Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Right but that's fragile. All it takes is one group to break the ice and suddenly they're all talking.
Also, is the theory that we could live in a dark forest because every single species is insular enough to be afraid of such a threat? That means they all have to believe in the threat and yet also no species is aggressive enough to become the threat. But none of them thinks, "Wait, either we're alone or everyone is hiding. If everyone is hiding, then the threat can't exist, so we may as well say something."
Again, it's fragile. I find it completely unconvincing.
The Prime Directive concept is way more believable to me, as is the idea that life is just sparse.
All it takes is one civilization to shoot off their mouth and get destroyed by a much more advanced neighbor, in some way that doesn't look quite natural. That will tend to confirm the cosmic paranoia.
As I said elsewhere: that's no longer a dark forest. The moment one civilisation speaks up, they all know they're not alone. Then they're in a different universe, one where there's no longer a paradox because they've found each other.
You're arguing based on a lot of misconceptions about the idea. Have you read "Three Body Problem" and/or the other books in the series?
Maybe you could explain the idea then? No, I haven't read that book.
I do agree with your probability assessment; I too think that the Prime Directive is a more plausible answer to the Fermi paradox, as is “we're just alone”.
However, it is not necessarily the case that everyone suddenly gets talking as soon as one of them breaks radio silence. If everyone is silent because of a perceived possible threat, then it stands to reason they will continue to be silent even when they receive a message.