🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:15:50 UTC No. 16137753
The problem with the dark forest hypothesis is that even humans already have the technology to determine the atmospheric composition of exoplanets, and also have a rough idea of biosignatures and technosignatures, and by analogy, the biosignatures of earth have been open to the galaxy for several billion years, so if there were advanced civilizations that wanted to exterminate early life preventively, they would have wiped out the earth based on biosignatures several billion years in advance, in case life evolves and gains intelligence and brings risk to these civs. So this hypothesis sounds very unlikely nothingburger and it's strange to me that this point isn't being raised. Thoughts?
🗑️ B at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:17:17 UTC No. 16137756
Oh
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:18:10 UTC No. 16137760
>>16137753
there isn't any need for a dark forest hypothesis if physicists in the previous century learned to statistics and the popsci trannies stop hyping up a non problem.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:39:04 UTC No. 16137939
Yeah it's silly. I've always found the heckin Fermi Paradox to be overindulged. There are a lot of implicit assumptions people make when talking about it, but the reality is that most of the distributions involved are totally unknowable. The Drake Equation is a related example. It looks like it can tell you something, but in reality there is absolutely no way of knowing half the quantities in the equation, or even knowing correct confidence intervals on shitty approximations of them. I also think it's quite possible that interstellar travel is overwhelmingly difficult.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:44:32 UTC No. 16137947
>>16137753
as far as I undrestand we have a good idea on what an atmosphere for harboring earth-like life looks like, but its a pretty big assumption to say that alternative biochemistries that allow for different atmospheres arent possible.
Also something to be said about casting too wide a net, pretty sure one of the premises of dark forest is limited reasources, it wouldn't be wise to exterminate all planets that can harbour life.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 22:45:54 UTC No. 16137950
>>16137939
>I also think it's quite possible that interstellar travel is overwhelmingly difficult.
I should say, I mean interstellar travel for advanced massive lifeforms like humans. Slow travel for resilient microorganisms like tardigrades is a lot more likely.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:07:52 UTC No. 16137979
>>16137950
small von Neumann probe can travel at insane speeds. once here it can assemble shit. including the aliens themselves, if indeed biological, tho I seriously doubt they'd still be bio. alien tech in our solar system makes sense, it's not retarded.
we already sent an object in interstellar space, shit object for sure, and is already dead, but the point still stands.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:14:12 UTC No. 16137983
>>16137979
Yes but the technology you're describing is pure fantasy
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:17:43 UTC No. 16137987
>>16137983
for us sure. for some advanced alien race? maybe be standard bullshit or something. colonizing probes or something like that.
they'd need to be able to assemble shit, like a 3D printer of sorts. slowly "unpacking" in time, could be 10 years, 1000 years, whatever. this is not about exactly how, rather if theoretically possible. it needs to be able to stop, somehow, and start unpacking itself.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:47 UTC No. 16137992
>>16137983
schizos can't differentiate between reality and the absurd soience fiction memes that were planted in their brains by exposure to hollywood soience fiction moooovies.
thats what being "separated from reality" means
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:23:49 UTC No. 16137996
>>16137987
You seem to be missing my point...
>>16137992
Indeed.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:32:10 UTC No. 16138013
>>16137950
Perhaps aliens are biological organisms that simply wanted to spread their own ecosystem across the galaxy, and hence as many species as they had the genomes for to as many places as they could, hundreds of millions of years ago. How would we know if there was an alien microorganism already living here or not?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:34:52 UTC No. 16138019
>>16137996
>You seem to be missing my point...
I did not invoke magical tech anon. we already have these threads and some nano machine designs >>16135262 think it's so fantastical to think they could have pulled it off? all you need is time and energy for those fuckers to start assembling shit. also energy requirements for some compact probe are wildly lower than for the shit "generational ships" that's found in our sci-fi.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:38:50 UTC No. 16138031
>>16138013
life doesn't stay biological past a certain level of development. biology does shit for cheap, craps out easily and is seriously tied to local conditions.
if we send DNA to aliens via radio, and they start growing a human baby, it will die. apart from them having to know about our preferred sugar chirality, so they can feed us somehow, we'd be missing all of the useful bacteria in our body. the whole bio thing is some human religious stuff, don't expect to match your expectations, out there
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49:41 UTC No. 16138047
>>16138019
That's a bacterium, not a nanomachine. You can "design" a nanomachine, but they don't exist. I'm not saying they could not exist, but the fact is that at present the only place nanomachines exist is inside people's heads.
>>16138031
You can't grow a human with just the DNA sequence. You need a whole human-ish cell for DNA to function.
>life doesn't stay biological past a certain level of development.
Can you provide a concrete example of this? By which I mean something that actually exists in reality.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:03:52 UTC No. 16138063
>>16138031
>biology does shit for cheap, craps out easily and is seriously tied to local conditions.
I also disagree with all of this. Biological organisms are not very energy efficient but are far more robust than any human technology.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:05:45 UTC No. 16138065
>>16138047
>You can "design" a nanomachine, but they don't exist.
sure it exists, why wouldn't it? that's a weird statement
>but the fact is that at present the only place nanomachines exist is inside people's heads.
but why do you come in a dark forest hypothesis threads and take an easy win with "that doesn't exist"? isn't it retarded in a way? of-course we'd have to speculate on some more advanced tech. not like we're talking about warp drives or retarded shit.
>You need a whole human-ish cell for DNA to function.
yes anon, if you beam the info about the whole cell they would be able to just assemble it from scratch. that is possible, why the fuck would you even imply it isn't? just because we're not able to manipulate matter at that scale for that thing (cell, we already have atomic precision on some things like semiconductors), doesn't mean highly advanced aliens can't. what the fuck
>By which I mean something that actually exists in reality.
so weird getting off on coming to a speculation thread and yelling NOT REAL. yeah idiot, not real yet. holly shit grow the fuck up
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:06:48 UTC No. 16138066
>>16138063
>I also disagree with all of this. Biological organisms are not very energy efficient but are far more robust than any human technology.
you're a religious retard aren't you?
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:09:02 UTC No. 16138071
>>16138065
>sure it exists, why wouldn't it? that's a weird statement
Because nanomachines DO NOT EXIST. There aren't any.
>but why do you come in a dark forest hypothesis threads and take an easy win with "that doesn't exist"?
That's not my point. It's just my response to your points...
>yes anon, if you beam the info about the whole cell they would be able to just assemble it from scratch. that is possible, why the fuck would you even imply it isn't? just because we're not able to manipulate matter at that scale for that thing (cell, we already have atomic precision on some things like semiconductors), doesn't mean highly advanced aliens can't. what the fuck
Another hot load of fantasy. Do you know how difficult it would be to beam the "info" of a whole cell?
>so weird getting off on coming to a speculation thread and yelling NOT REAL. yeah idiot, not real yet. holly shit grow the fuck up
That's my point about all this speculation. It's pretending to be rigorous or mathematical but it's completely unknowable given our current information.
>you're a religious retard aren't you?
No, I'm not religious.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:11:59 UTC No. 16138076
>>16138071
>Because nanomachines DO NOT EXIST. There aren't any.
ah I thought you meant once we make them they still don't exist. why come here and say "doesn't exist" what's wrong with you?
>Do you know how difficult it would be to beam the "info" of a whole cell?
irrelevant, it's info and can be sent. that's all that matters. unless you find a scientific objection for why it's impossible to send info in another system shut the fuck up
>It's pretending to be rigorous or mathematical but it's completely unknowable given our current information.
wat
>No, I'm not religious.
then you are seriously retarded and you're not seeing it
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:17:47 UTC No. 16138090
>>16138076
>irrelevant, it's info and can be sent.
I agree that it's possible "in principle", but the amount of information necessary to reconstruct a cell is incredibly large.
Anyway I'm out.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:19:13 UTC No. 16138095
>>16138063
biological systems have one massive advantage if we're talking about sentience, more precisely. they are fully self-contained, as far as perpetual existence goes. two individuals can make more of them. using the local environment as a sort of libraries if you will. we run pretty efficient for this whole package. artificial life doesn't technically need to be fully self contained, as individual units. an interstellar probe would have to, but at a different level anyway.
but synthetic life drops a bunch of requirements once you drop self replication. that can be externalized with tech.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:20:27 UTC No. 16138096
>>16138090
well, it's speculation anon for fucks sake. it's used for trying to figure out how aliens would be able to reach here, not using meme warp drives
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 00:29:26 UTC No. 16138121
>>16138071
>That's my point about all this speculation. It's pretending to be rigorous or mathematical
not rigorous but our galaxy is some 100.000 light years wide. supposing the aliens start on the outer edge, and send a few billion probes in strategic solar systems across all galaxy, at 10% the speed of light, in one million years they would have spread in all the galaxy. 1 million years is nothing, and getting a 100kg probe at 10% of light speed can be done in hours or something not even that many Gs
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Apr 2024 04:29:04 UTC No. 16138386
My solution to the fermi paradox is that species do not engage in space colonization because once they are advanced enough for space travel they realize how bad of an idea it is: you are creating a direct competitor who has an inherent demand and undersupply of the prime real estate you are occupying.