Beyond “Fermi’s Paradox” XVI: What Is the “Dark Forest” Hypothesis?
Am I missing something, or is this article very narrowly missing the most damning criticism of the Dark Forest hypothesis according to the article&#x27;s own logic? The first paragraph of the “<i>Criticism</i>” section says:<p>&gt; <i>Overall, the Dark Forest Hypothesis has an internal logic and consistency that makes it an appealing (if somewhat somber) potential resolution to Fermi’s age-old question. Unfortunately, it also suffers from an inherent flaw that is capable of unraveling the whole thing. Like many other Fermi-related hypotheses, it only takes one exception to this rule to prove it wrong.</i><p>Given this, I thought it was going to follow on to point out that <i>we</i> are the exception to the rule, but instead it goes on to talk about malevolent exceptions. But, as the article mentioned earlier, we have made many active attempts to communicate our existence to other hypothetical civilisations, and we make no effort in obscuring our radio signals.<p>Is it possible that other civilisations follow the “Dark Forest” principle? Of course it is! But why would we happen to be the only civilisation that doesn&#x27;t really worry about getting seen? The possibility that  we are not alone <i>and</i> we are the only ones trying to communicate sounds even more fanciful and anthropocentric than any of the alternatives.