I’ve thought about things like that before, but always dismissed them, not as wrong but as irrelevant—there is nothing that can be done about that, as they would certainly have a fully armed listening post somewhere in the solar system to put us down when the time comes (though the fact they haven’t yet is an argument against their existence).
But since there’s nothing to be done, I ignore the hypothesis in practice.
I see how arguments that “the great filter is extremely strong” generally suggests that any violent resistance against an old race of exterminators is hopeless.
However it seems to me as if the silent sky suggests that everything is roughly equally hopeless. Maybe I’m missing something here, and if so I’d love to be corrected :-)
But starting from this generic evidential base, if everything is hopeless because of the brute fact of the (literally astronomically) large silent sky (with the strength of this evidence blocking nearly every avenue of hope for the future), I’m reasonably OK with allocating some thought to basically every explanation of the silent sky that has a short description length, which I think includes the pessimistic zoo hypothesis...
Thinking about this hypothesis might suggest methods to timelessly coordinate with other “weed species”? And this or other thoughts might suggest new angles on SETI? What might a signal look like from another timelessly coordinating weed species? This sort of thinking seems potentially productive to me...
HOWEVER, one strong vote against discussing the theory is that the pessimistic zoo hypothesis is an intrinsically “paranoid” hypothesis. The entities postulated include an entity of unknown strength that might be using its strength to hide itself… hence: paranoia.
Like all paranoid theories there is a sort of hope function where each non-discovery of easy/simple evidence for the existence of a hostile entity marginally increases both (1) the probability that the entity does not exist, and (2) the probability that if the entity exists it is even better at hiding from you than you had hypothesized when you searched in a simple place with the mild anticipation of seeing it.
At the end of a fruitless but totally comprehensive search of this sort you either believe that the entity does not physically exist, or else you think that it is sort of “metaphysically strong”.
The recently popular “Three Body Problem” explores such paranoia a bit with regard to particle physics. Also, the powers seen in the monolith of Clarke’s “2001″ comes to mind (although that seemed essentially benevolent and weak compared to what might be seen in a fully bleak situation) and Clarke himself coined the phrase claiming “sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” in order partly to justify some of what he wrote as being respectable-enough-for-science-fiction I think.
This brings up a sort of elephant in the room: paranoid hypotheses are often a cognitive tarpit that captures the fancy of the mentally ill and/or theologically inclined people.
The hallmarks of bad thinking here tend to be (1) updating too swiftly in the direction of extreme power on the part of the hidden entity, (2) getting what seem like a lot of false positives when analyzing situations where the entity might have intervened, and (3) using the presumed interventions to confabulate motives.
To discuss a paranoid hypothesis in public risks the speaker becoming confused in the mind of the audience with other people who entertain paranoid hypotheses with less care.
It would make a lot of sense to me to me if respectable thinkers avoid discussing the subject for this reason.
If I was going to work here in public, I think it would be useful to state up front that I’d refrain from speculating about precise motives for silencing weed species like we might be. Also, if I infer extremely strong aliens I’m going hold off on using their inferred strength to explain anything other than astronomy data, and even that only reluctantly.
Also, I’d start by hypothesizing aliens that are extremely weak and similar to conventionally imaginable human technology that might barely be up to the task of suppression, and thoroughly rule that level of power out before incrementing the hypothesized power by a small amount.
However it seems to me as if the silent sky suggests that everything is roughly equally hopeless.
Unless we assume the filter is behind us.
Also, I’d start by hypothesizing aliens that are extremely weak and similar to conventionally imaginable human technology
Just by the fact they can cross between the stars imply they can divert an asteroid to slam into the Earth. This gives an idea what we’d need to do to defend against them, in theory.
I’ve thought about things like that before, but always dismissed them, not as wrong but as irrelevant—there is nothing that can be done about that, as they would certainly have a fully armed listening post somewhere in the solar system to put us down when the time comes (though the fact they haven’t yet is an argument against their existence).
But since there’s nothing to be done, I ignore the hypothesis in practice.
I see how arguments that “the great filter is extremely strong” generally suggests that any violent resistance against an old race of exterminators is hopeless.
However it seems to me as if the silent sky suggests that everything is roughly equally hopeless. Maybe I’m missing something here, and if so I’d love to be corrected :-)
But starting from this generic evidential base, if everything is hopeless because of the brute fact of the (literally astronomically) large silent sky (with the strength of this evidence blocking nearly every avenue of hope for the future), I’m reasonably OK with allocating some thought to basically every explanation of the silent sky that has a short description length, which I think includes the pessimistic zoo hypothesis...
Thinking about this hypothesis might suggest methods to timelessly coordinate with other “weed species”? And this or other thoughts might suggest new angles on SETI? What might a signal look like from another timelessly coordinating weed species? This sort of thinking seems potentially productive to me...
HOWEVER, one strong vote against discussing the theory is that the pessimistic zoo hypothesis is an intrinsically “paranoid” hypothesis. The entities postulated include an entity of unknown strength that might be using its strength to hide itself… hence: paranoia.
Like all paranoid theories there is a sort of hope function where each non-discovery of easy/simple evidence for the existence of a hostile entity marginally increases both (1) the probability that the entity does not exist, and (2) the probability that if the entity exists it is even better at hiding from you than you had hypothesized when you searched in a simple place with the mild anticipation of seeing it.
At the end of a fruitless but totally comprehensive search of this sort you either believe that the entity does not physically exist, or else you think that it is sort of “metaphysically strong”.
The recently popular “Three Body Problem” explores such paranoia a bit with regard to particle physics. Also, the powers seen in the monolith of Clarke’s “2001″ comes to mind (although that seemed essentially benevolent and weak compared to what might be seen in a fully bleak situation) and Clarke himself coined the phrase claiming “sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” in order partly to justify some of what he wrote as being respectable-enough-for-science-fiction I think.
This brings up a sort of elephant in the room: paranoid hypotheses are often a cognitive tarpit that captures the fancy of the mentally ill and/or theologically inclined people.
The hallmarks of bad thinking here tend to be (1) updating too swiftly in the direction of extreme power on the part of the hidden entity, (2) getting what seem like a lot of false positives when analyzing situations where the entity might have intervened, and (3) using the presumed interventions to confabulate motives.
To discuss a paranoid hypothesis in public risks the speaker becoming confused in the mind of the audience with other people who entertain paranoid hypotheses with less care.
It would make a lot of sense to me to me if respectable thinkers avoid discussing the subject for this reason.
If I was going to work here in public, I think it would be useful to state up front that I’d refrain from speculating about precise motives for silencing weed species like we might be. Also, if I infer extremely strong aliens I’m going hold off on using their inferred strength to explain anything other than astronomy data, and even that only reluctantly.
Also, I’d start by hypothesizing aliens that are extremely weak and similar to conventionally imaginable human technology that might barely be up to the task of suppression, and thoroughly rule that level of power out before incrementing the hypothesized power by a small amount.
Unless we assume the filter is behind us.
Just by the fact they can cross between the stars imply they can divert an asteroid to slam into the Earth. This gives an idea what we’d need to do to defend against them, in theory.