What is the most horrifying scientific theory that many people do not know about?

有關(guān)黑暗森林理論的討論 - 許多人不知道的最可怕的科學(xué)理論（二）

評(píng)論翻譯

原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.ltaaa.com轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Nick Moore
Jellyfish don’t have a brain, and they’ve existed for over 500 million years — since before the dinosaurs.
Ants have very small brains (more like a long, lumpy neural noodle of sorts). They’re able to lift objects hundreds of times their weight, they’re capable of building underground nests so extensive that the piles of excavated dirt can be seen from space, and they’re considered by many humans to be more terrifying than sharks.
Dolphins have smaller brains than humans, and are in many ways far more intelligent as well.
As for humans, we’re just now starting to figure out that we’re viromes (large sentient viral collectives) and have yet to figure out how plants communicate with each other.

水母沒(méi)有大腦，它們已經(jīng)存在了5億年——在恐龍出現(xiàn)之前就已經(jīng)存在了。
螞蟻的大腦非常小(更像是一根又長(zhǎng)又粗的神經(jīng)面條)。它們能舉起數(shù)百倍于自身重量的物體，它們能在地下建造巢穴，其范圍之廣，從太空中甚至都能看到挖掘出來(lái)的泥土，許多人認(rèn)為它們比鯊魚(yú)更可怕。
海豚的大腦比人類(lèi)小，但它在很多方面也比人類(lèi)聰明得多。
至于人類(lèi)，我們現(xiàn)在才剛剛開(kāi)始認(rèn)識(shí)到我們是病毒(有感知能力的大型病毒集體)，而且還沒(méi)有弄明白植物是如何相互溝通的。

Bryan Doe
“Jellyfish don’t have a brain, and they’ve existed for over 500 million years “
Tell me again about how the jellyfish are faring as an interplanetary, space going species?

“水母沒(méi)有大腦，它們已經(jīng)存在了5億年?！?br/>請(qǐng)?jiān)俑嬖V我一次，水母作為一個(gè)行星際之間過(guò)來(lái)的太空物種是如何生存下來(lái)的？

“Ants have very small brain…they’re able to lift objects hundreds of times their weight…”
Ants are cool creatures, all right, but not anywhere near intelligent enough to leave Earth of their own accord. And, if we DID encounter spacefaring, sentient ants, it would be scary for two reasons:
First, ants are fairly martial. Wars between rival colonies of ants in the same ares just tend to happen. Scale that up to a spacefaring species, and they might just “shoot first, and ask questions later.” Second, ants are eusocial. They tend not to think of individual ants, per se, but as a part of a collective. As such, they would no more consider the moral aspect of killing a few individual humans, than I would consider the moral aspect of trimming my nails…it just wouldn’t exist as such for a eusocial species.

“螞蟻的大腦非常小……它們能舉起數(shù)百倍于自身重量的物體”
螞蟻是一種很酷的生物，沒(méi)錯(cuò)，但它們遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)有聰明到自動(dòng)離開(kāi)地球的地步。而且，如果我們真的遇到有意識(shí)能力的太空螞蟻，那將會(huì)很可怕，原因有二：
首先，螞蟻相當(dāng)好斗。在同一戰(zhàn)區(qū)，敵對(duì)蟻群之間的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)往往會(huì)發(fā)生。如果把這個(gè)比例擴(kuò)大到一個(gè)太空物種，他們可能就會(huì)“先開(kāi)槍，然后再問(wèn)問(wèn)題”。
其次，螞蟻是群居生物。從本質(zhì)上來(lái)說(shuō)，它們并不被認(rèn)為是個(gè)體，而是集體的一部分。因此，他們不會(huì)考慮殺死幾個(gè)人的道德層面，就像我不會(huì)考慮修剪指甲的道德層面問(wèn)題一樣……對(duì)于群居物種來(lái)說(shuō)，這根本不可能存在。

“Dolphins have smaller brains than humans, and are in many ways far more intelligent as well.”
I think you’re taking the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy way too literally!

“海豚的大腦比人類(lèi)小，但是在很多方面也比人類(lèi)聰明得多。”
我覺(jué)得你把《銀河系漫游指南》里面的內(nèi)容當(dāng)真了！

Nick Moore
Yet we’re the ones wanting to become spacefaring.
Clearly, we are not the most intelligent species.

然而，我們是那些想要進(jìn)入太空的那個(gè)物種。
顯然，我們不是最聰明的物種。

Mark Harder
One dark scenario I like to contemplate is that they know we’re here. They’re watching the planet’s population boom. When they calculate that we can grow no more, they will come an harvest us for food. I envision billions of bodies head to toe in an orbit around the sun, the radiation cooking away that gamy taste..

我喜歡設(shè)想的一個(gè)黑暗場(chǎng)景是，他們知道我們?cè)谶@里。他們目睹了地球人口的激增。他們?nèi)粢詾槲覀儾荒茉偕L(zhǎng)，就必來(lái)收割我們當(dāng)做食物。我想象著數(shù)十億的尸體頭腳相連地繞著太陽(yáng)公轉(zhuǎn)，輻射會(huì)把那股難聞的味道燒得一干二凈。

Peter Knutsen
Nope. Intelligent beings are crappy meat cattle.
Our large brains makes us harder to control and also helps us cooperate when we decide to rebel. Our large brains also makes giving birth exceedingly difficult and dangerous, and they require a lot of food calories just because they’re there.
What a meat farmer wants is an animal that requires very few food calories per kilogram of edible flesh produced. We’re so ill suited that it’s laughable. The aliens would just abduct our cows and pigs and chicken.

不。智慧生命只是肉牛。
我們龐大的大腦讓我們更難控制，也幫助我們?cè)跊Q定反抗時(shí)進(jìn)行合作。我們巨大的大腦也使分娩變得極其困難和危險(xiǎn)，僅僅因?yàn)樗鼈兊拇嬖?，就需要大量的食物熱量?br/>一個(gè)肉農(nóng)想要的是一種每生產(chǎn)一公斤可食用肉而且只需要很少食物熱量的動(dòng)物。我們太不適合了，簡(jiǎn)直可笑。外星人會(huì)綁架我們的牛、豬和雞。

Tomas
Except humans are terrible for food, I think they would rather have all the cows, chickens etc which are much better for food

除了人類(lèi)是可怕的食物這一點(diǎn)，我認(rèn)為他們寧愿吃牛肉和雞肉等更好的食物

Mark Harder
Well, there’s no accounting for taste, especially when you’re talking about the gustatory preference of extraterrestrial beings. As for the weight of human cargo, leaving us revolving around the Sun for 50 yrs. or so should freeze dry us, which will both preserve the meat and lighten the load. Or, perhaps the radiation will turn us into a kind of jerky. Jerky’s good food on long journeys, right?

嗯，味覺(jué)是無(wú)法解釋的，尤其是當(dāng)你說(shuō)到外星人的味覺(jué)偏好時(shí)。至于人類(lèi)貨物的重量，讓我們繞著太陽(yáng)轉(zhuǎn)50年吧?；蛘邞?yīng)該把我們凍干，這樣既能保存肉，又能減輕負(fù)擔(dān)?；蛘撸椛鋾?huì)把我們變成肉干。牛肉干是長(zhǎng)途旅行的好食物，對(duì)吧？

Glenn Talbott
Humans are terrible for food, that’s why the aliens have that famous cookbook: “To Serve Man”

被當(dāng)做食物的人類(lèi)很糟糕，這就是為什么外星人有那本著名的食譜：“如何烹飪?nèi)祟?lèi)”

Walter Malinowski
I hope that is right because I do wonder why in such a legalistic world there seem to be so few laws prohibiting cannibalism.

我希望這是對(duì)的，因?yàn)槲蚁胫罏槭裁丛谶@樣一個(gè)法律至上的世界里，似乎很少有法律禁止人吃人。

Mahul Raval
Why would they wait for the human population to increase? There are hundreds of billions of animals on earth that can be “harvested” right now! An extra few billion humans won’t make much difference.
And in any case, surely rearing animals in farms is a lot more efficient in the long run than travelling interstellar distances to raid planets. Not to mention whether the aliens could efficiently “digest” terrestrial organisms in the first place.

他們?yōu)槭裁匆热丝谠鲩L(zhǎng)呢？現(xiàn)在地球上有數(shù)千億的動(dòng)物可以被“收獲”！再增加幾十億人也不會(huì)有多大影響。
無(wú)論如何，從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，在農(nóng)場(chǎng)里飼養(yǎng)動(dòng)物肯定比穿越星際距離去襲擊行星要有效得多。更不用說(shuō)外星人是否能有效地“消化”陸地生物了。

Skip Moreland
Chickens and pigs, esp the latter. Many to each litter and just about eat anything.

雞和豬，尤其是豬。每一窩都能產(chǎn)很多崽，而且?guī)缀跏裁炊汲浴?br/>
Jennie Culhane
Rats

還有老鼠

Matej Kilík
Humans are terrible for food and with the energy needed for interstellar travel, aliens are better off vat-growing quadrillions of cows instead. Or just growing meat in a petri dish.
Interstellar war does not make much sense, you are better off building a new space habitat (and populate it with cows, if you are really hungry) than :
building interstellar-capable spaceships, which are very costly, are similar in construction to a habitat, but require an extremely powerful engine, capable of fulfilling energy requirements of an entire K1 civilization.
travelling somewhere for decades only to wage war for what… food? You can certainly grow your own at this point for less expenditure. Resources? You can grab much more resources somewhere much closer than next star system with intelligent life (those are pretty scarce I presume).

對(duì)于星際旅行者的食物和能量需求而言，人類(lèi)是一種糟糕的選擇，外星人更適合飼養(yǎng)四千億頭牛?；蛘吒纱嘣谂囵B(yǎng)皿中培養(yǎng)肉。
星際戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)沒(méi)有多大意義，你最好建造一個(gè)新的太空棲息地(如果你真的餓了，可以在上面繁衍牛群)，而不是：
1、建造星際飛船，它是非常昂貴的，在建造構(gòu)造上類(lèi)似于棲息地，但需要一個(gè)非常強(qiáng)大的引擎以滿足整個(gè)K1文明的能源需求。
2、花費(fèi)幾十年時(shí)間前往某個(gè)地方，而這么做只是為了……食物？在這一點(diǎn)上，你當(dāng)然可以用更少的支出來(lái)發(fā)展自己的業(yè)務(wù)。資源？你可以在比擁有智能生命的下一個(gè)恒星系統(tǒng)更近的地方獲取更多的資源(我假設(shè)這些資源非常稀少)。

Mark Harder
You raise some good points. The theory will have to be expanded to take account of scenarios like this.

你提出了一些很好的觀點(diǎn)。這一理論需要進(jìn)一步的擴(kuò)展，并考慮到這樣的情況。

David Turner
Maybe if they're just passing by and human eyes are a delicacy back home

也許他們只是路過(guò)，而人類(lèi)的眼睛在它們的家鄉(xiāng)是一種美味

George Moller
What if humans taste better than all other foods in the universe, and we are number one in every menu. Let’s hope they like cooking rather than eating live food eh.

如果人類(lèi)的味道比宇宙中所有的食物都好，而我們是菜單上的第一名，那該怎么辦？還是讓我們祈禱他們喜歡烹飪而不是吃活的食物吧。

Jeremy Nash
I thought that you was going towards a “Matrix” type of scenario… Nope. Boom! we’re food. I like it!

我以為你是在走向一種“矩陣”式的場(chǎng)景……不！我們的食物。我喜歡這個(gè)場(chǎng)景！

Philip Livingstone
except that everything in the food chain (including us) is adapated over millions of years to the special trace elements in our environment …
So the entire food chain, from us down to the smalled plankton in the sea, would be toxic to any lifeform that didn’t eveolve here

但是食物鏈中的一切(包括我們)都是經(jīng)過(guò)數(shù)百萬(wàn)年才適應(yīng)我們環(huán)境中的特殊微量元素……
所以整個(gè)食物鏈——從我們?nèi)祟?lèi)到海里的小型浮游生物，對(duì)任何沒(méi)有在這里生存過(guò)的生物都是有毒的

Bryan Doe
“I violent kind of species like in the movies seems to be unlikely to reach a point where their society is so advanced that they can travel through space.”
Well, we’re pretty damn violent, and we’ve begun travelling in space. Baby steps, but still…
“We seem to be a kind species compared to that picture of violent aliens, and we are still on the edge of killing ourselves.”
In no way would I call us a “kind species!” An encounter with an alien species with hominid violence levels would be about the “worst-case scenario.” Apparently, we have JUST enough control over our violence to not blow our species up, though it’s been a close thing at times.
Gee, what happened the LAST time humans made first contact with a race of people with significantly lower levels of technology?
(Remember: this was against our OWN SPECIES, not some five-eyed blob with tentacles!)

“像電影中暴力的物種似乎不太可能到達(dá)這樣一個(gè)程度——即他們的社會(huì)是如此先進(jìn)，以至于他們可以在太空中旅行”
我們非常暴力，我們已經(jīng)開(kāi)始在進(jìn)行太空旅行了。雖然是小步前進(jìn)，但仍然在前進(jìn)。
“與暴力的外星人的畫(huà)面相比，我們似乎是一個(gè)善良的物種，我們?nèi)匀惶幱谧韵鄽垰⒌倪吘??！?br/>我絕不會(huì)說(shuō)我們是“善良的物種”！如果遇到一個(gè)有原始人類(lèi)暴力程度的外來(lái)物種，那將是“最糟糕的情況”。顯然，我們對(duì)自己的暴力行為有足夠的控制，不至于把我們這個(gè)物種炸成碎片，盡管有時(shí)這是一件很危險(xiǎn)的事情?！?br/>天啊，上次人類(lèi)第一次與技術(shù)水平低得多的種族接觸是怎么回事？
(記住：這是針對(duì)我們自己的物種，而不是那些長(zhǎng)著觸手的五眼怪物！)

Drew Astolfi
I read once that ravens have small brains but more complex nerve systems - so their smaller brains have more space for problem-solving and memory. So maybe brains size isn’t as much of a thing as we might assume it is.

我曾經(jīng)讀到一篇文章，上面講到烏鴉的大腦較小，但神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)更為復(fù)雜，因此它們較小的大腦有更多的空間來(lái)解決問(wèn)題和記憶。所以也許大腦的大小并不像我們想象的那么重要。

D Clifford
On top of that, to succeed on our planet, we had to get to the top of the food chain. Not only that, but we had to make sure NOTHING on the planet posed a serious threat to our species and our way of life.
Humanity got to rule this planet not only because of our intelligence, but because we slaughtered anything that looked like it might be a threat. We drove lesser species to extinction, industrialised the killing of livestock and left virtually ever other predator afraid of us.
Chances are any other species that developed enough for space exploration and travel also fought their way to the top of their food chain.

最重要的是，要想在我們的星球上取得成功，我們必須站在食物鏈的頂端。不僅如此，我們還必須確保地球上沒(méi)有任何東西對(duì)我們的物種和我們的生活方式構(gòu)成嚴(yán)重威脅。
人類(lèi)統(tǒng)治這個(gè)星球不僅僅是因?yàn)槲覀兊闹腔?，還因?yàn)槲覀兺罋⒘巳魏慰雌饋?lái)可能構(gòu)成威脅的東西。我們將較小的物種推向滅絕，工業(yè)化了對(duì)牲畜的捕殺，讓幾乎所有的掠食者都害怕我們。
有可能任何其他物種，只要發(fā)展到足以進(jìn)行太空探索和旅行的地步，也會(huì)奮力爬上食物鏈的頂端。

J Cliff Wolferz
Yall have watched too much sci-fi. There’s no reason to assume they will have nerve cells. Or even cells as we know them. They could be amorphous blobs with some sort of flexible laticework making up the mechanicals of their biology and no specialization between different “cells” of the latice. Unlikely? Maybe. But possible. It’s perfectly reasonable to think they wouldn’t have DNA… but would potentially have something analogous to it).
Remember, we all share a single common ancestor with every other other form of life on this planet… including the trees. But they won’t. The rules that are fundamental to life on Earth might be unheard of on their world. The only rules that would bind both of us in the end would be physics (and, by extension, chemistry).
So, intelligent or not, we have no way of knowing what their caloric requirements will be. No way to even guess.

你們看的科幻電影太多了。沒(méi)有理由認(rèn)為它們會(huì)有神經(jīng)細(xì)胞。甚至是我們所知道的細(xì)胞。它們可能是無(wú)定形的團(tuán)塊，具有某種靈活的乳管結(jié)構(gòu)，構(gòu)成了它們生物學(xué)的機(jī)械結(jié)構(gòu)，并且在不同“細(xì)胞”之間沒(méi)有特化作用。不可能嗎？也許吧。但也有可能。認(rèn)為它們不具備基因結(jié)構(gòu)是完全合理的，但可能會(huì)有類(lèi)似的東西。
請(qǐng)記住，我們和這個(gè)星球上的其他生物，包括樹(shù)木，都有共同的祖先。但是他們則不是。地球上生命的基本法則在他們的世界里可能是聞所未聞的。最終將我們綁在一起的唯一規(guī)則是物理(以及延伸開(kāi)來(lái)的化學(xué))。
所以，不管聰明與否，我們都無(wú)法知道它們需要多少熱量。連猜都猜不到。

Krishna Iyer
Looks like we would be eaten alive if an encounter happens! Scary.

看起來(lái)如果有什么不速之客我們就會(huì)被活活吃掉！太可怕了。

Keith Moon
My own personal opinion regarding the Fermi Paradox is that we may find life in the galaxy but it will be the simplest type of life possible, and therefore be a monumental disappointment. This might be because I’m British and therefore expecting disappointment is something of a default position. However, I think the emergence of complex, multicellular life was such a monumentally unlikely event that it has only occurred once, so far, in this galaxy (it may have occurred in other galaxies, but they are too far away for us ever to receive contact from them).
Simple, single cell life started almost as soon as it was possible, just after the end of the heavy late bombardment. And then…. pretty much nothing happened for over 1 BILLION YEARS!!! Then something bizarre happened, one type of cell went inside another type of cell. This is known as the Eucaryotic Event, and it allowed the outer cell to protect the inner cell. Almost immediately after this event more complex, multi-cellular life started to appear and evolve.
To me, it seems likely that is was just blind incalculable luck that the Eucaryotic Event happened, and this planet might be the only one in the galaxy where something like this has happened.
One wrinkle in my theory is that evidence seems to suggest that something like the Eukaryotic Event may have happened independently 3 separate times, which makes the idea it is a “once in a galaxy” event less likely. However, given it took over a billion years for anything to happen, it seems to me that once it happened once, the changed environment may have increased the chances of it happening again.

我個(gè)人對(duì)費(fèi)米悖論的看法是，我們可能在銀河系中發(fā)現(xiàn)生命，但它將是可能存在的最簡(jiǎn)單的生命類(lèi)型，因此，這將是一個(gè)令人極為失望的結(jié)果。這可能是因?yàn)槲沂怯?guó)人，所以期待失望是一種默認(rèn)的立場(chǎng)。然而，我認(rèn)為復(fù)雜的多細(xì)胞生命的出現(xiàn)是一件極其不可能發(fā)生的事情，到目前為止，它只在這個(gè)星系中發(fā)生過(guò)一次(它可能在其他星系中也發(fā)生過(guò)，但它們離我們太遠(yuǎn)了，我們無(wú)法與它們?nèi)〉寐?lián)系)。
簡(jiǎn)單的單細(xì)胞生命幾乎在情況可能的時(shí)候就會(huì)出現(xiàn)，就在猛烈的晚期轟擊結(jié)束之后。然而之后的10億多年來(lái)幾乎什么都沒(méi)發(fā)生！然后奇怪的事情發(fā)生了，一種細(xì)胞進(jìn)入另一種細(xì)胞。這被稱為真核生物事件，它允許外部細(xì)胞保護(hù)內(nèi)部細(xì)胞。幾乎在這一事件之后不久，更復(fù)雜的多細(xì)胞生命開(kāi)始出現(xiàn)并進(jìn)化。
在我看來(lái)，真核生物事件的發(fā)生似乎依靠的是一種無(wú)法估量的盲目運(yùn)氣，而這顆行星可能是銀河系中唯一發(fā)生過(guò)類(lèi)似事件的行星。
在我的理論中，有一點(diǎn)值得注意的是，似乎有證據(jù)表明，真核生物這樣的事件可能獨(dú)立發(fā)生過(guò)3次，這使得“星系中只有一次”的說(shuō)法不太可能。然而，考慮到任何事情的發(fā)生都需要10億年以上的時(shí)間，在我看來(lái)，一旦它發(fā)生了一次，環(huán)境的改變可能增加了它再次發(fā)生的機(jī)會(huì)。

Paul Waldman
Birds have smaller brains, but it’s been proven that certain species possess more, denser neurons, and consequently far higher intelligence than much larger creatures.

鳥(niǎo)類(lèi)的大腦較小，但已經(jīng)證明某些物種擁有更多、更密集的神經(jīng)元，因此比大得多的生物擁有更高的智力。

Dax Perez
You’re right about this.
Stereoscopic vision is also something that accompanies predators, and is very handy with building things.
Carnivores also need higher levels of intelligence because they hunt, especially in groups where you have to coordinate with team members.
Have you ever looked up what happened with koala brains from just eating eucalyptus? The brains lost their folds and they became hopelessly stupid :)

你說(shuō)得對(duì)。
立體視覺(jué)也是一種伴隨捕食者而出現(xiàn)的東西，它在構(gòu)建各種事物時(shí)是非常方便的。
食肉動(dòng)物也需要更高的智力水平，因?yàn)樗鼈円鳙C，特別是在群體中，你必須與團(tuán)隊(duì)成員協(xié)調(diào)。
你有沒(méi)有查過(guò)考拉吃桉樹(shù)后大腦會(huì)發(fā)生什么變化？它的大腦失去了折疊，變得愚蠢得無(wú)可救藥。

Dany Targa
I say that because we are becoming less violent as an example, fairly quickly because there are less wars and famines every decade and because of the integrated global economy making war financial suicide. War has sped up our technological advancements but it can only get us so far before we go backwards like if WW3 happens.

我之所以這么說(shuō)，是因?yàn)榕e例來(lái)說(shuō)，我們的暴力正在減少，而且減少的速度相當(dāng)快，因?yàn)槊窟^(guò)十年發(fā)生的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)和饑荒都在減少，而且全球經(jīng)濟(jì)一體化將讓?xiě)?zhàn)爭(zhēng)形同金融自殺。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)加速了我們的技術(shù)進(jìn)步，但它只能讓我們走得更遠(yuǎn)，否則我們就會(huì)倒退，就像第三次世界大戰(zhàn)那樣。

Rupert Baines
Hardly
Our transmissions are very powerful and, even with inverse square, they have so much regularity that recovering them from very weak signals isn’t hard
Remember we are listening via SETI, we have regular transmissions from Voyager and that is a weedy 26W transmitter
That is 18bn km
So a radar station (26MW) could be equally easy to detect at 1000x further = 1.9 light years
And that is mere “as easy to receive as Voyager” from one rada station

很難這么說(shuō)。
我們的傳輸是非常強(qiáng)大的，即使使用平方反比定律，它們也有如此多的規(guī)律性，因此從非常微弱的信號(hào)中恢復(fù)它們并不困難
請(qǐng)記住，我們是通過(guò)搜尋地外文明計(jì)劃進(jìn)行監(jiān)聽(tīng)的，我們有來(lái)自旅行者號(hào)的定期傳輸信號(hào)，那可是一個(gè)功率很弱的26W發(fā)射器。
而距離則達(dá)到了180億公里。
因此，一個(gè)雷達(dá)站(26MW)在1000倍距離之外——也就是1.9光年之外也同樣容易被探測(cè)到
。而這僅僅是“像接收旅行者號(hào)的信號(hào)一樣簡(jiǎn)單”。

Joe Thompson
Also if you had the will and the technology to be capable of travelling the vast distances of space, its very likely that this same technology would make your race self sufficient.

此外，如果你有意愿和技術(shù)能夠在太空中進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)距離的旅行，很可能同樣的技術(shù)會(huì)讓你的種族自給自足。

Alyson Irvin
Why would anyone assume that any nei***ors would be happy or friendly?
There are damn few happy friendly nei***ors here on Earth, the only examples of life we have. We are competitive, and kill and eat or otherwise exploit one another, even, I might add, our own kind.
If natural selection is a “thing” and we sure do assume that it is, it makes us pretty competitive against ‘outsiders’ including outsiders of our own species.
I think the dark forest makes good sense. Much better sense than the idea of happy friendly nei***ors interested in helping out the psychopathic apes of Earth who murder each other for fun and profit.

為什么會(huì)有人認(rèn)為鄰居會(huì)很快樂(lè)或友好呢？
地球上快樂(lè)的友好鄰居少之又少，我們只有這樣的例子。我們互相競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，互相殘殺，互相剝削，甚至，我還要補(bǔ)充一句，我們還是同類(lèi)。
如果自然選擇是一件“事情”，而且我們確實(shí)假設(shè)它是的話，那么它將使我們?cè)谂c“局外人”(包括我們自己物種的局外人)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中變得相當(dāng)有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力。
我認(rèn)為黑暗森林理論是有道理的。這比快樂(lè)的友好鄰居有興趣幫助地球上那些為了娛樂(lè)和利益而互相殘殺的精神變態(tài)的猿類(lèi)的假設(shè)好得多。

Julian Eccli
It also assumes all civilizations deduce the same philosophy it’s a big bad universe out there.
Another reason I don’t find it all that scary is, assuming similar conclusions and choices a human might make… Modern civilizations can be analogous to what over time occurred on Earth over the last 200,000 years as 100s to 1000s of nomadic hunter/gatherer tribes wandered the world. After 180K years those wandering tribes started settling into agrarian societies which grew larger and larger. Recently massive settlements in the 10Ms in a locale as a result of the industrial age. I am sure some want to annihilate too like a real life video game space shooter.

它還假設(shè)所有的文明都在演繹同樣的哲學(xué)觀點(diǎn)——外面是一個(gè)巨大的邪惡宇宙。
另一個(gè)我不覺(jué)得有那么可怕的原因是，假設(shè)人類(lèi)可能會(huì)做出類(lèi)似的結(jié)論和選擇……現(xiàn)代文明可以與過(guò)去20萬(wàn)年中地球上發(fā)生的事情相類(lèi)似，當(dāng)時(shí)有100至1000個(gè)游牧獵人和采集者部落在世界各地游蕩。18萬(wàn)年后，這些游牧部落開(kāi)始定居到越來(lái)越大的農(nóng)業(yè)社會(huì)中。最近，由于工業(yè)時(shí)代的原因，一個(gè)地區(qū)的10英里范圍內(nèi)就會(huì)出現(xiàn)大規(guī)模的定居點(diǎn)。我相信有些人也想消滅他們，就像一個(gè)真正的實(shí)況游戲空間射擊一樣。

Lisa Marie Ambrose
How far would our broadcasting go before it fades out? Also, I'm sure all of the other alien civilizations had to go through the phase of unwittingly broadcasting everything for x years before realizing their own version of the Dark Forest theory then going stealth.

我們的廣播在消失之前會(huì)傳播多遠(yuǎn)？而且，我確信所有其他的外星文明在意識(shí)到他們自己版本的黑暗森林理論之前已經(jīng)不知不覺(jué)中傳播了好多年各種各樣的東西，然后他們才開(kāi)始隱匿自己的行蹤。

C Stuart Hardwick
For TV broadcasts, a few light years—about as far as the nearest star. For military radar, maybe twice that—and it’s by no means certain that would be recognized as a sign of us being here.?

對(duì)于電視廣播來(lái)說(shuō)，它的傳播距離是幾光年——大約是最近的恒星那么遠(yuǎn)。對(duì)于軍用雷達(dá)信號(hào)來(lái)說(shuō)，可能是這個(gè)數(shù)字的兩倍——而且也不確定這是否會(huì)被認(rèn)為是我們?cè)谶@里的標(biāo)志。

Russell Jurney
It is true that so far we haven’t broadcast our location because our signals are too weak against the background noise, but this doesn’t affect the theory because this won’t always be the case as we start communicating using gravity, neutrinos, Zed Beatle box particles, etc.

到目前為止，我們還沒(méi)有廣播我們的位置，因?yàn)槲覀兊男盘?hào)相對(duì)于背景噪音來(lái)說(shuō)太弱了，但這并不影響該理論的成立，因?yàn)楫?dāng)我們開(kāi)始使用引力、中微子和基本粒子等進(jìn)行通信時(shí)，情況并不總是這樣的。

David Turner
Also, if a species is evolved enough to have the technology, what would they want with Earth? Isn't there unlimited resources in space?

而且，如果一個(gè)物種進(jìn)化到擁有這種技術(shù)，他們想要地球做什么？難道太空中沒(méi)有無(wú)限的資源嗎？

Bryan Schmidt
Slaves won’t dig it up for you in space.

奴隸不會(huì)在太空中為你挖掘的。

Alan Scott
If they have the tech to travel across the vast distances in space then they have the technology to mine and gather the resources they need. Ethics aside, slave labor is very primitive and low tech.

如果他們有穿越太空的技術(shù)，那么他們就有開(kāi)采和收集所需資源的技術(shù)。撇開(kāi)倫理不談，奴隸勞動(dòng)是非常原始和低技術(shù)的。

Eric Thomas
It’s naive to believe that just because you’ve developed advanced technology, primitive solutions aren’t still useful in many circumstances.

認(rèn)為僅僅因?yàn)殚_(kāi)發(fā)了先進(jìn)的技術(shù)，原始的解決方案在許多情況下仍然沒(méi)有用處是天真的。

David Turner
So you're saying a civilization with the ability to make advanced AI is going to go with primitive humans? People who need rest and breaks and you have to feed them and let them sleep, otherwise production declines ….

所以你的意思是一個(gè)有能力制造先進(jìn)人工智能的文明會(huì)和原始人類(lèi)一起和平共處？那些需要休息和休息的人，你必須喂飽他們，讓他們睡覺(jué)，否則生產(chǎn)力就會(huì)下降……

Eric Thomas
They would only have to wield control over us. We’re already self-sustaining. A whole planet of moderately smart creatures that you can easily exploit with technological superiority for your own needs would be more efficient than trying to duplicate what you could get out of 7 billion heads of human laborers with AI of even dumb mechanical systems. An overwhelming superior show of force in a minimal amount of skirmishes could quickly drive the bulk of the population into compliance. Slave labor would be a valuable cheap resource in itself, especially if they’re far enough developed to already have useful infrastructure in place. Their AI will have its place, but I doubt they’ll pass up on being able to utilize billions of smart-mules for their own benefit.

他們只需要控制我們。我們已經(jīng)可以自我維持了。一整個(gè)星球上都是中等聰明的生物，你可以很容易地利用技術(shù)優(yōu)勢(shì)來(lái)滿足自己的需求，這將比試圖復(fù)制70億人類(lèi)勞動(dòng)力的人工智能(甚至是愚蠢的機(jī)械系統(tǒng))更有效。在最少的小規(guī)模沖突中以壓倒性優(yōu)勢(shì)展示武力，可以迅速迫使大多數(shù)人服從。奴隸勞動(dòng)力本身就是一種有價(jià)值的廉價(jià)資源，特別是如果他們足夠發(fā)達(dá)，已經(jīng)具備了有用的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的話。他們的人工智能將占據(jù)一席之地，但我懷疑他們是否會(huì)放棄利用數(shù)十億只智能騾子為自己謀福利的機(jī)會(huì)。

Bryan Schmidt
And yet requires nothing more than a minor garrison and a few WMD’s to keep them in line.

然而，只需要一支小規(guī)模的駐軍和一些大規(guī)模殺傷性武器就能讓他們乖乖聽(tīng)話。

Alan Scott
There are TED Talks that cover this. They do a better job of explaining the key points than I can. I enjoy Sci Fi movies too but they are just fiction.

有很多TED演講都涉及到這個(gè)問(wèn)題。他們?cè)诮忉屢c(diǎn)方面比我做得好。我也喜歡科幻電影，但它們只是虛構(gòu)的。

Mike Bourke
According to the sources I’ve seen, using then-current radio telescopes, radio and especially TV transmissions from Earth would have been detectable from 800 light years away. But the real rub is the speed of light - those transmissions would be detectable with equipment of that standard when they get there, in about 685 years. Whereas even if the galactic core is uninhabitable, and there are 10,000 civilizations in the Milky Way outside of the core, the average distance between them would be about 50% greater than that 800 years.?

根據(jù)我所看到的消息來(lái)源，使用當(dāng)時(shí)流行的射電望遠(yuǎn)鏡、無(wú)線電，尤其是來(lái)自地球的電視傳輸，在800光年之外就可以探測(cè)到。但真正的問(wèn)題是光速——這些傳輸信號(hào)在685年后到達(dá)那里時(shí)，就可以用應(yīng)用該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的設(shè)備檢測(cè)到。然而，即使銀河系的核心不適合居住，而且在核心之外的銀河系中有10000個(gè)文明，它們之間的平均距離也會(huì)比800光年的距離遠(yuǎn)50%。

Daniel Young
Pfft don't count on nei***ours being friendly when we as a family can't be friendly to each other. Besides if we have the ability to dominate our nei***ours, slaughter and loot them, we surely would do so.

不要指望鄰居友好，特別是當(dāng)我們作為一個(gè)家庭不能對(duì)彼此友好的時(shí)候。此外，如果我們有能力支配我們的鄰居，屠殺和掠奪他們，我們肯定會(huì)這樣做的。

Vikash
Interesting, but is that faulty reasoning or just another very unlikely theory.I mean do we really know enough to make that sort of call, To me it seems like all of it is sci fi but im not an actual scientist.

有趣，但這是錯(cuò)誤的推理，還是另一種不太可能的理論？我的意思是，我們真的有足夠的知識(shí)來(lái)做出這樣的呼吁嗎？對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，這似乎都是科幻小說(shuō)，但我不是一個(gè)真正的科學(xué)家。

Dan Pies
Actually scientists have broadcasted multiple signals into space hoping for a response. So yes, humans have stupidly been broadcasting our existence into space for years.

事實(shí)上，科學(xué)家已經(jīng)向太空發(fā)射了多種信號(hào)，希望得到回應(yīng)。是的，人類(lèi)已經(jīng)愚蠢地將我們的存在廣播到太空中很多年了。

Michael Ahn
Yea, I totally agree with you. The writer of the this answer didn’t really elaborate on this, but the author of the science fiction novel that proposed this theory actually had the same thoughts as you.

是的,我完全同意你的看法。這個(gè)答案的作者并沒(méi)有詳細(xì)說(shuō)明這一點(diǎn)，但作者認(rèn)為這個(gè)理論實(shí)際上與你的想法是一樣的。

Paul Wigley
Then again, it may not. If there is other life out there I suspect that they have more reason to be afraid of us.

然而，事實(shí)可能并非如此。如果有其他生命在那里，我懷疑他們有更多的理由害怕我們。

Wylie Cox
most likely happy, friendly nei***ors that aren’t even trying to broadcast or listen. Our current technological obsession could easily be a passing fad, unique to us. After all, we spent 99% of our history without it. :)

很有可能是快樂(lè)、友好的鄰居，他們甚至不去廣播或傾聽(tīng)。我們目前對(duì)科技的癡迷很可能只是曇花一現(xiàn)，是我們獨(dú)有的。畢竟，我們99%的歷史中都沒(méi)有這種玩意兒。