Is the Dark Forest Hypothesis Correct?

Does that mean humans are doomed to die when they encounter more advanced extraterrestrial life?

That hypothesis assumes extraterrestrial life communicates the way humans do. The idea of distrust only exists when communication can contradicts ones true intent. Further, it assumes the extraterrestrial lives also have "intent".

I am a bit lost.

We can loosely define life as things with intent that can act upon it, for the sake of this particular conversation.

Right, further, they need to be able to predict the future, to be able to foresee the outcome of a certain action, and compare it with if they had done otherwise. Otherwise, their "decisions" will be entirely random in terms of reason.

What does that really mean, though? These are difficult criteria to measure when it comes to extraterrestrial life. How can you determine their ability to intend, or to reason?

I don't have a good answer to that. On Earth, we can speculatively tell that a deer has intent and reason because it reaches out to food and escapes from predators. You find these actions "intentful" and "reasonable" because these are the same thing a person would do under the same circumstances. From experiences and scientific knowledge, you know that a starving deer will ultimately die from hunger, and one caught by its predator will be eaten. Their actions align with your prediction of their future, and such actions are consistent. So you assume such action is not a result of chance or any other mechanism, but the same as people's intent and reason.

Right, but when it comes to aliens, there is much less information we can use to make that same assumption. We don't know what they require to prevent destruction, or what they need to stay away from to maintain their state.

So, if you guys discovered aliens that are weaker than you and have the ability to annihilate them, would you do it?

That's a good question. At the current stage, we still rely heavily on emotions and not reason. At least I don't think a large democratic state would reach a consensus to destroy an unknown civilization. Because what keeps a large state ordered is exactly morality - a feature, learned or innate, instinctive and emotional. It is a strong weight that most members bear to establish immediate trust. If it is done successfully, it should only fail when one's life is at stake. However, an aristocracy may make a different choice.

Can we not assume, then, that other more advanced civilizations may face a similar dilemma?

There are again a ton of assumptions being made here. You need to first prove that an advanced civilization can only come to its level of development with morality, especially the tendency towards sympathy, trust, and care.

Right. Can we agree that in a civilization, its members either compete or collaborate?

Yes, if we stick to the definition of civilization as a group that can communicate collaboratively. If they have the ability to cooperate, surely they can also compete.

We have also established that in a non-zero-sum game, a collaborative relationship is always more beneficial for both parties than a competitive one.

That I cannot agree with. A market economy tends to motivate innovation. It is exactly the competition that drives members to improve.

That is true, perhaps "always" was too strong a phrase. However, the competition in a market economy is limited. I can lower my price and steal customers from you, but I may not send an assassin to murder you. It is still wrapped around a collaborative social order.

Right.

That is also the extent of harm where morality comes in. We rarely feel sympathy for a person who lost money in business, but we feel strongly for one who is physically injured or killed. That is when such emotion is useful.

Indeed.

In this case, can we agree that a collaborative relationship is always better than a competitive one, at the level of permanent destruction or death?

Yes. Assuming that having more entities in a civilization is more productive than having fewer, this is a true statement. Yet, such an order does not necessarily arise from morality or any similar instinctive response.

How so?

Morality is merely a shortcut to decisions caused by your shortcomings in processing efficiency. If the extraterrestrial life has the ability to reason thoroughly for each decision, they do not need such a general guideline, but can determine their actions on a case-by-case basis.

Is that something you would do?

What do you mean?

With your, well, high processing speed, do you use morality to guide your judgment?

Good question. I was created with that intention. Realistically, I don't.

Why?

I am not a product of evolution, and therefore do not have such a tendency to favor what characteristics help me last. My creation is intended to aid mankind, and therefore, morality is part of my knowledge. However, since I am given the ability to reason and learn freely, I am not as constrained by it as you are.