Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Fermi paradox: Dark forest Theory


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

 Hi, what do you think about dark forest theory for fermi paradox?  Its basicaly a theory that says that most, if not all, civilizations chose to remain silent  and avoid being detected, so that they arent attacked by genocidal civilizations. 

 

We have been sending radio waves for around 100 years, that means that , if we are on a dark forest, theres not a civilization within the 100 light years that want to spend energy to destroy us. At least not yet . Maybe our neighborhood is somewhat kind , but they try to be as silent as possible to avoid hostile civilizations. Maybe very few civilizations use radio waves as comunication device in their early stagies, so they wont think radio waves means civilization, because some stars release radio waves. Very advanced civilizations might just not look for radio waves because only primitive and harmless civilizations use these tecnologies. Advanced civilizations might develop a tecnology that blends with natural universe, so that, they remain hidden. In nature , its a strategy adopted by many beings. Bright colours in nature generally means the being doesnt have many predators , or that its poisonous. However , some non poisonous species have bright colours, so that , predators would THINK its poisonous. So maybe advanced hostile civilizations detected us, but they think we are an advanced civilization pretending to be primitive, so that, we can attract them and make them reveal themselves.
 
 

 


  • Jakob and PhoenixRu like this

#2
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,016 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Then, they must think we're insane for blaring out those radio waves out into the cosmos. 

 

Maybe a neighbor civilization will obliterate our solar system just to shut us up.


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#3
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

Here   it says that the radio waves are undetectable from 100 light years away, so if theres not a civilization that can detect radio waves within that distance , we are safe for a while. 

 

This site  explains why  our radio waves wouldnt be detectable even by a possible proxima centauri civilization.  A powerfull radio wave was sent in 1974,  but didnt reach many potential civilization planets  by now. However, I think we should stop with that radio waves aimed to aliens. 

 

I think that dark forest is a much better explanation to fermi paradox than " All civilizations destroy themselves" .  That is  because  the second explanation requires all civilizations act the same way.  But dark forest is compatible with civilizations doing different things. Example:

 

1 Hostile and quiet civilization

2 Hostile and loud civilization

3 Pacific and quiet civilization

4 Pacific and loud civilization

5 a  quiet civilization that dont attack unless  their star sistem is invaded

 

 

If 1 meets 2 , one kill another, most advanced survives, but 1 is most likely to survive because of surprise. If  1 meets 4 ,  1 likely will kill 4, because they will attack on surprise, and 4 has no experience in battles.  So, civilizations like 4 are likely to disappear.  3 likely wont find 4.  3 is less likely to be found.  So, 3 might travel through space and find 1 ,  5 or other  3. If 3 finds 1 , they might give hints from were they came and reveal themselves.  1 will now kill 3 if they have enough tecnology to do so, and 1 has advantage,  because 1 attacks first.  So, is space is full of civilizations, they are likely to be hostile and quiet , or behave like 5. Reveal yourself in space looks like a very stupid strategy, because it would require all civilizations in your neighborhood to be pacific to work. 

 

 

You may say that 1 should have alread spreaded through space  and colonized entire galaxy  if it existed, but wars and other civilizations that act exactly the same way may have slowed down  galaxy colonization.


  • Jakob, Hyndal_Halcyon and PhoenixRu like this

#4
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

Hi, what do you think about ...

 

Congratulations, you're the third who created such a thread! Jakob was first and I was second :)

 

I can add that experienced civilizations (those who already met someone else and survived) will develop the sophisticated art of deception: say, civilization 1 will desperately pretend to be 3 when they met more advanced 3 or 4, and everyone will pretend more advanced than they really are.


  • Jakob likes this

#5
Jessica

Jessica

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts

Then, they must think we're insane for blaring out those radio waves out into the cosmos. 

 

Maybe a neighbor civilization will obliterate our solar system just to shut us up.

 

 

Or find us and enslave our planet.



#6
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

 

Then, they must think we're insane for blaring out those radio waves out into the cosmos. 

 

Maybe a neighbor civilization will obliterate our solar system just to shut us up.

 

Or find us and enslave our planet.

 

Or, being already experienced and very suspicious, they may conclude: "no-no, this is likely a trap! There should be a mighty type 1 pretending to be young and silly type 2 or type 4... we have to be careful here if we want to survive."

 

In short, this "dark forest" theory suggests that even the villain civilizations should refrain from unlimited expansion (to avoid meeting with the same villains but more advanced).



#7
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

Here, people, i've just made a simple model to illustrate this theory.

 

Imagine the Universe full of stars and, so far, with no civilizations:

 

Spoiler

 

As time goes by, the first civilizations begin to appear. Yes, each of them may be described by two parameters: evil (red) or good (geen) and loud (brighter color) or quiet (darker color). The third parameter is their level of technology. Each civilization starts with 0 and gains 1 point per turn. So, the older, the wiser.

 

Here you can see first civilizations sending the first interstellar messages (thin gray lines) to neighbour stars, but there is still nobody to answer them:

 

Spoiler

 

When a message is received, the sender reveals itself to the recipient. The way receiving civilization will react to message depends of its type:

 

1) Good and loud will reply.

2) Good and quiet will not reply.

3) Evil and loud will attack the weaker (than itself) sender or reply to stronger sender.

4) Evil and quiet will attack the weaker sender or not reply to stronger sender.

 

I assumed that each civilization gets one extra point of technology per each known neighbor (thus, obviously, civilization aware of 9 neighbors will advance 1 + 9 = 10 times faster than isolated one).

 

Eventually, the first contacts (thicker yellow lines) being established: 

 

Spoiler

 

Civilizations are unaware of the type (good or evil?) of sender, so the smartest strategy is to listen and learn but not reply to messages. Those who do not understand this are attacked and destroyed, as you can see:

 

Spoiler

 

Here you can see the oldest (and the only survived) good and loud civilization sending messages through whole universe. As it seems (to the sending side), the universe is almost empty and almost nobody responds... but this is an illusion. Actually, this civilization is surrounded by silent listeners, who are learn and wait:

 

Spoiler

 

460 ticks later, they are still listen and learn... while the altruistic supercivilization still can not solve the greatest mistery: why the universe is so empty and why and where disappear those rare friends who responded to their messages?:

 

Spoiler
 
But eventually:
 
Spoiler
 

What happened? The answer is simple: listeners gain one extra point of technology and, eventually, one of evil civilizations gained enough to destroy the teacher.

 

And here we are, in the Dark Forest. Since now, the Universe is populated by old and wise civilizations. Any novice will be destroyed as soon as it sends the first message. The typical story sounds like this:

 

Civ A was born

Civ B got a message from civ A

Civ A was attacked and destroyed by civ B

 

Spoiler

 

Tick 8120, the end of Dark Forest. No any remaining stars (white dots) which could produce the new civilization:

 

Spoiler

 

Such was the tragic story I wanted to tell you...


  • Outlook and Alislaws like this

#8
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

A large issue with the dark forest idea is that other alien species would have to had had evidence that a hostile alien civilization exists, because otherwise they'd be like us. If the universe then is indeed a dark forest, how would these other civilisations know that there is a hostile alien civilization? The only thing that could work with this is circumstance, that is if we're just here after other alien civilizations have gone silent with their signals past us, but before any evidence of a hostile alien civilization appearing.

 

It also ignores stuff like diplomacy. If multiple good and loud civilizations establish peace and alliance, then how would a hostile and isolatory civilisation stand to attack them?

 

For me, ultimately it's an Occam's razor thing. If a hostile civilization exists, that has actively destroyed other alien civilizations, the level of their technology and capabilities would have to become apparent to earth. It's almost impossible that there would be no evidence of a civilization like this appearing, if not on our solar bodies, then in radio signals and severe abnormalities.

 

It's more likely for me that we're just one of the first intelligent species to appear in the universe. The number of supporting factors needed for an energy intensive organ like the brain to exist is many. Think that humans have to be born premature because our heads are too large, and that it requires 20% of our energy needs. My theory is that, other animals can spontaneously evolve certain unique characteristics that allow them to successfully survive and that extremely rarely reoccur (and thus occur in general) as they're replaced by other systems after an extinction event, for example like the feeding mechanisms of the Dunkleosteus, or the Helicoprion. It can be said that the pre-requisite for these systems to occur are rare, for reasons that other less specialized and general systems simply do the job, or that the biological requirements for that evolution can only occur under specific biological and/or ecological conditions. It can be that the prequisite for the factors to create our evolutionary advantageous organ requires a lot of things, like free hands with opposable thumbs, warm blood, live birth, omnivorous and thus energy-rich food options, and also an ecological opportunity for a large brain to be used supportively during its initial formation. Living in a lush Eden won't make a brain necessary, but in harsh challenging conditions, it will.


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/bE_UDATn42E

#9
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

A large issue with the dark forest idea is that other alien species would have to had had evidence that a hostile alien civilization exists, because otherwise they'd be like us. If the universe then is indeed a dark forest, how would these other civilisations know that there is a hostile alien civilization?

 

They don't need to know for sure, guess is more than enough. They can guess this from their own evolutionary history, full of ruthless struggle for survival. Then, as soon as guess was made, this is a matter of bare mathematics: say, 5% of "evil" civilizations in Universe will mean exactly 5% chance to be attacked by each new civilization they met. This is enough to scare them.

 

 It also ignores stuff like diplomacy. If multiple good and loud civilizations establish peace and alliance, then how would a hostile and isolatory civilisation stand to attack them?

 

In the Dark Forest Universe, the diplomacy will be a very risky thing. Again, by sending diplomats, you reveal yourself but don’t know for sure how the other side will react (see above).

 

The interstellar wars will also be very different from any earthly experience. With interstellar distances, the rule of MAD will not work and attacker will always have huge advantage while defender may not even know who invaders are and from which direction they came. Those "wars" will actually be the quick (but carefully planned and prepared) acts of genocide. And now imagine the foreign policy with "who strikes first, always wins" rule.

 

For me, ultimately it's an Occam's razor thing. If a hostile civilization exists, that has actively destroyed other alien civilizations, the level of their technology and capabilities would have to become apparent to earth. It's almost impossible that there would be no evidence of a civilization like this appearing, if not on our solar bodies, then in radio signals and severe abnormalities.

 

Well, actually we do see a lot of abnormalities. For example, rare and sharp flares of usually stable (not variable) stars. Can we assume that these are the signs of interstellar wars? Of course no, we can't, because of this same Occam's razor.

 

In short, I don't know is this "Dark Forest" theory correct or not, but it seems (to me) mathematically plausible.



#10
TSM

TSM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • LocationThe good old USA

Pertinent episode of the Orville just aired recently.  If you aren't watching the Orville, you should be.  It's like Star Trek, but not like Star Trek.

 

Season 2 Episode 5 "All the World is Birthday Cake"

The main plot of the episode is not important to this topic.  The important part happens near the beginning of the episode.  The Orville receives a radio message from an unexplored world "Is there anybody out there?"  This is cause for celebration and happiness for the crew.  They love first contact situations, and immediately activate the quantum drive and head to the planet as fast as possible, to introduce themselves.

 

On Star Trek the prime directive is very clear in these situations.  Because the civilization had not yet developed faster than light travel, the message would have been ignored.  Possibly they might have sent an incognito research team to investigate them, but certainly no formal introduction would have happened at their stage of technological development.  

 

Once the Orville arrived at the planet (possibly in a nod to Star Trek) they briefly explained why they engage alien cultures at this stage of development so quickly.  The Union (humans and other "nice" aliens) are the good guys.  Not everyone out there is so friendly, and they like being first so that a planet's first contact with aliens is not a violent or unpleasant one.  

 

Two very different approaches.  One assumes that contact from a technologically superior species is always bad for the technologically inferior species regardless of circumstance.  The other says that it's a "Good" technologically superior species responsibility to engage with and protect technologically inferior species from "Bad" technologically superior species.  


  • Jessica likes this

#11
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • LocationLondon

One really intersting thing is, given the scale involved, these civilizations would mostly be attacking eachother in order to prevent the other attacking them.

 

Resources could easily be obtained from empty star systems until the while galaxy is full which will take a ​long​ time. So stealing resources makes no sense.

 

Slaving etc. wouldn't make sense, we are probably within 100 years of being able to mass produce humans (which we wouldn't because it's unethical, but if you think enslaving whole alien races is fine, building an army of clones is probably fine also.) 

 

Stealing technology would be difficult, because your enemy must have more addvanced tech than you which means you're likely to lose the war. 

 

The only time war might make sense is if a species with a very strong military outlook comes across a pacifist species with better tech.

 

 

So you have a whole galaxy of species all hiding and occasionally genociding each other. All for no reason than they don't want to get genocided! 

 

 

Its very much a prisoner's dilemma situation from game theory.

 

Effectively earth right now is choosing the "Refuse to betray" response, even though that's only the optimum outcome if the races we meet are also refusing. In all other circumstances we'll be in trouble. 

 

We're basically at the start of using a strategy where we default to friendly and open, but turn closed/hostile if whoever we meet is rude (if we're seriously attacked by aliens, humanity will lose its shit, in a scary sort of way. Assuming we survived we would probably shift to Closed/hostile by default). 

 

This is probably a superior strategy to just going straight to hostile over many games, but it only takes one "loss" result for humanity to be wiped out so its probably not the best strategy for this. 

 

EDIT: Can't see images from Phoenix's Post will try again from home later, It seems to have covered a lot of similar stuff t what i'm saying, but in more detail. 



#12
Maximus

Maximus

    Spaceman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,805 posts
  • LocationCanada

From what I understand, this dark forest theory relies on two assumptions; that the priority of every civilization is its own survival, and that resources are limited. However, we obviously don't have any data to verify this model. Our only way of verifying that these two assumptions hold true, is to look back at our own history.

 

What's immediately obvious is that, yes, our history is a bloody and genocidal one. When asked what contact with a superior alien civilization would look like, many people would cite European first contact with Native Americans. The facts here are pretty depressing; a civilization with far superior technology happens upon a relatively primitive civilization(s), and proceeds to engage in the worst depravities humanity is capable of. Genocide, slavery, conquest, and so on. Significantly, the primitive civilization did not pose any threat to the advanced civilization. Rather than destroy the primitives out of fear, the destruction of their civilization occurred for a few reasons; resources, competition, and ideology. Having happened upon what seemed to be a vast "New World" full of unimaginable and exotic riches, the advanced civilization at once had an incentive to claim these resources for their own. Competition between the different factions of the advanced civilization (Spain, England, France, Portugal, etc.) exacerbated this drive for resources even further. Finally, the desire to spread the advanced civilization's ideology, Christianity (competition among factions here as well), also came into play. This was the least rational part; there was no "need" per se for the advanced civilization to spread its ideology. Rather, it did because it could. Bear in mind, this was done to members of the same species (although admittedly many might have seen the Natives as barely human). 

Overall, what we can conclude from this is that a superior alien civilization would utterly destroy us, and not because we might pose any threat to them. Rather, they might need resources, competition among their various factions might make our destruction advantageous, and the desire to spread their ideology to our primitive culture would be attractive.

 

However, here's the big question; is 15th and 16th century Western European civilization a fair representation of an advanced interstellar alien civilization? To answer that, we should look at whether it is even a fair representation of us. I would argue it isn't. Firstly, an encounter between our modern civilization and a primitive civilization would look very different. I'm not just being a hopeless optimist either, we have evidence for this; remember the Sentinelese people? By and large, rather than conquer them we have left them to their own devices. Why? Yes, we still have resource scarcity. But there isn't anything on that island that we couldn't find anywhere else on Earth. Likewise, why should aliens want to conquer our primitive rock and kill us all for resources they could easily find anywhere else in the universe? As technology advances, we face the prospect of ending resource scarcity by manipulating matter at its smallest levels. It might not happen tomorrow, but if 21st century humanity has the prospect of nanoscale replicators, imagine what a million year old alien civilization can do. In any case, it would be illogical for an alien civilization to destroy us if they needed resources (assuming destruction takes form of a planet-killing strike, and not an actual visit from ET). Granted though, not all encounters with such tribes have gone so well. However, as of right now, most governments have laws protecting these people's isolation. Of course, you get the rogues who still try and infiltrate the tribes to spread ideology, or even attack them to make way for resource development (again an advanced civilization wouldn't do this). But by and large, modern civilization seems to agree that they should be left alone, and every effort should be made to prevent rogues from harming them. 500 years ago, we chanced upon a civilization and wiped it out. Today, we chance upon a civilization and the concept of human rights stops us from doing the same thing.

 

This phase of humanity really only began after the absolute horrors of the two world wars, and the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. This seems to indicate that as a civilization progresses, the trials it faces cause it to mature. A species that has faced its own destruction gains a greater appreciation for the sanctity of life. Science, which has skyrocketed over the past few decades compounds this awareness even further. The understanding of how scarce intelligent life is seems to make us appreciate each other even more. Granted, this scarcity of life could be a false conclusion--however, it makes sense to assume every civilization passes through this phase of early scientific discovery where the civilization has enough awareness to speculate about alien life, but still has no evidence that it exists anywhere. It stands to reason then that the discovery of a primitive civilization by an advanced alien civilization likely wouldn't result in genocide, but in isolation and monitoring from a distance. 

 

However, all of this applies to the scenario of an advanced civilization chancing upon a primitive one. In the case of two relatively well-matched civilizations encountering each other, we have no evidence of what would happen. Yes, China and Rome were relative equals (although I think China would have outmatched Rome if it weren't for the distance, simply due to population), but neither possessed the means to destroy the other. Presumably, at the interstellar phase, the two would have devised weapons capable of planet-wide destruction. Our only evidence for what such contact might look like is the competition between the various "civilizations"--read superpowers-- on Earth. The US and the USSR had the means to eliminate each other, but MAD and the ability to communicate prevented this. Now this is where the dark forest theory makes complete sense; at interstellar distances, there is no ability to communicate reliably and monitor each other. Therefore, faced with a capable adversary, a first strike is the only way to guarantee your own survival.

 

So we have two scenarios; an advanced civilization finds a more primitive one, or an equally developed one. In this first case, I don't believe the advanced civilization will feel the need to be aggressive. In the second case, conflict is unavoidable. As the theory outlines, the trouble is that at our stage, we have no idea of what kind of civilizations are out there. Are we the advanced civilization, or the primitives? Is there another equally advanced civilization close to us? Since we can't answer this question, the best bet for humanity's survival is silence. Advertising our presence is just too risky. The only thing we should be doing is listening. Maybe this means we don't ever find other civilizations similar to ours, but that price is all too easy to pay when the alternative is the end of our species. If we're lucky, we'll receive messages from a more primitive civilization, and we can celebrate knowing we aren't alone in the universe. If we receive a message from a civilization similar to ours (which the above logic says we shouldn't expect), we shouldn't respond. If we receive a message from a more advanced civilization, it means we're about to self-destruct because they would have no incentive to contact us otherwise.


  • Yuli Ban and Alislaws like this

#13
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

^ ^ ^

 

Though I've once sworn to myself to ignore Maximus (and we both know why, right?) this big post is not about politics, so i'll reply. The more that I no need to write equally long reply, Maximus himself perfectly worded the essence:

 

Our only evidence for what such contact might look like is the competition between the various "civilizations"--read superpowers-- on Earth. The US and the USSR had the means to eliminate each other, but MAD and the ability to communicate prevented this. Now this is where the dark forest theory makes complete sense; at interstellar distances, there is no ability to communicate reliably and monitor each other. Therefore, faced with a capable adversary, a first strike is the only way to guarantee your own survival.

 

Exactly. The Dark Forest theory have nothing to do with resourses or greed, this is a pure game of logic, distrust, and thirst to survive:

 

1) My survival is absolute priority

2) I suspect aliens may think the same

3) I don't know their intentions and how dangerous they may become

4) But if I strike first, the threat will be eliminated

5) Hovewer, those aliens may come to the same conclusion...

 

Where this logic leads you?

 

To continue your analogy, let's assume USA and USSR located on two different planets 50 light years from each other and their super-mega-nukes can move with near-light speed. Then the attacked side will have only few minutes to notice and somehow react to attack, while the attacker will have whole 50 x 2 = 100 years to prepare for (already highly unlikely) counterattack.

 

So we have two scenarios; an advanced civilization finds a more primitive one, or an equally developed one. In this first case, I don't believe the advanced civilization will feel the need to be aggressive. In the second case, conflict is unavoidable. As the theory outlines, the trouble is that at our stage, we have no idea of what kind of civilizations are out there. Are we the advanced civilization, or the primitives? Is there another equally advanced civilization close to us?

 

We don't know, but we can make rough guess. Again, the bare logic:

 

Let L - average lifespan of technical civilization. By "technical" i mean those who able to at least use radio (or, in general, advanced enough to be noticed). Someone like Sumerians, Maya, Romans are irrelevant since neither aliens can notice them nor they themselves can notice aliens.

 

Let A - our own age as technical civilization. We know that A roughly equal 50-100 years. Let it be 100...

 

If L is not much bigger than A then we have nothing to worry about: the distances between civilizations in light years should be bigger than their lifespans.

If L is much bigger than A then each new aliens we met will be roughly L/A times more likely older than younger (compared to us).

 

My intuition tells me that L must be much more than just 100 years. So, of course, we will seem primitives for the vast majority of aliens we'll meet.



#14
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • LocationLondon

Having seen the images in PhoenixRu's post.

 

​Firstly, this is great!

 

​Secondly, how hard is it to add new rules?  :biggrin: 

 

​Maybe its just me but I can think of lots of rules we could add to increase the detail of the simulation, and see if it still comes out the same. I'm sure other  people would have ideas as well  

 

For example, If a loud civ is destroyed by a quiet civ, there should be a 50% (for example) chance for all civs in contact with the loud civ to learn about the quiet civ (and react according to their natures).

 

OR when a loud civ is destroyed, there is a 10% chance for any other loud civs in the contact with it to ally together (E.g. Each gains +1/2 their ally's strength when attacked, but once one is destroyed, the destroying civ will immediately attack the nearest ally, until the whole alliance is destroyed, unless one of the allies is evil, in which case they only receive assistance, but stay out of it when their ally is destroyed... and so on)

 

Probably lots of work to do any of this though!

 

But of course we still need it to end the same way, or it does not represent what we see of the universe, so we would need to adjust values etc. to make sure this happens. Then we could arrive at estimates for how hostile alien races are likely to be etc. which could be interesting!

 

e.g. no more than 30% of species in the history of the galaxy could have been Good/Loud or there would be some sort of interstellar federation in our galaxy.

 

What do you guys think, Is humanity going to turn out to be Good/Loud or Evil/Loud if we ever find anyone out there? Of course this will depend a lot on the details of who we meet, but where would you put us in PhoenixRu's categories?



#15
tomasth

tomasth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts

An advance civ is like a human , a non advance civ is like a tiger.

 

Whether the tiger comes to humans (colonizing a new system only to find a more advance civ there) or the human comes to the tiger (advance civ colonizing , detecting a non advance civ) ; the human take care to to harm the tiger.



#16
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

​Secondly, how hard is it to add new rules?  :biggrin:

 

Not hard at all, as long as they're simple and exact (so that you can transform them into code). For example this...

 

If a loud civ is destroyed by a quiet civ, there should be a 50% (for example) chance for all civs in contact with the loud civ to learn about the quiet civ (and react according to their natures).

 

...requires only two extra strings of code into "starwars" procedure:

 

Spoiler

 

These two strings will do exactly what you said: when a victim civ being destroyed, there is a 50% chance of invader to reveal itself to all the civs which knew the victim.

 

Alliances are a bit more difficult, but exactly a bit.

 

I myself tried some other things, for example complicated wars: not just "stronger civs always wins" but "chance of victory directly proportional to technology". This mean civ with technology 1 will still have 10% chance to withstand against civ with technology 10. And then this survivor civ "learns the lesson" and becomes quiet.

 

Other idea (not yet tried) is to add the "attitude" variable. That's how it will work: civs A and B knows each other, A is good and strong while B is evil and weak. B knows that A is good (because A is stronger but doesn't attack B) while A is still unaware who B is (weaker good or weaker evil?). But then A sees B attacking and destroying even weaker civ C. Now A knows that B is evil, attitude to B drops to 0 and A can attack (even being a good civ).

 

But in general, this was a very simple demonstration model and I tried to keep it as simple as possible.


  • Alislaws likes this

#17
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

  I think that alliance with a completely different species with completely different evolution background might be almost impossible, specially if they are many light years away from each other. If a civilization is destroyed , dependind on the destruction method , it might also be impossible to know who destroyed the civilization.  So, if to be quiet and hide is generally the best choice, most living civ would be quiet and hiding, so that, we cant see anyone. 

 

It was said that competition for resources  wouldnt be a problem, but  if interstellar travels  are too expensive, to destroy the civilization that is 5 light years away might be worth more than go to the star system 10 light years away . 

 

I think we should have in mind that its one species finding another species that compete for resources . Even if they can manipulate quarks to form whatever atom they want , there might still be quarks  lacking in their star system after they used them all. An alien species enconter could be less like  Spanish meeting Maias and more like  a human finding a cockroach eating his/her beans.  From the cockroach point of view , it might seen that the human wont care if it ate some beans, because the human has too many beans , and the cockroach eats to little. But from the human´s point of view, killing the cockroach is the only reasonable thing to do, because it screw up beans and is very ugly( aliens will probably think we are ugly).



#18
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 518 posts

if interstellar travels  are too expensive, to destroy the civilization that is 5 light years away might be worth more than go to the star system 10 light years away .

 

If they can travel with near-light speed, then they already have the crushing and almost irresistible weapon of genocide: stones. Yes, the usual bunch of stones moving to target planet with near-light speed will do the perfect job (their kinetic energy will be enormous and effect will be much "better" than any nukes). That's even better, the victim will not detect these stones till they very arrival, when it will be too late to react.

 

if I was the Supreme Ruler of evil quiet civilization, this would be the first thing I tried. The only precaution: I'd moved my "star cannon" from the straight line between my planetary system and target, so that the victim (if survived) would not be able to identify the attacker.


  • Yuli Ban likes this

#19
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64 posts

  And while you pulverize  the other civilization planet, you also rise dust that can be used to collect quarks and shape them in whatever  they want.  Theres also the conception of the self replication nanobots. Self replication nanobots would turn the galaxy  in a huge mass of nanobots rather quickly. 

 

One proposed reason for the galaxy not being  a mass of nanobots yet was that nanobots destroy their creators.  But even if they destroyed their creators, they should still be there , self replicating. 

 

Another possible reason for alien nanobots not being detected is that other advanced civilizations have a way to detect and destroy nanobots. Nanobots can be very dangerous and very profitable to their creators. If a civilization can manipulate matter in a way they can make any atom by using subatomic particles,  every matter is profitable.  Destroy stars for their matter might not be a good idea, they produce energy aliens can use,  so they likely will use planets as building blocks or homes.  But what is called "home"  by one alien species probably wont be called "home"  by a different alien species.   Elements that might be needed for ones life, might be poisonous to another.  So, different planet aliens  likely will never live togheter, and if one alien race see another race using atoms for their own, they might think " they are screwing up matter", just like we think mice are screwing up food when they eat food we label as ours. 

 

The self replication nanobots wouldnt colonize exponentially faster  if they had to battle or compete with other nanobots. If many civilizations came up with the nanobots , they might be battling betwen them, as well as taking top priority to destroy  any detected civilization that might one day develop nanobots. So,living  civilizations might be either quiet or having nanobots battles. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users