Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by notfish 754 days ago
The idea is that, because of the risk of a technological explosion, any sentient species is a threat.

I don’t really buy the idea though - cooperation has been the strongest strength of humanity and is one of our greatest evolutionary edges. Why wouldn’t that apply on the interstellar scale too?

2 comments

Shoot first and ask questions later, if anything shooting first is safer (civilizational risk) on the chance they are thinking the same. On the flip side, an alien civilization sees our request to cooperate, they can accept or they can destroy us, to them we could be lying or go back on our word and destroy them.

I see some criticism of dark forest theory in here, but keeping quite and shooting first are the least risky options when the inentions or capabilities of another civilization are unknown and making assumptions about the other sides friendliness could lead to eithers extinction.

In terms of absolute agnosticism anything can lead to anything.
Reasonable to assume that if I have a weapon that can destroy a civilization, others may have it too. Assuming also they have the similar risk calculus, it leans towards hiding and then nuking when either gets afraid enough. You can't do much but hope the other side is not more advance that you and can mitigate the attack.

It seems like a big stretch to assume aliens are going to share ideas of liberal democracy like fairness/cooperation etc (which are fairly recent) when there are groups of humans who do not

And what if they can mitigate the attack?
Then we are probably dead anyway, the onus would have been on them to contact us as they are probably several centuries more advanced. In that case its like going with a tank to an island population that still uses bows and arrows
Is it a good idea to pick a fight with a tank?
Humans attempt to dominate every nonhuman species within their reach, sentient or not.

Humans have not even advanced beyond attempting to dominate others of the same species.