Dark Forest: Should We NOT Contact Aliens?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Check out the Space Time Merch Store
www.pbsspacetime.com/shop
In 1974 we sent the Arecibo radio message towards Messier 13, a globular cluster near the edge of the Milky Way, made up of a few hundred thousand stars. The message was mostly symbolic; we weren’t really expecting a reply. Yet surely other civilisations out there are doing the same thing. So, why haven’t we heard anything? What if the silence from the stars is a hint that we shouldn’t be so outgoing? What if aliens are deliberately keeping quiet for fear that they might be destroyed?
Sign Up on Patreon to get access to the Space Time Discord!
/ pbsspacetime
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to:to.pbs.org/DonateSPACE
Sign up for the mailing list to get episode notifications and hear special announcements!
mailchi.mp/1a6eb8f2717d/space...
Search the Entire Space Time Library Here: search.pbsspacetime.com/
Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Richard Dyer & Matt O'Dowd
Post Production by Leonardo Scholzer, Yago Ballarini & Stephanie Faria
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Associate Producer: Bahar Gholipour
Executive Producers: Eric Brown & Andrew Kornhaber
Executive in Charge for PBS: Maribel Lopez
Director of Programming for PBS: Gabrielle Ewing
Assistant Director of Programming for PBS: John Campbell
Spacetime is a production of Kornhaber Brown for PBS Digital Studios.
This program is produced by Kornhaber Brown, which is solely responsible for its content.
© 2024 PBS. All rights reserved.
End Credits Music by J.R.S. Schattenberg: / multidroideka
Space Time Was Made Possible In Part By:
Big Bang Sponsors
John Sronce
Bryce Fort
Peter Barrett
David Neumann
Alexander Tamas
Morgan Hough
Juan Benet
Vinnie Falco
Mark Rosenthal
Quasar Sponsors
Glenn Sugden
Alex Kern
Ethan Cohen
Stephen Wilcox
Mark Heising
Hypernova Sponsors
Chris Webb
David Giltinan
Ivari Tölp
Kenneth See
Gregory Forfa
drollere
Bradley Voorhees
Scott Gorlick
Paul Stehr-Green
Ben Delo
Scott Gray
Антон Кочков
Robert Ilardi
John R. Slavik
Mathew
Donal Botkin
Edmund Fokschaner
chuck zegar
Jordan Young
Daniel Muzquiz
Gamma Ray Burst Sponsors
Jessica M. Kandal, Ph.D.
Anthony Crossland
Grace Seraph
Frank Plessers
Max Paladino
Stephen Saslow
Robert DeChellis
Tomaz Lovsin
Anthony Leon
Leonardo Schulthais Senna
Lori Ferris
Dennis Van Hoof
Koen Wilde
Nicolas Katsantonis
Joe Pavlovic
Justin Lloyd
Chuck Lukaszewski
Andrea Galvagni
Jerry Thomas
Nikhil Sharma
John Anderson
Bradley Ulis
Craig Falls
Kane Holbrook
Ross Story
teng guo
Harsh Khandhadia
Michael Lev
Terje Vold
James Trimmier
Jeremy Soller
Paul Wood
Joe Moreira
Kent Durham
jim bartosh
John H. Austin, Jr.
Diana S
Faraz Khan
Almog Cohen
Daniel Jennings
Russ Creech
Jeremy Reed
David Johnston
Michael Barton
Isaac Suttell
Oliver Flanagan
Bleys Goodson
Mark Delagasse
Mark Daniel Cohen
Shane Calimlim
Tybie Fitzhugh
Eric Kiebler
Craig Stonaha
Frederic Simon
Tonyface
John Robinson
Jim Hudson
David Barnholdt
John Funai
Adrien Molyneux
Bradley Jenkins
Amy Hickman
Vlad Shipulin
Thomas Dougherty
King Zeckendorff
Dan Warren
Joseph Salomone
Patrick Sutton
Julien Dubois
There is a problem with the Game Theory logic there, and it's that you assume that any civilization you find will be confined into a single place that CAN be destroyed. In reality, the player must consider that the civilization they detected might be a branch or a colony of a larger civilization they have yet to detect. In other words, the option to "destroy" might also lead to civilization A to respond, but now, their response will not be to ignore or contact, since they KNOW you are aggressive. So the option to destroy is actually the worst, since it guarantees that, unless you are absolutelly sure you are destroying the whole civilization, that retribution wwill be comming your way.
Like trying to attack a Borg fleet.
It also assumes that the location of detection is also the place you can attack. Let's assume the dark forest hypothesis is correct. This assumes that there are technologies capable of contacting others while remaining silent. Why wouldnt one of these civilisations send out a satellite which then contacts others and relays any signal back. So if anyone replies violently, they send their response to the wrong place and the original society soon know sthey were attacked. Thinking this through leads to a lot of interesting situations but undermines the Dark Forest
Exactly
The game theory issues are even bigger than that.
Dark forest was a popular trope back in the 50s or so and was originally a response to politics and economic fears of the time,.. then kinda got rebooted because a chinese author who was trying to recreate american books he grew up with all of a sudden got popular, so now it is back in the public imagination even though its simplification fell out of favor decades ago...
At its core, it depends on the idea of 'billions of years from now we will need to fight because resources are finite, so nothing in-between then and now matters'. It kinda fell apart when people started realizing that economic cooperation outstrips isolationism.. which gets to the other big reason it fell out of favor, it was part of an isolationist train of thought since it assumes that isolation and ethnic purity are stronger than cooperation and multiculturalism... which is probably also why we are seeing it again today.
Yep, that's how wars go between civs that are still in the "talking" phase of space dating
"The humans are talking about genocide in terms of game theory again, let's keep hiding from them" is a potential variation of the Dark Forest Hypothesis.
Silly humans
We used to have books and films that would more accurately reflect science society and culture and enable us to evolve.
Scientists don't necessarily have very good intellects and can wind up wallowing (cleverly) in stagnant conceptual puddles.
Lmao
Yeah I find the Dark Forest hypothesis to be deeply depressing, flawed and rooted in the assumption that the brutality of the few ass holes who run humanity is normal and reflected of the majority of all intelligent life.
@@Raso719 Yeah, it bugs me. I know it's not easy to imagine things we have no frame of reference for but discussion of aliens is way too limited by the presumption that our way is the only possible way.
@@ngwoo It also flat out isn't our way of thinking. Like it completely ignores all of the instances where humanity has come together.
For example:
One might easily forget that the planet is dominated by a multitude of countries, ethnicities and religions. The very structure of our entire planetary civilization is proof that this deeply paranoid way of thinking is complete bullshit.
In virtually every scenario.... No. Is in actually EVERY scenario. PERIOD. Where multiple groups of people have come together in harmony it has built a stronger and more powerful and sustainable force. Without any exception ever.
Keyboard being harmony of course.
“ "We" don't decide things. Individuals decide, and collective action emerges in a very complex way.” - This is so well put and so many people don't understand.
Only a handful of people usually have access to major decisions on behalf of everyone else.
I'm not a professional physicist but I DEFINITELY think that the hysteria on this is too much
Read David Deutsch's critique of Stephen Hawking for more.
@@udaypsarojGoing off topic here, but spoil alert.......the aliens are already here. ✌️ 👽
while true, the same holds for the brain.
One could also argue that collective actions dictate individual decisions. Both are true. We are connected with incredibly complex ways.
The game is more complicated than indicated, there are multiple alternate plays, the first layer of them being to remove yourself from being a soft target, setup MAD, and doing any talking from something that you can afford to have hit
Mutually assured Destruction.
If you’re shooting objects at relativistic speeds there is no detection time, and without detection time MAD doesn’t apply. MAD hinges on being able to respond, but if a projectile is at c there is literally no time between detection and consequence, it’s just consequence.
@@simbaonsteroids8836 Gravitational waves of your relativistic attack, or some other factors like the asymmetry of the damage on the target, or many other factors might still point the source of the attack back to you.
@@TiagoTiagoT only if you’re launching from home.
@@simbaonsteroids8836 If it leads to a decoy, they'll just follow the trail further; you don't know how good detectives they are.
The Dark Forest hypothesis is always interesting to think about, but l think it's one of the weaker answers to the Fermi Paradox. The best answer so far (in my humble opinion) is that there is no paradox at all, because we've essentially only sampled one tiny drop of water from an entire ocean as it pertains to scanning space for alien signals. At this point, we have no basis for concluding that alien civilizations are either rare or quiet enough for this fact to require any explanation.
All we can really say is that so far, nobody out there had been beaming extremely powerful and detectable signals directly at earth within the scant time and narrow frequency range we've been scanning.
We do have one basis -- the difference in the amount of time it took between life getting started on Earth (relatively fast) and intelligent life emerging (billions of years longer). That would indicate that while life itself might be commonplace, intelligent life is a much rarer commodity. It's only a sample of one, but it's still a data point worth considering.
They have to be either rare, quiet, or brand new just life us. The idea is that if an advanced civilisation existed a few 100 million years ago, they would be everywhere, they would be swarming the entire galaxy, the galaxy is only 100,000 light years in diameter and we're talking about a timescale of possibly a billion+ years.
Yet we listen to radio waves, we listen to gravitational waves, we have telescopes looking all over the milky way. We hear nothing, we see nothing.
the dark Forest is not just a week answer, it is not at all an answer to the Fermi Paradox.
There's actually no strictly scientific basis to assume the Universe is teeming with life. Not to speak, with intelligent life.
"But there's lots of stuff out there!" is not an argument.
Say, there's 10 to the power of 30 habitable planets in the Universe. If the chance for intelligent life to appear is 10 to the power of minus 30 -- then it's just us, nothing else in the entire Universe.
We can currently estimate the number of planets pretty well but our ability to estimate the probability of intelligent life is still laughably inadequate. Our biggest problem at this stage is, we're too dumb to realize how dumb we are.
Hence, talking like we actually know anything and throwing out grandiose mythological theories like _Fermi paradox._
Fermi paradox is a joke when you know some about our lack of tech for exoplanets and the small amount we have looked at… not even in detail mind you. Also, it’s an absolute joke when you look into the UFO phenomenon, objectively and extensively. It’s honestly like someone trying to discuss and explain a topic in which they have never even looked into.
The "destroy" option in reality is "try to destroy" and has a branch where it fails and the next step us counterattack with infinite cost. I think that's where this logic fails.
And also the branch where other civilizations see the destruction attempt,know where that attacker is,how strong they are and that they're violent. No better way to unite the galaxy against you.
You don’t need to unite the galaxy. You only need to provoke ONE bystander observing civilization that is older and more powerful than you that thinks civilizations exterminating other civilizations should be discouraged and you are hosed.
@@garethdean6382 That's assuming its possible to know where the attack came from. If a relativistic kill vehicle can alter its trajectory mid-flight then it can arrive at the target system from any arbitrary angle, and effectively be untraceable. It doesn't matter if 99% of the galaxy is peaceful, if there's one anti-social serial killer civilization out there it can potentially be a risk to everyone and there'd be no way of knowing who or where they were just from witnessing the kill strikes alone.
@@ApisIniustus Altering its trajectory would give off energy which any civilization capable of such an attack could detect. Even in the book series itself the Trisolaron fleet has to take special precautions when altering its trajectory for this very reason. Even if the victim civilization never noticed the change in trajectory it would take only one other civilization noticing it to result in the initial attacking civilization's destruction.
@@ApisIniustus It is almost impossible to alter relativistic trajectories very much. The higher the speed, the higher the energy just to change the angle by a micro degree. I guess you know that intutively by train tracks. The faster a train can/should go, the more straigthend tracks have to be, otherwise the train will never reach his goal. And that is only with speeds below 1000 miles per hour and not even close to relativistic.
This was the reason why we were churning out superhero movies for the past decade. The hope is that any aliens who receive our broadcasts will be duly warned of how often we get invaded and how it always ends for them.
I remember a Fantastic 4 cartoon that had a similar resolution.
Lmao
Might be wishful thinking; but maybe someone out there will think it’s “historical documentation” rather than fiction.
Thermians: “yooouuu are our last hope!” 😆
Of course in reality, we don’t broadcast as much on carrier frequencies as we used to. Most of it goes via cable (internet) and satellite microwaves. Maybe that’s why we switched?
Reminds me of GalaxyQuest but that movie is the opposite
lmao it ain't about invasion. Civilizations could potentially destroy each other from lightyears away with relatively small but insanely fast projectiles that could destroy planets or stars.
Another refutation of Dark Forest hypothesis I can think of is this: among many existing space civs, there should be some civs that would create some kind of automated "grave beacon", that would be activated in case the civ is dead. It would start broadcasting to the whole universe the "letter from the grave" message: "If you are reading this letter, it means I'm dead. I was a cool civ, and now I'm dead, thank you for nothing. It is one of you who shot me down, isn't it? Have fun with the heatdeath, jerks".
Since we don't observe such grave beacons out there, it means that: 1) either Dark Forest is correct AND killings of civs are very rare, or 2) Dark Forest is incorrect, and Fermi Paradox must be explained in some other way.
“Gave beacon” idea is very neat and interesting, the hostile civ might have some contingency plan to consider the possibility of ending death beacon first before the enemy’s death, cause the death beacon essentially not only broadcasting the death of the civ, it also broadcasting the perpetrator’s last location, which might leads to another civ to seek and destroy.
Maybe we are simply incapable of detecting such a message.
Just FYI. It’s “refutation.” “Refutal” isn’t a word. Carry on.
@@keirfarnum6811refutal, noun: the action of proving a statement or theory to be wrong or false.
Maybe they do exist and we just haven’t detected them yet. Or maybe they use an advanced method of communication that we haven’t figured out yet.
One of the biggest flaw about the destroy option is that if a new player C has chosen the option "silence" they saw B destroy A ... and then migth chose to destroy B by retaliation or fears.
Unless B did it silently - think of it like sniper fire. You just see A blow up, you dont get to know where it came from.
Or if B did it in such a way that you cannot discern where they came from only that A was destroyed by an unknown
So this is a mutually assured destruction but on a galactic scale then.
@@RealGenious One thing is certain - it is hard to miss the explosion of a planet (or drastic change in atmosphere).
Probably, with advanced tech, it is possible to determine where the beam came from, if the victim-planet is monitored constantly. The explosion would start from a certain point and expand outwards.
With our Earth's tech we observe some stars kind of in real-time with telescopes.
B detecting A means many others exist as well and are watching. Also being quiet is pointless since an advanced society will still be looking at atmospheres and for other signs like excess heat or dyson swarms.
Agreed, attacking is not free and likely to provoke C, D, etc to attack B. Making allies is a safer option.
The Dark Forest explanation for the Fermi Paradox was also a central plot point of the 1987 novel The Forge of God (and its sequel Anvil of Stars) by author Greg Bear. These are both great books that I highly recommend.
It is however not a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
@@MusikCassette Nothing really is. They're all just hypotheses. Fun to think about tho.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn true, but there is difference between a hypotheses and a hypotheses, that does not address the thing it is supposed to answer.
They're sci-fi not science.
@@MusikCassette How so?
Is it coincidence this video came out only a few days before "3 Body Problem" on Netflix, or am I starting to see numbers?
I mean, there's been videos on the Fermi paradox before, but damn, that's some timing!
Yeah, that's why you will see more on it. Remembrance of Earths Past series, specifically 3 body problem, channeled ...through Netflix "mainstreaming avenues" introduced a lot of previously unaware peeps to these terms and concepts. My man here is making sure to break it down scienceification style.
Ride the wave.. Of course they dropped this right before, knowing after the series people would be youtube searching videos which are related
He referenced it.
And the book/show brought the philosophy to the consciousness of the general public.
The dark forest "conclusion" seems astonishingly sensitive to the (unrealistic) assumptions of the model. Just like the prisoner's dilemma has at least a dozen more realistic variants where collaboration becomes aligned with individual payoffs (repeated interactions, trust and reputation, evolving systems, network effects of interacting with others), I imagine that with slight tweaks you would not a dark forest. Given the intensity of the consequences, it seems important to also explore those variants. I like that you explored the flaws in the reasoning. The misapplication of models to reality seems to underlie a lot of public distrust in science, so I hope we all get better at thinking about these things.
I think some our culture assumption lead to inaccurate directions. The difference between galactic civilization is likely greater than we think. It's like a flock of fish can never understand the social structure of an ant colony. The concept of trust and reputation might not exist or work entirely different in the mind of aliens.
Our concepts of moral, trust is created for our civilization to better survive, in another word, they are the servant of survival, not the other way around. Aliens might develop other concepts for same purpose, so they are most likely willing to do anything to maximize the probability to survive.
lmao i applaud your ability to work Alice and Bob into the Dark Forest Hypothesis, two of my favorite recurring characters in Physics
I bet their relativistic kill vehicle ammunition comes in the form of perfectly spherical cows :)
Alice and Bob are also quite popular in encryption.
MAD still applies, e.g. retaliation using a fleet of hidden Von Neumann probes similar to nuclear submarines today. Furthermore, any attacker would have to contend with civilizations unknown to them collaborating to destroy them in retaliation, so the "infinite cost" scenario is still in play should one attack another.
EDIT: I just thought of an example of the latter. If any of you played Spore, you probably remember that using the planet buster (a weapon that destroys an entire planet) causes all civilizations nearby to hate you and likely to attack you on sight, including those that used to be allied with you.
Precisely
Good thoughts. The game changes if you think about VN fleets
being used pre-emptively to ALL potential civilisations in the galaxy.
Everyone talks about MAD, which doesn’t apply due to distances involved. You underestimate even the sci-fi novel author, despite him not being a game theorist.
In his novels:
a. The cost of a star killing strike is laughably low for advanced civilizations.
b. As a result, these strikes are committed without detailed reconnaissance, just a precaution/routine.
c. The strikes do not originate from advanced civilizations’ home worlds, but from remote proxies, like stellar starships.
d. These relativistic strikes take out stars and star systems, not just planets.
e. Even more advanced civilizations constantly run traces on strikes, and close to 100%, they come up empty.
f. If there are blind zones in the targeted star system, even more severe weapons are deployed, I won’t spoil you.
g. Since the world A doesn’t know at which point its signal was received by world B, and the reply comes in form of star-killing strike, or worse, even if there is something left of the civilization A (which is usually not the case), it wouldn’t know who to retaliate against.
h. Creating a distributed civilization is almost impossible due to the distances and time scales involved, since any expedition/ship/colony that travels far enough and psychologically severs ties to the home world, becomes a different, alien civilization
@@CallOfCutie69If a third party was silently watching, then it'd be effectively impossible to stealthily destroy a civilization. A giant laser would be easily detectable, as would all the other methods. Hiding in space isn't really a thing unless current theories of science are wrong.
@@CallOfCutie69And there is no telescopes able to detect biosignatures? Becouse it is much easier to build such telescopes than "planet killer beans and missiles". Why wait for radio signals if you can detect what planets have life and kill then in the cianobacteria age? And have no regrets about killing intelligent lives! There is no logic behind the dark forest solution other than science fiction material. Space telescope and biosignatures detection is a reality already. Relativistic killer missiles are still very far away in real of fiction.
The fact that humans formed tribe, villages and civilization is like a good evidence the Dark Forest is an overly paranoid idea (partly true only). We can continue to shout as much as we want, even civilization level power level signals are barely higher than noise past a low amount of light years. We often forget how much signal weakens quickly, photons scatters, past a couple of light years. A civilization as advanced as us (or more) could be super active and we still would never know directly. That probably the more liekyl why we don’t hear anything. Distance in space and time. But it is a fun mind exercise.
People in general love to assume anthropocentric perspectives and putting them on everything we see or don’t see.
Not to mention, a civilization that was actually a threat would have a heat signature that would prevent them from hiding
Civilizations that take years or decades to communicate will not build trust as easily as humans can with each other. Humans are also hardwired to build social networks with other humans. I can't say if humans are hardwired to build relationships ships with an alien civilization lightyears away. Considering all the wars we fight I have my doubts.
Or it could be these advanced civilizations look at human civilization and our penchant for self-destruction and are like, "Why would we waste our time with those cavemen?" It's like if you knew about a part of the world where they practice cannibalism, would you want to be their friends and visit them to talk about new ideas? Wouldn't you be worried they'd want to turn you to dinner?
Why do we all speak English?
Refreshing to see that PBS Space Time can indulge in whimsy from time to time.
A simpler and much more reality-based explanation for the great silence is that civilizations are so far away from each other and that physics don't allow for meaningful interstellar communication/exchange of messages/exchange of 'cosmic bullets' over those distances.
Dead right - there's far too much sci-fi and not enough science from the vast majority of these comments. Even the whole Dark Forest conjecture has not one shred of science behind it. As Carl Sagan said improbable theory requires improbable evidence, and there's no evidence at all for the DFT. I prefer Christopher Hitchens - wild theories produced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 😊😊😊😊
@@richardcaves3601 absolutely if a theory like this ignores or doesn't consider too many of the issues it's not worth considering, and the dark Forest theory fails to acknowledge or deliberately ignores the issues of interstellar communication, the issues with the development of complex life, and the fact that the amount of planets within the search is not even a drop in the bucket (that's a colossal understatement).
Really the dark Forest theory just seems like one of those scary campfire stories which are meant to be scary but are laughably terrible.
@@richardcaves3601 Reality doesn't care if you dismiss it or not. Wild theories should neither be dismissed nor taken too seriously until there is reason to do so. Of course Hitchens would argue to dismiss things that aren't fully substantiated. He was an anti-theist, he even called himself one. Isn't not shocking that he said such a thing.
I agree though that there are lots of issues with the Dark Forest Theory and lots of holes in its logic.
Also, time is vast. The speed of light is slow.
They're also far away on a time continuum.
The radius inside which our incidental radio transmissions are detectable is far smaller than even purportedly scientifically literate people realize. When a signal goes below -194dB, it's indistinguishable from background noise. Our 100kw radio stations aren't reaching out 120 light years. They'll scarcely be detectable at Proxima Centauri
Which is what Von Neumann probes would be dispatched and tasked to deal with. They wouldn't even have to be broadcast like weed seeds on the wind, they'd be targeted at specific destinations.
I learned from the TBP books that generic TV and radio signals are not enough to be able to pinpoint or triangulate the signal's source. Yes, they might detect them, but they will never be able to pinpoint the source the galaxy is vast. You need to send a very sophisticated signal with specific galactic coordinates of your sun.
That's assuming that everybody else doesn't have any better detection technology than we do.
Put it this way if there is an planet with sentient aliens around Proxima Centairi with our level of technology exactly the same .... We couldn't detect them! Unless they had pointed there version of a large radio telescope directly at Earth and put a lot of power in it. That would be about the only beep we could detect... Well if we are listening at that frequence from that direction and that in itself is unlikely as well. When we search for alien signals for example with SETI we can only hear them if they use more power in their signals then we produce on Earth.
@PronatorTendon, exactly!
Also, if there were a similar advanced civilization or even intelligent life within a radius of 100 light years - that would mean that the galaxy is full to the brim with civilizations, probably billions. I deem that rather unlikely, astronomically so, considering the distances and time scales in question. It would be a very very very odd coincidence finding two similar advanced civilizations within a distance of even thousands of light years. Given the age of the galaxy or even the age of our solar system, the give or take hundred years of technological advancement that humankind has achieved, are merely a blink of an eye on the cosmic timescale. Any other civilization in the galaxy could have vanished billions of years ago or be millions or billions of years ahead of us. The strange universe of Star Trek, where most civilizations are nearly on the same level of technology is but a fairy tale.
One point against the dark forest that I quite like was pointed out by Isaac Arthur in his video on the dark forest. "There is no stealth in space". Even if the victim planet A does not get much chance to see the attack coming, planet C that was unknown to both A and B can watch the whole thing play out then lash out at planet B. Then planet D sees this and repeats the cycle. Not to mention, we're assuming that each subsequent faction is confident that it has even perceived the entirety of its victim. If civilization A had 2 planets but civilization B only noticed 1 planet and lashed out at it, then planet 2 of civ A has plenty of time to respond to civ B. Lashing out in a dark forest is only reasonable if A: you know there is no third party capable of watching you lash out, and B that the party you are lashing out against is in fact entirely destroyed by your attack.
And, finally, if kill-on-sight really is the name of the game then everyone everywhere is already screwed because our planets show obvious signs of a biosphere millions to billions of years before any technological civilization could possibly develop, thus any kill-on-sight aliens wouldn't bother to wait to see if ancient earth with it's obviously weird atmospheric composition developed specifically intelligent life and would just end the world the moment they noticed any form of life.
Indeed also if there would be one very scared civ capable of killing other stars.. wouldn't they just start to kill every star in the galaxy just to be sure? Unless they are afraight of being killed off once they start to..
Looked up how long we've had an oxygen atmosphere, it's been about 2.33 billion years.
@@0ctothorp oof, man it's bee nice run but the kill fleet of von veumon probes must already be on its way. That's enough time for our solar system to have orbited the galaxy many times, surely every advanced civilization with detection capabilities even a little better than the JWST has noticed us.
@@0ctothorphowever.. our solar system lies in quite angle to the galactic plane (about 60 degrees), and you can only see the atmosphere if you get a straight look.. which would limit us to the closer neighbors. Most expolanets we currently look at have a low angle.
Any civilization with technology to travel to other systems would be advanced enough to detect all details of nearby systems they are able to travel to. Traveling through space is way way more complex that just watching. No matter what we would do, if someone wanting us dead and having ability to do so, would already discover us, no matter how we try to hide.
Glad you finally touched on some of the ideas that shatter the dark forest hypo. Took you a minute to get there but you finally did. One thing that you didnt touch on that shatters this hypo is "what if we've already been visited by countless alien civilizations already", if we have and we're still here, doesnt that also shatter the idea that we're surrounded by a bunch of bloodthirsty alien civilizations that only exist to destroy each other🤔
The Dark Forest is an interesting hypothesis but in reality its something that best suited for those who are afraid of their own shadow and had our ancestors followed in their footsteps, we would still be a single cell life form swirling around in the primordial ooze.
This game theory is so over-simplified it ignores some really obvious problems with the "kill" option: such as, the target civilization having (and this seems quite likely) spread through their solar system. Possibly even to near-by systems. Even if you kill their origin world, you may just have identified your location and given the survivors a target to reply to. Thus leading to the infinite cost again. Since not replying at all would presumably have a lower chance of being noticed, attack may well have a higher potential cost.
This game theory model ONLY works as described if you can be ASSURED of a one-shot kill. Otherwise you are starting a war you very well may not be able to survive and at the very least are sacrificing any planet in your source system your opponent can identify.
Also this solution may be something that can be tested as there would possibly be visible evidence of planets being smited this way.
Yeah i wish people would explore more nuanced and well developed game theory models or go back to the drawing board all together
That's why you destroy the star instead of the planet. That will take out the energy supply of the entire solar system.
@@SpecialeW I think that is a many orders of magnitude more difficult feat to accomplish. :P
@@Fenthis that’s why the technology leap portion of the dark forest theory is important though because it might actually not be that difficult for a civilization only marginally more advanced than us
@@FenthisI think you have no idea what you're talking about. The scale of time that is being described in this scenario means that the two are nearly equivalent in terms of technological development.
You have missed an important scenario. Once two civilizations meet and don't destroy each other, they can ensure the destruction of any new entrant who chooses to shoot first. As the number of civilizations that are allied increases, the certainty of total loss for those choosing to shoot and possibility of gain for those choosing not to increase. This doesn't explain the silence, but it seems a good reason for doubting the dark forest as an explanation.
Also applies if species are multi-planetary, which is reasonable if you have those kinds of kill vehicles.
Agreed, and .....
Once a species becomes interstellar in scope, the risk of blowing up a loud planet increases for anyone that finds them. A bit like squashing a hornet to get swarmed by the hive. Once you have alliances and multi-system species, being trigger happy is less optimal.
Also a significantly advanced civilisation would be more capable of dealing with a less advanced civilisation even if the "primitives" shot first. So new players in the game should be even more cautious about being aggressive.
The crazy long interstellar communication lag times compared to civilization development times essentially suggest that all extraterrestrial civilization centers are really developing independently. So interstellar networks of cooperating civilizations seem to be unlikely.
@@dugldoo Based on our current understanding of the universe that would be the case.
@@mt4798 Wrong. Interstellar thinking doesn't work, because your hypothetical opponent can silently examine place from where the message is sent then check any places you are also contacting for additional targets. Say, self replicating robot in Oort cloud quietly monitoring Earth then, when confirmed your civilization is single planet only, building hundreds of kill vehicles to obliterate you and/or sending more replicating robots to systems in direct contact - good luck finding stealth vehicle in a region that big...
Hi @PBS Space Time - I think it'd be fun to see a Cosmic Map episode, starting from our Solar System to our place in the Milky Way, in relation to Andromeda and the Local Group, to the Virgo Supercluster up to the Laniakea Supercluster and where we are relative to the Great Attractor, the Boötes Void, and where Earth resides, relatively speaking, within the Observable Universe. Cheers
The premise "destroy easily" while also omitting an alliance is the problem. You throw out an RKKV or a death fleet (or whatever), and you don't succeed, you just made the survivors into the imperium of man. Even if the target planet is destroyed, if there are other colonies that are self sufficient and have enough knowledge to bootstrap, you've made eternal enemies.
This also assumes nobody sees you do this, which is also pretty unlikely.
Even with great delays, it's easy to imagine seeing someone setting up a Nicoll-Dyson beam or RKKVs, and easy to imagine alliances setting up, even if this is purely light speed communication and relativistic travel. What would motivate a space defense pact greater than a civilization blowing away its neighbors?
Our atmosphere broadcasts everything required for a destructive civilization to come and have a look - some weak radio signals aren't going to change anything.
I was going to say the same thing. Our solar system has been continuously broadcasting the existence of life here for billions of years, and technology (via CO2) for hundreds, at a strength vastly exceeding what Arecibo could do. Hiding is not an option.
Basically, the very few photons we have received from exoplanets are how we are currently guessing about habitable planets right now. If there's a civ that can travel between stars, we have to assume that they can detect our oxygen atmosphere much more easily than we are doing right now. The most powerful directional constant radio signals humanity broadcasted were from the Soviets early warning phased radar array of 50KW antennas. As we switch to satcomms and fiber, we are no longer as loud as we were for a few short decades. The only way aliens could detect our radio waves from us if we start broadcasting MW strength radios that we designed for that purpose.
oh they know. They also know they don't have to do anything for humanity to destroy itself, so why waste resources on a species that seems quite eager to do your job for you?
Why wait for radio signals? Just use your mega telescope to detect biosignatures and nuke before evolution gets near inteligence. In fact, we are already doing it with James Webb , and it is a really small and rudimentary telescope for someone that can launch relativistic missiles.
Can Earth be accurately pinpointed with random tv/radio signals? The dark forest book explained that a sophisticated signal needs to be sent for accurate triangulation.
"A" could be a "scout" of a larger consortium to "feal out" new contacts.
"B" could be advanced enough to understand that as one of many variable scenarios.
..and vice-versa.
Love the new outro! Much more reflecting on my feeling of the show, nice! Plus, again, very interesting video, thought provoking!
There are a few issues with this argument.
- It forgets about the potential benefits of cooperation
- It also doesn't factor in a potential, and likely counter-attack. If we are attacking, we are pretty much guaranteeing a counter-attack, so by attacking, we are likely destroying ourselves as well (MAD-doctrine). This negates all the benefits of first-attack presented here.
Also humanity is NOT a good example for an aggressive civilization who would attack first. We are doing the polar opposite. And we have a rich history of many civilizations who didn't behave such way.
There's always the option of becoming friends and working together to create interstellar travel 👍🏼
That's the conclusion of The Three Body Problem trilogy
Nah boring, people here needs only fcng drama everywhere with violence and sex. In reality it will be something on the middle, sometimes cooperation and sometimes conflicts(not extinction wars every fcng time)
That's both civilizations (or more than 2, which further decreases the odds) to always choose reply first. That only works in the strange scenario where the participants have Epicurean tendencies and us ourselves are not a good example of that. If you ate food today, comprised of the remnants of an animal with a nervous system there's your answer.
My preferred hypothesis is that "the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there is that none of it has tried to contact us." More generally, if intelligent life is actually really common, then there's nothing special about us and no reason to rush over here to talk to us. The neighborhood has plenty of peeps, and it is up to the newcomer to bake the brownies and go visit the neighbors. We don't know anything about the brownies yet, so... no neighborhood for us.
Also my favorite echothesis! ❤️
My neighbors could care less whether their music is too loud or whether I see them coming and going, so this explains why they're not talking to us - not why we can't see them.
It's a clever quip but it fails a basic examination of the evidence we do have about how intelligent life behaves: us. Thousands of years of human history suggests that intelligent life, potentially at great risk to itself, will seek to communicate and make contact. - It's the same idea that nobody comes to talk to us because we're like ants. But..... there are many entomologists very interested in observing and learning how ants communicate.
@@notmyproblem88 but examining how humans behave when crossing an ocean is meaningless compared to the vast-y deepness of space. Presuming the laws of physics are correct, it would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars to send one person to go meet the neighbors and that person would be saying permanent goodbyes to everyone they know. It's not so simple as "Columbus crossed the ocean blue therefore Xe'na'tak crossed the space black." It's just not the same. To agree to such insane expense because some ants made a neat pattern of dirt is illogical. We'd have to first demonstrate that the expense is reasonable.
@@dlorien7306 We can't? We have barely even looked. The neighbor in this case is like if they're playing their music loud on the moon. Like, there isn't even air to carry the sound to us. We'd have to send a probe up there to even be able to hope to hear them. JWST might see some evidence of them but it just barely started its observations. Saying that this is a paradox is like wondering where the fish are but so far you've only looked in the middle of the Sahara desert.
It's a little late to hide and stay quiet. Aliens have been listening to radio broadcasts of the Lone Ranger and the Shadow for decades.
They also would've had billions of years to just analyze Earth's atmosphere with mass spectrometry to identify it as a candidate for life forms. Advanced civilizations will know exactly where to look for rival civilizations and use advanced astronomical observations to detect industrial chemicals in the atmospheres of other technological worlds.
There's no hiding in the dark forest when the ones you're hiding from have night vision.
It's nice to see that you guys are opening up your thinking a bit more. Keep going.
✨THANK YOU for changing the outro music!!!!! ✨ seriously- thank you!!!!
Yes my eternal gratitude
Was there something wrong with it? I never paid that much attention (I usually just let it play out for the algorithm while concentrating on something else, lol)
what was the issue with the old one?
@@disruptive_innovatorIt was startlingly loud for many viewers. Never bothered me personally.
@@jasonGamesMaster IMO, it was pretty loud and brash compared to Matt’s calm voice throughout the entire episode. I have no shame in admitting I listen to science shows/podcats to fall asleep. The small change means I can add this back to my sleep space playlist on repeat . 😇
Another flaw could be that sure, B destroyes planet A, but civilization A has 100 colonies and is a galactic empire.
Nonsense.😁
A emitted the low-tech signal to lure out the vermin?
in a galaxy far far away 😱😱
@@blokin5039 makes perfect sense really. Especially if Civilization B were hundreds or thousands of lightyears away. Seeing how far we have come since radio, it would be unwise to assume another civilization may not be extensively developed by the time any missile reach them.
If destroy is an option, protect is another - one with near infinite payout.
IMPOSSIBLE. A galactic empire CANNOT exist. The U.S. and England are only separated by a four thousand miles yet cannot maintain a SINGULAR identity. How would you coordinate the other side of the Milky Way when it takes 100,000 years to send/receive? You wouldn't even be the same species at that point. Faster than light anything BREAKS causality. Stop letting sci-fi rot our brains.
Been watching this channel for years, and I was about to put in my very first order: for the solar eclipse glasses...but they are already sold out. Guess that's what I get for waiting a couple days to watch the newest episode!
Me too, waited, sold out, and first order. Lesson learned.
I really really miss how Matt used to reply to comments from the preciouis episode at the end of each video. I'm sure you had/have good reasons for stopping it, but I would like to petition for PBS Space Time to resume these post-video talks. Thanks in advance if you do resume, and I appreciate you considering my request even if you decline. I enjoyed this episode once again. I don't believe PBS Space Time has released a single video (and I have watched literally every video), that I have disliked. Thanks again for the great content.
Agreed, I'd love to ask if he's heard of David Grusch or any of the UAP Disclosure efforts of the past 9 months?
The biggest flaw I see in the dark forest hypothesis is that it assumes that making contact with another civilization automatically reveals the location of the other. An alien civilization merely needs to keep their home world concealed while they send an ambassador. So long as the ambassador's path cannot be traced backwards, then there is an excellent chance to feel out the other's interests with violence.
Considering we humans only have one planet... our home world... then it's extremely foolish we try making contact. The same as a new species of fox announcing its location in the African jungles.... anything peaceful will avoid the new sound and the most fierce and dangerous will be the first to explore the new sound.
The Cole protocol, essentially.
here you are lookin for tricks out of scenario you dont like. while putting yourself into a much worse scenario
Ok, so where is the hole in my logic?
@@RILRIL1 i added a comment with explanation. in short. mathematically its better to shoot first. specially if you both have some survivability. taking out someone's home planet out of the game is a big win if you are already spreading like crazy. all this is in context that we kind of already falling behind in this game as dum-dums we are
The last argument was to the point:
the simplistic game theory assumption is not compatible with the evolutionary process that implies certain risk taking, aka 'curiosity'.
I would disagree to this. I think having curiosity can have major advantages evolutionarily speaking as humanity have taken many risks but we are biologically very successful. If we made contact with an alien civilization, we could potentially gain more from cooperating with them (due to exchange of technology and sharing of resources) then immediately nuking each other to existence. Veritasium did a video on how game theory applies to politics and the main takeway from the video is that cooperation is usually the best strategy to maximize success of two opposing parties (as long as your not am easy pushover).
Risk-taking makes less sense for an advanced civilization of immortals who no longer suffer the problem of scarce resources.
@@brothermine2292 but what about their kids or uplifts or A.I's or cyborgs or those that aren't immortal?
Surely if you were armed and wandering around a forest, you'd want to know if someone you observed was hostile before attempting to destroy them; unless you are a shoot first, think later type. Easier to do at the kind of distance described here, you see the bullet coming (hopefully) and you have many years to get out of the way if you are 'shot at', assuming they can also aim accurately at a target that far away.
>jaydrianpieters7718 : A technologically advanced civilization is likely to have eliminated mortality and the diseases of old age.
Why do you think they would deny immortality to their "kids, uplifts, AIs, and cyborgs?"
I think the largest error when it comes to talking about extraterrestrial lifeforms is people instantly assume whatever is out there is a standing walking and oxygen breathing mammal. They could be a smoke fog, flying, invisible, massive like larger than dinosaurs, or very small even microscopic but also sentient at the same time. Imagine other life forms came here when dinosaurs roamed our planet.. They would have turned around so quickly and sayd F that. Imagine we also discovered a planet that had dinosaur like creatures roaming it. We'd be terrified beyond the typical "we are not alone"
Veritasium recently made a video about the best strategies in infinite Prisoner's Dilemma and it makes me hopeful. The strategy that won the most was essentially being nice and forgiving, but not being a pushover.
This can apply universally, even and especially to geopolitics. The threat of a nuclear war makes countries not start one. Nukes make countries not be pushovers. It's a little more complicated because of allies without nukes and the intricacies of globalisation, but that is the basic premise.
This logic may even apply to aliens. How could we be certain that if we decide to destroy a civilization that they couldn't retaliate, especially over decades of fog of war? What if the weapon never hit or was deflected? If we and the aliens follow the same universal logic, assuming they have discovered the same strategy before sending planet wipers, the threat of annihilation should make everyone mutually agree to not do that. Perhaps curiosity will get us to co-operate too.
This paradox doesn’t take into account that civilizations have to learn to be quiet. At any point in time there should be signals of civilizations that are yet to be destroyed, or see signals of destruction. The act of destroying also gives off a signal.
That’s part of the theory. All it takes is for one civilization to be hostile and destroy others, for the system to eventually devolve into kill on sight, because eventually other civilizations will observe destroy-on-sight dynamics happen, and they will be incentivized to in turn not take chances and also destroy on sight
@@Bubble998Grungeyes but it doesn’t explain why the universe is silent. Civilizations should be coming into existence all the time.
@@wb3904The whole dark forest is built on couple axioms. None of which you can prove with current understanding of universe.
No because we can assume that advanced civilisations would understand game theory and think of this too.
@@Bubble998GrungeThat's not happening though. That's the point.
I'm a firm believer of Carl Sagan's philosophy, that the amount of collaboration needed to become space faring will change us, because it will have to. We will have to become less violent, less prone to our base impulses, more likely to see our similarities instead of our differences. Humans as we are will never achieve this, but whatever we will have to become will, and they will possess a Humanity far beyond our own.
its impossible to achieve without a tech similar to the mental seal
Im rooting for post-humanity. If anyone is reading this in the far future, know that im prouder than i could imagine during my brief human lifetime
@@MrPangahasI don’t know about that. The mental seal removes a part of free will and gets rid of free thought which may be necessary for space travel. Free thought helps us create certain things and drives curiosity and stuff like that
I mean....The United Federation of Planets/Starfleet vs the Terran Empire.....in theory it could go either way, but I am hoping for the former vs the latter.
This video was honestly the best summation of the dark forest hypothesis that I've found on youtube. But I really wish they talked about the flaw in the game theory reasoning. There is no possible way to wipe out a civilization (and especially not a multiplanetary civilization) without risking that an even more advanced civilization that is choosing to stay hidden doesn't see what you did and destroy your civilization in turn due to its violent tendencies. Hiding and working towards becoming multiplanetary and multistellar is the only rational path to take in the dark forest scenario
The culture assumption is wrong on the scale of space. The distance between stars are in hundreds - thousands of light years. Any form of communication would take many many generations. It is impossible to have a remote colony.
this is an interesting game. from what i can tell, it roughly obeys these rules:
1. everyone in the universe is playing the game
2. thinking about the game means realizing you actually already lost the game
3. when you lose the game, nearby players are notified of your loss
now where have i seen rules like these before...
The problem with Dark Forest hypothesis is the fact that a civilization can't hide or better put by the time they reach the stage where they can ask themselves this question is already billions of years to late.
With our level of technology we can detect signs of life on a planet atmosphere so any advance civilization will do it way easier and with greater accuracy. So if you know there is like on a planet you know there will be intelligent life there at some point so you have the moral free option to sterilize that planet before it gets intelligent life.
This makes the Dark Forest hypothesis paradoxical or in the best case scenario it validates the first on the galactic stage hypothesis
Yeah, I think it is impossible for there to truly be a Dark Forest because if civilizations are advanced enough to be able to destroy another one that is light years away, they will already have the capability to detect that civilization at that distance exactly for the reasons you laid out. The only thing that could prevent that is if the other life is unrecognizable to the species that is looking for it.
@@Tsudico if a civilization is advanced enough to be able to destroy another one that is light years away yea they will be visible to anyone around them but at the same time there won't be anyone around them because they have the tech to destroy/colonize them.
There is a possibility where 2 neighboring civilizations can exist close to each other (for a limited time) if they emerge at the same time. But the moment both detect each other the arms race begins
@@viermidebutura I think though that being able to discover nearby civilizations is likely a prior capability than being able to destroy any nearby civilization. Like you indicated, we have already made first steps toward detecting signs of life through another planet's atmosphere, yet we have no clue how to harness the energy requirements in order to destroy such a planet if we find one. The dark forest can only exist if a civilization has the capability of destroying another civilization prior to, or along side, their ability to detect another civilization or even pre-technological life, otherwise the forest wouldn't actually be dark.
Similarly, the closer two neighboring civilizations exist to each other, the easier it would be to discover each other unless each species is so unlike the other that their technology doesn't match. Life that is so different might not seem like a threat for a species if they wouldn't use the same environments for growth and they might end up forming mutually beneficial relationships if they are different enough. For example, if life exists within the subsurface oceans of Enceladus we may not discover it until we send actual probes beneath the ice since they might have no need of using electromagnetic waves for long range communication (instead sticking to the distance sound can travel through water).
You wouldn't have two neighboring civilizations.
You would have one spacefaring civilization and one pre-historic planet. The former would easily be able to detect the latter as a "potential world with life", further analyze it, and then confirm the life.
According to the game theory in this video, the second civilization would be destroyed before it ever existed. You don't need civilization, let alone radio waves, to be detected by a highly advanced civilization.
The assumption of instant kill is pretty much 100% wrong.
Attacker has no ability to confirm total destruction of enemy, and so there always exists a possibility of retaliation which completely changes the outcome of the game.
Unless you destroy the star (in that star system) or the planet.
Everyone talks about MAD, which doesn’t apply due to distances involved. You underestimate even the sci-fi novel author, despite him not being a game theorist.
In his novels:
a. The cost of a star killing strike is laughably low for advanced civilizations.
b. As a result, these strikes are committed without detailed reconnaissance, just a precaution/routine.
c. The strikes do not originate from advanced civilizations’ home worlds, but from remote proxies, like stellar starships.
d. These relativistic strikes take out stars and star systems, not just planets.
e. Even more advanced civilizations constantly run traces on strikes, and close to 100%, they come up empty.
f. If there are blind zones in the targeted star system, even more severe weapons are deployed, I won’t spoil you.
g. Since the world A doesn’t know at which point its signal was received by world B, and the reply comes in form of star-killing strike, or worse, even if there is something left of the civilization (which is usually not the case), it doesn’t know who to retaliate against.
h. Creating a distributed civilization is almost impossible due to the distances and time scales involved, since any expedition/ship/colony that travels far enough and psychologically severs ties to the home world, becomes a different, alien civilization
@@CallOfCutie69In the novel there are advanced civilizations everywhere... which are the ones who annihilate the civilizations A and B. The whole setting is interesting take on fermi paradox, but it's just a fiction.
@@dionysusbacchus4321
No! Attacker has no idea if the victim is concentrated within a single solar system. You can attack one world and get owned by dozen others at once.
@@dionysusbacchus4321If you're trying to destroy someone far away, they could have already spread to other solar systems.
Also it's kinda hard to build a weapon that destroys a star while staying completely hidden.
Fascinating, as always :)
When I see how different and unmerciful we can be towards one another within our own species, I’m not sure I want to see how it would turn out between two different species, from two different worlds
Why wait for a signal? You could send the Relativistic Kill Vehicle to any nearby habitable planet, just to be sure.
That in of itself would be an act of aggression. 😂
That would be a terrible strategy. The chances to hit anyone are virtually zero, while you create a signal that is easily visible across the galaxy - the weird area where planets get destroyed for no reason. This signal is orders of magnitude more powerful than the attacker mere existence, and, once investigated and identified, clearly shows everybody else who they're dealing with - and the obvious response.
To keep in the spirit of the dark forest metaphor - this approach would be like shouting death threats while shooting at shadows.
"If you release the hundred suns ray we drop the Higgs boson into equilibrium"
I like the way you think
@@nilo70Thx xD
Yea .....
Vacuum decay lets gooo
This made me chuckle. Thanks! 😂
The thing about the Dark Forest hypothesis is that it doesn’t really work on a galactic scale. If someone is loud enough that everyone else is aware of you, and suddenly gets destroyed, whoever does the destruction would then also be loud enough that other people in the universe would want to destroy them so that the destroyers don’t get an advantage in getting more resources.
Edit: our innate human distrust towards our own species will be the downfall of our species
I would also add an option branch from B ignoring to send a fleet out, scout, see what’s going on, and have the chance of contact and direct confirmation. Kinda like Teddy, speak softly and carry a big stick.
“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” - Arthur C. Clarke
Nice quip, but what's even remotely terrifying about Earth being the only place with life in the universe? It seems a low probability, but it's not terrifying.
@@homewall744 Im not sure you truely understand what that would mean.
@@homewall744 Don't worry, maturity comes with time.
@@homewall744give it 10 or 20 years more for your brain to continue to develop. Eventually it will make alot of sense.
I am so glad he brought up game theory, because depending on likelihood of scenarios, it doesn't have to be terrifying to us if we become sufficiently advanced. As we are now, yea no bueno.
I guess a big difference too is if you are still only on one planet, or if you have managed to spread out. Losing a curious colony world is way different than losing your one and only home.
Another potential problem with this theory is that it assumes that it os possible to unleash a civilization-destroying attack without giving away your position to a hidden third party.
When one hunter attacks another in the forest, they are then open to a surprise attack from the lion that was hiding in the bushes the whole time.
If I'm going to watch any video on the subject, it's got to be the one by Space Time!
This is assuming everyone on the planet acts as a single hive mind.
Just mix in a few percent of really curious and optimistic folks and you will get noisy neighbours everywhere.
The game theory approach also assumes perfectly rational actors. And we all know just how rational humans are most of the time, lol.
This is why I think the complete silence could only be explained by a single advanced nihilistic force ensuring life does not get to emerge anywhere. Otherwise we would notice something.
Or it is just that physics are a real limitation that cannot be overcome by any means, causing life in the universe basically not give 2 fks about whatever is going on on other stars.
Or we are at the worst possible galaxy to see alien life. For better or worse.
The entire Dark Forest theory falls into people not understanding the Survivability Onion: Don't be there, Don't be detected, Don't be acquired, Don't engaged, Don't be hit, Don't be penetrated, Don't be killed. The forest only covers only two layers: Don't be detected and Don't be engaged.
There's little to be done about being there, short of upping stakes and becoming a nomadic starfaring race. Not an easy existence.
Don't be acquired can be dealt with through control of emissions leaks and using proxy colonies/stations to communicate. Keep the important locations secret!
Don't be hit is where defences enter the picture. What if your target is paranoid and built a vast anti-space battery specifically to defend against bombardment? Even near the speed of light, distances so vast mean the light of your shot only needs a few minutes of lead on the shot itself for said defence battery's computers to ID it and return (defensive) fire. Now the enemy gets to shoot back, assuming they have a gun. Let's hope you invested in your own defences...
Don't be penetrated isn't particularly relevant short of having some sort of planetary shielding, which may or may not be doable.
Don't be killed comes down to bunkers, damage control in the form of atmospheric scrubbers and terraforming tech, etc. Also simply having habitats and other hidden colonies from which to rebuild fall here.
In other words, it's almost certainly not going to be 'easy' to destroy a civilisation who are also playing the 'game', much less do so with any sort of solid payoff unless you want to follow up with an invasion force, assuming you can cross the distance. Said invaders will likely be horribly outdated tech-wise upon arrival and ludicrously outnumbered. Any landing sites are automatically encircled and easily crushed by competent defenders, and they'll probably expect you, considering you just bombed them... Congratulations, you are now Failbaddon the Harmless invading Cadia for the umpteenth time.
Correct. Don't be acquired & hit can be addressed by putting a distance between the target system and the potential shooter. For example by taking control of the thick sphere around the target system. Then the system may be out of the detection / accurate attack range.
*Armless
As much as I love the series, both the terrans and trisolarans make so many weird strategic and tactical mistakes that I was kind of rooting for both of them to get glassed.
You are 100% correct about the onion; thank you for explaining it so succinctly.
The real problem with the dark forest theory is disregarding the evidence of ufos here on Earth, and how in general we don't have equipment to detect alien life years away.
@@saldownikbetter yet, lasers aren't just weapons, but can mess with detection and targeting systems. Knowing how to detect exo planets matters, all you have to do to interfere with the transit method of planetary detection is to fill in the dip in brightness caused by the planet eclipsing it's star. Or change the apparent absorption lines of it's atmosphere to make it look uninhabitable. The latter won't interfere with targeting systems, but might avoid a conflict entirely even if you initiate communication, as they don't know who to shoot at. This might not be your home system, you might have a hidden planet in the system, or your planet might disappear as soon as they think you are showing hostility. There are much more strategies than just "shoot, talk, don't talk (and probably get spotted anyway because you leak biological and technological signatures)".
Very good video, very thorough if not concise
Could you please make a video explaining the equations of GR and what they do? Amazing channel, by the way!
Another mistake in the dark forest hypothesis is that you can triangulate the aggressor when they destroy more than one other civilization by calculating the delta of time and direction you receive the signal and see the explosion. So, attacking others also signal your presence and position, in the long run.
That assumes (a) you were looking and (b) you can see the explosion. And there are plenty of other ways to destroy all life on a planet than don't involve blowing it to smithereens.
A civ capable of sending RKVs would not be so stupid as to send them from their sole home star system. You need to think about it with a security mindset, give them the benefit of assuming they are smart.
Except they would obviously be aware of that themselves and a) not launch their strikes from their own hiding spot and b) not give away their precise location by always striking immediately when a signal reaches them. As an observer you also can't possibly know what specific signal was detected when, unless you precisely know their technological abilities and the nature of all signals in that direction (which you would only be able to know if you were close to the receiver yourself). Additionally it requires you to actually have been around listening for more than one strike.
@@JohnDoe-jp4emStill.. you might start a "who dun it" detective game in the galaxy with you as target, and who knows what detection abilities of "fingerprints" they have (exhaust and so on)
with the mind boggling distance of space plus the time travel between worlds and the likely rarity of technological civilizations i hardly see how this would ever be a problem
The other problems with Game Theory is that when John Nash attempted to conduct it via "F*** You Buddy" at the Rand Corporation... The Secretaries did not play the optimal strategy, in accordance with his condition: One told the other where the "Diamond" was, and they received the "Cash" in exchange because neither of them lied. They trusted each other.
The second problem was that John Nash concieved of Game Theory, during the cold war, through a mental disorder that induced intense paranoia on his reasoning. A fact which, after he received treatment, he recognized before renouncing his past work. Human beings do not entirely operate like he had envisioned while imagining that everyone who wore a red tie was out to destroy him.
I feel I should argue that we shouldn't be so quick to accept Game Theory as absolute and incontrivertable, either.
You should make a video about the Planetarium Hypothesis. I find that one fascinating!
It also assumes a two player game. Otherwise killing will get you hunted down if
- other players notice(d) your victim and pay attention (you cannot intercept any transmission until they die)
- your attack is detectable (by your victim before it hits or by other players)
- your victim has a chance to cry out (all it takes is some automated machine in space a century in the future).
This gets worse if
- your victim is already in contact with others
- your attack is tracible
- your victim is (or grows) bigger than expected and has something left to retaliate
- other players already know about you
This shifts the winning strategy to silence, expansion and careful joining of preexisting alliances, because bigger size increases your survival chance and the threat to shoot back at aggressors.
If someone can be loud enough, the chance of silencing them early might also be outweighed by the risk of outing yourself to other listeners. Which might start a chain reaction.
The game also changes entirely if there is an option to gain enough technology to parry more primitive attacks, both because of alliance benefits and opportunity costs.
Veritasium did a video on game theory on how that applies to politics. He explained that being cooperative with each other (but not to a point where you can easily be taken advantage of) is usually the best strategy to maximize gain for both parties. If aliens understood this then I think it's reasonable to assume that humanities first contact will be friendly.
it is unreasonable however to think they could gain anything from us... more likely they would have something to gain by manipulating us or by taking our planet and resources
The prisoners' dilemma that Veritasium reported on does not contain the option of opponent's annihilation so it is not applicable here
@stana1278 which video are u referring to? Vertasiun stated in his game theory video that the game could be applied to the cold war. America and Russia could have cooperated or they could wither make more nukes and potentially annihilate each other the circumstances are similar to the dark forest paradox
@@Player-pj9kt Its a little different, as that was between the same species that share the same only home planet, wouldn't really compare to a potential advisory that you have little to nothing in common with other than being alive.
Hypothetical aliens could most likely strike now without any type of repercussions, where if they wait we could (or another alien civ) could become powerful enough to strike back. Far more lopsided than the cold war, and without the human ethics of when only the US had atomic weapons.
This only applies if both parties are equal, which humans generally are. A human and an ant, however, isn't equal. That said, I think Dark Forest is wrong, and grabby aliens are more likely. Thus, we are first, because otherwise we wouldn't be here, as a grabby alien would have supplanted us well before we existed.
Keep up the good work!
The Forest isn't dark. We are already conducting exoplanet surveys and actively searching for life, and our ability to do so is rapidly improving. To a sufficiently advanced civilization, the Forest is well lit. How long before we survey every planet in 100 light years? In 1000? In 10,000? Probably not all that long on a galactic time scale.
We can only see other hunters until they figure out how to look like trees
"If I destroy you, what business is it of yours?"
I'll never forget reading that line for the first time. I think that's the ultimate solution. If you are way more technologically advanced than others, why would you care if you destroy them? They are bugs!
😮💨 Leave it to humans to think like that.
The phrase "concrete game theory" is as sound a statement as "solid water".
Sincerely,
A game theorist
It is as concrete as the axioms are. Do they 100% reflect the real world? I would say never, especially when you can't even prove them.
Ice, though.
so called ice, eh?
You mean ice?
Chilling.
One thing that you missed and some comments here is that it takes only a few civilisations to think this way to force all to play this game. And one could shoot from different places to mask origin, therefore not suffering any consequences. It's an interesting idea and one that can't be easily ignored
We should definitely try and make contact, any other civilisations out there are probably just as frustrated as we are with the immense size of the spaces between everything and wander just as much as us if there's any other life anywhere.
They'd be relieved to hear from us.
If Aliens eat and digest, they probably have "Folded Circle Snack" therefore we need to contact them so we can try their version.
credit to this years Vihart piday video.
Unless they're something like intelligent dung beetles, I wouldn't want to try anything from them.
folded circle snack is infinite benefit
@@Photon001 "unless they eat dung, I wouldn't want to try their food" absolutely insane take
I'm more of a "layered square meal" kinda guy, so would enquire about this before considering folded square snack
@@gastonmarian7261cringe comment
I think the biggest problem with the dark forest hypothesis is that hiding from an advanced civilization that was looking would be impractical. Searching for and noticing planets capable of life is a trivial task if you consider technology advancing exponentially as the video does. There is no need to wait for signals.
Looking for, and finding planets that could support life would be a moot point if such planets are everywhere - which they likely are. The problem is that there are too many of them. It would be different if it were one planet for every 30-40 stars surveyed, but we're starting to find them everywhere, likely 1 or more per star searched. If an alien civilization was doing a survey of our solar system from dozens or hundreds of light years away, they'd see 3 planets potentially capable of supporting life (Venus, Earth and Mars all exist within the sun's Goldilocks zone)... and that's just 1 star. In the book the term "dark forest" was coined, planets hide by reducing the speed of light in their system. This creates a "black domain" of which nothing can leave. It's kind of like a black hole without the singularity and crazy gravity/tidal forces.
That's why science-fiction generally isn't science fact
@Shmuel420 But in another viewpoint, science fiction, is science that we haven't understand or comprehend yet.
@@tufflucal4037 I mean, not exactly. It very much depends on the amount of scientific accuracy that the author chooses to use, and how much he sticks to that. When you get too theoretical and speculative (especially when you combine that with an incomplete understanding of the physics) then you end up with ridiculously far-fetched stories. Or magic. Basically these authors are not oracles. They not see the future. And the stuff in their books is under no obligation to be possible
@Shmuel420 My guy litterally, anything can be possible when we put our minds to it. We are Only limited to what you can comprehend. We think outside the box when we push toward things that we are unfamiliar with, antigravity, time travel, or even what's beyond death.
But you won't get there by being just skeptical of everything. Nothing can achieve continuity progression without having curiosity, ambition or determination, and imagination. After all, imagination is the source of manifesting ideas.
✌️ 👽
The Fermi Paradox has a limitation in assuming extraterrestrials rely on radio waves. Civilizations capable of interstellar travel might have developed faster-than-light communication methods or use entirely different channels, beyond our current ability to detect.
Great video as always! So there are no more question answers at the ends of episodes anymore?
Everyone who read "The Evolution of Cooperation" knows that the underlying premnises of game theory that lead to the dark forest hypothesis don't hold up to an actual non-zero-sum "game" being played between competitive factions, at least not for humans.
That assumes you have open communication and some form of trust/mutual basis. The "at least for humans" part is important, since people are afraid of non-humans and might not even have a basis to trust anyones word.
Also, as we see multiple times in the books, a civilization built on defiance and paranoia are doomed to implode upon itself. The only way for a society to expand is to fix its inner tensions, by developing empathy. That empathy is why we haven't killed ourselves every time we have met a stranger, or that we had to share a restraint resource (just some time).
As the Sufi mystic Rumi said, everything is love. Corporation always wins out otherwise there would be nothing, even atoms love each other enough to come together.
Game theory is shockingly reliant on the goodness of humanity.
This is fundamentally a false comparison. This compares two factions with generally the same abilities, weaknesses and motivations, to two civilizations of which one is possibly hundreds or thousands of years more advanced technologically.
It makes strategic sense to not punch people in the face when you know they can punch you back, or make it seem like you are plotting to punch them. It is a different story if one person is a naked ape with a stick and you are sitting in a modern tank.
That last bit sounds like the sort of talk that gets civilizations extinguished...
The perfect example is in 3 body problem when the receiver from the Santi responded to the message saying "don't respond back".. They even knew it would cause elimination.
I've always thought that
a) The idea you can destroy the other civilization is a stupidly bold assumption for such a cautiously framed theory - can you really be certain the other civilization isn't advanced enough or sprawling enough that they're incapable of retaliating?
b) Surely there would be instances of civilizations failing to play by the game theory, attempting to make contact and potentially being destroyed, but surely that would only stop new broadcasts, not existing ones that were traveling across space.
c) It assumes that sitting on your rock and keeping quiet doesn't lead to the infinite cost of destruction. We're doing a good enough job ruining our planet that it feels hard to imagine some life out there wouldn't be desperate enough to be broadcasting in desperation.
There are a few more assumptions and complications that haven't been mentioned and could potentially change everything:
1. This scenario assumes that there are no advanced civilizations in the picture; that A and B are both acting totally in isolation. However, B has no way of knowing if A has an alliance with a civilization C that B has failed to detect. If this is the case, then choosing to destroy A has the potential to result in the destruction of B as well by prompting retaliation from C.
2. Setting aside the possibility of an ally C, B can never be sure that A is entirely bound to their home planet and doesn't have any self-sustaining bases/colonies elsewhere capable of retaliation if B attacks.
3. Even if A and B have no allies, if there are any other civilizations nearby, then sooner or later, the unnatural destruction of a planet would alert those other civilizations not only to the potential presence of B, but also that B is hostile and must not be allowed an opportunity to strike first. By choosing to destroy A, B would inherently risk drawing attention to itself and ensuring its own destruction.
4. The benefits of cooperation must also be considered. A civilization that's advanced enough to look beyond its home planet should also be advanced enough to recognize the valuable growth and knowledge that can be gained by working together, as well as the potential mutual security benefit of forming an alliance. Human civilization would never have gone anywhere if we hadn't learned to trust and coordinate with each other on an ever-increasing scale.
Taking all of that into consideration, none of the three options guarantee a neutral or finite cost, while the option of giving the benefit of the doubt and opening communication -- either B immediately or A if/when they discover B after B ignores -- is the only one with the potential for a significant gain.
Lol just asked the same question and missed your question
Yeah, I'm surprised I didn't see more people bringing up 4.
Game theory is only half of the issue. Economics and praxeology matter, too. Any species capable of transmitting or receiving signals into and from space has ascertained the truth that peaceful cooperation is more beneficial than violent conflict to all parties. Violent conflict contains high costs and risks. Peaceful cooperation results in economic growth and is what makes civilization possible.
Any spacefaring civilization will have realized this and will likely abhor violent conflict for its costs and risks.
I think humans have quite some time until our ethics have reached a stage that we can grow enough to make the technology for true spacefaring possible.
I'd argue that for humanity to be able to reach such a pinacle we will need to make such a transition in the first place, which is why this theory has no bases
Yet here we are shouting into the night sky while wars and threats of war rage all around us. Don't forget that America became the economic powerhouse that it is because of WWII.
Yes, I believe there is already a pretty complex empire or federation that actively polices the neighborhood to "enforce" peace on newcomer species or to punish warmongers in the first place. A force like that is probably on the active looking for other advanced civilizations to offer membership before they grow too powerful. Maybe Earth is of no interest yet, or too primitive, to join.
I have a different counter to the dark forest. Why destroy equal civilizations or cooperate if those civilizations never exist in the first place? Simply assume you are first, and then expand without risk, paving over all in your path. Any intelligent species will realize this fact, that if all species assume they are first, one has to actually be first. This way no aliens can ever present themselves as threats, because they're all be incapable of expanding, unlike you. It's the 'grabby aliens' idea, and I think it's the most likely solution to the fermi paradox, in that WE are the grabby aliens, and are first in the galaxy. Because anyone before us would have made it impossible for us to be space fairing.
Great Episode. I am however surprised that upon discovery of a Alien civilization the possibility of of a 3rd and 4thy player etc wasn't mentioned, where a first strike scenario becomes less tenable because all other hands are now raised against you
Such beautiful videos you make
I'd add one more cost to destroying A: a good chance others (call them C, D, E...etc) would figure out pretty quickly that someone else destroyed A, revealing the existence of B.
And revealing B is dangerous and must be destroyed
In the books (three body trilogy), the two postulates that lead to the conclusion of the dark forest nature of the universe are:
1) every civilization has its survival as the top priority,
2) civilizations continue to grow and consume resources, but the universe is finite.
With only these two postulates the conclusion is that there will eventually be conflict between competing civilizations, so it's best to avoid conflict by being silent and sneak attacking when able.
But dark forest behaviour doesn't actually allow #2. You can't harvest resources without making noise, Dyson spheres look different than normal stars.
I don't think you need assumptions nearly that strong. But you need other assumptions. Also the "universe" being finite or not is totally irrelevant. You can't reach most of the observable universe anyways. And if you could, there still could be conflict.
Nor do I see why conflict is inevitable or why it should occur between civilizations of different origins. An advanced civilization is really multiple civilizations with a common origin, they wouldn't all be able to talk to each other over short periods of time.
But yeah, for the reasons named in the video and others, you still wouldn't get a "Dark Forest" even if civilizations all expected only conflict.
The conclusion is false. It doesn't necessarily follow from only these postulates.
@@MrCmon113you really need to read the book if you want to fully understand the two “axioms” listed. The reason why the point of “the universe is finite but civs keep expanding” is important because that means eventually, no matter what there will be conflict because at one point in time you will run into a civilization because your expanding or a expanding civilization will run into you, and at that point one of you becomes aware of each other and then the dark forest theory takes place.
Considering that the universe is so dangerous for survival of planets and other objects in general, not contacting in order to achieve cooperation, has a non-zero probability of infinitely negative outcome as well - destruction through natural events, that could be prevented by cooperation.
there's also the fact that the signalling timescales suggest that civilizations probably don't stay on one planet within the signalling timeframe. And likely become Grabby (and thus not stealthy) in the interim
Or maybe aliens simply aren't interested in contacting anyone else. They may want to know if there's anyone else out there, while not being interested at all in making any kind of contact.
Destroying your opponent carries a possibility of destruction that is fairly high as well. Once you launch an attack, there is no reason to think your victim won't spend even a fraction of its power to tell the universe your location.
thats why snipers are a thing...
the vastness of space makes an even more ideal place to launch an attack then get out of dodge undetectably.
you could launch a probe, then have it fire a secondary probe into a star near your target planet with no emissions, just momentum....then finally have that fire the weapon on it's way past.
a theoretical detective would later find traces of that weapon launch, near the remains of target planet but it's launcher would be incinerated (along with any trajectory data) and it'd have no way to trace back to the origin probe, much less the origin planet.
This assumes that the target would even know where the strike came from. Which they probably won't if the other side makes even a modest effort to hide their own location.
Another way the game being played in the Dark Forest problem breaks down is in assigning payoffs for taking either the respond or the destroy option. In all cases, taking action will have some startup cost, economic, societal, and perhaps other associated costs knowable to us or to alien psychology. Even if we assume aliens with lifespans enabling a reasonable expectation for experiencing a payoff, the difference between a payoff for future you and one for your descendants is still a long way off. Silence may simply be a function of apathy in the face of no tangible payoffs and real costs for making and/or maintaining the active choices.
One thing I loved about the Star Trek prequel Discovery was in the first season, The Vulcan Hello.
Game theory: shoot on sight
Love the tiny little White Base from Altair
always find it funny when people talk about the fermi paradox; particularly when they bring up the Drake equation. So wild that if you multiply a bunch of numbers together, half of which are based entirely on assumptions, you get a result that disagrees with reality!
So there's genuinely a solid answer for this, you make a canary station. Everyone on board is blindfolded and told there will be no return to earth under any circumstances. This station is then sent as far away as possible. Hidden on board is a transmitter sending in a sphere a pulsing signal that changes over time, I'm thinking the first 20 digits of the Fibonacci sequence. In addition to this a very powerful message of oeace is broadcasted into space as loud and as far as we can thus Any and all interaction with potential aliens is filtered through canary station.
One of two options for contact with canary station should occure. The first is we are in a dark forest, canary station is destroyed almost immediately and we know there are monsters lurking in the deep. The second, game theory goes deeper than we knew, and there are peaceful species willing to establish contact, in which case a second signal, distinct from the first can be sent in which the canary station will be retrieved and brought home. Unbeknownst to canary station there is a fleet of canary starions in order to provide consensus or otherwise map out the temperament of galactic diplomacy.
I think however that our home solar system should remain hidden.
That assumes you can set up those stations far enough away as to not reveal your location.
There's another aspect that game theory tends to employ: co-operation. I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't mentioned as it can change the the engagements of game theory.
Holy pompous tree blindness
The distances make cooperation a non-starter
@@T.efpunkt It's easier to communicate to distant civilizations than to blow them up
The speed of light is a huge limiting factor that makes cooperation impossible. Say you detect a civilization that is 200 light years away; If you send a message the soonest you can physically receive a reply is 400 years later. Not to mention the communication barrier... How many messages would have to be sent back and forth before both sides could understand enough to actually communicate ideas across? And before that common understanding is met you can only guess at what the other is doing.
One thing that was left out of the dark forest metaphor is that while you're wandering around in the dark you're also occasionally hearing gunfire as others in the forest are found and killed. When you stumble onto someone there's a possibility that they're peaceful, yes, but there's also a possibility that this is the serial killer that's been going around killing everyone. You have no way of knowing before you call out to them and its too dark to see where their hands are or if they're looking right at you or not - do you call out and give up the only advantage you might have?
@@ApisIniustus
Well, we've seen a distinct lack of interstellar wars breaking out for the last fee hundred years😅
Almost like anyone out there (who could see that our world contains life by checking you know the massive amounts of oxygen floating around with any old telescope that costs way less that RKVs) clearly doesn't want us dead.
When you remove the idea of an equal playing field the "firstborn" civilization gets to decide on the terms of the game.
Another note: one of the following situations must be true
- Interstellar travel/colonization is not possible. If this is the case you're not fighting over resources so it doesn't make sense to waste them killing eachother when the only thing you'll achive is actively antagonizing them if they live.
Or, Interstellar travel/colonization is possible. If this is the case then no one born before us wants us dead because if they did they could have come here and killed us when we posed no threat but didn't want to. Or I mean, they could have paved over us as well like us over anthills but they didn't do that either.
That or we live in a grabby civilization type universe and we'll get plenty of galaxies to ourselves before coming into contact with others. Which honestly doesn't sound like a huge concern. How would you even begin to conqour a galaxy?
The biggest flaw in the Dark Forest hypothesis is the "dark" part.
If there are alien civilizations that can destroy other civilizations, it should be easy for them to send probes to every star system within range of their destructive capability and find any civilizations there, whether they try to communicate or not.
Another flaw is the assumption that if you destroy a civilization you're not in danger of being destroyed yourself. How can you be sure the other civilization can't track the destruction back to you? How can you be sure the other civilization didn't set up some doomsday bases that are hidden elsewhere and will detect the destruction and get revenge?
The problem with that is that those probes would also be detectable depending on their drive system. If you send a torchship probe close but narrowly missing a star system with an advanced civilization, they could be able to detect the origin system by observing its acceleration, speed, and trajectory.
Unless you discover magic BS that allows for reactionless drives, send unidirectional probes with solar sails in a blooming pattern, or take A LOT of millennia to explore your nearby stars, you are going to have to keep playing in "dark" mode for a long time before you can put detectors on a safe bubble of star systems around your homeworld.
@@CommissarLORDBernn It seems to me if just looking for another civilization gives their existence and position away, then annihilating another civilization will *definitely* give their existence away.
Yeah, like others pointed out: the risk of retaliation/mutually assured destruction likely outweighs the risk of the other civilization actually being hostile. Just from a pragmatic standpoint, it's probably best to assume that eventually you're gonna pick a fight you can't win without getting hurt in return, but that through diplomacy, you've got a decent finite chance at building something lasting
To me the problem with Dark Forest hypothesis is that even in game theory programs that were made to cooperate outperformed the "selfish" ones (Veritasium had a video about it). Also it makes assumptions that the source of signal is the only place civilization lives, but advanced species capable of harnessing power of their star surely be able to live either on other planets or space stations/nomadic fleets. Destorying the source of the signal could end up with retaliation.
Overall the dark forest hypothesis sounds to me like stay at home, don't go anywhere or travel, because something bad might happen... just on a cosmic scale.
I think the biggest flaw here is assuming that staying quiet won't get you found. We are going to be found sooner or later, and we want to have as many allies as we could before we are found by someone who wants to destroy us.
The crazy long interstellar communication lag times compared to civilization development times essentially suggest that all extraterrestrial civilization centers are really developing independently. So interstellar networks of cooperating civilizations seem to be unlikely.
were in an ant farm essentially