizations. But, by extension, weapons are also limited by that limit. Of course, maybe its possible to break the speed of light, but then communication could also break this limit.
So, if you're a technologically advanced alien civilization and you become aware of humanity, you can send an Envoy or you can send some Nukes (or, of course, you can do nothing and watch). Just within the context of The Dark Forest Theory, there's practically no reason to send Nukes; at worst, you discover that humanity sucks and then you go ahead and nuke us. But life is probably special; maybe humanity would make great trading partners, maybe our brains function differently and can solve problems differently, maybe our natural proclivity for war would make us great allies, or maybe we'd make great slaves for the mines on the Vartoth 12 colony. All of these are options for a civilization a thousand years ahead of us; they can pick what they'd like, but none of them would classify as a result of The Dark Forest theory.
There's also a possibility that maybe this hypothetical alien civilization tried that course of action in the past with another civilization, and they were friends for a while, helped each other, then fought in a bloody war, and now that civilization is distrustful so they destroy any young civilizations while they still easily can instead of even trying to come to terms. But that's not a Dark Forest theory situation; the Dark Forest Theory suggests that its natural for civilizations to want to kill each other off.
Slight digression, and I know your half joking but: I always find the believability lacking in sci-fi that suggest a civilisation capable of faster than light travel could possibly be interested in trading commodities or manual labour of another. Such a feat provides unlimited access to the universe, all materials and energy you could ever need, such a civilisation would likely have basically achieved alchemy transmutation (but for real).
Then, the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness, our information, our culture and likely very different perspective of the universe... as you put it "our brains function differently", and they most definitely would, even if only at a cultural level rather than fundamental level. That is something that cannot be obtained anywhere else in the universe, even with FTL, because it's endemic.
I think the Stargate universe solved this well; the civilizations capable of building FTL drives (including the one that built stargates themselves) didn't need to trade much with anyone (one of them did use slave labor from other worlds, but for somewhat plot-justifiable reasons). Humanity used increasing amount of FTL tech over the series, but those were either stargates, borrowed, stolen or donated tech, not something humans built themselves - and thus humanity did interplanetary trade.
> the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness
That's the core point in David Brin's Uplift saga - ecosystems were the most interesting things a species would own (or rather, lease).
1. Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort.
2. If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid.
Sterilizing an entire galaxy to make sure that there is never a challenge to your rule can be accomplished in a few thousand years. Without needing any interstellar transit.
It's more accurate to say that HUMANITY would need a cooperative spirit in order to reach interstellar travel. I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this.
And, beyond that, TDF addresses this through the assertion that humanity, at multiple turns, didn't want to partake in this Dark Forest ideology; we wanted to make peace and friends, but the other more advanced civilizations weren't having it. So even if they had a cooperative spirit in the past, that doesn't preclude that the spirit sticks around when the destruction of your species is at stake.
> If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid.
That's being awfully presumptive.
Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do. They'd end up destroying tons of empty planets that could have rich resource deposits or be habitable for future colonies, and they'd know that. Maybe there are illogical interstellar civilizations, but it stands to reason that they'd be More Rare than Logical ones, given it takes some form of logic to even accomplish space travel.
Targeted strikes make more sense. So you have to have a Target. Humanity has been broadcasting RF for about 100 years. The milky way is 105,000 light years across; at best we're detectable by 0.095% of just our own galaxy. Maybe we haven't gotten one of these kill missiles because they haven't heard us yet. Or it's on its way.
But all this requires life to common; the dark forest theory asserts that the reason life seems rare is because its common and everyone is just being quiet, but the other possibility is that life is, well, rare, and that's probably more likely. If life is rare, then the dark forest theory kinda goes out the window because the novelty of finding new life would invariably overwhelm a hypothetical risk that your species has never encountered before.
IMO space contact & travel will have one of three outcomes. (1) The light speed limit can be worked around and none of this matters. (2) Life is Common, and the Dark Forest Theory is valid between species. (3) Life is Rare, humanity will colonize the stars, but a version of the Dark Forest Theory will begin to apply between human colonies separated by hundreds of lightyears. If its been 150 years since anyone in your colony has ever talked to Earth, then you're not really a colony anymore, but it's obvious to you that Earth won't see it that way. Your colony creates other colonies, and it takes earth hundreds of years to find out about them, if you decide to even tell them (because what do you owe earth?). So a thousand years pass and we've got dozens/hundreds of Tribes of humans who can't really talk to each other, most of whom don't even know of each other's existence, all developing culture, science, and weapons at independent rates. Really starts to look Dark Forest-esque, doesn't it?
How do you build a spaceship without working together with others?
> Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do.
Who said the missles are dumb rocks? If each one has a camera on it and a few adjustment rockets, it can choose which planets to target as it approaches the star. It's gonna take you a hundred thousand years to get there anyway, so who cares if you wreck the local ecosystem a little bit now? You're probably going to have to make changes to the planet to suit your species' needs anyway, so why be coy about it to save yourself a minivan's worth of raw material?
Ants don't build colonies because they consciously choose to participate in the greater good as individuals. It's pure instinct for them to work together. Imagine if some were more intelligent and could shape or direct that instinct. A "hive mind" if you will.
And yet we have no way to know that for sure. We have no idea what the average lifespan of an intelligent species is. It may just be that humans are particularly short-lived, among all the species in the galaxy, or the entire universe. If a species has a lifetime of a couple thousand years then interstellar travel, even at sub-light speeds, would be a lot more manageable than it is for us.
Which to me, means we can relax a little about the risk of being destroyed by hostile aliens. We don't know what we don't know. Chances are, if they were going to destroy us, they would have already done so in the last million years or so. We're probably a lot less appealing, as a world, than we think we are. Perhaps the universe really hates salt water or oxygen atmospheres? Who's to say?
... the primary weapon of the Trisolans in the first book are subatomic ansible faeries.
I thought it was kind of funny, because the whole point behind the Dark Forest theory is that it emerges because aliens are so unknowable, there can never be proper trust between them. Yet a relatively young and slowly-developing race is literally more sure of what humanity is doing than we are of our neighbouring countries.
"Hard sci-fi", pfft :P
Eh, they had inside information (the Earth-Trisolaran Organisation was in contact with them).
And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies found in the magical forest of Elthrolien that had to be seduced with promises of space mead.
That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic. Cixin Liu usually manages to weave in a couple of natural laws to every impossible thing so he passes.
I was more annoyed by the lightspeed contrails to be honest. That really comes out of nowhere and is a total literary device that has no basis on anything we know of. Makes the whole endeavour space opera if you ask me - which is not bad in and of itself. But in that case, where's the nuclear energy-sword wielding hero who saves humanity? Disappoint.
Does mentioning your faeries are made out of atoms stop them being fantasy?
> That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic.
Sure, I mean, even Star Wars is still considered within the genre despite it all being completely made-up - but the point of hard sci-fi is you're not just making it up and rubbing science-words on your endless stream of arbitrary plot contrivances.
Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature.
I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.
Are we living in the same world? Quantum mechanics, relativistic effects, mathematics ( game theory anyone? ) are blowing my mind. The world is more phantastic than anything one could imagine and we know that we don't know everything. The constraint to stay in this world is the least limiting for an interesting and compelling story.
There is a trade-off between speculation and realism, that leaves a very, very narrow space for an interesting story.
Part of it is due to the fact that most of modern science has been mined mercilessly for "hard" sci-fi subjects, that have now become tropes that can't form the basis for an interesting new story anymore. For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. Nice movie, hey. But nothing new, there.
> But those are not science fiction.
Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK?
> If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story.
Um. Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue.
> Interstellar, which makes for a nice story
Interstellar is tediously boring rubbish :P
> For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact.
What... no? The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".
Yup. Reading the implication that the universe has only 3 dimensions because dimensionality reduction weapons were used in past wars triggered a small existential crisis in me.
Dimensinoality reduction? I never thought of those weapons as akin to universal PCA before. Thanks for the image.
And yes, lifespans are important. Perhaps not in the books, but in the real world our science and technology advances at least some in every generation, as new scientists and technologists continue the work of their forebears.
If human generations lasted a thousand years, it would perhaps take us a lot longer to make the same technological progress that it now only takes us a few years- if nothing else because the urgency of making progress would be reduced accordingly.
Lifespans may also influence the actualy speed by which species form thoughts and communicate. Remember the Ents in The Lord of the Rings? A species that lived ten thousand years may take an Earth day to form a meaningful utterance. Technological advancement would take considerably longer for them than for us.
Multiple actors can independently arrive at compatible cooperative solutions to the survival-and-utility game (which is not zero-sum).
Wikipedia says it assumes all other players are also superrational, but I think in practice a successful variant of this strategy is to identify whether other players are superrational and avoid them if not.
There is sometimes the option of converting existing self-interested rational players into superrational ones, but that is another subject entirely.
I believe it’s possible for the superrational players in a game to become the majority by expressing the superrational strategy in terms that will appeal to rationally self-interested players and demonstrating a superrational strategy working at some non-trivial scale.
(for the sake of argument, it looks like we're both assuming a n>2 group of prisoners.)
Also, the point of the dillemma is that only one prisoner has to act selfishly. If a subset of the group does cooperate, it doesn't matter because the one left out will take advantage of them all...and that risk increases exponentially as the size of the group increases, and makes the decision to trust even a subset of the group irrational.
One limitation of that thought experiment is that it assumes defection is guaranteed to achieve a certain outcome.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that any cooperative strategy has some computable “defection tolerance” and a variant on the prisoners’ dilemma that accounts for this could have very different outcomes than the classical formulation.
Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game. The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game.
That's a premise, and it's what creates the dillema in the first place.
> Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game. The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game.
Actually, the wikipedia article on the dilemma discusses this. The nash equilibrium is actually for all players to defect. There is no engendered trust. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
Only in games where players know the number of rounds (e.g. a suicide bomber defects because they’ve decided to cap the number of rounds they’re going to play).
The same Wikipedia article describes that in studies where the number of rounds is unknown to players, superrational strategies are sustainable and that the “always defect” strategy becomes only one of several paths to Nash equilibrium.
It's a bit ironic considering Liu is Chinese- wasn't China's Ming Dynasty the first to land on America in the early 1400s and historically demonstrate that exploration and discovery weren't necessarily accompanied by colonization/enslavement/destruction?
That example gets held up a lot when mainstream historians spin the narrative that Colombus et al enslaved/raped/pillaged because that's just what societies do (while ignoring that it was the debt that the explorers owed to their financiers that drove most of that bad behavior).
Would you mind extrapolating on that a bit? In my totally 'unbiased' and 'truthful' American public school they never mentioned a word of this. I've always wanted to learn more about the real origins of this broken country.
Now amplify it. Imagine if different countries were isolated from each other for millions of years, evolving into different species, and advancing technology the whole time, lost track of any commonalities between each other, and were then exposed to each other.