Liu Cixin’s the Three-Body Problem book trilogy is one of the world’s bestselling Chinese sci-fi series, being read and endorsed by figures such as George R.R. Martin and Barack Obama. In Chinese public debates, however, critics highlight the series’ social Darwinist, misogynistic, and totalitarian tendencies, raising concerns about how the trilogy has been used by […]
I don't really agree with this and totally fucking love these books. However, it is a fairly interesting essay.
Luo Ji was inspired by astrophysicist Ye Wenjie, protagonist of the first book, who told him two ‘self-evident’ axioms: 1) ‘Survival is the primary need of all civilisations’; and 2) ‘Civilisations continuously grow and expand, but the total matter in the universe remains constant’ (Liu 2016). On this basis, Luo develops the idea of the ‘chain of suspicion’ (猜疑链) and the infamous ‘dark forest’ theory (黑暗森林). According to the former, one civilisation (A) cannot determine whether another (B) is benevolent or malicious. Furthermore, A cannot determine whether B thinks A is benevolent or malicious. A cannot determine whether B thinks A thinks B is benevolent or malicious—and the ‘chain of suspicion’ goes on. Given this ultimate uncertainty and the spatiotemporal scale of the universe—which, according to Luo Ji, means that the difference in capabilities between civilisations is likely to be enormous and unpredictable—the ‘dark forest’ theory posits that every civilisation is like a hunter with a gun stalking in a dark forest. They must hide themselves and strike at the first sign of other life.
This completely falls apart since they are more than two civilizations. To use the dark forest analogy, it would be like if you mag-dump the first sign of life, which turned out to be some random deer, only for a tiger that was previously stalking the deer to pounce on you instead. This almost feels like a Daoist or Buddhist fable. Some hunter is disappointed he missed the deer after shooting his bow only to see a tiger that was right next to him pounce and kill the deer, the implication being that if the hunter had killed the deer the tiger would've pounced and killed the hunter as the hunter picked up his quarry.
I haven't read the books, so maybe that's what the "three" in "three-body problem" is referencing. The dark forest analogy only makes sense if they're exactly two bodies and falls apart as soon as you introduce a third. Like, isn't this what more or less happened to the Sasanians and the Byzantines? They warred with each other only to get completely blindsided by the Rashidun Caliphate.
I haven't read the books, so maybe that's what the "three" in "three-body problem" is referencing.
nah the aliens that are invading earth are from a fictionalized version of alpha centauri which is a 3 star system. It's fictionalized in the sense that the orbits are much closer and more chaotic than they actually are. The chaotic orbits are a major motivation and plot point in the first book.
My broader point is that blowing your load on the first civilization you encounter with no followup plan for the second, third, fourth, fifth civilization you encounter makes no sense. If we're talking about real life, PRC isn't going to empty its entire nuclear arsenal on the US because there's also Russia, the DPRK, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, and France who all have nukes as well as countries who can quickly procure nukes like Iran. Moving back to the dark forest metaphor, it makes no sense to just have a rule to always kill or always hide from any living thing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that what you should do if you're stuck in some dark forest is also the most boring and uninteresting answer: you should studiously observe what's in front of you, give a threat assessment, and make your move based on past experiences that are similar to what you're facing right now. This is neither faux-realpolitiks "kill anything that moves" nor some naivete about how aliens of a sufficient tech level are communists who come in peace.
The most reasonable answer is also the most boring and most obvious answer.
This completely falls apart since they are more than two civilizations. To use the dark forest analogy, it would be like if you mag-dump the first sign of life, which turned out to be some random deer, only for a tiger that was previously stalking the deer to pounce on you instead. This almost feels like a Daoist or Buddhist fable. Some hunter is disappointed he missed the deer after shooting his bow only to see a tiger that was right next to him pounce and kill the deer, the implication being that if the hunter had killed the deer the tiger would've pounced and killed the hunter as the hunter picked up his quarry.
I haven't read the books, so maybe that's what the "three" in "three-body problem" is referencing. The dark forest analogy only makes sense if they're exactly two bodies and falls apart as soon as you introduce a third. Like, isn't this what more or less happened to the Sasanians and the Byzantines? They warred with each other only to get completely blindsided by the Rashidun Caliphate.
nah the aliens that are invading earth are from a fictionalized version of alpha centauri which is a 3 star system. It's fictionalized in the sense that the orbits are much closer and more chaotic than they actually are. The chaotic orbits are a major motivation and plot point in the first book.
You most certainly have not. I mean I appreciate you taking the time to type this up but to be frank it is total nonsense.
In response to your first point for example, it is certainly possible to strike without revealing your position.
Are you talking about the technology within the book's settings or are you talking about a general principle?
deleted by creator
My broader point is that blowing your load on the first civilization you encounter with no followup plan for the second, third, fourth, fifth civilization you encounter makes no sense. If we're talking about real life, PRC isn't going to empty its entire nuclear arsenal on the US because there's also Russia, the DPRK, India, Pakistan, Israel, the UK, and France who all have nukes as well as countries who can quickly procure nukes like Iran. Moving back to the dark forest metaphor, it makes no sense to just have a rule to always kill or always hide from any living thing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that what you should do if you're stuck in some dark forest is also the most boring and uninteresting answer: you should studiously observe what's in front of you, give a threat assessment, and make your move based on past experiences that are similar to what you're facing right now. This is neither faux-realpolitiks "kill anything that moves" nor some naivete about how aliens of a sufficient tech level are communists who come in peace.
The most reasonable answer is also the most boring and most obvious answer.
deleted by creator