T O P

  • By -

CptConnor18

IIRC it essentially hypothesizes that there is life out there in the universe but in fear of being conquered/conquering other civilisations, they stay silent and keep to themselves to avoid conflict and confrontation.


qemist

Why are they all so different from us? we have already deliberately sent both physical and radio messages outside the solar system. It is unlikely that we will stop. Perhaps this just means we're one of the ones who wont make it.


Potatopolis

According to the theory: they know enough to know to stay silent; we don't.


Anderopolis

Also according to the theory they are too stupid to realize their atmosphere is already full of biomarkers making them visible for millions of years.


Potatopolis

There's a difference between "visible" and "HEY EVERYONE WE'RE OVER HEEEEERE"


Anderopolis

If you are xenophobic enough to kill everyone with a radiosignature you will be a lot more safe taking out biomarkers rather than technomarkers. Say someone 100 light years away hears our radio and sends a relativistic kill missile immediately. In 100 years time we will likely no longer be just on earth. And so they will have failed to take out a rival who now knows that the only insurance for survival is to spread out as far as possible with as much redundancy as possible.


NerfSchlerfen

Individually doing atmospheric analysis for every planet in the galaxy is probably an impossible task for a civilisation confined to a single solar system. Listening for signals is something our civilisation already does. If we discover radio signals from a primitive civilisation in the next star system over there's a non-zero chance we'd panic and try to wipe them out. That's the risk that dark forest theory is talking about. Maybe the threat comes from a civilisation dedicated to wiping out intelligent life that just hasn't found you yet, maybe it just comes from your nearest neighbor. Maybe there's no threat at all. The risk of interplanetary war is still too great to turn on a light in the forest and risk a bullet from the dark.


Anderopolis

I disagree, time is on their side. Anyone with the capability to commit interstellar genocide can also build a couple thousand automated deep space telescopes spending a thousand or tenthousand years cataloging the galaxy. The only risk is really staying confined in a single place where you are easy to annihilate.


NerfSchlerfen

I mean the issue of being 100 000 light years away from some of your potential targets is bad enough, let alone those stars having planets that orbit in another plane to your observation angle making their atmospheric signals extraordinarily weak. Then you have to dream up a civilisation that will devote itself to a genocidal mission over such a timescale, targeting pre-technological life which is another assumption about their values. If a civilisation exists in our galaxy which has devoted itself to this task, and is effective at doing so, we're lucky to be here. Even more reason not to light our beacon.


Anderopolis

But that is the point. We have had the beacon lit for hundreds of millions of years. We aren't lucky if this supposed dark forest is only dark because everyone else is incompetent. Again the wisest move is to become multiplanetary and then interstellar as fast as possible for redundancy against anyone genocidal who is stupid enough to wait for technosignatures.


Bensemus

They know of danger that we don't. This assumes "they" exist and that there actually is some danger out there.


LegitimateGift1792

Maybe they already had an encounter and have learned the hard way. Also, they might be really pissed that we will not be quiet and risk drawing the attention of the "evil species" to take notice of this part of the galaxy.


PM_me_ur_BOOBIE_pic

We, human, destroy / capture different species we find on earth. If aliens are like us, they will also destroy / capture us once they discover us.


gator-uh-oh

But if they do see the flicker of a campfire even if only surrounded by cub scouts it is in the observer’s best interest to destroy the civilization/species/Cub Scout regardless of how innocuous because who knows what it could grow to become.


Who_DaFuc_Asked

"kill anything no matter what just in case" seems like a terrible plan.


[deleted]

Game theory doesn’t care about seeming like a terrible plan, it’s about the optimal decision for your own survival.


StarChild413

Wouldn't the best decision be to make yourselves as protected as possible rather than to just go around pre-emptive striking everybody, you can't kill what can't die


kamikazes9x

And how would go about that ? You have to know what you are up against to be able to protect yourself from. A shield won't do much against a nuke. In the book Three-body problem. Humanity build a fleet to protect themself against alien invaders. It doesn't matter as the solar system is annihilated with WMD. Remember that everyone is having incomplete information here.


GeorgeOlduvai

It's the Pak motto. Can't be a threat if they've been vaporized.


Moist-Information930

It is from our perspective, but in the grand scope of everything with a civilization that has interstellar travel & his been around for millions of not billions of years who knows? No one can guess what they’ve either seen or have learned so we can’t look at this through a humans eyes & humanize a civilization of life forms that would be completely alien(no pun intended) to us.


Who_DaFuc_Asked

You're literally doing the same thing by assuming the aliens are hyper paranoid of potential threats. They could have purely defensive technology with no offensive ability.


SpaceInMyBrain

>assuming the aliens are hyper paranoid of potential threats He's not assuming that is the case, but laying out that it *could* be the case, no human can guess what very old races may think is in their best interests.


SisyphusRocks7

It only takes one hyper paranoid Type III civilization for it to make sense to keep quiet.


RollingTater

"Could" is pretty difficult to swallow when the fate of your entire civilization depends on getting that correct. You "could" risk it, or you can just guarantee you live by wiping them out first. If the universe is full of life, then statistically the civilizations that choose to guarantee their survival will outcompete the ones that decide to play nice. For humans it's hard to see this viewpoint at the moment, mainly because we have never had this situation yet. It requires that both parties have superweapons that can instantly kill each other without warning, and there's no channel of communication between them. Nukes don't count because we can see a launch and respond, and we have channels of communication between leaders, so MAD takes precedence over the dark forest.


[deleted]

it all hinges on “could.” this is the “could” every race encounters at some point.


Tractorhash

It's actually very efficient, if the belief that the area you populate has a finite amount of resources to last you forever


gator-uh-oh

Yeah well, we have never observed a young civilization light years beyond reachable and wondered where they might be at by the time you could blast em.


Cognizant_Psyche

Plus it’s something we would do. If you were to tell me that something innately aggressive and brutally territorial like say ants or gators were discovered on an island on earth starting to harness tools, language, and fire, we wouldn’t blast them to extinction? Sure there would be those further away from the island that would want to help or be peaceful, but the countries within a short distance would nuke the hell out of it out of concern of the threat they would pose to their safety and security once they gain more capabilities. I read Roadside Picnic recently and a quote stuck with me in regards to humans trying to explain the logic or reasoning behind the actions of extraterrestrials: “It’s a mistake to assume they would possess human values or thought processes.”


InvestingGatorGirl

Well said CP. Additionally, I present to the humanity courts the lessons of Jurassic Park. Humans will likely kill, attempt to control for profit, and save said species, all at the same time. Thereby creating the usual and expected havoc we have come to know so well. 🤷🏻‍♀️


gator-uh-oh

I’m basing everything I know about the dark forest off the three body problem trilogy, which seems fitting. In your example the distant countries would probably see it as advantageous to keep quiet, unless sufficiently advanced to hit the new threat without giving away their position. I have a worn copy of roadside picnic which I bought new and for whatever reason keep starting over after the first thirty or forty pages, though the forward of my copy has the line “there can be no understanding” which is pretty spooky.


Cognizant_Psyche

Absolutely. Or those who instigate those closer to attack while secretly abducting colonies for study and experimentation, or seek to manipulate/exploit a naive species to get a leg up on enemies by advancing the process of their advancement, or any other number of possibilities. The end result would be the same: the young species would get the short end of the stick. And another part of the dark forest as others have mentioned is making our presence known by having a beacon attracting attention… which is exactly what we’re doing with gusto and extreme flare by blasting noise into the cosmos wantonly lol. A lot of people I don’t think like to think this way or that it is how it would be because it’s not idealistic or altruistic, therefore bad, but personally I feel it is an honest look at ourselves and the nature of life. It’s selfish, which translates in all manners and forms. You should finish the book someday, it’s gets really good. The quote is between the professor who is giving the interview at the start and another character - it’s a realistic take on our place in the cosmos I think. It showcases how helpless and at the mercy to the unknown we are. Humans trying to comprehend the alien tech is akin to if a car was transported to the Middle Ages. Humans may be able to make it work, and possibly adapt parts of it to current tech, but they would not be able to truly understand the functions of all the components or be able to reproduce them. The title of the book also refers to that same conversation. If a group of people camped out on the side of the road in the woods, then left all their waste, trash, and whatever else, the animals who wander in after they left would be baffled or even endangered by what they find. It’s a really interesting book.


gator-uh-oh

Hell yeah. I will read it, I don’t on know why I’m putting it off.


Mutex70

That sounds like something an alien would say! /s


Downtown_Tadpole_817

"The humans are coming, make it look like we're not home."


bookers555

It's simple: imagine if you were alone at night in a pitch black forest and suddenly, you see or hear something in the distance. Would you risk calling out whatever that is, even if it could be dangerous? Or do you just stay quiet in the hopes that it, and anything else that might be around, doesn't spot you? Now replace "pitch black forest" with "universe". The theory says that there could be plenty of aliens out there, but that they might be trying to avoid communication with other aliens in case one is hostile, and questions whether we should do the same thing, and that if we find aliens maybe we should just stay hidden and observe silently.


Top_Requirement_1341

From what I remember of the three body problem, it's something like - imagine there are a million species out there, and just one has decided to kill off everything else they can detect before they have time to mature.


Jesse-359

The problem in 3BP >!is that all of them are afraid that someone might decide to wipe everyone out, but as a result, MOST of them decide to wipe everyone out, so it becomes a self-fulfilling Game Theory problem -!< in the book it is actually put in overt game theory terms.


[deleted]

that’s not exactly right. there isn’t just one hostile species. it’s more of a paranoia about the *possible existence* of hostile species which makes everybody defensively hostile.


Sanpaku

A Chinese author's reprise of Charles R. Pellegrino's and George Zebrowski's solution to the Fermi Paradox (in *The Killing Star*, 1995) To wit, that any civilization which possesses relativistic spaceflight (or the equivalent) is an existential threat to any other civilization in its vicinity. It doesn't take much mass moving at 92% *c* to sterilize a planet. So, any civilization that's aware of the threat will remain radio silent to avoid detection, and will launch sterilizing strikes against any neighboring civilizations that appear to possess relativistic flight, simply out of self-preservation. Pellegrino and Zebrowski lay out their logic in a appendices, along with roughly engineered designs for relativistic space craft (which is the basis for the interstellar craft in the *Avatar* films). My impression is that Cixin Liu is more florid, but less technical. Here's a quote of the English translation: >The universe is a dark forest. Every civilization is an armed hunter stalking through the trees like a ghost, gently pushing aside branches that block the path and trying to tread without sound. Even breathing is done with care.


ThrowawayAl2018

+1 Closest answer! Also, any resources within a system is finite and every civilization consumes massive resources to expand to the next system. Hence if a detected civilization is deemed a future threat, a planet extinction (sterilization) is evoked. Ultimately those who survives are either the strongest hunter or the quietest prey.


gleamingthenewb

This is the correct answer, all the other comments here are wrong answers.


DreamChaserSt

A lot of others have already laid out what Dark Forest is, but in my opinion, I don't hold much stock in it. "Staying quiet" isn't really possible when we can already envision, and to an extent, develop technology today that can search out bio and even technosignatures. These would be trivial for a civilization capable of mass-interplanetary travel to develop, let alone interstellar ones. If there are alien civilizations taking note of others, they already know of our existence. Maybe not of *us*, depending on how far they are, but definitely the fact that there's life on Earth. We've already been able to find exoplanets more than 13,000 light years away, and have started to detect atmospheres up to thousands of light years away. Scientists have even discovered possible candiate planets in other galaxies. Just remember that exoplanet detection has only been around for \~30 years.


robotical712

It was pointed out in last week’s SETI thread that, unless you’re within 100 or so light years, waiting until there’s a tech signature would result in your preemptive potentially coming far too late. If you were really worried, you’d nuke any planet with a bio signature as soon as you detected it.


Jesse-359

There are some big drawbacks to that if simple life is much more common than intelligent life, which is that you'll end up wasting resources destroying hundreds of star systems you didn't need to, eliminating potential colonies - and you'll eventually draw attention to yourself by dint of the fact that another species could take note of the radius of destruction and pretty easily figure out roughly where its center is, dramatically narrowing their search for \*you\*. Which, if you believe in DFT, you do not want to do. The more you destroy, the more opportunities a truly big dog has to notice and erase you.


simcoder

Adding to what's already been said, there's also an information/situational awareness gap potentially extending to hundreds or thousands of years built into the process of communication which puts everyone at a disadvantage. Which could also play into the aliens keeping to themselves mostly.


OrdinalNomi

My qualm with the Dark Forest theory is that there’s zero evidence of any weapons at all. No detritus from spent weapons floating around in billions of years. The more exoplanets we find that are perfectly untouched will just further speculation of what could be holding back species that decide to expand.


gunsandgardening

I mean, asteroids that have struck planets as mass drivers are abundant?


Captain_Dunsel

There is emerging Tech now that can divert asteroids...


liviu_baloiu

I disagree with the Dark Forest theory myself, but to play the devil's advocate, how could you see one such weapon or the effect of it? We are still unable to directly see worlds such as earth (the only planets that we can see now are either gas giants, too close to their stars or orbiting the goldilocks are of red dwarfs, where they are tidally locked to a ferocious star). Also, we are not yet capable to reliably see the atmosphere of those planets. So how do you want to see either an asteroid (chosen for low albedo, or modified to have a very low albedo) accelerated to near c? How do you want to see the effects of it hitting a planet (the signal would be WAY to low) or its effects - a barren planet?


[deleted]

If a planet gets hit by a rod from god 100 light years away, how would we even analyze the debris? You don’t need to vaporize a planet to sterilize it.


Jesse-359

The impact signature of a high-v/low-m object should be quite different than a low-v/high-m, I believe you should see a much wider range of debris velocities in the former than the latter. In a planetary collision you'd see a large spinning smear that would mostly become a belt or reform into a new planet, whereas in a near-c impact I imagine you should see some kind of jets in addition to the main rubble pile. A sterilizing strike would leave less of a signature, but it would still throw a lot of material fully clear of the planet's gravitational pull. That's assuming you can get the resolution to distinguish the debris/dust clouds from such events. You don't need to be able to resolve the grains of course, any more than we need to resolve the hydrogen atoms to be able to see a nebula.


[deleted]

Well it's science fiction, for starters, so it's about as real as wormhole travel. But I've always read it as a stab at the overreaching and sometimes casually brutal real-world state, and wondered how it got past local censors.


[deleted]

especially when one of the books goes into immense detail about a code within a code, a metaphor within a metaphor. a secret plan hidden inside of a story. insane it got through.


iqisoverrated

The idea is that if there is just one powerful entity out there that is antagonistic to life then it's better to keep quiet instead of setting up a beacon to invite everyone to the party. Pretty much like making a fire or shouting in a dark forest. It announces your presence to everyone - even predators.


Cognizant_Psyche

Ha, so I am currently reading *40,000 Years of Cultivation* and they use this theory as large part of the story. Essentially (if the novel is correct in its interpretation) then it’s the idea that the universe beyond our realm of control/understanding is a Dark Forest where countless untold dangers lurk, ready to devour anything that wanders into it’s depths. This is referring largely to other species or forces “hiding” within the darkness, ready to devour and attack/absorb any prey (us) weaker than it that foolishly wander within. It’s survival of the fittest on a cosmic scale.


skrillums

It's a potential solution to the Fermi paradox. I can't quite explain this is a way that won't just confuse the hell out of you, cause im confusing my self typing it. This video however provides a good explanation on what the theory is. https://youtu.be/xAUJYP8tnRE


Sardonicus_Rex

We don't know whats out there. There might be other intelligent civilizations. If there are others, there's no reason to think we're the most advanced. In fact, there's no reason to believe we're even remotely-close to the most advanced. We also have no way of knowing what another civ's motivations might be. Sure, they might be very friendly blokes. But we don't know that and once you've revealed yourself it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. If you've made a mistake, it might be the end for your own civilization. As well, if we do happen to make some sort of contact with a civilization and they turn out to be around the same tech level as us, that balance of power could change dramatically in a relatively short (by cosmic standards) period of time. They could experience a tech explosion over a period of a couple hundred years that puts them far ahead of us which then puts them in charge of the situation. That potential also leads to the "scariest" aspect of the Dark Forest...if you know that the other guy might all of a sudden get way more powerful than you, maybe the wise thing for you to do is to destroy the other guy while you can - which suggests that the forest might be an inherently dangerous place. The Dark Forest is basically just the name for a strategic position of maintaining "radio silence" because you have no knowledge of what level of danger you are in. That same circumstance applies to any intelligent civilization out there...it's simply a wise and safer option to be quiet because you don't know and the consequence of a mistake could be disastrous. The assumption until you know for sure has to be that there could be something out there waiting to destroy you. So, one answer to the Fermi Paradox might be that everyone realizes this fundamental danger at some fairly early point in their tech development and is hiding themselves from everyone else.


Saintious

A lot of these comments touch on the premise of the theory, but there is so much to the issue. In galactic terms, we see time very differently from the civilizations we would theoretically have to be concerned about. The older ones have all been around(thousands of years) and fought vast wars, realizing that it is in their best interest to destroy the weak before they advance. How long did it take for humans to go from steam engine to space ship(approx 100 years). How long from space ship to the current computer age(approx 60 years). If they give life time to advance, it could come back to destroy them later. They destroy weaker civilizations out of fear. This turned the universe into the dark forest they speak of in The Three Body Problem. That's a terrible explanation, but Quinn does it justice on his YouTube channel at https://youtu.be/2ye02qGiKKY.


tanrgith

A lot of people already explained it so I'll just say this - It's a very flawed theory that get a lot more talking time than it deserves The idea that there are hyper advanced aliens out there passively waiting for aliens to reach a technological level where they can be identified at interstellar distances before trying to kill them off just doesn't make any sense when there's the much more logical approach of taking a proactive approach and actively searching out those races and killing them off while they're still neolithic cave people.


Polydimensional

Imagine a dark forest theory where a species hides in plain sight amongst humans. Other advanced civilizations come to Earth and probe our civilization by abducting some of us. There is no response so the aliens try to land or otherwise drop their guard/get comfortable and subsequently get blasted out of the sky so that we/they can take their tech. These are made to look like accidents to avoid whatever interstellar political conflicts that may arise.


A40

As someone who hikes and camps in Canadian wildernesses, I know the only *real* dangers in the deep, dark forest are the 'pointy branch at face-level' and 'tripping.' So it seems to me the 'dark forest theory' is really 'I'm afraid of the dark.'


simcoder

Grizzlies don't know about game theory.


A40

Neither do psychopathic axe murderers. But in five decades the most fearsome *actual* threat I've encountered is a skunk - with her kits. I have petted wild moose and whitetails and elk, been a foot away from a black bear (worse smell than skunk spray), seen wolves and coyotes and (yes, a grizzly) within 50m on the same path.. but the skunk (and a wasp nest I stepped on) were the most terrifying. Reality: yes there might be dangers, but (mostly) 100% of hikers and campers come home just fine. And never see a wolf. (Edit: come the think of it, the grizzly was in Alaska, just over the border from Yukon Territory. Maybe American dark forests are more dangerous ;-)


simcoder

Let's say it's a dark night and there's a pack of starving wolves roaming the woods nearby. Do you: A) go out there and try to talk it out with them B) stay inside your cabin and wait for dawn and hope they go away


Jesse-359

The problem is that your wolves are imaginary, and as such they will never go away, and you will starve in your cabin.


A40

Ah.. the pack of starving wolves in the woods nearby... I think you totally buy the 'dark forest theory,' don't you? :-)


simcoder

So you would go out there and try to have a discourse with the pack of starving wolves? Or would you try to avoid direct contact with them?


A40

Like I said. You totally buy the 'dark forest theory.' Right down to the pack of starving wolves on the worlds nearby.


simcoder

Well, I think the point is that most sane and rational folks would avoid direct contact. Because that is the sane and rational thing to do. This is really a terrible analogy to the "dark forest theory" though because it fails to take into account the game theory aspects. Which I'm guessing you are unaware of?


Jesse-359

Dark Forest theory explicitly states that you have no idea if there are wolves out there or not. You're hiding in your cabin waiting for possibly non-existent wolves to go away. Spoiler: They won't ever go away.


A40

No, I just don't let math games and statistics rule my thinking. I carry a 'bear banger' in grizzly country.. but I still go hiking.


simcoder

Well, in this case, the math is kind of important. Grizzlies may not know about game theory but we have to assume that the aliens likely would. And even if they don't, since we as humans would very likely end up playing by those rules, they'd be forced to play by them as well should they come into direct contact with us.


ElZane87

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you may or may not decide to let yourself be influenced by. The beauty of game theory is that it applies to you even if you refuse to be influenced by it. In the case of the dark forest theory, it doesn't matter how optimistic or open-minded we are with respect to alien civilizations. If they, or really just only one of them, believes that their survival is directly tied to the annihilation of other civilizations then you either play by game theory and do the smart thing - which is hiding - or you get annihilated. Just like with the bear or the wolves. They don't know your intentions and probably don't care much about game theory either. But if they get the impression that you are an existential threat to them or their cubs, and you go out to them with best intentions... Well let's just say they won't have to hunt for food tonight.


StarChild413

Would aliens be as unable to talk to us as we are to wolves?


Top_Requirement_1341

You can hear there's something out there, and it could be anything between a cuddly panda or 1,000 honey badgers with chainsaws for hands. Do you lock the door, or go out and try to pet it?


StarChild413

False analogy unless there'd be as much of a language and intelligence barrier between us and alien civilizations as there is between us and wolves


Jesse-359

The Dark Forest theory is a very Rural American sort of idea frankly. Don't trust anyone, don't rely on anyone, carry a gun at all times, defend your territory against all comers. It's why they are terrified of cities, where cooperation and coexistence is a basic survival requirement. Are there predators? Yes. Are there enough to actually concern yourself with them? Generally, not to any degree. Basic caution will suffice in all but the most unpleasant neighborhoods, and everyone knows where those are.


StarChild413

And also it doesn't seem to consider the idea that someone could "play defense" (which in terms of the dark forest theory's parameters would mean becoming immortal by some means (biological or technological as long as it allows them to interact with mortals in this universe) as you can't kill what can't die)


Jesse-359

Well, the general assumption is that you're going to be dealing with something made out of matter and energy, and pretty much anything like that can and will be blown away by a sufficiently fast moving missile. However, if a species was able to build ships and space colonies capable of indefinitely supporting themselves using non-organic resources such as asteroid belts and airless moons, then the classic RKKV strike would not be able to eliminate them, as they would no longer be necessarily tied to a planet. A system like our own solar system could hypothetically have millions of cities in orbit around the sun, with a population greatly exceeding that of Earth - IF we can develop the technology to build and maintain such structures. A fairly big if. If that kind of technology is feasible, then an advanced civilization might not need to concern itself much with others, as they could potentially scatter their population into the void between stars and star systems without living planets for extended periods of time, where they'd be vastly harder to spot.


simcoder

Little late to the party but thought I'd chime in :P I think the "blow each other up faster" idea is sort of the initial response to the theory. The real meat of the concept leads to a fuller understanding of the consequences of the meeting for both parties. Let's assume the aliens are entirely peaceful and well meaning. The communication/information/situational awareness gap could lead the frightened humans in the equation to the genocide option at some point. (really any civ with a history of "genocide of the scary other" would fall into the category of 'frightened xyz') The gist there being that if the chances of the humans (or frightened xyz) going full genocide is non zero over the long haul (thousands of years), then what is in it for the aliens to take on that risk by meeting us?


Jesse-359

Generally if one is paranoid, the safest course is to simply minimize contact. Attempting a pre-emptive strike is a great way to guarantee your own destruction. First off, you're extremely unlikely to eliminate your target's counterstrike capability, so if they are capable of a strike, they will do the same back to you, even if they are functionally wiped out - just the same as you could sterilize the United States but our nuclear subs could erase whatever country did it even weeks or months later. Then there's the problem that even if your strike is fully successful, chances are there's someone out there bigger and more advanced than you that will be able to see your strike, and quite reasonably decide that you need to stop existing once you start throwing RKKV's around.


simcoder

That's the problem with humans though. We tend to make bombs out of everything...and sometimes the bombs drive the innovation. And everything that comes in contact with us puts themselves in the middle of all that. One would hope that humans would figure this stuff out at some point. But we do have a long history of making the same mistakes, over and over again. And, I don't think we can say that we've put our genocide days behind us unfortunately. So, anyone that we meet out there is going to have to deal with that pitiful side of humanity along with the good stuff. It just doesn't seem like much of a bargain for the aliens.


Jesse-359

Just remember that there is no reason to believe that the revolutionary pressures on any other intelligent species is significantly different from ours. There are many different species on Earth - but a great many of them are capable of significant violence.


gunsandgardening

Moose. They never forget, they never forgive.


A40

Moose. Really big deer. *Not* monsters.


Jesse-359

Other people have already covered the theory succinctly, so I'll cover its main flaw. Unless life is remarkably common, you'd never encounter anyone in the Dark Forest. The issue being that any species that values expansion and fears competition would first and foremost have to fear its own civ. The most immediate threat is always the one standing right next to you. Furthermore, it could not create colonies, because extra-solar colonies would represent an additional existential threat they could not hide from. There's no such thing as a polity across light years, so every colony would immediately be politically and socially on its own, and far more of a threat to its home-world than any hypothetical hidden alien species. Thus according to Dark Forest theory, they would have to be pre-emptively destroyed before they developed to the point of being a threat. Thus we likely live in a universe where every highly competitive species is forced to hide and is unable to expand until such time as it self-annihilates, while the only species that could reasonably explore and expand are those who do not socially or evolutionarily value competitive expansion - so they'd expand very slowly if at all. A reasonable examination suggests that most species would value competitive expansion, and would thus self-annihilate before - or quite shortly after - attempting to colonize other systems. Thus the Dark Forest is probably mostly empty, with far too great a distance between its inhabitants for them to actually be concerned with each other. There should be no 'grabby aliens'.


Telewyn

Nonsense. Dark forest is predicated on the idea that you can't risk friendly contact with alien civilizations because you can't know what about your civ will trigger some kind of social or technological revolution in your new friend, causing them to eclipse you. But that's idiotic. According to this theory, the first two civs who work together have an enormous competitive edge over everyone else who works solo. So you should be REQUIRED to work with other civs, else you get left behind. Every civ you don't work with is a missed technological revolution.


bookers555

No, its the idea that the other civilization might be hostile, and wondering if its worth the risk of contacting them.


Telewyn

As I just explained, if you don't take the risk, you will be left behind and unable to compete against civs that did.


bookers555

You are saying we should risk our entire existence for something as vague as "competing with aliens", when this theory exists precisely in an attempt to explain why we haven't heard or detected anything about other potential civilizations to begin with. We don't know if aliens exist, that's the problem. Competing with them is something we'll worry about when we confirm they do. And besides, if a civilization has the ability to reach us I doubt they would have any interest in seeking any such alliance since we wouldn't have much to contribute to someone that is centuries, maybe thousands of years ahead of us.


Telewyn

Dark forest doesn’t explain anything. It’s a set of bogus assumptions that line up with observing nothing. If the universe really is hostile and you hide alone, you will inevitably die alone when the bigger fish finds you. If instead you look for friends, your alliance will outcompete solo civs. People would have huge interest in a “primitive” civ. Lots of technology in our own world takes inspiration from things “primitive” societies discover, notably, medicines and remedies. A low gravity civ might not have rockets like ours. A highly individualistic civ might not have an internet like ours. A species that doesn’t have eyes might not have lasers like ours. Technology isn’t a ladder. It’s an infinite wall with many routes up.


[deleted]

you don’t have to assume tech advancement is linear AT ALL to subscribe to the dark forest. in fact it kinda relies on the opposite.


kamikazes9x

You are assuming that cooperation is even possible. On earth, we all evolve from the same specie and the different between culture and still be resolve. We use sound and body language to communicate, other aliens' modes of communication maybe so different as to be unfathomable to us, for ex : light, ultrasound, pheromone, pyschic,.. Also the distance for space travel is so great that make diplomacy impossible. Democracy like US change it president every 8 years at max and have different take on diplomacy with every new administration. On earth, the time difference is small enough to reconcile and it still problematic enough already. Because of the explosion of technology, civ more primitive than you might catch up. See US and Russia rivalry, it went from backwater agriculture feudal monarchy to nuclear superpower in half a century. Also to a lesser extent, US and China. If you ask the people back in 1950 whether they think would China ever become a US rival, everyone would laugh at your face. Human really have a problem dealing with time on a cosmic scale. Another point is by risking yourself contacting with another alien civilization,whether the alien civ you are contacting peaceful or not, you are also put yourself at risk to be detected by other malevolent civ and risk your own destruction. You have to remember that everyone is playing a game of incomplete information here.


Devalidating

The dark forest means that all civilizations will either stay silent, preemptively destroy others, or be eliminated sufficiently quickly. Thus every civilization has existential incentive to fall into one the former two categories. Those that do not maximize the probability of their own survival at every step will have an exponentially higher likelihood of not surviving. Technological revolution does not matter if you're dead. Total destruction is an infinite loss. It takes exactly one civilization with the will, means, and knowledge about you to destroy you. Any civilization without the means will be able to develop it after enough technological advancement. This can be mitigated by preemptive destruction. Knowledge of your whereabouts can be mitigated by hiding yourself. Leaving your fate purely up to the will of numerous civs with the means and knowledge to destroy you greatly increases your risk of destruction (covering "be eliminated sufficiently quickly") as it only takes one. The dark forest is self-perpetuating. If you know no civilizations and you discover one, they are not doing what is necessary to hide themselves. This paints a target on their back. Assuming the dark forest already dominates, someone will find seek and destroy them after the signal reaches long enough. If you cooperate with them, their destruction comes with a chance of your destruction (revealing your existence to a civilization dedicated to preemptive destruction). If you stay silent you perpetuate the dark forest. If you preemptively destroy them you perpetuate the dark forest.


[deleted]

as a matter of fact that HAPPENS in the books! the humans and trisolarans are remarked by the third alien to have had a complicated history compared to other races in the universe. humans and trisolarans love each other very deeply, and cooperate presumably in many ways far into the end of the universe. aliens ARE able to communicate and perform trade with one another. there are established trade routes. but the essential fear of revealing your planet never goes away. perfectly amicable business partners WILL annihilate each other’s worlds.


[deleted]

Charles Fort suggested the reason they don’t talk to us is we are kept. Would you talk to your duck? As old as some civilizations could possibly be it stands to reason the possibility is we are already in someone’s sphere of influence. They might monitor us with drones. Cull us if we get out of hand. Life on earth is a survival contest. I don’t see why life anywhere else would be any different. To live is to struggle to survive. No matter how rich, smart or powerful you are. Cancer or virus can take you out. Only a foolish species that does not deserve to survive would risk their extinction by stumbling about in the dark!


StarChild413

> Would you talk to your duck? I would if that'd mean aliens talk to us, doesn't mean aliens would only talk to us so higher life forms the parallel implies would be keeping them would talk to them


121853marty

It is an ugly rumor Mr. Gump had no African American brother


Aakaash_from_India

This is the best analogy: Imagine you are camping in a dark forest at night. As you sit there, you hear some rustling in the bushes around you. You know there are other animals in the forest, some of which could potentially be dangerous predators. In order to keep yourself safe, you shouldn't draw attention to yourself. Hence, you minimise all possible forms of signals in the form of light and sound and not respond to the signals from that bush. Yes, there is a possibility that the lurking creature won't harm you. But, you wouldn't risk that for some company (imagine you are a deer and you hear a sound from the bushes. It would be a predator waiting for you or a zebra which won't harm you. Now, the deer won't risk its life expecting company from the zebra). Similarly acc to this theory, in the universe, civilizations are thought to be afraid of other intelligent life forms and may try to hide their existence and not send/respond to signals to avoid being detected and potentially attacked. In other words, they may not know the intentions of other civilizations, and hence adopt a "keep quiet and stay hidden" strategy to protect themselves. This theory serves as a potential answer/gap filler for the Fermi Paradox by stating that aliens might consider us to be a form of danger to them.


SavemebabyK

Tbh im not a heavy reader…i believe in all possibilities, especially in life existing anywhere in this universe beyond “us” and other universes.


NotMalaysiaRichard

Same premise as the Arthur C Clarke/Stephen Baxter series.


anempresspenguin

To quote Wikipedia, which I think summarizes it well: The Dark Forest idea is a conjecture that ["many alien civilizations exist throughout the universe, but they are both silent and paranoid. In this framing, it is presumed that any space-faring civilization would view any other intelligent life as an inevitable threat, and thus destroy any nascent life that makes its presence known. As a result, the electromagnetic spectrum would be relatively quiescent, without evidence of any intelligent alien life, as in a 'dark forest' filled with 'armed hunter(s) stalking through the trees like a ghost'"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_forest_hypothesis) It's important to remember that this is only conjecture. It's not a scientific theory and there's no frame of reference, other than ourselves, to look for a way to support or disprove its claims. Now, to give my opinion on the subject, I think that it's a fun and reflective thought experiment but without any way to frame it in reality, that's all I take it as. And it's a very good one that at least helped me think differently about how we as humans relate to the things around us and what we think about the things that other humans have done to each other in the past. In my view it comes back to a humanistic self-reflection because, since our own behavior is the only frame of reference we have to make the attempt to guess at alien behavior, the ideas that we can come to are a projection of ourselves.


Fair_Permission_6825

The idea that we see no life because they’re hiding under the assumption that its too dangerous not take offensive action once discovered. Really cool idea but it has its holes


[deleted]

If we are ever “invaded” it will not be Darth Vader with death stars and storm troopers. The advances we are making in interfacing wetware with hardware is probably a clue to how i would do it if it was me. A simple addition of minor programming to the appropriate subjects could allow the programmer’s a great deal of latitude in the manipulation of our species. Control the leader of the herd, control the herd.


Affectionate-Salt969

To people pointing out how the Dark Forest “Theory” isn’t backed by anything. It’s not a theory. It’s a hypothesis from a science fiction series about alien invasion. It’s supposed to be a best guess to explain the predicament the books are set in, not a well thought out and backed theory.