“The Three-Body Problem” deviates from the basic model of Earth’s sociology, portraying an extreme zero-sum game as the fundamental ecological law of the universe. While the physical laws it deduces are science fiction, the social laws it deduces present a fictional cosmology that lacks a firm foundation. In this sense, “The Three-Body Problem” becomes a rootless work of science fiction.
After the Netflix version of “The Three-Body Problem” TV series premiered in March this year, it immediately became Netflix’s highest-rated series globally, sparking a wave of enthusiasm for “The Three-Body Problem” worldwide. However, upon watching the show and understanding the main content of the novel, it is regrettable to find that this work intended to contemplate humanity’s position and value in the vast universe, to explore the ultimate fate of humanity and the universe, lacks a solid philosophical and sociological basis for its grand narrative structure.
In simple terms, science fiction can be seen as an artistic combination of physical and social laws. While physical laws can surpass current knowledge, social laws must be anchored in the historical heritage. The latter forms the cultural root of science fiction. Good science fiction works share a common point – they explore the complexities of human nature, social phenomena, and social laws in a highly developed technological era. Just as historical dramas and modern dramas depict different social backgrounds and technological levels, the underlying human nature and social laws remain unchanged. From this perspective, science fiction can be viewed as a type of futuristic drama, where the fundamental principles of sociology and human history remain consistent regardless of technological advancements in the future.
The difference between “The Three-Body Problem” and conventional science fiction works lies in its attempt to showcase a new cosmic philosophy or cosmic ecology, termed “cosmic sociology” in the novel. However, as mentioned earlier, cosmic sociology can only be a cosmic-temporal version of Earth’s sociology and cannot escape the fundamental social laws revealed by human nature and the history of human civilization.
The failure of “The Three-Body Problem” lies in its departure from the basic model of Earth’s sociology, treating an extreme zero-sum game state as the fundamental ecological law of the universe. If a novel’s sociological basis significantly deviates from the basic social laws of humanity, it should belong to the realm of fantasy fiction. Fantasy fiction is not bound by the constraints of science and humanities; it can freely transcend time, space, and human social laws. Whereas science fiction describes a technologically advanced human society, whether it be Earth’s human society or extraterrestrial human society. The physics laws deduced in “The Three-Body Problem” are science fiction, but the social laws deduced present a fictional cosmic sociology, positioning the work on the verge of fantasy fiction, devoid of a solid foundation in science fiction.
The cosmic sociology in “The Three-Body Problem” is composed of the “Dark Forest Law” and the “Chains of Suspicion.” The “Dark Forest Law” metaphorically depicts the universe as a dark forest, where all civilizations are akin to stealthy hunters moving within it. Once a civilization is discovered by another, it inevitably faces annihilation. The “Chains of Suspicion” serve as an annotation to the “Dark Forest Law,” asserting that the fundamental social relationship between cosmic civilizations is one of suspicion. When one civilization cannot determine if another harbors goodwill or malice, to safeguard itself, it must choose to eliminate the other first. Essentially, the cosmic sociology in “The Three-Body Problem” embodies a form of cosmic Darwinism, where survival of the fittest prevails. However, such a law, as purported, does not exist in the biological realm, let alone in the universe.
In the biological realm, the fundamental relationship between species is an ecological system based on food chain cycles. From a macro perspective, there is no concept of strength or weakness within the food chain; rather, a complex relationship of mutual growth and opposition exists. The ecosystem operates akin to a meticulously designed production line, where the food chain mechanism drives its functioning. The consumption of one organism by another is analogous to one process leading to the next, perpetuating a cycle that sustains the stability of the entire ecosystem, fostering a flourishing world of life. Mutual growth, mutual opposition, and cyclical occurrences constitute the true ecological law of Earth.
Transitioning from the ecological system to the social system, the basic mechanism remains largely the same. The fundamental relationship within human society is one of cooperative coexistence, where human civilization continuously advances through the pursuit of ethics, division of labor, and shared interests. This forms the basic framework of Earth’s sociology.
In contrast to ecological systems operating automatically based on food chain mechanisms, human nature being a blend of good and evil allows for freedom to choose morally or contractually. Hence, social systems exhibit three states: a balanced state of mutual cooperation governed by contracts (the neutral basic social relationship maintained by agreements), a harmonious state of few desires and mutual understanding sustained by morality (a higher-level social relationship upheld by ethics), and a state of conflict with the goal of annihilation (the most heinous social relationship that emerges when morality deteriorates). Corresponding to social systems, Darwinism manifests in the worst state of conflict, which human society seeks to avoid. Just as laws are constructed to deter crime and maintain moral standards, the establishment of sociology aims to avert the proliferation of Darwinism, upholding the baseline of social relationships and aspiring to achieve a higher level of harmony.
In the vast universe beyond Earth, are there countless advanced civilizations akin to humans possessing intelligence? Philosophy can assert unequivocally that, based on universal principles, the existence of extraterrestrial life and beings is indisputable. What form do the social systems of extraterrestrial civilizations take? This question lies within the realm of philosophy and sociology, as stated earlier, regardless of the technological advancements attained by extraterrestrial beings, the manifestations of good and evil within human nature, and the three fundamental states of social relationships have no distinctions from Earth’s sociology. Human sociology is based on maintaining the basic neutral social relationship, advancing civilization to higher states through ethics and morality. When viewed on a cosmic scale (examined from the perspective of the macro whole), extraterrestrial civilizations within the universe abide by similar principles. This represents the universal and applicable nature of genuine cosmic sociology. As for the whereabouts of extraterrestrial civilizations and the stories experienced in their developmental journeys, this is the work of science and the space where science fiction can exercise its artistic imagination.
When discussing science fiction, it is impossible to ignore the “Star Wars” series, which undoubtedly ranks among the most successful and influential science fiction films in history. The title of “Star Wars” conveys interstellar warfare and conflicts of civilizations, with epic space battle scenes portrayed in the movie. However, the philosophical theme of the film consistently revolves around the eternal values of human society. In the first prequel of “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace,” Anakin’s statement resonates deeply; he remarks that the greatest problem in the universe is the lack of mutual assistance among people. Anakin is the absolute protagonist of “Star Wars,” and the first story in the main “Star Wars” saga unfolds around this philosophical theme; on the planet Tatooine in the outer galaxy, within a cultural environment hostile to the Galactic Republic, Anakin actively helps two stranded Jedi warriors, forming a bond with the Jedi and initiating the primary narrative structure of Star Wars.
The galactic sociology depicted in “Star Wars” aligns entirely with Earth’s sociology, encompassing constructs like morality, religion, ethics, law maintenance, interstellar trade, intergalactic conflicts, the power struggle between the Galactic Republic and Galactic Empire, order versus chaos, negotiation versus compromise, conspiracy versus betrayal, justice versus compassion, and so forth. Through “Star Wars,” universal social norms and human nature unfold vividly within the vast galaxy, illustrating a galactic civilization ecosystem with real possibilities. Due to its strong sociological foundation, the “Star Wars” series engenders a sense of tangible reality among viewers regarding galactic civilization, a vital aspect contributing to its status as a science fiction classic.
For instance, in the science fiction film “2012,” amid the impending catastrophe of human extinction, the movie portrays the moral and contractual choices of human nature when faced with destruction. This represents the most prevalent state in human sociology. As the great flood threatens to annihilate human civilization, 15 minutes before the impending disaster, the No. 3 ark sustains severe damage, leaving a significant population stranded outside, leading to chaos. Scientist Adrian requests to open the hatch to allow the people outside onto the No. 4 ark. In this urgent life-or-death moment, a debate ensues among the occupants of the No. 4 ark. Opponents argue that resources and time are limited, prioritizing the survival of humanity over individual lives; therefore, the fate of those outside must be left to fate. Adrian’s response embodies the philosophical theme of the entire movie – if we begin a new life without considering the lives of others, how do we explain it to our children? Such actions are not humane and do not qualify as civilized behavior. Ultimately, through voting, representatives from the majority of nations on the No. 4 ark unanimously agree to open the hatch.
Contrasting the cosmic sociology in “The Three-Body Problem,” which posits that all civilizations in the universe harbor hostility towards each other, resulting in a fundamental relationship of mutual destruction, societal relations in human sociology typically involve cooperation and mutual existence. This philosophical dichotomy underscores a severe conflict between rationality in the scientific sphere and irrationality in the sociological realm, a schism that renders the novel unable to uphold basic human values.
In conclusion, “The Three-Body Problem” places the entire universe’s civilizations within an extreme environment. From the initial stages of the Cultural Revolution to the extreme natural environment of the Three-Body world, the life-and-death game between Earthlings and Trisolarans, to the Dark Forest Law spanning the entire universe, “The Three-Body Problem” dissolves universal moral and ethical relationships, creating a new perspective on good and evil; an action ensuring survival is considered good, whereas a behavior posing a threat to survival is deemed evil. At first glance, this seems to establish a new survival philosophy; however, it actually constructs a path of cosmic ecological annihilation. In this survival struggle devoid of moral constraints, where any means are permissible, all civilizations in the universe inexorably march towards ultimate destruction. The novel’s eventual conclusion verifies this outcome, whether intentionally crafted by the author or as an inevitable result of the stringent logic of this conflict philosophy, leaving no room for alternative endings.
In “The Three-Body Problem,” there are no galactic-scale republics or empires, no interstellar alliances maintaining order, no interstellar law enforcers, no stable ethical values – only eyes filled with suspicion and hostility lurking in some corner of the dark universe, fingers hovering over buttons that could obliterate planets or even star systems, intensely gazing into the sparkling expanse of space outside.
The super artificial intelligence like Proton, quantum communication, light busters, dimension-reducing strikes, curved space ships, a four-dimensional world – these mind-bending science fiction concepts indeed broaden people’s horizons to speculate the mysteries of the cosmos; however, the cosmic sociology it constructs closes off readers from rationally contemplating the real societal ecology of the universe, utterly transforming the oasis of human civilization into a barren wasteland within the cosmic spacetime. The rationality in the scientific domain and the irrationality in the sociological realm within “The Three-Body Problem,” this severe conflict and irreconcilable tearing asunder, renders the novel incapable of upholding fundamental human values.