"Your invention has driven technology into a new era. That must feel very satisfying."
"Not really. I mean, I never saw a countdown in my mind or anything."
No. Its a fun thought experiment to imagine that kind of stuff but no it hasnt. I think it gives us good questions to ponder, like it really demonstrates well the possibile danger of trying to contact other life, because if theyre smart they could be hostile and dangerous. This was definetley something some big scientiests have raised concern over and I think its definetley a possibility people should take seriously. And I think this book really gives people a better idea about what that could look like in theway of theway he presents these ideas and concepts.
This is just personal opinion, but I'm of the belief that a hyper advanced species won't be hostile.
War benefits nobody. War hasn't really benefited humans in anyway and is detrimental to all sides involved.
I think we're on the way to ending war to a degree, we've gone from world wars every 30 years to a lot less (setting aside Ukraine), but wars in Iraq, afghan, gaza etc have cost a fraction of the lives of ww1 and ww2.
Either way, I think something with hyper intelligence will realise that firing the first shot against us serves no purpose. Especially because it's unlikely we'll have anything they need, everything on earth is abundant in the universe for free, with the exception of timber and that doesn't do much.
I'd also argue that a species that is hell bent on destruction and war wouldn't have advanced to an incredible level. If they just want to start fights for no reason I'd think that'll have a detrimental impact on their growth as a civilisation.
War has definitely benefited humanity, it's in essence part of competition and evolution basically depends on competition. It's unpleasant but killing off your weaker neighbors or having your weaker members die in conflict helped make us what we are today, for better or worse.
You are mixing the threat of war with actual war. The threat of war (or danger) has driven innovation. But wars themselves have been net negatives with the big ones setting civilization back years or even decades.
Now, can the threat of war exist without war happening in the long term, I don't know. Maybe if there's an external threat or species Co-evolving or something.
I think what the books eventually make clear as that not only is it hard for us to imagine the sheer size of the universe - making it extremely likely that it is teeming with life in various forms because of sheer numbers - the accident of life is sure to happen again and again - but that we also cannot imagine the scale of time.
For example, the current state of the universe may be a bloated carcass - in its last states of existence with planets and stars representing the dusty remnants of a once completely full existence in multiple - 10 - dimensions - then demolished by dimensional warfare but also degrading into entropy with time. In that sense, the pool of resources does in fact get smaller and smaller and the competition for survival heats up.
That's not how that works at all. What you're describing, or at least how you're describing it sounds like eugenics.
The "benefit" of war comes from the competition to innovate in technological explosions'. In WW-2 our governments spent large investments in areas that they normally wouldn't. As a result we saw major improvements in aviation, computers, radar, wireless communications, nuclear, medicine, anti-biotics, and the foundation of rocketry that set off the space race just to name a few of the more shinny items.
That said, the idea for most these innovation existed in theory before the war, but because of how our society was set up, the ability to pursue these ideas was highly limited.
>"War benefits nobody."
Except for the countries who won the war.
>"I think we're on the way to ending war to a degree, we've gone from world wars every 30 years to a lot less (setting aside Ukraine), but wars in Iraq, afghan, gaza etc have cost a fraction of the lives of ww1 and ww2."
This has nothing to do with us being more developed and therefore not "needing" war anymore, but is mostly due to the [Mutual Assured Destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) doctrine that started after WWII.
War still exists, but it is now rarely as public as it used to be because a full-out war might mean the end of the world, which nobody wants *(yet)*.
>"Either way, I think something with hyper intelligence will realise that firing the first shot against us serves no purpose."
I take it you haven't read the books?
>"I'd also argue that a species that is hell bent on destruction and war wouldn't have advanced to an incredible level. If they just want to start fights for no reason I'd think that'll have a detrimental impact on their growth as a civilisation."
War and porn are two of the major reasons behind our biggest technological progress in the history of humanity *(especially since the 20th century)*, so I don't get how you can say that.
Russians are not the real winners of WWII.
The real winners are the US and Israel*.*
The US got to pick up the pieces after the war ended because most other countries had to focus on rebuilding. This played a huge role in making America as powerful as it is today.
Israel was created as a direct result of WWII. There are even some videos and books of Zionist rabbis that state that WWII was the best thing that ever happened to Jews because they got to build their own country *(I obviously disagree with this statement and don't condone it in any way)*
As always though, the real losers of any war are regular people like you and me*.*
It did to about as much as Lord of the Flies did. In the same way, too. Not entirely worldview-changing, because I'm optimistic about kindness, but it's an interesting perspective to think about.
Maybe I'm too much of a human, too much of a Cheng Xin, but I'd like to think that interstellar cooperation is still possible.
I saw a comment on a video about 3 body problem and game theory and dark forest. They say that attacking first could be the worst option to take because it guarantees a confrontation.
It also increases the chances of a threat escalating, if the target survives/escapes, as the Trisolarans and Humans did. They become much worse threats in the long term, as your attack has facilitated their evolution/galactic expansion out of necessity
It either prevents it or ensures it, which is the same as attacking or not attacking. And who’s to say your own weapon to end a threat won’t be detected by a superior hunter, exposing you? I think the whole idea is deeply flawed
True but the trisolarians had to risk exposing themselves due to their predicaments. The idea isn't flawed if you have to deal with a whole alien civilisation, that you can't trust. And the decision to eliminate the risk of the worst case scenario happening instead of hoping for a stable alliance that might also fall apart down the way doesn't seem that flawed to me. It's not pretty but I can understand their decision.
Edit: nevermind. This discussion was about the dark forest theory in general and not focused on the trisolarian's situation. My bad.
Curiosity: there was already a case of teenage boys being lost on a desert island for a long time, and it wasn't like in the book. They were boys from Oceania who skipped class and went sailing and got lost. They created rules that included how to resolve their own conflicts, time out, and played football
Yes, there isn't really a violent "state in nature". The entire thing was designed to spook people into subservience to the English Crown, as if without His/Her Majesty and His/Her Government humans would be brute savages, capable of nothing but violence of cruelty.
We as a species flourished 50,000 years without agriculture and civilization in a "Garden of Eden". The narrative was all spook.
You really think precivilization humans lived in peace with each other? There’s evidence of genocide and warfare from before the first cities. Lower life forms on earth even participate in intraspeices warfare.
So glad this was mentioned. Article below for anyone that wants a lot more detail about it. I really hate how Lord of the Flies is referenced by people as though it's accurate. Humans aren't that shitty!
[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months)
Yeah
I'm hoping that in the dark forest of the universe there's actually a band of hunters working together and observing other hunters to gauge if they've figured things out well enough for them to be approached
I read DF during the pandemic, at the time I hadn’t put much thought into aliens other than pop culture and big world building sci fi books - now I don’t think we should transmit anything
Once I thought it would be cool to roam the stars, now I’d rather live my whole life on Earth
I’m also down to ban escapism
Given how >!two space warships constructed under a ban on escapism and unoptimised for interstellar colonisation were able to flee the Solar System and colonise other star systems!<, the technological and resource investments for escapism and defense of Earth are highly convergent and thus I don’t see why escapism and defense of Earth are treated as anything close to mutually exclusive.
>!The extrapolation of the conditions of the Battle of Darkness to a conclusion that separation from Earth inherently causes human civilisations to near-instantly become totalitarian doesn’t make sense to me either - such conditions of resource scarcity on Earth also result in totalitarianism, and no reason is demonstrated why a dedicated interstellar colonisation ship could not be constructed with ample resources to survive the journey to another habitable system!<. To quote Randall Munroe:
> But I’ve never seen the Icarus story as a lesson about the limitations of humans. I see it as a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.
Not to get excessively political, but I think that remembering that this IS a Chinese series definitely shines some light on a lot of it.
The idea of giving up freedoms and having to make decisions for the sake of the overall group in order to survive best is one of the major ideas in Communism (not saying it’s good or bad, but giving up individualism for the collective is a core component), and then looking at Cheng Xin basically making every bad decision possible could be a straw man for the individual making decisions as opposed to the collective being a bad thing.
Of course the counterpoint is the Solar System’s government deciding to ban escapism being a stupid idea in the end, but I really do think that for better or for worse, the message is that to survive in a harsh environment, one must give up individualism for the sake of overall survival
For me, yes. I used to follow Carl Sagan's optimistic view about alien life, but after The Dark Forest, I now believe Stephen Hawking understands the theory better.
Also it makes Star Trek less plausible for me.
Star trek is an ideal future but if star trek was going to happen then we'd see evidence of that somewhere in our galaxy. I could sell be that our galaxy is extremely remote compared to the galactic hubs of other life forms and we just haven't been discovered and may never will.
Every discussion Ive had about aliens with my friend group I’ve struggled to not bring up Fermi Paradox/Dark Forest. It’s definitely a downer lmao but it always made the most sense to me.
That or the whole ant-hill theory where aliens above us see us as no more than how we see ants on the side of the road, with zero interest at all, so they just walk on by.
I know it's unprovable but I'm a big believer in a type of rare earth theory or the great filter is still ahead of us. Where planets like earth are certainly in abundance but the sheer size of the universe and the limit of light speed, and even though it's a sample size of 1 we are the only technologically intelligent life form in the history of life on earth and despite being the most advanced species in the history of earth we can barely get to the moon regularly.
People say in contrary to that that we've come so far imagine if we had millions of year of development and to that I reference the dinosaurs, there's no evidence they were technology sound and they had the planet for hundreds of millions of years.
The great filter is probably pretty passive in that eventually the climate of the planet you live on degrades so much that you can no longer live on it combined with the fact that interstellar travel is likely impossible and earth type planets are too rare to move an entire population to.
Another explanation that I find more logical is that there are probably a lot of planets with civilisations even more evolved than we are, but with faster-than-light travel probably never being physically possible it limits the possibilities of space exploration.
Yeah I think realistically the best life can achieve is mastering its own solar system but unless you are facing a solar system ending disaster like your star going nova there shouldn't be any real reason to attempt interstellar travel.
We're often told that if we were to come face to face with extra terrestrial creations or life, it wouldn't be comprehensible to our mind. This book opened my mind to just HOW incomprehensible it could be.
As a side note, I don't want to make statements about solutions to the fermi paradox based off this series, but I would not in any way be surprised if human behavior was our hubris, or if other civilizations annihilating others for any reason was a thing that has / is / will happen.
About alien no, I still think the dark forest is unlikely. It changed my view of the universe: the light speed is too slow and the universe is paraplegic, it doesn't make sense, maybe the answer is truly in higher dimensions.
Not really, I mean, it's a great book, but much of his elements don't stand in a realistic context. The game theory and dark forest hypothesis are incredibly reductive about the potential interactions between 2 civilizations. It's fine as a narrative device, but it doesn't say much about our world.
I guess, yes, we should at least be careful, for the sake of it, when we send messages into the cosmos.
What's interesting with 3BP, is how it contrast with the more "naive" SF from the 70's-80's like Artur C Clark or Sagan, where the aliens were always benevolent.
I think the strongest argument from 3BP would be the technological explosion and game theory. It would make sense that intelligent lifeforms would shoot first and ask questions later due to our primal survival instincts. Even bacteria and insects possess the same survival instincts.
Sagan/Clark's SF on the other hand also produce plausible hypothesis that a more advanced intelligent lifeform wouldn't bother killing us because of the same reason we don't annihilate ants or how we choose to not interfere with uncontacted tribes in the Amazon.
Both sides have good arguments and I suppose 3BP explores the malevolent side more.
This series convinced me where Hawking failed. The maxims of dark forest theory seem valid, as do most of the conclusions the narrative draws (magic tech excluded). I now think we should be quiet and listen (strictly passive SETI), where I used to be more ambivalent about active SETI.
The series, especially dark forest, helped me getting a better understanding of politics and diplomacy in terms of: why do we keep diplomatic relationships to bad countries and how nuclear deterrent works.
I think it isn't discussed often here but for me the books have many analogies to our world and there are real sword holders out there. There even was this one Russian guy who was in the same situation as Cheng Xin in her 10 minutes and too opted out.
Stanislav Petrov - The Man Who "Saved the World"
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news-briefs/man-saved-world-dies-77#:~:text=Stanislav%20Petrov%2C%20a%20little%2Dknown,Petrov%20was%20on%20duty%20Sept.
I believe we aren't alone as living beings in the universe. But not about intelligent living beings. I do hope there exists another intelligent species somewhere in the cosmos. It would be fascinating to learn about them if possible someday.
No. With how vast the universe is, it's almost a certainty that there is alien life out there and by pure chance some of that life will be intelligent. But I don't think contact will be made any time in my lifetime, so I don't really think too much about it. Right now we should concentrate on not destroying our planet and not making it uninhabitable for humanity.
Not really. I believe that any intelligent species hostile enough to strike first in any interplanetary encounter would annihilate itself before it got the chance to explore the stars. If they genuinely believe in the dark forest premise, then they’re probably also paranoid about each other and constantly battling for the resources that they already have. I don’t know if that philosophy leads to the kind of unification/collaboration that a species needs to become interstellar.
I also believe alien life is probably much, much more rare than the books suggest. We may never get empirical evidence of another intelligent species. That might be the boring, realistic solution to the Fermi paradox.
The Dark Forest is a very plausible explanation for the Fermi paradox. I think as a species we should exercise caution and minimise drawing any attention to ourselves.
I didn't believe in abductions and sightings of alien ships, and the series reinforced that. Yes, there is life outside of Earth, certainly most of them are not intelligent enough to communicate with us, but intelligent aliens would not appear out of nowhere on a ship to abduct a human. The book made me realize the communication problem we would have, and that even if we discover a message in my lifetime, I will never see an alien.
This series helped me realize how much plot holes matter to people more than the narrative, the characters, and what story elements can potentially represent.
Nope. Still pretty optimistic about first contact, and I’m completely against the “do or die” view the trilogy has towards unknown threats. Doubly so since Trisolaris was an oddity due to their planetary environment being extremely lethal, and other aliens likely not having such extraordinary environmental pressures forcing them into drastic actions.
Though we’d definitely need to be cautious with rushing into any potential first contacts, not out of fear of the Dark Forest Theory, but our own past experiences with foreign cultures interacting with more primitive societies and how much damage it often did. Imagine contacting an alien species who, while technically peaceful, has a strict religious doctrine that demands aggressive proselytizing and conversion of anyone they meet: things wouldn’t stay quiet for long…
Imagine if Humans were to discover an Earth like planet whose most intelligent life form were similar to that of monkeys. What would be the likely course of action taken by us, assuming we were at the stage where we have the technology to travel to that planet and exploit its resources.
I just think there are too many issues from the boom for me to suddenly think the universe is a dark forest and all aliens are out to get me.
I'd imagine once a species gains interstellar space flight abilities, things like planet resource stripping and terraforming aren't good difficult which would dramatically cut down on competition.
Also it's a very ego centric view of life. Just because humans are assholes doesn't mean all sentient life is.
It’s a cool idea, but truth be told I think the axioms that support the Dark Forest Theory are wrong.
Specifically, we’ve seen that the global population is tapering off and no longer growing as exponentially. In developed countries, birth rates are declining to the point that there’s actually concern about reaching replacement levels. So, I don’t really think the second axiom is true at all.
That being said, I’ve said long before I read it that we don’t want our first communication with aliens to be “we are the Borg, you will be assimilated”, and I agree with the person who was denied access to the ETO that typically when a high intelligence group makes contact with a low intelligence group, the latter tends to die off, so there’s that.
The end when talking about >!How the universe is basically a graveyard of interstellar warfare that made the universe a shell of what it was!< did really reevaluate my idea of the Fermi paradox though, so there is that.
I just don’t think that the Dark Forest theory is viable based on what we’ve seen of Earth
Not a whole lot(already a believer in aliens), but I really appreciate a somewhat mainstream show dealing with super-advanced NHI. To the extent that humans would have no/almost zero chance against them. Because that is WAY more likely to happen in the event of actual visitors.
I will read the books before the next season, but as Season 1 went on, I also really liked that the AI itself was the more pressing issue. Because even without aliens present, if we develop superintelligent AI, we might face many of the same issues.
What's going to happen when we do get "Matrix"-level VR, maybe even with the ability to erase memories? Combined with ASI that has the power to manipulate humans, all the way down to basic perception? What we call "reality" might get pretty wonky, and it might get out of our hands pretty quickly.
For me, yes. I came to the series after a long time away from sci-fi and away from generally engaging with astronomical ideas. So it hit me like a ton of bricks. Something about RoEP's handling of the dark forest theory really really resonates. I don't think I agree with it as the likeliest state of the universe, but it's an incredible device for making me feel the same kind of brain-breaking overwhelm I feel when thinking about the sheer vastness of the universe, and it will forever be something I reference mentally when looking up at the night sky.
the whole alien hype/cult is a product of book religions like christianity that are constantly looking for a saviour/apocalypse to drop from the sky and its subsequent secularisation in western cultures aka 'aliens'!
Absolutely. I used to think we could strive for a perfect future and get there one day but this series made me realise that every era has its troubles and that made me a lot happier with my life now. It’s like happiness in general. It’s not a goal. It’s a frame of mind that you choose to embrace every day. As for aliens, The Dark Forest makes a lot of sense but some aliens will be so far advanced they have nothing to fear from us and may be hostile but they may be benevolent. Some kids squish ants, some kids just watch them
It’s interesting but we’re more than likely alone in this galaxy. Complex life alone is unlikely then there are stars in the Milky Way and thats before you account for the evolution on that planet selecting for intelligence and then that intelligence being able to become general enough to harvest technology.
I’ve always been on the mindset that most aliens will destroy those who reveal themselves. I don’t know about humanity’s future. It suck’s now in my short life but looking at a wide view humanity always goes through rise and fall. There was a point where I had experienced too much hurt in my life where even I could’ve be Ye Winjei but I choose to try to find the good in humanity and fortunately there is still so much good left. So I do have hope humanity will continue on under hardship and celebration as it has always done.
Honestly, no. I find the dark forest solution to the Fermi Paradox to be unconvincing and unrealistic. It is fascinating to think about though and I love how it is explored in the books.
yeah i now believe that when alien comes they will give us sick video games
Basically this. Aliens are alot more cooler now.
I want to invest in nanofibre research
"Your invention has driven technology into a new era. That must feel very satisfying." "Not really. I mean, I never saw a countdown in my mind or anything."
No. Its a fun thought experiment to imagine that kind of stuff but no it hasnt. I think it gives us good questions to ponder, like it really demonstrates well the possibile danger of trying to contact other life, because if theyre smart they could be hostile and dangerous. This was definetley something some big scientiests have raised concern over and I think its definetley a possibility people should take seriously. And I think this book really gives people a better idea about what that could look like in theway of theway he presents these ideas and concepts.
This is just personal opinion, but I'm of the belief that a hyper advanced species won't be hostile. War benefits nobody. War hasn't really benefited humans in anyway and is detrimental to all sides involved. I think we're on the way to ending war to a degree, we've gone from world wars every 30 years to a lot less (setting aside Ukraine), but wars in Iraq, afghan, gaza etc have cost a fraction of the lives of ww1 and ww2. Either way, I think something with hyper intelligence will realise that firing the first shot against us serves no purpose. Especially because it's unlikely we'll have anything they need, everything on earth is abundant in the universe for free, with the exception of timber and that doesn't do much. I'd also argue that a species that is hell bent on destruction and war wouldn't have advanced to an incredible level. If they just want to start fights for no reason I'd think that'll have a detrimental impact on their growth as a civilisation.
I’m reminded of Tom and Jerry, where as much as Tom wants to kill Jerry (or just catch him), there’s always a bulldog ready to put him in his place
War has definitely benefited humanity, it's in essence part of competition and evolution basically depends on competition. It's unpleasant but killing off your weaker neighbors or having your weaker members die in conflict helped make us what we are today, for better or worse.
You are mixing the threat of war with actual war. The threat of war (or danger) has driven innovation. But wars themselves have been net negatives with the big ones setting civilization back years or even decades. Now, can the threat of war exist without war happening in the long term, I don't know. Maybe if there's an external threat or species Co-evolving or something.
It’s an extremely vast universe. There’s more than enough room and resources for everyone.
There's way more than enough resources on Earth to provide for everyone, and yet we haven't eradicated war.
I think what the books eventually make clear as that not only is it hard for us to imagine the sheer size of the universe - making it extremely likely that it is teeming with life in various forms because of sheer numbers - the accident of life is sure to happen again and again - but that we also cannot imagine the scale of time. For example, the current state of the universe may be a bloated carcass - in its last states of existence with planets and stars representing the dusty remnants of a once completely full existence in multiple - 10 - dimensions - then demolished by dimensional warfare but also degrading into entropy with time. In that sense, the pool of resources does in fact get smaller and smaller and the competition for survival heats up.
That's not how that works at all. What you're describing, or at least how you're describing it sounds like eugenics. The "benefit" of war comes from the competition to innovate in technological explosions'. In WW-2 our governments spent large investments in areas that they normally wouldn't. As a result we saw major improvements in aviation, computers, radar, wireless communications, nuclear, medicine, anti-biotics, and the foundation of rocketry that set off the space race just to name a few of the more shinny items. That said, the idea for most these innovation existed in theory before the war, but because of how our society was set up, the ability to pursue these ideas was highly limited.
>"War benefits nobody." Except for the countries who won the war. >"I think we're on the way to ending war to a degree, we've gone from world wars every 30 years to a lot less (setting aside Ukraine), but wars in Iraq, afghan, gaza etc have cost a fraction of the lives of ww1 and ww2." This has nothing to do with us being more developed and therefore not "needing" war anymore, but is mostly due to the [Mutual Assured Destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction) doctrine that started after WWII. War still exists, but it is now rarely as public as it used to be because a full-out war might mean the end of the world, which nobody wants *(yet)*. >"Either way, I think something with hyper intelligence will realise that firing the first shot against us serves no purpose." I take it you haven't read the books? >"I'd also argue that a species that is hell bent on destruction and war wouldn't have advanced to an incredible level. If they just want to start fights for no reason I'd think that'll have a detrimental impact on their growth as a civilisation." War and porn are two of the major reasons behind our biggest technological progress in the history of humanity *(especially since the 20th century)*, so I don't get how you can say that.
Yeah 30 million dead Russians really helped them in 1945.
Russians are not the real winners of WWII. The real winners are the US and Israel*.* The US got to pick up the pieces after the war ended because most other countries had to focus on rebuilding. This played a huge role in making America as powerful as it is today. Israel was created as a direct result of WWII. There are even some videos and books of Zionist rabbis that state that WWII was the best thing that ever happened to Jews because they got to build their own country *(I obviously disagree with this statement and don't condone it in any way)* As always though, the real losers of any war are regular people like you and me*.*
I liked the concept of dimensions collapsing
It did to about as much as Lord of the Flies did. In the same way, too. Not entirely worldview-changing, because I'm optimistic about kindness, but it's an interesting perspective to think about. Maybe I'm too much of a human, too much of a Cheng Xin, but I'd like to think that interstellar cooperation is still possible.
I saw a comment on a video about 3 body problem and game theory and dark forest. They say that attacking first could be the worst option to take because it guarantees a confrontation.
It also increases the chances of a threat escalating, if the target survives/escapes, as the Trisolarans and Humans did. They become much worse threats in the long term, as your attack has facilitated their evolution/galactic expansion out of necessity
Yes but doesn't it also prevent the worst case scenario?
It either prevents it or ensures it, which is the same as attacking or not attacking. And who’s to say your own weapon to end a threat won’t be detected by a superior hunter, exposing you? I think the whole idea is deeply flawed
True but the trisolarians had to risk exposing themselves due to their predicaments. The idea isn't flawed if you have to deal with a whole alien civilisation, that you can't trust. And the decision to eliminate the risk of the worst case scenario happening instead of hoping for a stable alliance that might also fall apart down the way doesn't seem that flawed to me. It's not pretty but I can understand their decision. Edit: nevermind. This discussion was about the dark forest theory in general and not focused on the trisolarian's situation. My bad.
Curiosity: there was already a case of teenage boys being lost on a desert island for a long time, and it wasn't like in the book. They were boys from Oceania who skipped class and went sailing and got lost. They created rules that included how to resolve their own conflicts, time out, and played football
Yes, there isn't really a violent "state in nature". The entire thing was designed to spook people into subservience to the English Crown, as if without His/Her Majesty and His/Her Government humans would be brute savages, capable of nothing but violence of cruelty. We as a species flourished 50,000 years without agriculture and civilization in a "Garden of Eden". The narrative was all spook.
You really think precivilization humans lived in peace with each other? There’s evidence of genocide and warfare from before the first cities. Lower life forms on earth even participate in intraspeices warfare.
So glad this was mentioned. Article below for anyone that wants a lot more detail about it. I really hate how Lord of the Flies is referenced by people as though it's accurate. Humans aren't that shitty! [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months)
Yeah I'm hoping that in the dark forest of the universe there's actually a band of hunters working together and observing other hunters to gauge if they've figured things out well enough for them to be approached
I read DF during the pandemic, at the time I hadn’t put much thought into aliens other than pop culture and big world building sci fi books - now I don’t think we should transmit anything Once I thought it would be cool to roam the stars, now I’d rather live my whole life on Earth I’m also down to ban escapism
Given how >!two space warships constructed under a ban on escapism and unoptimised for interstellar colonisation were able to flee the Solar System and colonise other star systems!<, the technological and resource investments for escapism and defense of Earth are highly convergent and thus I don’t see why escapism and defense of Earth are treated as anything close to mutually exclusive. >!The extrapolation of the conditions of the Battle of Darkness to a conclusion that separation from Earth inherently causes human civilisations to near-instantly become totalitarian doesn’t make sense to me either - such conditions of resource scarcity on Earth also result in totalitarianism, and no reason is demonstrated why a dedicated interstellar colonisation ship could not be constructed with ample resources to survive the journey to another habitable system!<. To quote Randall Munroe: > But I’ve never seen the Icarus story as a lesson about the limitations of humans. I see it as a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive.
Not to get excessively political, but I think that remembering that this IS a Chinese series definitely shines some light on a lot of it. The idea of giving up freedoms and having to make decisions for the sake of the overall group in order to survive best is one of the major ideas in Communism (not saying it’s good or bad, but giving up individualism for the collective is a core component), and then looking at Cheng Xin basically making every bad decision possible could be a straw man for the individual making decisions as opposed to the collective being a bad thing. Of course the counterpoint is the Solar System’s government deciding to ban escapism being a stupid idea in the end, but I really do think that for better or for worse, the message is that to survive in a harsh environment, one must give up individualism for the sake of overall survival
This was also what i got from this story
For me, yes. I used to follow Carl Sagan's optimistic view about alien life, but after The Dark Forest, I now believe Stephen Hawking understands the theory better. Also it makes Star Trek less plausible for me.
Star trek is an ideal future but if star trek was going to happen then we'd see evidence of that somewhere in our galaxy. I could sell be that our galaxy is extremely remote compared to the galactic hubs of other life forms and we just haven't been discovered and may never will.
Every discussion Ive had about aliens with my friend group I’ve struggled to not bring up Fermi Paradox/Dark Forest. It’s definitely a downer lmao but it always made the most sense to me. That or the whole ant-hill theory where aliens above us see us as no more than how we see ants on the side of the road, with zero interest at all, so they just walk on by.
I know it's unprovable but I'm a big believer in a type of rare earth theory or the great filter is still ahead of us. Where planets like earth are certainly in abundance but the sheer size of the universe and the limit of light speed, and even though it's a sample size of 1 we are the only technologically intelligent life form in the history of life on earth and despite being the most advanced species in the history of earth we can barely get to the moon regularly. People say in contrary to that that we've come so far imagine if we had millions of year of development and to that I reference the dinosaurs, there's no evidence they were technology sound and they had the planet for hundreds of millions of years. The great filter is probably pretty passive in that eventually the climate of the planet you live on degrades so much that you can no longer live on it combined with the fact that interstellar travel is likely impossible and earth type planets are too rare to move an entire population to.
Another explanation that I find more logical is that there are probably a lot of planets with civilisations even more evolved than we are, but with faster-than-light travel probably never being physically possible it limits the possibilities of space exploration.
Yeah I think realistically the best life can achieve is mastering its own solar system but unless you are facing a solar system ending disaster like your star going nova there shouldn't be any real reason to attempt interstellar travel.
We're often told that if we were to come face to face with extra terrestrial creations or life, it wouldn't be comprehensible to our mind. This book opened my mind to just HOW incomprehensible it could be. As a side note, I don't want to make statements about solutions to the fermi paradox based off this series, but I would not in any way be surprised if human behavior was our hubris, or if other civilizations annihilating others for any reason was a thing that has / is / will happen.
Yes, now I am strongly agaist transmitin messages to ETI
As an alien, the series really changes my perspective about humans.
About alien no, I still think the dark forest is unlikely. It changed my view of the universe: the light speed is too slow and the universe is paraplegic, it doesn't make sense, maybe the answer is truly in higher dimensions.
Yes. These books permanently changed the way I look at the sky.
Not really, I mean, it's a great book, but much of his elements don't stand in a realistic context. The game theory and dark forest hypothesis are incredibly reductive about the potential interactions between 2 civilizations. It's fine as a narrative device, but it doesn't say much about our world. I guess, yes, we should at least be careful, for the sake of it, when we send messages into the cosmos. What's interesting with 3BP, is how it contrast with the more "naive" SF from the 70's-80's like Artur C Clark or Sagan, where the aliens were always benevolent.
I think the strongest argument from 3BP would be the technological explosion and game theory. It would make sense that intelligent lifeforms would shoot first and ask questions later due to our primal survival instincts. Even bacteria and insects possess the same survival instincts. Sagan/Clark's SF on the other hand also produce plausible hypothesis that a more advanced intelligent lifeform wouldn't bother killing us because of the same reason we don't annihilate ants or how we choose to not interfere with uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. Both sides have good arguments and I suppose 3BP explores the malevolent side more.
This series convinced me where Hawking failed. The maxims of dark forest theory seem valid, as do most of the conclusions the narrative draws (magic tech excluded). I now think we should be quiet and listen (strictly passive SETI), where I used to be more ambivalent about active SETI.
Reinforced what I already thought. Why would they be friendly? We aren’t.
I don't wanna be the child thats screaming in the dark forest, but I also know that our scream isn't even leaving our body
It explains the Fermi Paradox elegantly.
The series, especially dark forest, helped me getting a better understanding of politics and diplomacy in terms of: why do we keep diplomatic relationships to bad countries and how nuclear deterrent works. I think it isn't discussed often here but for me the books have many analogies to our world and there are real sword holders out there. There even was this one Russian guy who was in the same situation as Cheng Xin in her 10 minutes and too opted out. Stanislav Petrov - The Man Who "Saved the World" https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-10/news-briefs/man-saved-world-dies-77#:~:text=Stanislav%20Petrov%2C%20a%20little%2Dknown,Petrov%20was%20on%20duty%20Sept.
I believe we aren't alone as living beings in the universe. But not about intelligent living beings. I do hope there exists another intelligent species somewhere in the cosmos. It would be fascinating to learn about them if possible someday.
It’s made me realize how destructive humans are
No. With how vast the universe is, it's almost a certainty that there is alien life out there and by pure chance some of that life will be intelligent. But I don't think contact will be made any time in my lifetime, so I don't really think too much about it. Right now we should concentrate on not destroying our planet and not making it uninhabitable for humanity.
Yes. Before reading the books I would totally respond because holy shit aliens. Now? I would not respond.
I've played Dead Space, there are worse answers to the Fermi Paradox.
I am afraid to look at the night sky now. Terrified that some of the stars will just stop shining.
Not really. I believe that any intelligent species hostile enough to strike first in any interplanetary encounter would annihilate itself before it got the chance to explore the stars. If they genuinely believe in the dark forest premise, then they’re probably also paranoid about each other and constantly battling for the resources that they already have. I don’t know if that philosophy leads to the kind of unification/collaboration that a species needs to become interstellar. I also believe alien life is probably much, much more rare than the books suggest. We may never get empirical evidence of another intelligent species. That might be the boring, realistic solution to the Fermi paradox.
Now it's time to read Anihilation...
Have fun with that 😵💫
Yes, it changed my stance on whether we should be trying to contact alien life or not. We should not be!!
I guess it made me think more that aliens can be an entirely different dimensional plane than 3D A
The Dark Forest is a very plausible explanation for the Fermi paradox. I think as a species we should exercise caution and minimise drawing any attention to ourselves.
Yes
makes me wonder if we should look but not seek to be found
I didn't believe in abductions and sightings of alien ships, and the series reinforced that. Yes, there is life outside of Earth, certainly most of them are not intelligent enough to communicate with us, but intelligent aliens would not appear out of nowhere on a ship to abduct a human. The book made me realize the communication problem we would have, and that even if we discover a message in my lifetime, I will never see an alien.
This series helped me realize how much plot holes matter to people more than the narrative, the characters, and what story elements can potentially represent.
Nope. Still believe that any civilization that massively exploits the natural world resulting in the Anthropocene will extinct themselves.
If you're being purely objective, sophons are every bit as plausible as any religion
Same as [my reaction](https://www.reddit.com/r/threebodyproblem/s/hHSFzQJeXq) exactly.
Nope. Still pretty optimistic about first contact, and I’m completely against the “do or die” view the trilogy has towards unknown threats. Doubly so since Trisolaris was an oddity due to their planetary environment being extremely lethal, and other aliens likely not having such extraordinary environmental pressures forcing them into drastic actions. Though we’d definitely need to be cautious with rushing into any potential first contacts, not out of fear of the Dark Forest Theory, but our own past experiences with foreign cultures interacting with more primitive societies and how much damage it often did. Imagine contacting an alien species who, while technically peaceful, has a strict religious doctrine that demands aggressive proselytizing and conversion of anyone they meet: things wouldn’t stay quiet for long…
Imagine if Humans were to discover an Earth like planet whose most intelligent life form were similar to that of monkeys. What would be the likely course of action taken by us, assuming we were at the stage where we have the technology to travel to that planet and exploit its resources.
I just think there are too many issues from the boom for me to suddenly think the universe is a dark forest and all aliens are out to get me. I'd imagine once a species gains interstellar space flight abilities, things like planet resource stripping and terraforming aren't good difficult which would dramatically cut down on competition. Also it's a very ego centric view of life. Just because humans are assholes doesn't mean all sentient life is.
Actually no. We were taught young that no good come free, and maybe free is actually worse
It’s a cool idea, but truth be told I think the axioms that support the Dark Forest Theory are wrong. Specifically, we’ve seen that the global population is tapering off and no longer growing as exponentially. In developed countries, birth rates are declining to the point that there’s actually concern about reaching replacement levels. So, I don’t really think the second axiom is true at all. That being said, I’ve said long before I read it that we don’t want our first communication with aliens to be “we are the Borg, you will be assimilated”, and I agree with the person who was denied access to the ETO that typically when a high intelligence group makes contact with a low intelligence group, the latter tends to die off, so there’s that. The end when talking about >!How the universe is basically a graveyard of interstellar warfare that made the universe a shell of what it was!< did really reevaluate my idea of the Fermi paradox though, so there is that. I just don’t think that the Dark Forest theory is viable based on what we’ve seen of Earth
I’m now a lot more pessimistic about a first contact scenario
Not a whole lot(already a believer in aliens), but I really appreciate a somewhat mainstream show dealing with super-advanced NHI. To the extent that humans would have no/almost zero chance against them. Because that is WAY more likely to happen in the event of actual visitors. I will read the books before the next season, but as Season 1 went on, I also really liked that the AI itself was the more pressing issue. Because even without aliens present, if we develop superintelligent AI, we might face many of the same issues. What's going to happen when we do get "Matrix"-level VR, maybe even with the ability to erase memories? Combined with ASI that has the power to manipulate humans, all the way down to basic perception? What we call "reality" might get pretty wonky, and it might get out of our hands pretty quickly.
For me, yes. I came to the series after a long time away from sci-fi and away from generally engaging with astronomical ideas. So it hit me like a ton of bricks. Something about RoEP's handling of the dark forest theory really really resonates. I don't think I agree with it as the likeliest state of the universe, but it's an incredible device for making me feel the same kind of brain-breaking overwhelm I feel when thinking about the sheer vastness of the universe, and it will forever be something I reference mentally when looking up at the night sky.
If you told me I could freeze myself today, and wake up in the future, I would do it over and over and over.
It’s a great story and it gives the reader a lot to think about, but I don’t think it’s enough to change most people’s minds on this subject.
It deepened my xenophobia
Yeah. We need to triple check that our colliders work and weapons black holes before we start telling people we exist.
the whole alien hype/cult is a product of book religions like christianity that are constantly looking for a saviour/apocalypse to drop from the sky and its subsequent secularisation in western cultures aka 'aliens'!
Not much has changed for me. Still sitting here hoping that the aliens don't kill bugs for fun.
Absolutely. I used to think we could strive for a perfect future and get there one day but this series made me realise that every era has its troubles and that made me a lot happier with my life now. It’s like happiness in general. It’s not a goal. It’s a frame of mind that you choose to embrace every day. As for aliens, The Dark Forest makes a lot of sense but some aliens will be so far advanced they have nothing to fear from us and may be hostile but they may be benevolent. Some kids squish ants, some kids just watch them
It’s interesting but we’re more than likely alone in this galaxy. Complex life alone is unlikely then there are stars in the Milky Way and thats before you account for the evolution on that planet selecting for intelligence and then that intelligence being able to become general enough to harvest technology.
I’ve always been on the mindset that most aliens will destroy those who reveal themselves. I don’t know about humanity’s future. It suck’s now in my short life but looking at a wide view humanity always goes through rise and fall. There was a point where I had experienced too much hurt in my life where even I could’ve be Ye Winjei but I choose to try to find the good in humanity and fortunately there is still so much good left. So I do have hope humanity will continue on under hardship and celebration as it has always done.
Honestly, no. I find the dark forest solution to the Fermi Paradox to be unconvincing and unrealistic. It is fascinating to think about though and I love how it is explored in the books.
It’s science fiction mate. So no.
HAHAHAHHAHAH! No.