Aliens, Diplomacy, and the Threat of the Dark Forest
The common vision of a future that involves extraterrestrial intelligence (ESI) is one similar to the universe as presented by Star Trek: a post-scarcity world where all humanity lives in peace hand-in-gripping-appendage with alien civilisations. This view, although one I prefer, may not be the realistic view of humanity’s future that is to come. The future that may be more likely to come is heavily influenced by the Dark Forest Theory, as spelled out by Liu Cixin in his novel The Dark Forest. The literary proposition known as the ‘Dark Forest’ theory draws heavily from the most basic components of offensive realism, especially in the risks presented from human communications being intercepted by sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial civilisations.
I’ll start by defining a few terms I will be using throughout the article. The Dark Forest theory follows three primary avenues of thought. Scotty Hendricks explains this as:
“All life desires to stay alive. There is no way to know if other lifeforms can or will destroy you if given a chance. Lacking assurances, the safest option for any species is to annihilate other life forms before they have a chance to do the same.”
This definition will serve as the working definition of the Dark Forest theory throughout this article. Offensive realism is an academic theory developed by John J. Mearsheimer, claiming that all states in the international system will, in one way or another, determine that war is the best way to ensure state survival and complete their objectives. Extraterrestrials, or alternatively extraterrestrial intelligence, will be defined as any sufficiently advanced technological society that does not originate from Earth. For this article, Neal’s Scenario 4 arguesthat “there is intelligent life on other planets, which is technologically more advanced than us.” These three definitions will help make sense of the differing parts of the various theories detailed here.
Under offensive realism, the primary worry, Robert Jervis details, that states must consider in regards to their survival is that “others will seek to take advantage of them,” so “agreements must be crafted to minimize the danger of double crosses.” Essentially, states are paranoid about the possibility that other states will stab them in the back if they agree to lower their military readiness in exchange for cooperation. A similar idea to worrying about whether someone will write your answers verbatim on a homework assignment if you try to help them figure out how to answer a particularly difficult question. The primary objective of all states, of course, is to survive.
This primary desire to survive draws from the human desire to live a fulfilling life, and yet reflects in many major theories of international relations. This extends similarly to the Dark Forest Theory. The first assumption in fact is that all intelligent (or even non-intelligent) species desire to stay alive and will do anything in order to secure their survival, up to and including the destruction of threatening species. Similar to this directive of survival, Jervis arguesthat “mutual security either is not sought or gained” in offensive realism; “one or more of the states is willing to risk war to expand or has security requirements that are incompatible with those of others.” Moreover, Mearsheimer, according to Snyder, arguesvery clearly that, barring an extraordinary development in which “a state…has acquired ‘clear-cut nuclear superiority’…hegemony can only be regional”, and a state will never be able to launch nuclear attacks without retaliation. With a technologically advanced civilisation such as described by Neal when compared to humanity’s current capabilities, we may assume that advanced extraterrestrials may have an equivalent to ‘nuclear superiority’. In short, both the theoretical alien civilisation under the assumptions of the Dark Forest Theory and the modelled human states on Earth under offensive realism will attempt to prioritise their own respective survival, and will do most anything to realise that goal, up to and including ‘xenocide’, or the wholesale destruction of an entire alien species.
The risks of the Dark Forest Theory being accurate are almost mind-boggling in their scale. Often considered as an unfortunate but random occurrence, asteroid strikes, under the Dark Forest Theory, could become quite sinister and, arguably, genocidal. One of the more famous depictions of an asteroid strike ordered by an alien military command is in the film (and novel) Starship Troopers. The ‘bugs’ of the Klendathu system constantly send asteroids from their home system to try to hurt humanity on Earth. All the asteroids are shot down by planetary defences, save for one. That one asteroid that gets through obliterates the city of Buenos Aires, thus prompting the events of the film.
This is not a disaster scenario that has been discounted or left languishing by the scientific community. The National Research Council on Hazards from Near-Earth Objects has writtencopiously on the threat from asteroid impacts on Earth under natural circumstances. The consequences from an impact event range from the ‘airburst’, or one megaton of energy released, to ‘continental’ event, 2000 megatons of energy released, the equivalent to hundreds of nuclear weapons being detonated all at once. There is even the possibility that an asteroid of ten or more kilometres in diameter connects with Earth, causing a mass extinction event and releasing over 100 million megatons of energy at the point of impact.
Depending on the size of the asteroid of course, this idea of flinging an asteroid at an inhabited planet could be considered a legitimate military strategy to destroy emerging threats without risking any valuable lives and equipment from a costly expeditionary force. This is perfectly in line with the Dark Forest Theory, as “the safest option for any species is to annihilate other life forms before they have a chance to do the same.” Why should the aliens risk weakening themselves on one front in order to crush an emergent threat in a sector where they have detected a frankly disturbing number of nuclear detonations? Why not use the poor man’s weapon of mass destruction to solve your problems on a budget?
In short, the Dark Forest Theory has deep ideological and academic connections to the theory known as offensive realism. Both theories advocate for either flat out non-cooperation or military action to guarantee state survival. The Dark Forest Theory goes farther, advocating for wholesale xenocide and the destruction of threatening species. And, in this case, the emphasis on staying undetected may be warranted, given the calamitous possibilities that there are hostile aliens, and they find us. Conflict should be a last resort, but in this case, we would not be given a second chance to recover from a possible attack. If successful, conflict would never happen.
Image courtesy of NASA/Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab via Wikimedia, ©2021, some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
