The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet(onezero.medium.com)
onezero.medium.com
The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet
https://onezero.medium.com/the-dark-forest-theory-of-the-internet-7dc3e68a7cb1
175 comments
I cut some of this out before hitting publish, but I had originally included more about the emotional and status anxiety of posting publicly, reputation management, and the risks to self posed by the way these platforms work. I ultimately cut those things because I thought they distracted from the overall idea and it's something we already hear so much of. I definitely wouldn't say this analogy is 1:1 with Liu Cixin's original, but I do think there is a real fear to poking your head out online that isn't that far from the original dark forest concept.
I was interested in reading your article, but Medium has it behind a paywall.
My newsletter archive is here: https://tinyletter.com/ystrickler/letters/the-dark-forest-th...
Interestingly, the pay wall does not block web archive or proxies.
You can access the article via https://web.archive.org or https://minweb.surge.sh
I identified with this post immediately -- both because of the Cixin Liu reference and my own behavior recently.
Before: good opsec, ad blockers, minimal social media under my own name, anonymous and pseudonymous accounts, etc.
Now:
Between 5 and 10 spam, scam or phishing voice calls every day to mobile phone, home phone and office phone.
So now I never answer any phone unless I'm expecting your call and all ringers are always off.
Political operatives of every persuasion are knocking on my door at home several times a week, and there's not even an election on right now. They all have mobile apps, logging every interaction in a central database.
So now I don't answer my own door at home.
Used to enjoy discussing current events, economics, geopolitics, tech policy with family and work friends. We usually disagreed, but it was fun to talk and often I learned a new perspective.
But now these discussions are amped up to 11, emotionally charged in every direction, so these conversations only happen with intimate friends now.
I'm either living in a dark forest or I'm a turtle withdrawing into its shell.
Meanwhile, others in my neighborhood are emerging from their shells, flying confederate flags and more obscure but hateful symbols, and advocating neighborhood militias on Nextdoor.
Before: good opsec, ad blockers, minimal social media under my own name, anonymous and pseudonymous accounts, etc.
Now:
Between 5 and 10 spam, scam or phishing voice calls every day to mobile phone, home phone and office phone.
So now I never answer any phone unless I'm expecting your call and all ringers are always off.
Political operatives of every persuasion are knocking on my door at home several times a week, and there's not even an election on right now. They all have mobile apps, logging every interaction in a central database.
So now I don't answer my own door at home.
Used to enjoy discussing current events, economics, geopolitics, tech policy with family and work friends. We usually disagreed, but it was fun to talk and often I learned a new perspective.
But now these discussions are amped up to 11, emotionally charged in every direction, so these conversations only happen with intimate friends now.
I'm either living in a dark forest or I'm a turtle withdrawing into its shell.
Meanwhile, others in my neighborhood are emerging from their shells, flying confederate flags and more obscure but hateful symbols, and advocating neighborhood militias on Nextdoor.
If the Internet is a dark forest, it's not populated by evil aliens out to kill you, but a witch in a beautiful gingerbread house inviting you to eat your fill. Don't ask about why the oven seems so dirty.
There's both of them.
Google Tools, Social Networks like FB and Tinder are like Odysseus' Sirens - they lure the sailors in with some promises for free to shipwreck them and drive them into addiction so they control the mindset of people (your being influences your state of mind and vice versa).
And then there is really bad alien predators who have set up a shitload of nets to get you when you are not carefully enough. When they have you you are probed (think of the Borg) and if you're a "valuable target", whatever the goals of this predator are, you'll be assimilated (taken into a bot net), milked like a cow (assets/data is stolen) or abused and thrown away (they use you to get to a higher valued target).
Google Tools, Social Networks like FB and Tinder are like Odysseus' Sirens - they lure the sailors in with some promises for free to shipwreck them and drive them into addiction so they control the mindset of people (your being influences your state of mind and vice versa).
And then there is really bad alien predators who have set up a shitload of nets to get you when you are not carefully enough. When they have you you are probed (think of the Borg) and if you're a "valuable target", whatever the goals of this predator are, you'll be assimilated (taken into a bot net), milked like a cow (assets/data is stolen) or abused and thrown away (they use you to get to a higher valued target).
Spoken like someone who has never pissed off fascists and found death threats in their PO box. Or lost their job because of a tweet about men being sexisg. Or (to flip the political spectrum), been carefully outed from your hidden fascist leanings by undercover agents and machine learning, instantly losing your job and being evicted from your home.
Violence exists on the internet.
Violence exists on the internet.
A non-trivial part of the reason this environment exists is that we are being enticed into these big centralized platforms, with centralized identities, because it benefits the witches, not us.
When there was no central big service, there was no ground for these massive centralized pushes to exist. Bad stuff happened, but bad stuff happens in real life, too; as long as the scales are roughly comparable I'm not inclined to go too ballistic trading freedom for safety. The risk of all those things exists today in such an outsized way because it benefits Facebook and Twitter to centralize everything.
When there was no central big service, there was no ground for these massive centralized pushes to exist. Bad stuff happened, but bad stuff happens in real life, too; as long as the scales are roughly comparable I'm not inclined to go too ballistic trading freedom for safety. The risk of all those things exists today in such an outsized way because it benefits Facebook and Twitter to centralize everything.
I've made a conscious effort as well to move off centralized platforms, moving more to federated models and staying out of hub nodes, myself.
But even there we see coordinated acts of harassment on folks cross instance. Ironically many of these are coordinated via a centralized service like Gab or Reddit.
I am not sure that it makes sense to mandate from a government standpoint that organizing harassment is violence. It's difficult to imagine a world where this is not abused to quash any substantial reformist movement. But I do think from the standpoint of individuals and community norms it is not going too "ballistic" to recognize them as such.
But even there we see coordinated acts of harassment on folks cross instance. Ironically many of these are coordinated via a centralized service like Gab or Reddit.
I am not sure that it makes sense to mandate from a government standpoint that organizing harassment is violence. It's difficult to imagine a world where this is not abused to quash any substantial reformist movement. But I do think from the standpoint of individuals and community norms it is not going too "ballistic" to recognize them as such.
Tweets and internet posts are not violence.
I'm fairly certain that I did not describe tweets. I describe information and identity disclosures that led to significant negative outcomes for individuals.
That the internet is their delivery medium is not particularly important to the outcome, but it is the subject of the conversation here.
That the internet is their delivery medium is not particularly important to the outcome, but it is the subject of the conversation here.
Violence is an expansive concept beyond the usual usage. Tweets and posts can lead to all kinds.
Recent example: at least one politician being milkshaked after the first incident. And even though I find fascist views abhorrent, I can see the fear they feel about the possibility of being clocked post-Spencer as a sort of violence.
Oddly, these same people would reject the notion of violence as something beyond immediate and physical...
And then LGBTQ+ people experience economic violence all the time. There are no protections in most places, and plenty of people are happy to fire them/kick them out of apartments based entirely on stereotypes.
Recent example: at least one politician being milkshaked after the first incident. And even though I find fascist views abhorrent, I can see the fear they feel about the possibility of being clocked post-Spencer as a sort of violence.
Oddly, these same people would reject the notion of violence as something beyond immediate and physical...
And then LGBTQ+ people experience economic violence all the time. There are no protections in most places, and plenty of people are happy to fire them/kick them out of apartments based entirely on stereotypes.
Sure, if you redefine the word violence. To me violence has to involve physical force.
I am fairly certain that if I organized a campaign of robbery against people who use hacker news you would not be opposed to calling that violence even if I didn't need to resort to physical violence to get your money.
It doesn't really matter though, "violence" does not need to be physical as per the dictionary definition. nor in common usage is it uncommon to talk about violence in many senses.
You're free to define it as you like, but this is not what most people mean when they say, "violence" so I'm afraid a lot of miscommunication is in your Future if you choose to persist.
It doesn't really matter though, "violence" does not need to be physical as per the dictionary definition. nor in common usage is it uncommon to talk about violence in many senses.
You're free to define it as you like, but this is not what most people mean when they say, "violence" so I'm afraid a lot of miscommunication is in your Future if you choose to persist.
Unless you or someone else actually do the robbery physically then I wouldn't call it violent.
There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.
There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.
Okay, but we just had another person cite the dictionary and only one of the four senses agrees with you. Searching for "economic violence" brings up literally millions of hits.
> There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.
I just want to press down firmly on this since I doubt you've thought it through. If you held to this standard of words having meaning, then you'd believe that language can't evolve. The Dictionary reflects usage so broadly common it ought to be universally recognized. It's a lagging indicator.
So if folks can't use words in recognizable senses, They're just universally better.what criterion do dictionaries use to recognize "enough people use it that way?"
Ultimately, "The dictionary says otherwise" is a circular argument. It's like witnessing a breaking news event and saying, "Well the newspaper didn't say so, so it isn't true!" Of course they haven't written about it... yet. The recognition for a dictionary is in response to the meaning that folks are already, not the source. The dictionary derives its authority from our usage.
Therefore, if millions of people use the term "economic violence" then it is a valid use of that term, even if you do find it challenging. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue otherwise, because the fact that you recognized what the term meant and therefore could object was evidence itself that it exists.
> There is a reason that dictionary define it the way it is, its because enough people use it that way.
I just want to press down firmly on this since I doubt you've thought it through. If you held to this standard of words having meaning, then you'd believe that language can't evolve. The Dictionary reflects usage so broadly common it ought to be universally recognized. It's a lagging indicator.
So if folks can't use words in recognizable senses, They're just universally better.what criterion do dictionaries use to recognize "enough people use it that way?"
Ultimately, "The dictionary says otherwise" is a circular argument. It's like witnessing a breaking news event and saying, "Well the newspaper didn't say so, so it isn't true!" Of course they haven't written about it... yet. The recognition for a dictionary is in response to the meaning that folks are already, not the source. The dictionary derives its authority from our usage.
Therefore, if millions of people use the term "economic violence" then it is a valid use of that term, even if you do find it challenging. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue otherwise, because the fact that you recognized what the term meant and therefore could object was evidence itself that it exists.
Economic "violence" isn't real violence. You're just making things up and trying to derail the conversation.
We've just been through it. Yes it exists and yes it is.
What's more, you and are the ones derailing MY point about harassment online. So if you care about derailing a conversation I started with Jerf, please don't simply restate what we've already been over.
What's more, you and are the ones derailing MY point about harassment online. So if you care about derailing a conversation I started with Jerf, please don't simply restate what we've already been over.
No, I too believe language can evolve. I too believe
there exist many other definition of violence that even more absurd.
There still million of people that use the term violence like mine, it is still a valid use, even if you do find it challenging.
There still million of people that use the term violence like mine, it is still a valid use, even if you do find it challenging.
I agree that there are an awful lot of people who'd like to put forth your point as a means to defend their actions.
And like them, you're the one seeking to erase senses from the dictionary by pretending they aren't there to begin with.
And like them, you're the one seeking to erase senses from the dictionary by pretending they aren't there to begin with.
Yes, I too agree that there are an awful lot of people to put forth your point as a means to defend their actions.
And like them, you're the one who contribute the support to replace the current definition.
And like them, you're the one who contribute the support to replace the current definition.
I don't need to redefine it. This usage is common among people who work on and with these subjects. KirinDave was using it in the sense used by sociologists and people who depend on their work.
These kinds of conversations would be less touchy if people defined their terms in advance so everyone is on the same page. It's okay though. It's all cleared up now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Types
These kinds of conversations would be less touchy if people defined their terms in advance so everyone is on the same page. It's okay though. It's all cleared up now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence#Types
I don’t think it’s simply a matter of defining terms. The choice to call non-violent actions “violence” is a political one. It is certainly not made less so because certain people use it regularly when discussing these issues. Nor is your choice to use it any less political. You can’t wash your hands of it by pointing to others’ use.
What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence). People, rightly or wrongly, object to the conflation of speech and violence.
I happen to think the normalization of speech as violence is dangerous doublespeak. What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost?
What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence). People, rightly or wrongly, object to the conflation of speech and violence.
I happen to think the normalization of speech as violence is dangerous doublespeak. What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost?
The value judgement that violence is itself vilified is a radical one. Extremist, even. Are you sure that's your position?
Ultimately, if I enable violence by sharing information then surely I have some blame in the equation. For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.
Ultimately, if I enable violence by sharing information then surely I have some blame in the equation. For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.
> For example, if I listed off your address and your posts and offered a bounty of one million dollars for your ears?
OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence.
> Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.
Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
OP clearly sees a threat of violence as a threat of violence. OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence.
> Under your stated view it'd be "dangerous doublespeak" to suggest this act is dangerous or violent.
Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
> OP is calling it a "call to violence" but that's hardly grounds for a substantive argument about the bounds of the concept of violence.
Then why is the OP drawing the line there? I'm not making these examples up to be cute. I'm pushing within the boundaries they've drawn to point out how radical the position as stated is.
> Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
Given the fact that it didn't substantially change or anchor any of my arguments, what does it matter. Oh, unless... Perhaps ... Speech can effect people and maybe constitutes action upon them? Is that what your suggesting? Huh.
Then why is the OP drawing the line there? I'm not making these examples up to be cute. I'm pushing within the boundaries they've drawn to point out how radical the position as stated is.
> Note that you inserted the branch "dangerous or" with no explanation, increasing the likelihood of an irrelevant counterargument.
Given the fact that it didn't substantially change or anchor any of my arguments, what does it matter. Oh, unless... Perhaps ... Speech can effect people and maybe constitutes action upon them? Is that what your suggesting? Huh.
>> "What is gained by classifying speech as violence rather than simply vilifying the type of speech without the violence label? What is lost? "
Gained: the ability to identify how words and actions can eventually lead to physical (or other kinds of) violence rather than be surprised when it happens. Maybe it could even lead to intervention!
Lost: awe and mystery at how physical violence happens? I'm at a loss. Having language and concepts to understand stuff is pretty handy.
>> "What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence)."
Call to violence is more direct. "Go murder that asshole!" The many faces of non-physical violence are rarely so direct.
Economic violence, for example, can set the conditions for physical violence. If prejudice as manifested through poverty (economic violence) makes it impossible for someone to live a good life, they may go out and rob someone or join a gang. They're more vulnerable to radicalization in general.
In my experience, people who get hung up on the "violence" part don't really care what you call it. They reject the idea of words mattering wholesale. Using gay as an insult, calling black people thugs, and the many worse kinds of awful never go anywhere, so it doesn't matter to them. To them, there's no point in caring in the first place.
You don't even get to discussing what to call harmful words and systems with them because they don't see that words can lead to harm and they reject the notion of human systems. We might as well call it violence and be done with it. You weren't going to find a palatable alternative.
It's a philosophical difference between "...and words can never hurt me" and "...words precede the sticks and stones." The former is fun to say before a bully kicks your ass. The latter is more reasonable once you've seen what words can do.
Or more simply: If words don't matter, who cares if I call non-physical violence violence? They're just words...
Gained: the ability to identify how words and actions can eventually lead to physical (or other kinds of) violence rather than be surprised when it happens. Maybe it could even lead to intervention!
Lost: awe and mystery at how physical violence happens? I'm at a loss. Having language and concepts to understand stuff is pretty handy.
>> "What you are referring to here has been, in the past, considered a call to violence (or perhaps an implied call to violence)."
Call to violence is more direct. "Go murder that asshole!" The many faces of non-physical violence are rarely so direct.
Economic violence, for example, can set the conditions for physical violence. If prejudice as manifested through poverty (economic violence) makes it impossible for someone to live a good life, they may go out and rob someone or join a gang. They're more vulnerable to radicalization in general.
In my experience, people who get hung up on the "violence" part don't really care what you call it. They reject the idea of words mattering wholesale. Using gay as an insult, calling black people thugs, and the many worse kinds of awful never go anywhere, so it doesn't matter to them. To them, there's no point in caring in the first place.
You don't even get to discussing what to call harmful words and systems with them because they don't see that words can lead to harm and they reject the notion of human systems. We might as well call it violence and be done with it. You weren't going to find a palatable alternative.
It's a philosophical difference between "...and words can never hurt me" and "...words precede the sticks and stones." The former is fun to say before a bully kicks your ass. The latter is more reasonable once you've seen what words can do.
Or more simply: If words don't matter, who cares if I call non-physical violence violence? They're just words...
Calling words 'violence' is like calling a restaurant recommendation 'eating'. A call to eat is not eating; A call to violence is not violence. It's simply nonsense.
In fact there's no area where people are trying to equate words with the actions they might lead to. People oppose words on the grounds of what they might lead to, but that's very different from saying the words are what they might lead to.
But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them.
The benefit is: People with weak ideas recognize that they won't win a neutral exchange of ideas. So they want to avoid the frame where the interaction is just a neutral exchange of ideas. Instead, they try to change the contest to something they can win - a violent power struggle.
They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?
Because they sense they can win a contest of power, but they might not win a neutral exchange of ideas. There's nothing else to it - it's pure bad-faith power games straight out of 1920's Russia.
Of course, it's poisonous to civilization, since it weakens the discussion norms we need to find truth and good paths forward.
In fact there's no area where people are trying to equate words with the actions they might lead to. People oppose words on the grounds of what they might lead to, but that's very different from saying the words are what they might lead to.
But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them.
The benefit is: People with weak ideas recognize that they won't win a neutral exchange of ideas. So they want to avoid the frame where the interaction is just a neutral exchange of ideas. Instead, they try to change the contest to something they can win - a violent power struggle.
They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?
Because they sense they can win a contest of power, but they might not win a neutral exchange of ideas. There's nothing else to it - it's pure bad-faith power games straight out of 1920's Russia.
Of course, it's poisonous to civilization, since it weakens the discussion norms we need to find truth and good paths forward.
> But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them.
Interesting take. We'll get back to this in a moment.
> They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?
And yet weirdly you're part of a group hear arguing that we should not call this violence? If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? So long as no punch is thrown, you've been arguing no foul has been committed!
If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence, then why are you arguing that you don't want it used against you?
Perhaps we should ask our resident 13-dimensional chess player who saw this question coming, jlawson.
> But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them.
> They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?
And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence used against you and thus granting you a moral right to invoke those very same mechanics.
Interesting take. We'll get back to this in a moment.
> They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?
And yet weirdly you're part of a group hear arguing that we should not call this violence? If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? So long as no punch is thrown, you've been arguing no foul has been committed!
If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence, then why are you arguing that you don't want it used against you?
Perhaps we should ask our resident 13-dimensional chess player who saw this question coming, jlawson.
> But why, then, do some people hold onto this absurdity tooth and nail, refusing to give it up even when it's clearly causing miscommunication? It gives some benefit to them.
> They want a contest of power: Who can stigmatize, harass, and physically intimidate the other side into submission?
And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence used against you and thus granting you a moral right to invoke those very same mechanics.
> If this isn't violence, then why shouldn't I stigmatize you? What do you care? ..... If speech, association and the implication of violence are so trivial that it cannot constitute violence
You seem to have the idea that any act/speech which isn't literally violence must thus be trivial/acceptable/unobjectionable.
Do I even need to explain why this is wrong? Obviously there are many acts which are unacceptable and objectionable, which are not violent. E.g. If you called my boss and made up lies about me being a pedophile to try to get me fired.
I can kind of sense that you're trapped in your own definitional games here. Since you've so long equated "any objectionable thing" with "violence", you are now having trouble following a text that depends on the difference. By erasing these language distinctions, you've actually been conditioned to be unable to follow the reasoning that would make you understand why they're wrong. I just have to ask you to step back for a moment, consider my example above about the pedophilia lies, and try to remember the distinctions that you were surely once familiar with. Violence is an objectionable thing; not every objectionable thing is violence.
You seem to have the idea that any act/speech which isn't literally violence must thus be trivial/acceptable/unobjectionable.
Do I even need to explain why this is wrong? Obviously there are many acts which are unacceptable and objectionable, which are not violent. E.g. If you called my boss and made up lies about me being a pedophile to try to get me fired.
I can kind of sense that you're trapped in your own definitional games here. Since you've so long equated "any objectionable thing" with "violence", you are now having trouble following a text that depends on the difference. By erasing these language distinctions, you've actually been conditioned to be unable to follow the reasoning that would make you understand why they're wrong. I just have to ask you to step back for a moment, consider my example above about the pedophilia lies, and try to remember the distinctions that you were surely once familiar with. Violence is an objectionable thing; not every objectionable thing is violence.
> And that's why you're simultaneously arguing that speech cannot be violence but also arguing that it is a violence
No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.
No matter how many times you elide the modifiers before the word violence (before, "a call to", now "movitated by a desire for" or some variant thereof), jlawson's point remains.
I am sorry these characters are downvoting you rather than actually engaging with your arguments. Please know that someone else sees it happening and thinks it's... uh... par for the course given the post histories of at least one person here.
[deleted]
There is no such thing as economic violence either. The word you are looking for is discrimination.
Why is there no such thing?
Because you say so? That exact phrase appears to be in common usage globally. Given that, who's actually out of step with reality here?
The word discrimination describes what an discriminator does. Violence usually applied to what a victim experiences. Surely we can imagine a scenario where someone experiences violence without discrimination occuring.
Because you say so? That exact phrase appears to be in common usage globally. Given that, who's actually out of step with reality here?
The word discrimination describes what an discriminator does. Violence usually applied to what a victim experiences. Surely we can imagine a scenario where someone experiences violence without discrimination occuring.
you. you are the one out of step with reality.
here is the dictionary definition of violence for your reference.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
here is the dictionary definition of violence for your reference.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence
There are 4 senses of the word and only 1 names physical violence.
Thank you for helping my argument, but we can all check the dictionary on our own time.
Thank you for helping my argument, but we can all check the dictionary on our own time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
"It refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesism, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung.
According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs"."
"It refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. Institutionalized adultism, ageism, classism, elitism, ethnocentrism, nationalism, speciesism, racism, and sexism are some examples of structural violence as proposed by Galtung.
According to Galtung, rather than conveying a physical image, structural violence is an "avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs"."
Actually, maybe calling these things violence would do more good in getting people to understand the problems need solutions.
grinds teeth
A vein almost explodes in my forehead everytime someone points to Cixin Liu as the originator of DFT.
The idea's been around since the early to mid-80s, and people could at least do diligence to properly cite.
It's almost as insulting as if I said "When George Lucas started science fiction films with Star Wars..."
A vein almost explodes in my forehead everytime someone points to Cixin Liu as the originator of DFT.
The idea's been around since the early to mid-80s, and people could at least do diligence to properly cite.
It's almost as insulting as if I said "When George Lucas started science fiction films with Star Wars..."
Star wars isn't science fiction. Lucas tells us so in the first frame: a long time ago in a galaxy far far away: it isnt about us or where science may take us in the future. It is a samurai movie with lasers.
You're getting downvoted but in the end you're right - Star Wars is an epic fantasy with science-fiction-y things in it, hence why it doesn't follow rules about things like sound in space
Sound or movememt in space isnt a make or break. Trek was very much scifi yet took license with physics and that's ok. Not all scifi is hard scifi.
Imho Dune is still scifi despite the fantasy overtones because the author deliberately tells us it is set in our future. The author of star wars tells us the opposite.
Imho Dune is still scifi despite the fantasy overtones because the author deliberately tells us it is set in our future. The author of star wars tells us the opposite.
So time and place dictates what is SciFi now? That's an awfully awkward measure which will cut away a lot of SciFi.
Though, I agree Star Wars is not very sci fi, it's a fantasy epic with sci-fi stuffs in it.
Though, I agree Star Wars is not very sci fi, it's a fantasy epic with sci-fi stuffs in it.
I've never understood the association with relative time in regards to science fiction.
SF is typically futuristic, but that bears jack all as to whether it takes place in the past, present, future, or even anything relative to our planet.
Science, in that it pledges greater allegiance to, extrapolates, or invents in an internally consistent way. But not time.
SF is typically futuristic, but that bears jack all as to whether it takes place in the past, present, future, or even anything relative to our planet.
Science, in that it pledges greater allegiance to, extrapolates, or invents in an internally consistent way. But not time.
Science.
Scifi is fiction about where science might take us, how modern tech might impact society. It is foreshadowing a potential future. So stuff set in the past, generally, isnt considered scifi unless it somehow describes a potential future. This separates scifi from technothrillers (tom clancy et al) that are tech-heavy but set today rather than in the future.
Scifi is fiction about where science might take us, how modern tech might impact society. It is foreshadowing a potential future. So stuff set in the past, generally, isnt considered scifi unless it somehow describes a potential future. This separates scifi from technothrillers (tom clancy et al) that are tech-heavy but set today rather than in the future.
> So stuff set in the past, generally, isnt considered scifi unless it somehow describes a potential future.
This makes literally no sense to me. Any definition of the future that doesn't include the past is just fiction, and consequently, any past is a potential future.
What you're saying sounds more like "If it doesn't have greater than present levels of 'technology', then it's not science fiction."
Which seems incredibly limiting and ignoring of the central genesis of the genre, as you've pointed out -- science.
Science is a verb, not a noun.
The idea of pointing at something in a book and saying "That's science" (and correspondingly, pointing at something in other fiction and saying "That's not science") is odd.
Where do Mary Shelley, Jules Verne, or H.G. Wells fit in your definition?
This makes literally no sense to me. Any definition of the future that doesn't include the past is just fiction, and consequently, any past is a potential future.
What you're saying sounds more like "If it doesn't have greater than present levels of 'technology', then it's not science fiction."
Which seems incredibly limiting and ignoring of the central genesis of the genre, as you've pointed out -- science.
Science is a verb, not a noun.
The idea of pointing at something in a book and saying "That's science" (and correspondingly, pointing at something in other fiction and saying "That's not science") is odd.
Where do Mary Shelley, Jules Verne, or H.G. Wells fit in your definition?
What makes Star Wars a fantasy series and not sci-fi is that it doesn't even try to be sci-fi. It's a fantasy story reskinned with robots and spaceships. Not being sci-fi doesn't have much to do with being set in the past vs. the future (BSG spoiler alert: for example, Battlestar: Galactica is a proper sci-fi and happens to be set in the past).
>Battlestar: Galactica is a proper sci-fi and happens to be set in the past
Battlestar Galactica - the Christian allegory with angels and gods and literal miracles reskinned with robots and spaceships?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that's all anyone has here, including myself: opinions. There is no objective and universally accepted definition of science fiction which requires rigid conformity to scientific principles, or a lack of mythological or religious themes. The lines people draw between "science fiction" "science fantasy" and even "fantasy" are based on marketing and personal taste.
Star Wars is sci-fi, no less so than Galactica or even Star Trek, and all of it is also science fantasy. These aren't separate categories, but poles on a spectrum of speculative fiction.
Battlestar Galactica - the Christian allegory with angels and gods and literal miracles reskinned with robots and spaceships?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that's all anyone has here, including myself: opinions. There is no objective and universally accepted definition of science fiction which requires rigid conformity to scientific principles, or a lack of mythological or religious themes. The lines people draw between "science fiction" "science fantasy" and even "fantasy" are based on marketing and personal taste.
Star Wars is sci-fi, no less so than Galactica or even Star Trek, and all of it is also science fantasy. These aren't separate categories, but poles on a spectrum of speculative fiction.
Sure, there's some prior art. But it's not necessary or relevant to cite the prior art when talking about a specific work. If you read carefully, you'll find I didn't claim he was the originator, because duh.
I was taking issue with the medium post.
"In his sci-fi trilogy The Three Body Problem, author Liu Cixin presents the dark forest theory of the universe."
"Liu invites us to think about this a different way."
"In his sci-fi trilogy The Three Body Problem, author Liu Cixin presents the dark forest theory of the universe."
"Liu invites us to think about this a different way."
I don’t see that as implying he came up with the idea. They’re just referencing a recent use of it with a catchy name.
A singular name. It would have been pretty simple to be clear with "and others." Instead, the obvious conclusion drawn by any reader is that the idea is the principle creation of the only author mentioned.
Both quotes are true. He never says the author created the theory.
"Present" ≠ "invent."
Could you cite some books that covered DFT ? I'm eager to read them
The Killing Star (1995) would be the main one that comes to mind for me. Even uses a dark forest as a metaphor though in this case it's a city park full of gangsters.
I'm pretty sure David Brin touches on it somewhere, but not to the extent of being the basis of an entire novel. Can't recall exactly where, sadly.
At minimum, Revelation Space features it as a major plot-point and was published in 2000, significantly predating Dark Forest.
At minimum, Revelation Space features it as a major plot-point and was published in 2000, significantly predating Dark Forest.
You're thinking of Existence from 2012.
It's related to the premise of David Brin's Uplift series, so in one way it's the basis of multiple trilogies of books.
It's been one possible answer for as long as sci-fi has debated the Drake equation and Fermi paradox. Arguably, it is a critical part of the thesis of War of the Worlds as far back as the late 19th Century.
It's been one possible answer for as long as sci-fi has debated the Drake equation and Fermi paradox. Arguably, it is a critical part of the thesis of War of the Worlds as far back as the late 19th Century.
I don't see how. David Brin's Uplift universe is bureaucratic, with interspecies interactions heavily regulated and angling towards preserving, not eliminating life.
Cixin Liu's vision is purely game-theoretic, where anyone who makes noise is likely to be preemptively sniped by someone else, out of pure sense of self-preservation. I don't recall seeing this concept anywhere else.
Cixin Liu's vision is purely game-theoretic, where anyone who makes noise is likely to be preemptively sniped by someone else, out of pure sense of self-preservation. I don't recall seeing this concept anywhere else.
The implication in the Uplift universe was that the bureaucracy and "gamification" of interspecies interactions was designed to avoid such an elimination state, but such a thing likely existed in its deep past. The thesis, as such, of the Uplift universe was generally that mutual cooperation was hard, but should win in the long run. The emphasis in the hard was that by default most societies wanted to shoot first and ask questions later even with cooperation heavily incentivized by the rules/games.
The earliest I remember was by Greg Benford: something in the series that started with In the Ocean of Night (1970s). I think it was that novel, but I'm not sure; but towards the end of the one I'm thinking of, as this picture of the universe was coming together, a character thought of the nighttime sky as like the eyes of hungry predators surrounding a campfire.
(Not to say I think this theory about the Fermi paradox is a very good one.)
(Not to say I think this theory about the Fermi paradox is a very good one.)
So who are the originators?
> Is that really what we have here, on the internet? When we find our autonomous zones (to steal an anarchist phrase), do Google and Facebook actively exterminate them? No. Not yet, anyway
Worse: they co-opt and integrate them.
We're already seeing that start to happen with Mastodon as well, the gravity is real. There are a lot of instances that flat out refuse to pair with corporate or government funded servers as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook started launching a scuttlebutt system and tried to monetize it. It is, as they say, 2019.
Worse: they co-opt and integrate them.
We're already seeing that start to happen with Mastodon as well, the gravity is real. There are a lot of instances that flat out refuse to pair with corporate or government funded servers as a result. I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook started launching a scuttlebutt system and tried to monetize it. It is, as they say, 2019.
[deleted]
There are some forms of internet "weapons" that I think reach the same scale as the ones in Cixin's series:
- Social media harassment
- Review bombs
- Doxxing
- Swatting
That's a good point. I think it's subject to some of the same flaws as the original article, but you're right - the Dark Forest of the internet already has ways of driving people off.
yes- I hate to nitpick with these sort of things since I really enjoyed the essay, but as a lover of Liu's series I took issue with the dark forest analogy.
I think the author was rather describing Liu's concept of a "black domain," namely "a region of spacetime in which the speed of light is lowered artificially to completely seal it off (and protect it) from the rest of the Universe." (Wikipedia)
Apart from that, really appreciated the author's ideas and using the phrase "...depressurized conversation is possible because of their non-indexed, non-optimized, and non-gamified environments." Spot on.
I think the author was rather describing Liu's concept of a "black domain," namely "a region of spacetime in which the speed of light is lowered artificially to completely seal it off (and protect it) from the rest of the Universe." (Wikipedia)
Apart from that, really appreciated the author's ideas and using the phrase "...depressurized conversation is possible because of their non-indexed, non-optimized, and non-gamified environments." Spot on.
Actually that’s a good point. One thing I won’t tolerate in a community I host is its use to conspire against others (or even to attack them behind their backs). I would guess that happens quite a bit even in communities not set up for that purpose.
[deleted]
In a world where some people have a reach millions or even hundreds of millions larger than others, the analogy may be much more apt than you give it credit for.
What I find so myopic is the insistence that the 2016 election was somehow a milestone in this. The precedent was already there, and the playbook already written. But it was mainly used by the dominant left wing cultural elite to enforce their favored view, so it was seen as justified. It was only when the counter culture on the right started making use of it that the moral panic took off.
Before Milo there was Shanley, combining reasonable sounding intersectional medium pieces with an ascerbic Twitter persona to create a one-woman motte and bailey. Who directed witch hunts to industry figures and got rewarded with paying subscribers for it.
Before Trump there was DongleGate and ElevatorGate, showing the power of a narcissist who rewrites history to be the underdog, and whose audience doesn't listen to opposing views and experiences.
Before Cambridge Analytica, there was the Obama campaign, hoovering up all the same data, except with Facebook's full knowledge and approval, and the progressive media's admiration and blessing for leaving those Stone age Republicans in the dust.
In many ways, the big tech companies are just the scapegoat. Nobody was forced to move into Facebook, they did so voluntarily. Nobody was forced to push out buzzfeed level content, they just stared themselves blind on pageviews while losing their core audience. Nobody was forced to abandon critical thinking, they just succumbed to wishful thinking and tribalism.
What I find so myopic is the insistence that the 2016 election was somehow a milestone in this. The precedent was already there, and the playbook already written. But it was mainly used by the dominant left wing cultural elite to enforce their favored view, so it was seen as justified. It was only when the counter culture on the right started making use of it that the moral panic took off.
Before Milo there was Shanley, combining reasonable sounding intersectional medium pieces with an ascerbic Twitter persona to create a one-woman motte and bailey. Who directed witch hunts to industry figures and got rewarded with paying subscribers for it.
Before Trump there was DongleGate and ElevatorGate, showing the power of a narcissist who rewrites history to be the underdog, and whose audience doesn't listen to opposing views and experiences.
Before Cambridge Analytica, there was the Obama campaign, hoovering up all the same data, except with Facebook's full knowledge and approval, and the progressive media's admiration and blessing for leaving those Stone age Republicans in the dust.
In many ways, the big tech companies are just the scapegoat. Nobody was forced to move into Facebook, they did so voluntarily. Nobody was forced to push out buzzfeed level content, they just stared themselves blind on pageviews while losing their core audience. Nobody was forced to abandon critical thinking, they just succumbed to wishful thinking and tribalism.
What about the lives that were ruined in the past and even today because of keeping the antiquated belief alive? Nobody supporting the church/belief seems to do anything for those misfortunate people. It would be nice if people just accepted relativity/determinism and gathered around discussing how their life is special; what they expect in the future with their goals & how they're getting there. Except a giant nope because people are narcissists that don't care about the abused.
A bit off-topic, but I've kind of struggled mentally since finishing The Dark Forest. Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves. I'd like to believe it's not true, but so long as any two civilizations are likely to have dramatically different rates of technological advancement and so long as crossing the gaps in space between civilizations takes sufficiently long due to the laws of physics, it seems hard to deny that there might be strong reasons for civilizations to fear each other.
Keep in mind that the dark forest theory hinges on two axioms that will likely be true for interstellar relations, while remain false for terrestrial ones. The two axioms are clearly stated in the books: 1) large communication delay, and 2) unpredictable technological jumps. The idea of the dark forest is that communication delay makes it difficult to build trust, and even if you start in superior position, it's possible for the other side to leap ahead of you technologically in the middle of those very long talks.
A hypothetical Earth scenario would be an early industrial empire contacting an age-of-sail empire across the ocean via letters sent on whales, only to have the latter suddenly respond with an ICBM.
A hypothetical Earth scenario would be an early industrial empire contacting an age-of-sail empire across the ocean via letters sent on whales, only to have the latter suddenly respond with an ICBM.
>> Even though it's science fiction, it actually seems hard to argue with the theory in the book -- that civilizations must act to eliminate each other or they are overwhelmingly likely to be eliminated themselves.
This is a great conceit for a sci-fi novel (two, actually) but I wouldn't take it too seriously as a real-life argument. To begin with, it's a theory about essentially evolutionary imperatives. It says that every civilisation, regardless of species, location, or any other condition, will eventually reach the same conclusion about the nature of the universe and the rules defining the co-existence of civilisations inside it.
To put it lightly, that is a very long stretch. We have no way to know anything about how a non-human civilisation will think, or even if it will "think" in the same sense that we do (they may be space-faring social insects without a real capacity for conscious thought, say- a classic sci-fi trope). We have no way to know what are the goals and rules that such a civilisation might choose for itself. Some may see it as their duty to protect and help life in the universe, as something unique and irreplaceable. Some might indeed see it as a survival imperative to go out and destroy or conquer other civilisations. Some might choose to develop along a sustainable path that will not end up in them exhausting their local systems' resources (eliminating the second axiom of cosmic sociology).
It's a huge universe. There's space for any number of different outlooks on life, the universe and everything. I don't doubt that the Dark Forest theory is one thing that may well have arisen somewhere, somewhen, but to assume that everything that is conscious in the universe will have "developed the hiding gene and the cleansing gene", that's just assuming way, way too much (and first of all- about the way genetic information is transferred).
We don't know anything about other technological civilisations. Cautiousness is well advised, but part of that is not assuming that we understand how they will necessarily think.
This is a great conceit for a sci-fi novel (two, actually) but I wouldn't take it too seriously as a real-life argument. To begin with, it's a theory about essentially evolutionary imperatives. It says that every civilisation, regardless of species, location, or any other condition, will eventually reach the same conclusion about the nature of the universe and the rules defining the co-existence of civilisations inside it.
To put it lightly, that is a very long stretch. We have no way to know anything about how a non-human civilisation will think, or even if it will "think" in the same sense that we do (they may be space-faring social insects without a real capacity for conscious thought, say- a classic sci-fi trope). We have no way to know what are the goals and rules that such a civilisation might choose for itself. Some may see it as their duty to protect and help life in the universe, as something unique and irreplaceable. Some might indeed see it as a survival imperative to go out and destroy or conquer other civilisations. Some might choose to develop along a sustainable path that will not end up in them exhausting their local systems' resources (eliminating the second axiom of cosmic sociology).
It's a huge universe. There's space for any number of different outlooks on life, the universe and everything. I don't doubt that the Dark Forest theory is one thing that may well have arisen somewhere, somewhen, but to assume that everything that is conscious in the universe will have "developed the hiding gene and the cleansing gene", that's just assuming way, way too much (and first of all- about the way genetic information is transferred).
We don't know anything about other technological civilisations. Cautiousness is well advised, but part of that is not assuming that we understand how they will necessarily think.
Not everyone reaches the conclusions of the Dark Forest.
But those who don't reach it are exterminated.
But those who don't reach it are exterminated.
No.
There are about 100 other parameters whose relative balance determine game theoretical solutions to the problem. And as with many things, Cixin Liu handwaves away all that complexity in service of narrative.
Don't confuse fiction with reality.
Look at the Drake Equation as a much simpler example. Even given its simplicity, small tweaks in assumptions produce wildly different projections.
There are about 100 other parameters whose relative balance determine game theoretical solutions to the problem. And as with many things, Cixin Liu handwaves away all that complexity in service of narrative.
Don't confuse fiction with reality.
Look at the Drake Equation as a much simpler example. Even given its simplicity, small tweaks in assumptions produce wildly different projections.
> There are about 100 other parameters whose relative balance determine game theoretical solutions to the problem.
Name three.
I'm by no means an expert on game theory, but accepting the two axioms that are quite explicitly stated in the story, "dark forest" seems to follow quite naturally.
Name three.
I'm by no means an expert on game theory, but accepting the two axioms that are quite explicitly stated in the story, "dark forest" seems to follow quite naturally.
1. The value of alien ideas being introduced into a culture.
2. The rarity of habital planetoids.
3. How quickly civilizations spread within their local area.
2. The rarity of habital planetoids.
3. How quickly civilizations spread within their local area.
Not confusing fiction with reality. Simply stating the premise of the novel.
I don't object to anyone handwaving away complexity in service of narrative. Virtually all authors do that. (Two exceptions that come to mind are Tolstoy's War and Peace, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.)
I don't object to anyone handwaving away complexity in service of narrative. Virtually all authors do that. (Two exceptions that come to mind are Tolstoy's War and Peace, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past.)
In the books, or in the real world? In the real world there are many competing theories about why the universe is silent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
In the books. It's just the author's theory for the Fermi Paradox. And it's a compelling and terrifying theory.
Only if there are means to exterminate them, which in the books are rather... speculative and hinging on utter idiocy of human civilization.
Its an interesting theory. IMO: the difficulty of destroying a civilization is probably harder than communicating with them, and the advantages of keeping one around probably outweigh the advantages of killing them if you're already more technically advanced.
A big point in TDF is that the speed of light limits our ability to communicate and understand other civilizations. But, by extension, weapons are also limited by that limit. Of course, maybe its possible to break the speed of light, but then communication could also break this limit.
So, if you're a technologically advanced alien civilization and you become aware of humanity, you can send an Envoy or you can send some Nukes (or, of course, you can do nothing and watch). Just within the context of The Dark Forest Theory, there's practically no reason to send Nukes; at worst, you discover that humanity sucks and then you go ahead and nuke us. But life is probably special; maybe humanity would make great trading partners, maybe our brains function differently and can solve problems differently, maybe our natural proclivity for war would make us great allies, or maybe we'd make great slaves for the mines on the Vartoth 12 colony. All of these are options for a civilization a thousand years ahead of us; they can pick what they'd like, but none of them would classify as a result of The Dark Forest theory.
There's also a possibility that maybe this hypothetical alien civilization tried that course of action in the past with another civilization, and they were friends for a while, helped each other, then fought in a bloody war, and now that civilization is distrustful so they destroy any young civilizations while they still easily can instead of even trying to come to terms. But that's not a Dark Forest theory situation; the Dark Forest Theory suggests that its natural for civilizations to want to kill each other off.
A big point in TDF is that the speed of light limits our ability to communicate and understand other civilizations. But, by extension, weapons are also limited by that limit. Of course, maybe its possible to break the speed of light, but then communication could also break this limit.
So, if you're a technologically advanced alien civilization and you become aware of humanity, you can send an Envoy or you can send some Nukes (or, of course, you can do nothing and watch). Just within the context of The Dark Forest Theory, there's practically no reason to send Nukes; at worst, you discover that humanity sucks and then you go ahead and nuke us. But life is probably special; maybe humanity would make great trading partners, maybe our brains function differently and can solve problems differently, maybe our natural proclivity for war would make us great allies, or maybe we'd make great slaves for the mines on the Vartoth 12 colony. All of these are options for a civilization a thousand years ahead of us; they can pick what they'd like, but none of them would classify as a result of The Dark Forest theory.
There's also a possibility that maybe this hypothetical alien civilization tried that course of action in the past with another civilization, and they were friends for a while, helped each other, then fought in a bloody war, and now that civilization is distrustful so they destroy any young civilizations while they still easily can instead of even trying to come to terms. But that's not a Dark Forest theory situation; the Dark Forest Theory suggests that its natural for civilizations to want to kill each other off.
Cixin book covers those aspect pretty well. One of the main element behind his version of the Dark Forest theory is something he calls the "Chain of suspicion". He argues that in a world were communication is limited by the speed of light, there's no way to establish a coherent dialog during first contact between two civilizations that would allow you to completely trust the other party. If you cannot trust that the other party will not destroy you given the chance, then the only way for you to be guaranteed not to be destroyed is to destroy them first. Even if both parties want peace, there's no way for you to convince the other party that you want peace without also giving them the time to destroy you. It's basically a game theory situation where trying to go for peaceful communication is way too risky, and the stake in play are the survival of your civilization. It's also implied that civilization that played the "peace" card will simply get eliminated the moment they encounter someone playing the "destroy" card, making you much less likely to actually encounter a peaceful civilization.
> But life is probably special; maybe humanity would make great trading partners, maybe our brains function differently and can solve problems differently, maybe our natural proclivity for war would make us great allies, or maybe we'd make great slaves for the mines on the Vartoth 12 colony.
Slight digression, and I know your half joking but: I always find the believability lacking in sci-fi that suggest a civilisation capable of faster than light travel could possibly be interested in trading commodities or manual labour of another. Such a feat provides unlimited access to the universe, all materials and energy you could ever need, such a civilisation would likely have basically achieved alchemy transmutation (but for real).
Then, the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness, our information, our culture and likely very different perspective of the universe... as you put it "our brains function differently", and they most definitely would, even if only at a cultural level rather than fundamental level. That is something that cannot be obtained anywhere else in the universe, even with FTL, because it's endemic.
Slight digression, and I know your half joking but: I always find the believability lacking in sci-fi that suggest a civilisation capable of faster than light travel could possibly be interested in trading commodities or manual labour of another. Such a feat provides unlimited access to the universe, all materials and energy you could ever need, such a civilisation would likely have basically achieved alchemy transmutation (but for real).
Then, the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness, our information, our culture and likely very different perspective of the universe... as you put it "our brains function differently", and they most definitely would, even if only at a cultural level rather than fundamental level. That is something that cannot be obtained anywhere else in the universe, even with FTL, because it's endemic.
> I always find the believability lacking in sci-fi that suggest a civilisation capable of faster than light travel could possibly be interested in trading commodities or manual labour of another.
I think the Stargate universe solved this well; the civilizations capable of building FTL drives (including the one that built stargates themselves) didn't need to trade much with anyone (one of them did use slave labor from other worlds, but for somewhat plot-justifiable reasons). Humanity used increasing amount of FTL tech over the series, but those were either stargates, borrowed, stolen or donated tech, not something humans built themselves - and thus humanity did interplanetary trade.
> the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness
That's the core point in David Brin's Uplift saga - ecosystems were the most interesting things a species would own (or rather, lease).
I think the Stargate universe solved this well; the civilizations capable of building FTL drives (including the one that built stargates themselves) didn't need to trade much with anyone (one of them did use slave labor from other worlds, but for somewhat plot-justifiable reasons). Humanity used increasing amount of FTL tech over the series, but those were either stargates, borrowed, stolen or donated tech, not something humans built themselves - and thus humanity did interplanetary trade.
> the only thing we posses of possible interest, would be our (and our planet's / ecosystem's) uniqueness
That's the core point in David Brin's Uplift saga - ecosystems were the most interesting things a species would own (or rather, lease).
There are several reasons not to fear Dark Forest, chief among them,
1. Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort.
2. If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid.
Sterilizing an entire galaxy to make sure that there is never a challenge to your rule can be accomplished in a few thousand years. Without needing any interstellar transit.
1. Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort.
2. If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid.
Sterilizing an entire galaxy to make sure that there is never a challenge to your rule can be accomplished in a few thousand years. Without needing any interstellar transit.
Regarding number 2, wouldn't this potentially risk your discovery as well? An entire galaxy having its habitable planets destroyed would surely be detectable in some fashion.
> Any species that develops a civilization capable of space travel must necessarily have evolved a strong cooperative spirit, and so is more unlikely to exercise homicide as a first resort.
It's more accurate to say that HUMANITY would need a cooperative spirit in order to reach interstellar travel. I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this.
And, beyond that, TDF addresses this through the assertion that humanity, at multiple turns, didn't want to partake in this Dark Forest ideology; we wanted to make peace and friends, but the other more advanced civilizations weren't having it. So even if they had a cooperative spirit in the past, that doesn't preclude that the spirit sticks around when the destruction of your species is at stake.
> If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid.
That's being awfully presumptive.
Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do. They'd end up destroying tons of empty planets that could have rich resource deposits or be habitable for future colonies, and they'd know that. Maybe there are illogical interstellar civilizations, but it stands to reason that they'd be More Rare than Logical ones, given it takes some form of logic to even accomplish space travel.
Targeted strikes make more sense. So you have to have a Target. Humanity has been broadcasting RF for about 100 years. The milky way is 105,000 light years across; at best we're detectable by 0.095% of just our own galaxy. Maybe we haven't gotten one of these kill missiles because they haven't heard us yet. Or it's on its way.
But all this requires life to common; the dark forest theory asserts that the reason life seems rare is because its common and everyone is just being quiet, but the other possibility is that life is, well, rare, and that's probably more likely. If life is rare, then the dark forest theory kinda goes out the window because the novelty of finding new life would invariably overwhelm a hypothetical risk that your species has never encountered before.
IMO space contact & travel will have one of three outcomes. (1) The light speed limit can be worked around and none of this matters. (2) Life is Common, and the Dark Forest Theory is valid between species. (3) Life is Rare, humanity will colonize the stars, but a version of the Dark Forest Theory will begin to apply between human colonies separated by hundreds of lightyears. If its been 150 years since anyone in your colony has ever talked to Earth, then you're not really a colony anymore, but it's obvious to you that Earth won't see it that way. Your colony creates other colonies, and it takes earth hundreds of years to find out about them, if you decide to even tell them (because what do you owe earth?). So a thousand years pass and we've got dozens/hundreds of Tribes of humans who can't really talk to each other, most of whom don't even know of each other's existence, all developing culture, science, and weapons at independent rates. Really starts to look Dark Forest-esque, doesn't it?
It's more accurate to say that HUMANITY would need a cooperative spirit in order to reach interstellar travel. I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this.
And, beyond that, TDF addresses this through the assertion that humanity, at multiple turns, didn't want to partake in this Dark Forest ideology; we wanted to make peace and friends, but the other more advanced civilizations weren't having it. So even if they had a cooperative spirit in the past, that doesn't preclude that the spirit sticks around when the destruction of your species is at stake.
> If Dark Forest were true, and there was a murderous civilization that wanted to kill every other, we would all be dead already. You can make an entire galaxy's worth of relativistic kill missiles with the mass of a medium size asteroid.
That's being awfully presumptive.
Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do. They'd end up destroying tons of empty planets that could have rich resource deposits or be habitable for future colonies, and they'd know that. Maybe there are illogical interstellar civilizations, but it stands to reason that they'd be More Rare than Logical ones, given it takes some form of logic to even accomplish space travel.
Targeted strikes make more sense. So you have to have a Target. Humanity has been broadcasting RF for about 100 years. The milky way is 105,000 light years across; at best we're detectable by 0.095% of just our own galaxy. Maybe we haven't gotten one of these kill missiles because they haven't heard us yet. Or it's on its way.
But all this requires life to common; the dark forest theory asserts that the reason life seems rare is because its common and everyone is just being quiet, but the other possibility is that life is, well, rare, and that's probably more likely. If life is rare, then the dark forest theory kinda goes out the window because the novelty of finding new life would invariably overwhelm a hypothetical risk that your species has never encountered before.
IMO space contact & travel will have one of three outcomes. (1) The light speed limit can be worked around and none of this matters. (2) Life is Common, and the Dark Forest Theory is valid between species. (3) Life is Rare, humanity will colonize the stars, but a version of the Dark Forest Theory will begin to apply between human colonies separated by hundreds of lightyears. If its been 150 years since anyone in your colony has ever talked to Earth, then you're not really a colony anymore, but it's obvious to you that Earth won't see it that way. Your colony creates other colonies, and it takes earth hundreds of years to find out about them, if you decide to even tell them (because what do you owe earth?). So a thousand years pass and we've got dozens/hundreds of Tribes of humans who can't really talk to each other, most of whom don't even know of each other's existence, all developing culture, science, and weapons at independent rates. Really starts to look Dark Forest-esque, doesn't it?
> It's more accurate to say that HUMANITY would need a cooperative spirit in order to reach interstellar travel. I don't think it's accurate to assume that every species would need this.
How do you build a spaceship without working together with others?
> Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do.
Who said the missles are dumb rocks? If each one has a camera on it and a few adjustment rockets, it can choose which planets to target as it approaches the star. It's gonna take you a hundred thousand years to get there anyway, so who cares if you wreck the local ecosystem a little bit now? You're probably going to have to make changes to the planet to suit your species' needs anyway, so why be coy about it to save yourself a minivan's worth of raw material?
How do you build a spaceship without working together with others?
> Constructing even a galaxy's worth of kill missiles and launching them wildly like a shotgun isn't a strategy that any logical civilization would do.
Who said the missles are dumb rocks? If each one has a camera on it and a few adjustment rockets, it can choose which planets to target as it approaches the star. It's gonna take you a hundred thousand years to get there anyway, so who cares if you wreck the local ecosystem a little bit now? You're probably going to have to make changes to the planet to suit your species' needs anyway, so why be coy about it to save yourself a minivan's worth of raw material?
> How do you build a spaceship without working together with others?
Ants don't build colonies because they consciously choose to participate in the greater good as individuals. It's pure instinct for them to work together. Imagine if some were more intelligent and could shape or direct that instinct. A "hive mind" if you will.
Ants don't build colonies because they consciously choose to participate in the greater good as individuals. It's pure instinct for them to work together. Imagine if some were more intelligent and could shape or direct that instinct. A "hive mind" if you will.
I also had a similar feeling after finishing the book, this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmCTmgavkrQ made some good points, mainly finding problems with the axioms so it convinced me that the conclusion in the book is probably wrong since the axioms are probably not true.
Regarding how long it takes to travel between habitable systems- Cixin Liu, like most other hard sci-fi authors, and everybody else who thinks about those things, seems to assume that lightspeed is just as problematic for everyone else as it is for us humans.
And yet we have no way to know that for sure. We have no idea what the average lifespan of an intelligent species is. It may just be that humans are particularly short-lived, among all the species in the galaxy, or the entire universe. If a species has a lifetime of a couple thousand years then interstellar travel, even at sub-light speeds, would be a lot more manageable than it is for us.
Which to me, means we can relax a little about the risk of being destroyed by hostile aliens. We don't know what we don't know. Chances are, if they were going to destroy us, they would have already done so in the last million years or so. We're probably a lot less appealing, as a world, than we think we are. Perhaps the universe really hates salt water or oxygen atmospheres? Who's to say?
And yet we have no way to know that for sure. We have no idea what the average lifespan of an intelligent species is. It may just be that humans are particularly short-lived, among all the species in the galaxy, or the entire universe. If a species has a lifetime of a couple thousand years then interstellar travel, even at sub-light speeds, would be a lot more manageable than it is for us.
Which to me, means we can relax a little about the risk of being destroyed by hostile aliens. We don't know what we don't know. Chances are, if they were going to destroy us, they would have already done so in the last million years or so. We're probably a lot less appealing, as a world, than we think we are. Perhaps the universe really hates salt water or oxygen atmospheres? Who's to say?
> Cixin Liu, like most other hard sci-fi authors, and everybody else who thinks about those things, seems to assume that lightspeed is just as problematic for everyone else as it is for us humans.
... the primary weapon of the Trisolans in the first book are subatomic ansible faeries.
I thought it was kind of funny, because the whole point behind the Dark Forest theory is that it emerges because aliens are so unknowable, there can never be proper trust between them. Yet a relatively young and slowly-developing race is literally more sure of what humanity is doing than we are of our neighbouring countries.
"Hard sci-fi", pfft :P
... the primary weapon of the Trisolans in the first book are subatomic ansible faeries.
I thought it was kind of funny, because the whole point behind the Dark Forest theory is that it emerges because aliens are so unknowable, there can never be proper trust between them. Yet a relatively young and slowly-developing race is literally more sure of what humanity is doing than we are of our neighbouring countries.
"Hard sci-fi", pfft :P
+++ SPOILERS +++
Eh, they had inside information (the Earth-Trisolaran Organisation was in contact with them).
And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies found in the magical forest of Elthrolien that had to be seduced with promises of space mead.
That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic. Cixin Liu usually manages to weave in a couple of natural laws to every impossible thing so he passes.
I was more annoyed by the lightspeed contrails to be honest. That really comes out of nowhere and is a total literary device that has no basis on anything we know of. Makes the whole endeavour space opera if you ask me - which is not bad in and of itself. But in that case, where's the nuclear energy-sword wielding hero who saves humanity? Disappoint.
Eh, they had inside information (the Earth-Trisolaran Organisation was in contact with them).
And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies found in the magical forest of Elthrolien that had to be seduced with promises of space mead.
That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic. Cixin Liu usually manages to weave in a couple of natural laws to every impossible thing so he passes.
I was more annoyed by the lightspeed contrails to be honest. That really comes out of nowhere and is a total literary device that has no basis on anything we know of. Makes the whole endeavour space opera if you ask me - which is not bad in and of itself. But in that case, where's the nuclear energy-sword wielding hero who saves humanity? Disappoint.
> And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies
Does mentioning your faeries are made out of atoms stop them being fantasy?
> That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic.
Sure, I mean, even Star Wars is still considered within the genre despite it all being completely made-up - but the point of hard sci-fi is you're not just making it up and rubbing science-words on your endless stream of arbitrary plot contrivances.
Does mentioning your faeries are made out of atoms stop them being fantasy?
> That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic.
Sure, I mean, even Star Wars is still considered within the genre despite it all being completely made-up - but the point of hard sci-fi is you're not just making it up and rubbing science-words on your endless stream of arbitrary plot contrivances.
My opinion on this might be controversial but I think there's very little difference between even "hard" sci-fi and all-out fantasy (but, with spaceships). There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible.
Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature.
I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.
Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature.
I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.
>There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible.
Are we living in the same world? Quantum mechanics, relativistic effects, mathematics ( game theory anyone? ) are blowing my mind. The world is more phantastic than anything one could imagine and we know that we don't know everything. The constraint to stay in this world is the least limiting for an interesting and compelling story.
Are we living in the same world? Quantum mechanics, relativistic effects, mathematics ( game theory anyone? ) are blowing my mind. The world is more phantastic than anything one could imagine and we know that we don't know everything. The constraint to stay in this world is the least limiting for an interesting and compelling story.
But those are not science fiction. If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story. If you start speculating about what _might_ be possible- you'll end up with time travel through black holes, like in Interstellar, which makes for a nice story, but not a very realistic one.
There is a trade-off between speculation and realism, that leaves a very, very narrow space for an interesting story.
Part of it is due to the fact that most of modern science has been mined mercilessly for "hard" sci-fi subjects, that have now become tropes that can't form the basis for an interesting new story anymore. For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. Nice movie, hey. But nothing new, there.
There is a trade-off between speculation and realism, that leaves a very, very narrow space for an interesting story.
Part of it is due to the fact that most of modern science has been mined mercilessly for "hard" sci-fi subjects, that have now become tropes that can't form the basis for an interesting new story anymore. For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. Nice movie, hey. But nothing new, there.
Er, no, on all counts.
> But those are not science fiction.
Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK?
> If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story.
Um. Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue.
> Interstellar, which makes for a nice story
Interstellar is tediously boring rubbish :P
> For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact.
What... no? The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".
> But those are not science fiction.
Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK?
> If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story.
Um. Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue.
> Interstellar, which makes for a nice story
Interstellar is tediously boring rubbish :P
> For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact.
What... no? The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".
He makes a lot of interesting hash from the speed of light (like the Dark Domain defense). But he more or less handwaves away the speed of light as a limitation, introducing viable FTL travel in Death's End. (As an aside, one of the things I like about the books is how terror scales... from the understandable, relativistic terror of the Trisolarans to the much more threatening terror of the Dark Forest, to the sheer hopelessness of some species altering the very laws of physics as a weapon.)
> to the much more threatening terror of the Dark Forest, to the sheer hopelessness of some species altering the very laws of physics as a weapon.
Yup. Reading the implication that the universe has only 3 dimensions because dimensionality reduction weapons were used in past wars triggered a small existential crisis in me.
Yup. Reading the implication that the universe has only 3 dimensions because dimensionality reduction weapons were used in past wars triggered a small existential crisis in me.
Spoiler tags please! For the uninitiated.
Dimensinoality reduction? I never thought of those weapons as akin to universal PCA before. Thanks for the image.
Dimensinoality reduction? I never thought of those weapons as akin to universal PCA before. Thanks for the image.
Not really, since DFT covers how fast information travels, not biological bodies. Lifespans aren't really part of the equation.
That's not to do with Dark Forest Theory, but why do you say it's about how fast information travels? I take it as a theory about the outlook of technological civilisations with respect to each other.
And yes, lifespans are important. Perhaps not in the books, but in the real world our science and technology advances at least some in every generation, as new scientists and technologists continue the work of their forebears.
If human generations lasted a thousand years, it would perhaps take us a lot longer to make the same technological progress that it now only takes us a few years- if nothing else because the urgency of making progress would be reduced accordingly.
Lifespans may also influence the actualy speed by which species form thoughts and communicate. Remember the Ents in The Lord of the Rings? A species that lived ten thousand years may take an Earth day to form a meaningful utterance. Technological advancement would take considerably longer for them than for us.
And yes, lifespans are important. Perhaps not in the books, but in the real world our science and technology advances at least some in every generation, as new scientists and technologists continue the work of their forebears.
If human generations lasted a thousand years, it would perhaps take us a lot longer to make the same technological progress that it now only takes us a few years- if nothing else because the urgency of making progress would be reduced accordingly.
Lifespans may also influence the actualy speed by which species form thoughts and communicate. Remember the Ents in The Lord of the Rings? A species that lived ten thousand years may take an Earth day to form a meaningful utterance. Technological advancement would take considerably longer for them than for us.
Oh boy, read Blindsight by Peter Watts. Kinda similar idea but more deeply dreadful. Messed me up for days. Now added to the pile labeled "Existentially Horrifying Crap I have to Not Think About to Make It Through Another Day".
Link, along with much of his other work: https://rifters.com/real/shorts.htm
I've read Blindsight. It's a good one. Actually, the premise didn't bother me as much as the Three Body trilogy.
Sadly, game theory bears out that observation. [1] Trust is difficult to cultivate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
True, but I think there’s more hope when you take superrationality[1] into account.
Multiple actors can independently arrive at compatible cooperative solutions to the survival-and-utility game (which is not zero-sum).
Wikipedia says it assumes all other players are also superrational, but I think in practice a successful variant of this strategy is to identify whether other players are superrational and avoid them if not.
There is sometimes the option of converting existing self-interested rational players into superrational ones, but that is another subject entirely.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
Multiple actors can independently arrive at compatible cooperative solutions to the survival-and-utility game (which is not zero-sum).
Wikipedia says it assumes all other players are also superrational, but I think in practice a successful variant of this strategy is to identify whether other players are superrational and avoid them if not.
There is sometimes the option of converting existing self-interested rational players into superrational ones, but that is another subject entirely.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality
It would be nice if we were all superrational, but that concept just explains away the entire problem of the prisoner's dillemma: the dilemma serves to highlight our mutual lack of trust, and superrationality simply says, 'what if we did trust each other'? Since the assumptions of superrationality would be naive and foolish for any of those prisoners to assume, it solves nothing.
The idea is not to assume that everyone will be superrational or trustworthy at the beginning of the game.
I believe it’s possible for the superrational players in a game to become the majority by expressing the superrational strategy in terms that will appeal to rationally self-interested players and demonstrating a superrational strategy working at some non-trivial scale.
I believe it’s possible for the superrational players in a game to become the majority by expressing the superrational strategy in terms that will appeal to rationally self-interested players and demonstrating a superrational strategy working at some non-trivial scale.
Even so, that idea merely expresses the hope that the prisoners can be educated out of their mistrust - which still seems like saying, 'the dillemma doesn't exist, if we fix the prisoners'.
(for the sake of argument, it looks like we're both assuming a n>2 group of prisoners.)
Also, the point of the dillemma is that only one prisoner has to act selfishly. If a subset of the group does cooperate, it doesn't matter because the one left out will take advantage of them all...and that risk increases exponentially as the size of the group increases, and makes the decision to trust even a subset of the group irrational.
(for the sake of argument, it looks like we're both assuming a n>2 group of prisoners.)
Also, the point of the dillemma is that only one prisoner has to act selfishly. If a subset of the group does cooperate, it doesn't matter because the one left out will take advantage of them all...and that risk increases exponentially as the size of the group increases, and makes the decision to trust even a subset of the group irrational.
In the prisoners’ dilemma, it is true that even a single bad actor has the ability to disrupt the rest.
One limitation of that thought experiment is that it assumes defection is guaranteed to achieve a certain outcome.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that any cooperative strategy has some computable “defection tolerance” and a variant on the prisoners’ dilemma that accounts for this could have very different outcomes than the classical formulation.
Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game. The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game.
One limitation of that thought experiment is that it assumes defection is guaranteed to achieve a certain outcome.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that any cooperative strategy has some computable “defection tolerance” and a variant on the prisoners’ dilemma that accounts for this could have very different outcomes than the classical formulation.
Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game. The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game.
> One limitation of that thought experiment is that it assumes defection is guaranteed to achieve a certain outcome.
That's a premise, and it's what creates the dillema in the first place.
> Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game. The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game.
Actually, the wikipedia article on the dilemma discusses this. The nash equilibrium is actually for all players to defect. There is no engendered trust. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
That's a premise, and it's what creates the dillema in the first place.
> Furthermore, once you start playing multiple times with the same players, you establish an algebra of trust that also drastically changes the game. The ability to influence other players between rounds also changes the game.
Actually, the wikipedia article on the dilemma discusses this. The nash equilibrium is actually for all players to defect. There is no engendered trust. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_itera...
> The nash equilibrium is actually for all players to defect.
Only in games where players know the number of rounds (e.g. a suicide bomber defects because they’ve decided to cap the number of rounds they’re going to play).
The same Wikipedia article describes that in studies where the number of rounds is unknown to players, superrational strategies are sustainable and that the “always defect” strategy becomes only one of several paths to Nash equilibrium.
Only in games where players know the number of rounds (e.g. a suicide bomber defects because they’ve decided to cap the number of rounds they’re going to play).
The same Wikipedia article describes that in studies where the number of rounds is unknown to players, superrational strategies are sustainable and that the “always defect” strategy becomes only one of several paths to Nash equilibrium.
I hear you. Liu's outlook is deeply pessimistic. His obvious scientific background knowledge seems to be infused with a dash of western, neoliberal ideology-- that it's just dog-eat-dog out there, and we're all in it for our own self-interest.
It's a bit ironic considering Liu is Chinese- wasn't China's Ming Dynasty the first to land on America in the early 1400s and historically demonstrate that exploration and discovery weren't necessarily accompanied by colonization/enslavement/destruction?
That example gets held up a lot when mainstream historians spin the narrative that Colombus et al enslaved/raped/pillaged because that's just what societies do (while ignoring that it was the debt that the explorers owed to their financiers that drove most of that bad behavior).
It's a bit ironic considering Liu is Chinese- wasn't China's Ming Dynasty the first to land on America in the early 1400s and historically demonstrate that exploration and discovery weren't necessarily accompanied by colonization/enslavement/destruction?
That example gets held up a lot when mainstream historians spin the narrative that Colombus et al enslaved/raped/pillaged because that's just what societies do (while ignoring that it was the debt that the explorers owed to their financiers that drove most of that bad behavior).
>that Colombus et al enslaved/raped/pillaged because that's just what societies do (while ignoring that it was the debt that the explorers owed to their financiers that drove most of that bad behavior).
Would you mind extrapolating on that a bit? In my totally 'unbiased' and 'truthful' American public school they never mentioned a word of this. I've always wanted to learn more about the real origins of this broken country.
Would you mind extrapolating on that a bit? In my totally 'unbiased' and 'truthful' American public school they never mentioned a word of this. I've always wanted to learn more about the real origins of this broken country.
I found the oatmeal's comic about Columbus enlightening (and disturbing) https://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day
Wait until you discover that the story behind Thanksgiving is pretty much a proper alien invasion sci-fi, featuring technologically superior invaders landing in ships, and promptly unleashing biological weapons on the local population.
Well I knew that part. <sarcasm> They did it to promote freedom of course. </sarcasm>
People don’t always or even normally act at the level of civilizations. Why would this apply at the civilization and not the town or the state or country or corporate level.
Different groups of people get along because we're all still human and very similarly culturally and understand each other's desires and goals. Things start going badly when there's major social and technological differences. Think of how things went for the natives when America was discovered.
Now amplify it. Imagine if different countries were isolated from each other for millions of years, evolving into different species, and advancing technology the whole time, lost track of any commonalities between each other, and were then exposed to each other.
Now amplify it. Imagine if different countries were isolated from each other for millions of years, evolving into different species, and advancing technology the whole time, lost track of any commonalities between each other, and were then exposed to each other.
If you are in the market for a good story touching similar topics, I thought Pandora's Star (first of a two-book series) was a great read (I bounced hard off the dark forest)
I figure that the age of global discovery and colonialism that happened here on Earth is a case study. Fixed resources, different cultures, huge differences in technology. It wasn't great, but also, many distinct cultures and peoples survived.
Age of colonization meets zero of the two axioms underpinning "dark forest" - there was a possibility of establishing trust, and there was no possibility of sudden and unexpected technological leaps of the weaker side.
I think with the rate of technological growth an intelligent species can improve to match another quicker than they can travel across space. Or perhaps even surpass an isolated travelling group.
Personally, I think it's possible that abiogenesis is so rare that we are the only life within the observable universe. I don't know if that's more or less depressing.
Wouldn't the "Black Domain" concept introduced in Death's End be a better metaphor here? Communities are choosing to seal themselves off from the greater Internet, even if that means they cannot collaborate/engage with as many other people.
Aka Balkanization.
This is what I predicted about 5 years ago: every country will get its own version of the Great Firewall.
yes precisely my thought
Is this a meme?
'''Calls out the internet for becoming a 'dark forest' bc of indexed, optimized, and gamified nature...posts on Medium'''
'''Calls out the internet for becoming a 'dark forest' bc of indexed, optimized, and gamified nature...posts on Medium'''
the point of the post is that there's also a danger in withdrawing from participating in the public and that there's a significant downside to the public and oneself when we withdraw from discourse, so I don't think there's a contradiction here at all.
I've posted criticisms of FB on FB. What else are you gonna do when there really is no choice. this kind of criticisms really are ad-homenian attacks with little to contribute.
On an irrelevant point: do bloggers who use Medium honestly expect people to pay $5/mo to see their content? By comparison NY Times is $1/mo for unlimited articles.
I have nothing against paying for content (and I do so regularly) but there's no way I'm ever paying for something hosted on Medium. The persistent sharing dickbars, the annoying attempts at getting me to sign up, the ridiculously over-sized header, it all really ticks me off. It's funny how a website that portrays itself as a home for great content consistently displays the utmost disregard for content.
we make things. we make fullstack websites, we make payment processing widgets. we hook them together. a product no one wants, so it doesn't get purchased.
imagine if other hobbyists could so easily duct tape a virtual point-of-sale to their display cases. imagine if a gearhead could put a card reader on their front door, try to get the public to wander in for 5 bucks and watch, ask questions. if she could do that as easily as us web geeks could, she'd try it too.
but we're the ones with the free access to try it, so we're pioneering this model of a hobbyist product that few will pay for.
imagine if other hobbyists could so easily duct tape a virtual point-of-sale to their display cases. imagine if a gearhead could put a card reader on their front door, try to get the public to wander in for 5 bucks and watch, ask questions. if she could do that as easily as us web geeks could, she'd try it too.
but we're the ones with the free access to try it, so we're pioneering this model of a hobbyist product that few will pay for.
The internet I grew up on didn't charge money for IRC, Blogspot, forums, mailing lists, Stack Overflow, etc. I'm now in the 1% due to the skills I've learned from free sources, and I pay it forward as much as I can.
I have yet to encounter a "premium" medium article that really made me think or change my views. Their auto-Google login, paywall, and other dark patterns are annoying at best. Given their actions and how I value their content, I think Medium is the worst kind of walled garden.
The Medium model is hot garbage, and I hope it dies.
I have yet to encounter a "premium" medium article that really made me think or change my views. Their auto-Google login, paywall, and other dark patterns are annoying at best. Given their actions and how I value their content, I think Medium is the worst kind of walled garden.
The Medium model is hot garbage, and I hope it dies.
> The internet I grew up on didn't charge money for IRC, Blogspot, forums, mailing lists, Stack Overflow, etc.
Most of those things were and are maintained by unpaid volunteers, some of them spending their own money every month to keep the servers on.
Which is awesome. I applaud anyone who's willing and able to give to the community like that. But a lot of people now act like it's inherently repugnant to want to be paid for your work, like digital content shouldn't exist unless it's a self-funded hobby. I don't think that's reasonable or realistic.
Just to be clear, is it just Medium you don't like, or the entire concept of paying for content? I'm seeing both.
Most of those things were and are maintained by unpaid volunteers, some of them spending their own money every month to keep the servers on.
Which is awesome. I applaud anyone who's willing and able to give to the community like that. But a lot of people now act like it's inherently repugnant to want to be paid for your work, like digital content shouldn't exist unless it's a self-funded hobby. I don't think that's reasonable or realistic.
Just to be clear, is it just Medium you don't like, or the entire concept of paying for content? I'm seeing both.
As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your content. Internet access must be paid for, but content is something to share. Who cares if the people who wrote it get paid?
[deleted]
If you believe content is worth paying for at all, the price of a cup of coffee every month seems perfectly reasonable.
The NYT has a different business model, and is still partly supported by advertising in the print edition.
The digital content pricing race-to-the-bottom is really unfortunate. It's why we have shitty free-to-play mobile games, for example: people won't pay more than a few dollars for a phone game anymore, so a lot of devs have to find other business models to support development.
The NYT has a different business model, and is still partly supported by advertising in the print edition.
The digital content pricing race-to-the-bottom is really unfortunate. It's why we have shitty free-to-play mobile games, for example: people won't pay more than a few dollars for a phone game anymore, so a lot of devs have to find other business models to support development.
> If you believe content is worth paying for at all, the price of a cup of coffee every month seems perfectly reasonable.
First: In the USA, a cup of coffee might cost 5$; in other countries, it is much cheaper.
Second: Every payment you do in the internet leaves a huge data track since there exists no analogue for cash for paying anonymously in the internet. So in particular if you are skeptical of data krakens like Facebook etc., you should be very cautious to pay in the internet. In particular, for each payment in the internet, you do not only pay with money, but also with lots of sensitive data.
First: In the USA, a cup of coffee might cost 5$; in other countries, it is much cheaper.
Second: Every payment you do in the internet leaves a huge data track since there exists no analogue for cash for paying anonymously in the internet. So in particular if you are skeptical of data krakens like Facebook etc., you should be very cautious to pay in the internet. In particular, for each payment in the internet, you do not only pay with money, but also with lots of sensitive data.
With SV salaries that is easy to justify. Normal people wouldn't pay even $3 for a cup of coffee.
The popularity of Starbucks suggests otherwise.
But if you still don't like the coffee analogy, that's fine. The point is that $5 a month is not a lot of money for the average American. That's much less than the cost of a monthly newspaper subscription, and 20 years ago those were extremely popular.
But if you still don't like the coffee analogy, that's fine. The point is that $5 a month is not a lot of money for the average American. That's much less than the cost of a monthly newspaper subscription, and 20 years ago those were extremely popular.
or if not advertising inside products, then it rewards walled gardens to grow - the games, blogs, et al end up inside a subsidiary that collects payment for access to all of it together. and the walls grow.
IMO the NYT deserves $0. Even blogspam is better than the narrative pushing they do.
I'm not a fan of this metaphor but I definitely feel the phenomenon it's alluding to in my life. I've increasingly enjoyed a relatively obscure social media existence on a small, focused Mastodon community as opposed to the general warfare of Twitter.
Similarly I post here out of obligations I have to folks, not because I like it or feel comfortable, welcome, or part of the community. I have smaller, private venues where I feel like I can be myself. And I'm aware sometimes I am a contributor to that attitude of "we are here to pick fights", but there isn't much I can do about it, that's what a lot of tech forums aspire to be.
Similarly I post here out of obligations I have to folks, not because I like it or feel comfortable, welcome, or part of the community. I have smaller, private venues where I feel like I can be myself. And I'm aware sometimes I am a contributor to that attitude of "we are here to pick fights", but there isn't much I can do about it, that's what a lot of tech forums aspire to be.
I feel like there are some really nice ideas in here, but I felt like the metaphor of the dark forest really took a turn when the author started using it to describe the communication channels they felt like were still safe.
I'd personally term those burrows or something. Something that is hidden from external observers walking through the dark forest.
I'd personally term those burrows or something. Something that is hidden from external observers walking through the dark forest.
I agree, I was pretty confused when dark forests went from "things hiding from predators" to "safe, separate spaces to communicate"
Is more a mass of jungle with some old boggy wastelands and an escalating series of slash and burn plantation forestry monocultures all intertwined with unruly canopy vines and invasive fungi.
I'd say the Internet is more like Dante's "dark wood" in that it leads to Hell, but without a Virgil and no road to Paradise (or even Purgatory) waiting at the end.
There are plenty of exclusive communities on the internet because it's just as useful of a tool for any illegal activity as it is for corporations trying to drive more profits.
dude's obviously never been to a dark forest.
What makes Cixin's dark forest so awful is that new intelligent species are going out into a Universe with other species millions of years more advanced than they are, species that can easily exterminate entire solar systems - or worse (the weapons in Cixin's dark forest make the Death Star look like a drawing of a BB gun). Is that really what we have here, on the internet? When we find our autonomous zones (to steal an anarchist phrase), do Google and Facebook actively exterminate them? No. Not yet, anyway.
I think other analogies might be in order for the very real phenomenon of retreating from the corporate internet.