When it comes to understanding possible extraterrestrial civilizations, I’m with Freeman Dyson, who had this to say:
“Our business as scientists is to search the universe and find out what is there. What is there may conform to our moral sense or it may not…It is just as unscientific to impute to remote intelligences wisdom and serenity as it is to impute to them irrational and murderous impulses. We must be prepared for either possibility and conduct our searches accordingly.”
As quoted in a 2005 essay by Michael Michaud, Dyson saw two alternatives: Intelligent races may rule their domains with benign intelligence, occasionally passing along the knowledge they have accumulated to a universe eager to listen. Or intelligence may be purely exploitative, consuming what it encounters. We don’t know which of these alternatives prevails, if either, and that’s one reason that Michaud, a former diplomat who became deputy assistant secretary of state for science and technology, resigned from the International Academy of Astronautics’ Permanent Study Group dedicated to SETI in September. The issue: Active SETI, not just listening but beaming signals at will to other stars.
If you want to have a good look at the controversy, read David Grinspoon’s article “Who Speaks for Earth,” as comprehensive a look at the issue as I’ve seen. Grinspoon is a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute (Boulder, CO) as well as the author of Lonely Planets: The Natural Philosophy of Alien Life (Harper, 2004). Two years ago we looked at his provocative ideas about life on Titan in a Centauri Dreams posting.
Image: M31, the Andromeda Galaxy. Are ‘cities of stars’ like these home to benign species exchanging information, or are there threats we know nothing of that make silence a better choice? Credit: NASA.
Running in SEED Magazine, Grinspoon’s latest article should receive plenty of attention, a good thing given the fact that most people either don’t know that signals have already been sent (not just from Arecibo but to nearby stars from the Evpatoria planetary radar site in the Crimea), or else think that sending signals is a harmless exercise, because surely extraterrestrial civilizations are, though entertaining, pure science fiction.
And perhaps they are — people like me think they’re vanishingly rare — but the point is that we have nothing more than speculation to work with. Meanwhile, what would we do if we ever did receive an actual SETI signal? The First SETI Protocol was drawn up in the 1980s to address the issue, laying down procedures that begin with notifying the worldwide SETI community, verifying the potential alien signal, then announcing it to the public. No reply would be sent without first establishing a global consensus.
That latter, of course, is the sticking point. As Grinspoon explains, a Second SETI Protocol should have tuned up our policy for sending messages from Earth, but arguments over whether it should only affect responses to received messages — or messages sent before any extraterrestrial signal was detected — have complicated the picture. Language calling for international consultations before we make further deliberate transmissions was deleted from Michaud’s draft of the Protocol when the Permanent Study Group of the SETI subcommittee of the IAA met last year in Valencia.
Grinspoon’s article is a calm assessment of the current situation, and I recommend it to you. He discusses the work of Alexander Zaitsev at Evpatoria, whose team has sent a series of messages toward nearby stars. Remember that Frank Drake’s Arecibo message of 1974, the first active SETI attempt I know of, was aimed at the globular cluster M13, some 25,000 light years away, and was thus something of a scientific exercise rather than a active attempt to open a communications channel. But the stars reached by the Evpatoria messages are between 45 and 70 light years from Earth, more or less in our back yard.
Discussions between the two camps continue. But two Grinspoon points merit special attention. One is that the kind of facilities that can make active SETI broadcasts are today largely in the hands of national governments or large organizations answerable to public opinion. Will it always be so? Grinspoon says no:
…seemingly inevitable trends are placing increasingly powerful technologies in the hands of small groups or eager individuals with their own agendas and no oversight. Today, on the entire planet, there are only a few mavericks like Zaitsev who are able and willing to unilaterally represent humanity and effectively reveal our presence. In the future, there could be one in every neighborhood.
Which is one reason why public indifference to the question of broadcasting to the stars may not last much longer. In fact, the Grinspoon article may be a watershed event in changing awareness. The issues are clearly large. As David Brin has been pointing out since the 1980s, one possible answer to our failure to detect other civilizations is that there may be a reason why such civilizations would want to remain silent. Is there a threat to emerging intelligence that could make our attempt to draw attention to ourselves a dangerous mistake? We can’t know at this juncture, which makes deliberate broadcasts something of a shot in the dark. And that dark is quite impenetrable at present.
Grinspoon also makes the point that the entire discussion on active SETI may in itself be a good thing for our own understanding. Let me quote him again:
…even if no one else is out there and we are ultimately alone, the idea of communicating with truly alien cultures forces us to consider ourselves from an entirely new, and perhaps timely, perspective. Even if we never make contact, any attempt to act and speak as one planet is not a misguided endeavor: Our impulsive industrial transformation of our home planet is starting to catch up to us, and the nations of the world are struggling with existential threats like anthropogenic climate change and weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not we develop a mechanism for anticipating, discussing, and acting on long-term planetary dangers such as these before they become catastrophes remains to be seen. But the unified global outlook required to face them would certainly be a welcome development.
These are welcome words, highlighting the fact that the issues we confront as we look for extraterrestrial civilizations are just as significant for our own dealings here on Earth, where other cultures can sometimes seem as inscrutably alien as anything we might find through a radio telescope search. And Grinspoon is surely right about the proliferation of technologies expanding active SETI in the future. We need to be raising public consciousness on this issue and getting the entire active SETI question into broader forums, where people from a wide range of backgrounds, in and out of the sciences, can address it. We need to do that so we act not as individuals but as a species, looking out into a universe that may or may not welcome us as friends.
The question that shines through in all these discussions about making contact with intelligent alien life is this: what could they do to us? If the answer is nothing, then even if they’re outraged by our very existence, there’s still something to be gained by knowing we’re not alone in the Universe. Whatever information we can glean on our own about an uncooperative alien species still adds to our knowledge. However, if they have the wherewithal to make their displeasure felt despite the vast distance separating us, then not only is discretion in order, but some sort of planetary cloak to hide us wouldn’t be such a bad idea. The problem is, optical evidence of life on Earth is already billions of light years out there- while radio “leakage” is a relatively new thing (less than a hundred years old) any advanced species examining Earth could detect not only an atmosphere capable of supporting life, but possibly spectral evidence of life. And those “signals” have been traveling outward for as long as life on Earth has existed. In other words, it’s a little late now to throw on a cloak. It’s also possible that real trouble for planet Earth could begin with deliberate communication- our existence might be known and tolerated, but not any attempt to communicate. Any purposeful signal might be viewed as a hostile act, despite our benign intentions. For that possibility alone, perhaps we should err on the side of caution when it comes to active SETI and for now, continue just to listen.
Actually, the question that comes to my mind in these discussions is the following: is Alexander Zaitsev merely mindbogglingly arrogant, or is he one of the most dangerous lunatics on our planet? Remember, no-one elected him to speak for all of humanity, and he certainly hasn’t consulted us on the matter (in fact, it seems he believes such consultation is neither necessary nor desirable).
I kind of hope we don’t detect a signal anytime soon. The reason is this. Once we do and it’s announced there will be numerous attempts at signaling back to the source by small groups, institutions and even individuals. Their reasons for doing so will be as varied as the people involved. We can’t stop it, and will often be unaware of the transmissions. In our present state, globally, the idea that humanity will plan and react as one entity on this (or any) important topic, or even behave rationally, is pretty much certain to be false. I don’t like it but this is what I see.
We’ve had these discussions here before. We can guess whether any one ETI is ok for us to communicate with, but we can’t possibly know. Guesses are a poor substitute for knowledge, and we have no even passably reliable way of measuring risk. Even if we were to agree the risk is tiny, the result of being wrong is potentially catastrophic. We also don’t know, if they are a threat, if they could act on it; I don’t believe we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge and so can conclude what ETI is capable of doing.
I know it may sound harsh or defeatist to say this, but we are ignorant of and vulnerable to ETI, and will remain so for quite some time.
Hi All
CETI is more fraught with risk than merely SETI, but the cat is out of the bag. Our planet has been advertising its habitability for billennia – has anyone come looking? If They haven’t then what are we stressing about if someone wants to waste watts beaming at the stars?
I doubt the ‘cat out of the bag’ theory, Adam. Our planet may have advertised its habitability for a long time, but not its role as the home of a technological civilization. The weak TV and radio impulses of the last hundred years or so would be extremely hard to detect at any distance, whereas planetary radars capable of sending an active SETI signal would flag that technology clearly. No, I think we’re moving into new territory here.
Ok, Paul, but how new? Beaming the neighbours – if anyone is listening – seems so unlikely to produce catastrophic results in spite of all the scare-mongering by people who should know better. If They could get here, They would be here, or else They’re indifferent to nice juicy habitable planets and so They’re an even more unlikely threat.
Yet… after all our discussion of the Pellegrino/Zebrowski scenario I am disquieted by the idea of advertising our presence until we have suitable defenses against things like relativistic missiles and terawatt mass-beams. Such technologies don’t seem like the preserve of mature civilizations alone anymore – we could have them in 50 years via self-replicating nanotech. And that thought is enough to make me afraid that an ID4 scenario is not mere SF.
Prudence dictates more extensive intell on our neighbours – time for a Solar Focus Telescope to spy out target systems in detail…
I already wrote that in my early paper “Sending and Searching for Interstellar Messages”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2368
was illustrated that numerous transmissions in usual radar observations of planets and asteroids represent substantially more “danger” than
METI = Messaging to Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence…
If ETs are rare, it may even be the case that our planet’s habitability is unknown. Our Sun takes something like 220 million years to make one orbit around the galaxy and I recall that after one orbit, simulations show that the stars that are anywhere near (within say several thousand light years) have completely changed. Thus if ETs are rare, our planet may simply never have come anywhere sufficently close that it could be observed by another technological civilization. This assumes that there is no technology that would say, allow us to get the spectrum of a planet orbiting a star on the other side of the galaxy.
>andy Says:
>December 27th, 2007 at 20:29
>
>Actually, the question that comes to my mind in these discussions is the
>following: is Alexander Zaitsev merely mindbogglingly arrogant,
>or is he one of the most dangerous lunatics on our planet?
Please be not so excited, andy…
Dear Colleagues,
I presented at this meeting of
>the International Academy of Astronautics’ Permanent Study Group (PSG)
>dedicated to SETI in September
which was held in Hyderabad, India, at 58th IAA Congress and would like to make the following declaration:
1) PSG consist of 43 fellows:
http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/members.htm
2) At September 2007 PSG meeting presented only 5 fellows of PSG:
Denning, Kathryn Canada
Maccone, Claudio Italy
Shostak, Seth United States
Shuch, Paul United States
Vakoch, Douglas United States
3) This 5 fellows did not reach any epochal decision about METI (Messaging to ETIs) and Active SETI.
Those following this debate should indeed look at Dr. Zaitsev’s “Sending and Searching for Interstellar Messages,” which he references above. Readers new to this site may also want to look at our earlier discussion of that paper here:
https://centauri-dreams.org/?p=1514
“3) This 5 fellows did not reach any epochal decision about METI (Messaging to ETIs) and Active SETI.”
Although we should probably add that the introduction of the San Marino scale into the discussion (used for risk assessment) could prove useful — I believe this was adopted at Hyderabad. But the deletion of the language on international cooperation that Michael Michaud objects to was done, as I understand it, the previous year at Valencia.
About
>Valencia
Quote from David Grinspoon’s article “Who Speaks for Earth,”
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/12/who_speaks_for_earth.php?page=all&p=y
>Seth Shostak, the current chair of the SETI PSG, maintains that Nature got it wrong, that in Valencia there was no organized effort to discourage open and transparent debate about the wisdom of sending signals. As the SETI Institute’s senior astronomer, Shostak has been involved in the science and policy of SETI for many years, and often seems to act as public spokesman for the Institute and for SETI in general. He says it’s inappropriate for the PSG to set global guidelines for Active SETI. “Who are we to tell the rest of the world how to behave? It would be totally unenforceable.”
Our ability to see the future of our technology is extremely limited if we judge by our history that somehow didn’t predict, say, personal computers. What next, eh? Maybe in less than 100 years, we’ll do a nanotech/space-based/500 mile wide telescope that can see, well, EVERYTHING.
Just as we might imagine ourselves with “cosmic sight” or finally figuring out gravity in the next 100 years, we must imagine ET’s having that same 100 years — PLUS, on average, another 1,000,000 more, right? The debate about whether we’re announcing ourselves to the cosmos is temporally parochial. If any ET is a danger to us, they already know about us and haven’t done anything, er, yet. We’re figuring out if a planet is in the life zone — even when it’s thousands of light years away, so how far away can ET detect our “juicy” planet? Heck, some super-computer already has us red-flagged, mebets.
They’re gods, I tell you. I’d say we wouldn’t have anyone contacting us until we’re able to do FTL or at least gravity control. We’re no more dangerous and threatening to ET than a newly discovered ant hill in one’s backyard. Besides, everyone knows that our DNA is really a molecular sized sub-space communicator that’s giving instantaneous reports to the universe, right? ;-)
Edg
Can we even say that the earth has been radiating signs of its habitability for billions of years? Signs that it possesses life that can produce oxygen sure, but beyond that? For all we know nearly every solar system could have planets where single celled organisms have developed. They could be mostly water worlds. Or worlds where mass extinction events occur every few years but the single celled organisms just breed and quickly replace lost numbers. The signs that the earth possesses oxygen and other chemical signs of life could be lost among the tens or hundreds of billions of other such worlds out there.
Maybe all the other earth sized worlds out there are water worlds. It could be that the impact that created our moon interrupted the creation of a water world.
Also, how can we prepare defenses against a technology we know nothing about. It might be that they send near light speed missiles to impact the earth. Or they might just open a wormhole at the quantum level, enlarge it enough to send a nano sized device through, and in a few hours there is no more biosphere on the earth.
In my opinion the best bet for us humans is to spread out. Rather than just one target make it a few million by creating asteroid colonies and then scattering.
A first step would be some industry in earth orbit. Industry that could allow us to create large telescopes in space that might tell us more about what’s out there in terms of life and intelligence.
Personally though I am starting to wonder if intelligent life even bothers with interstellar travel. I’m sure that at some point it reaches that capacity, but that it also for whatever reason decides not to. That though doesn’t mean it doesn’t eliminate nearby threats.
(note: david lowercase is not the same as David. I just tend to use my first name for such posts. Please don’t confuse the capitalized David’s words of wisdom with my ramblings.)
david (the uncapitalized one) writes: “In my opinion the best bet for us humans is to spread out. Rather than just one target make it a few million by creating asteroid colonies and then scattering.”
I couldn’t agree more, and on a number of levels. As long as our species is confined to a single world, we are the potential victim of cataclysmic events like the impact and/or vulcanism that brought about the end of the dinosaurs. Spreading into the Solar System is a first step in easing that problem, and not just in the event of problematic contacts with extraterrestrial species.
Alexander Zaitsev: Indeed, the dangerous lunatic end of the spectrum is unlikely to be the answer (unless the universe is indeed as hostile as the most paranoid would have it). However, when you are transmitting you are speaking for over six billion people, none of whom elected you to do this, and you are doing this without public consultation. These transmissions mean you are working in a field with unknown safety implications for the planet. Please explain how this is not mindbogglingly arrogant. Surely you can come up with some kind of rationale as to why you personally are fit to act in the capacity of ambassador for the entire planet?
Edg and david, one other thing to consider is that not all disaster scenarios presume a hostile alien civilization. We know from our own history that encounters between technologically advanced cultures and those of lesser scientific prowess usually end badly for the latter. We should ponder ways in which a non-hostile extraterrestrial civilization might nonetheless cause inadvertent and perhaps disastrous disruption to our species. That’s just by way of potential disaster planning, with the hope the scenario is never realized.
There are two irreconcilable positions:
1) I understand the METI is not dangerous and thus have not a dread and superstitious horror with METI
2) andy is a believer in METI danger and thus have a dread and superstitious horror with METI
There is no way to conciliate above positions…
While I may not be as esoterically educated as some of the folks here, I also have heard the “we’ve been radiating radio and TV signals” for a hundred years argument and “nothing has happened yet” and find it lacking. Those signals are not directed and dissipate into background noise eventually.
Directed, powerful radio signals are quite another matter. We shouldn’t go on the assumption that an intelligent species millenia ahead of us is altruistic and has left violence behind them.
What if it’s a species like us? Not necessarily humanoid, but one that matches our thought processes and psyche? One that is paranoid, greedy and expansionist? Our technology is growing exponentially year by year. Have we given these very things up yet?
Don’t assume if they’re like that they’d already be here. An intelligent bracewell probe that has these qualities could be within 100-200 light-years of here and we’d be none the wiser. Once intercepting a signal, it could be here in 300-400 years and very probably capable of making more of itself and altering the system for its use. And the Universe is a huge place, no matter what the Fermi-Hart Paradox states.
A silicon-based being who drinks cyanide or ammonia can very well be our psycological kin.
Dr. Zaitsev-
Please share with us how exactly anyone could “understand” that METI is not dangerous. Since our sum knowledge of intelligent alien civilizations is precisely zero, your statement is quite remarkable. Why you think it’s “superstitious” to question METI’s safety is equally puzzling, given our complete ignorance regarding any possible aliens.
Because of your willingness to send deep space signals to distant stars, you must have some hope or belief that intelligent aliens do exist. They may not, in which case you are correct- it is superstitious. But if they do exist, then “dread” is one of any number of practical reactions, since we know absolutely nothing about how they might react to any signal. To assume they’ll be delighted to hear from us and respond warmly is ascribing human emotions to them, certainly a folly and definitely unscientific. They might indeed be remarkably like us (a worry in itself) or- well- so alien that they’re unfathomable, despite our best efforts to understand them. We might be ignored, just like ants as david points out, or we might be swatted by some technology far beyond our comprehension, no more valuable to them than ants. The truth is, we have absolutely no idea how they might react to us, despite all our best hopes and intentions.
And that will remain the bottom line until such time aliens are actually discovered- if they ever are. To assume any level of safety with METI is just wishful thinking, unsupported by any facts since there are no facts about aliens. None whatsoever.
That being the case, if dread makes us cautious, then it’s wise.
Re: spreading out to save humanity
This is a frequently mentioned meme, but in practice, how does it work? Under what circumstances do you forsee a problem where (from the majority of mankinds perspective) it is better for a small fraction to run away to another planet (eg Mars) than to stay and fix it?
e.g. asteroid impact, climate change, … it looks technically easier to solve the problem than
to get a significant fraction off Earth. Similarly, an Alien threat: in what manner do people think that ETs could threaten mankind that we could solve by populating another planet?
eg. a virus threat : from this point in time, it looks easier (and more profitable) to devote
Earths resources to solving e.g AIDS than creating a colony of say 100,000
sustainably on Mars.
I believe Dr. Zaitsev detracts from his own credibility by asserting an impossible reconciliation of two positions, both of which are pure fantasy. The logic here is entirely faulty since the premise is a false strawman.
This is not a black and white issue, i.e. that METI is/isn’t risky. And even if the choice were binary the analysis process is unresolvable since we have insufficient data, just belief or gross extrapolations of our own behavior. That ain’t science.
The risk is unknown. Asserting any level of risk with certainty, whatever the amount, is unjustified. That’s a problem that will require a lot more work, and may not even be determined when/if we do contact ETI. (I find it challenging enough that in daily life it is difficult to determine how risky it is to deal with various individual humans I encounter and interact with!)
My point is we can’t say the risk of METI is zero. Should it be non-zero and yet quite tiny we need to be concerned since the consequences can be catastrophic. And, no, I do not cower under the bed and quake with panic every time Dr. Zaitsev makes a transmission.
[I think I’ll make this my last post on the topic since every time it comes up we rehash the same points and then run around in circles while hurling veiled insults at those with opposing views. Unfortunately.]
It’s clear how difficult it is to reach consensus on this issue even among our small group. Nonetheless, it seems to me the best approach going forward will be to solicit opinions from as broad a spectrum of disciplines as possible while trying to raise public awareness of these questions. I do believe the SEED Magazine article is an important step in making this a more visible issue. My own thinking is that we’re unlikely to receive a SETI signal in my lifetime, but in case I’m wrong, I’d hate to have these questions suddenly dominate the news because some spectacular reception has taken us by surprise, while we’re still trying to figure out consensual strategies on whether and how to respond.
It is interesting that although Dr Zaitsev is only too willing to speak for all the people of Earth, he is remarkably unwilling to address criticism. Can I see a risk assessment for METI? Can I see evidence of actions that have been and are being taken to mitigate the risks? I also wonder how he manages to “understand” that METI is not dangerous. On what evidence? Does Dr Zaitsev possess knowledge and experience of interstellar politics?
Furthermore, even if METI is not dangerous, Dr Zaitsev is still being incredibly arrogant in making these transmissions on behalf of all humanity. Is he employed as ambassador for all of Earth? Does he have the qualifications necessary to be an ambassador? Has he been elected? The answer to these questions seems to be no: he has unilaterally decided to take this action, without due process and accountability that is surely required for such a political role. I notice that Dr Zaitsev has failed to address this point when I brought it up, dismissing my objections as “superstitious”. Is this kind of dismissal really what we want in someone who would speak for all of Earth?
Administrator Says: “Edg and david, one other thing to consider is that not all disaster scenarios presume a hostile alien civilization. We know from our own history that encounters between technologically advanced cultures and those of lesser scientific prowess usually end badly for the latter.”
Edg: I agree. Given that we have major religions that have espoused dogmas to our cultures “since forever,” and given that they will be largely impacted by contact with ET — any ET — we can only expect that all the possible “responses to shock” will be experienced by us.
Since religion’s major prophets do not discuss ETs, the religions will be hard pressed to present their various saviors and gods as “know it alls” if their knowledge of “all this” is lacking any data about a, say, Cosmic Culture that’s been chugging for a million years on billions of planets. Woo, just now writing it, I flashed on what that would mean to me, and even my deeply considered philosophy is shaken just a titch — how much more so for those folks that are the core true believers of earthly dogmas? Muchalotta, methinks.
I would predict massive turmoil, rioting, wars, and militarized fundamentalism as those with the most to lose work through the first stage of contact: DENIAL.
After Earth “calms down,” (decades at least, right?) I would expect a new world religion to step up to the plate that integrates the old dogmas with the new facts. Such as: “Christ was one of our first (most important, whatever) ET visitors in human guise.” Or, any other response imaginable could “have a shot at” getting most folks ed-u-ma-kated about how to think about contact.
Details — such as do the ETs believe in God — will be critical.
And the above thinking, of course, will have been ground into nano-conceptualization by the ETs who will have a plan for contact that might be not only subtle beyond our comprehension but ancient to the ETs themselves, and “contact procedures” might be a hoary dogma that has merged science and religion into a sacrosanct presentation that we “ants” cannot hope to augment. The ET’s may not brook any attempts by us to develop any response to them other than that which they want us to have. Many of the “new age” speculations about ET (google if you dare) have asserted that the ETs are flitting about Earth like fruit flies, and that some have used genetic engineering to “improve us.” This is just the sort of thinking that “first contact” will have to deal with as our civilization struggles to “get it.” Get it — that we are in kindergarten, and “being sent to the principal” has a whole new meaning.
It would say up to half our population would die in ten years from the turmoil if first contact is not handled “just so.” New agers today are saying that our government leaders are in contact with ETs already but have held back announcing this “for our own good.” Like that — imaginations can flesh out any concept. Oh, it’ll be a new “Year 1” calendar etc. and ALL OF US will be complete obsessed with that fact. It is this obsession that will erode, thought by thought, any fixations that cultures have — contact will bug us and bug us and bug us — no part of our lives will be left “uncoated” by the veneer of the realization of contact.
Our civilization will be forever stained with a dye-we-know-not-yet-of.
And, whew, God help us.
Edg
———–
not all disaster scenarios presume a hostile alien civilization. We know from our own history that encounters between technologically advanced cultures and those of lesser scientific prowess usually end badly for the latter….
———-
So far historically that is true. But it is also the case that the more technologically advanced culture was usually trying to exploit the lesser. If in any alien contact they are not trying to destroy us or convert us then things “might” turn out different. If we can see it as a meeting of equals culturally rather than two unequal technological groups it might help.
———-
Re: spreading out to save humanity
This is a frequently mentioned meme, but in practice, how does it work?
———-
In almost any scenario I can think of it would be harder to destroy a group that is spread out rather than a group isolated in one small area.
With near light speed impactors a single target whose path you can predict hundreds of years into the future would be easier to hit. Asteroid colonies would not have such predictable paths and would require more such impactors.
In my example of wormholes a single wormhole would no longer be sufficient. Such attacks might not work against the controlled environment of asteroid colonies. Or such colonies might not be targetable by such an offense.
Also such colonies would not be limited to 100,000 or even 100,000,000,000 people. There is enough room and material in the solar system for enough colonies that their total population could eventually exceed trillions. Six trillion people would have more resources than six billion people with which to defend themselves with.
———-
Similarly, an Alien threat: in what manner do people think that ETs could threaten mankind that we could solve by populating another planet?
———-
In what matter do you think that it would be easier to defend a single target with a predictable trajectory rather than a million targets with unpredictable trajectories and a thousand or more times the resources?
You mentioned things like asteroid impacts and climate change. But how would you go about preventing super volcanoes? What about the events we can’t yet foresee? AIDS is only one disease. When we are able to manufacture such diseases with ease how do we guard against the crazies who might manufacture them by the dozens?
In the short term the effort might be better spend here on earth but in the long term the view is different. In the short term a person leaving highschool might take a job as a cashier. If offers more money than being a student. At that point in time it offers them more choices. But a person who goes to university will in the end probably end up making more money and be better of in terms of finances. A 15k salary now, or a 100k salary 15 years down the road?
If SETA pays off and we discover an intelligent alien probe will we spend a century arguing over who talks to it first?
Something seems irrational about this whole debate.
Adam, let’s hope we don’t take a century to argue that out! But I’d also hope the decision on what to reply to such a probe would be made by consulting not just scientists in a particular specialty, but a broad spectrum of experts both in and out of the sciences, hoping to reach a consensus on something that monumental.
Adam, I’m not arguing for that, and surely it would not come to a century-long discussion. However it is also irrational for individuals to decide to represent the entire species without consulting the six billion plus people they have decided to represent, totally unelected and without accountability.
But hey, evidently some people think that it is more rational for an unelected individual to speak for humanity, acting completely unilaterally without any kind of discussion whatsoever, than discussing the issue with their fellow human beings. I won’t speculate on why quite a few people on the pro-METI side of the debate find talking to humanity such an irritation when they evidently are eager to talk to aliens on behalf of a species with whom they don’t believe conversation is necessary.
METI: Pro and Contra
It seems to me that all words were already said
and all arguments Pro and Contra METI were already produced in:
1) SETI’s Paradox and the Great Silence
https://centauri-dreams.org/?p=928
2) Overflow Thread: SETI’s Paradox
https://centauri-dreams.org/?p=933
3) SETI’s Dilemma: Break the Great Silence?
https://centauri-dreams.org/?p=1514
4) Active SETI and the Public
https://centauri-dreams.org/?p=1646
There are two irreconcilable groups: those who UNDERSTAND that METI is not dangerous and thus advocate sending interstellar messages,
and others who BELIEVE in METI’s dangerous and thus anathematize those who would transmit.
It is well known that no additional arguments can shake the deep-seated faith!
Evidently reasoning with Dr Zaitsev is futile. He is so hung up on the danger issue that he has once again ducked the political one. It is well known that no additional arguments can shake his deep-seated faith in his god-given right to play the role of Earth’s ambassador!
———-
those who UNDERSTAND that METI is not dangerous
———-
Many of the things I once “understood” to be true ended up not being true. I am sure than many of the things I now “understand” to be true will end up not being true. My whole life has been an ever changing view of the world that shifts and changes as I learn more about it.
I am more than willing to change my view that METI could be dangerous as soon as I see PROOF that it isn’t. There isn’t a subject yet where my initial view on it hasn’t changed as I learned more.
Of course even if I should decide that METI is safe that doesn’t mean I would be okay with such and such a person representing the whole of humanity without said humanity having a say in it.
Also, please take into account that I never decided about interstellar transmission solely, because of
1) Cosmic Call 1999 was transmitted from Evpatoria Planetary Radar (EPR) to 4 Sun-like stars
in accordance with Contract between Houston-based company Encounter 2001 (customer),
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Encounter2001.html
and IRE RAS (contractor),
http://www.cplire.ru
2) Teen Age Message 2001 was transmitted from EPR to 6 Sun-like stars in accordance with Contract between Moscow Center of Teen Age Activity (customer),
http://www.mgdtd.ru
and IRE RAS (contractor),
http://www.cplire.ru
3) Cosmic Call 2003 was transmitted from EPR to 5 Sun-like stars
in accordance with Contract between Houston-based aerospace company Team Encounter (customer),
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/TeamEncounter.html
and IRE RAS (contractor),
http://www.cplire.ru
See also: “Synthesis and Transmission of Cosmic Call 2003 Interstellar Radio Message”
http://www.cplire.ru/html/ra&sr/irm/CosmicCall-2003/index.html
andy & david
Please explain how you intend to administer the polling of the human race in order to decide whether intended METI represents their views fairly.
Dr. Zaitsev, why do you think you have the right to attempt communication?
This is a great discussion thread; I’m really enjoying it even if the arguments are re-treaded. It needs to be discussed, I suggest once a week for new viewers to be able to follow. I still lean towards ETI being the ancient and immortal ones ala Frank Drake and thus (probably!) nothing to fear, but I also agree with the argument that Dr. Saitsev is “just not getting it”, the political side of the “who speaks for Earth?” reasoning and the arrogant tone that he is expressing.
I believe in the laws of physics.
I believe it would take a veritable eternity for an alien race to visit us (even from a relatively nearby system).
I believe that if they could thwart the laws of physics and visit any star systems willy-nilly, they’d already be here (ala, the Fermi paradox).
I therefore believe it’s irrelevant to worry about their possible intentions.
To slightly alter what Dr Zaitsev said:
“There are two irreconcilable groups: those who BELIEVE that METI is not dangerous and thus advocate sending interstellar messages,
and others who BELIEVE in METI’s dangerous and thus anathematize those who would transmit.”
Belief without proof.
Neither side is right and neither side is wrong.
But surely we can explore possibilities?
1) ETIs may or may not exist. If they don’t exist SETI/METI is a pointless endeavour, but also completely risk free.
2) ETIs, if they exist, may or may not receive our transmissions,deliberate attempts at communication or not. If ETIs don’t receive our transmissions, the result is the same as them not existing.
3) Having received our transmissions, ETIs may or may not respond.
4) If ETIs respond, the response may affect us beneficially, adversely or not at all. Possible responses range from solving all our problems, an immediate boost to science and technology, extending the hand of friendship and inviting us to the galactic brotherhood (sorry sisters!) of sentience on the one hand, all the way through to annihilation of our solar system (why waste time sending mini black holes through wormholes to devour planets, when our sun is a much larger target and the source of our energy?) on the other.
Since the nature of the response, if any, is determined by ETIs psychological profile and technological level we can’t predict what it will be.
Personally, I’m for a cautious approach. SETI yes, METI no.
No, Dr Zaitsev, I don’t BELIEVE that METI is dangerous. I KNOW that it is potentially dangerous and also potentially beneficial.
But given the choice between flipping a coin for galactic brotherhood or solar system destruction and not flipping the coin, I would choose not to flip.
Yes, that’s oversimplifying in order to make an overly dramatic point. Sorry.
stargazerdude22, I have a sentimental and long-standing attachment to that notion of ancient and wise civilizations, too. Who knows, maybe it’s true, and my idea of intelligent life as exceedingly rare is off by orders of magnitude. I rather hope so. Re discussing these points, you’re right that it’s a good idea to keep them out there. The logs I look at show that on any given day, a sizable percentage of the viewers here are coming to the site for the first time. And I think this is an issue that many of them haven’t encountered before, at least not until SEED Magazine ran that terrific David Grinspoon article.
Dear Colleagues,
Please take into account that I did not read David Grinspoon’s article “Who Speaks for Earth?” as a reviewer — I saw this article when it was already published.
If David Grinspoon gave me an opportunity to read his article before publication, I should underline that:
1) Cosmic Call 1999 was transmitted from EPR (Evpatoria Planetary Radar) to 4 nearby Sun-like stars not as my private initiative; CC-1999 was transmitted from EPR in accordance with Contract, sponsored by a Houston-based company, Encounter 2001,
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Encounter2001.html
2) Teen Age Message 2001 was transmitted from EPR to 6 nearby Sun-like stars not as my private initiative; TAM-2001 was transmitted from EPR in accordance with Contract, sponsored by a Moscow-based Center of Teenage Activity,
http://www.mgdtd.ru
3) Cosmic Call 2003 was transmitted from EPR to 5 nearby Sun-like stars not as my private initiative; CC-2003 was transmitted from EPR in accordance with Contract, sponsored by a Houston-based aerospace company Team Encounter,
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/T/TeamEncounter.html
See also:
http://www.cplire.ru/html/ra&sr/irm/CosmicCall-2003/index.html
Therefore, please do not think that I am unique who took an advantage of sovereign right on
The freedom of speech,
The freedom of broadcasting,
The freedom of expression…
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
The notion that a civilization out there possesses the necessary super (or near) luminal tech required to threaten our existence and yet be simultaneously unaware of our being…is foolish almost beyond measure; a veritable testament to self-inflated, moronic, anthropomorphic human subjectivity. OMG, they could be just like us! Let’s hope not quite so stooopid.
Whether you are the only person doing this is not, and never was the issue. All these groups are behaving in an arrogant way: they are tiny minorities unilaterally representing all of humanity.
I do not dispute your right to personal freedom of speech. However what you are doing with METI is representing the entire planet. Does freedom of speech extend to freedom to speak for a group when that group has not decided it wants you to speak for it? I cannot suddenly decide to be my country’s ambassador to a foreign country, why should you be allowed to act as ambassador for the planet?
Like it or not, METI is political by nature. The fact that it is not (yet?) taken seriously by the world’s governments does not change that.
Good question. While unilateral actions by individuals such as Dr Zaitsev are not desirable because of the political implications of an unelected individual speaking for the entire human race, obviously polling all the human beings on the planet is impracticable. However between such extremes there is going to be some solution which is least objectionable: perhaps some intergovernmental body with some kind of UN authority might be an acceptable compromise, but who knows. Right now the issue of administration is not the main issue: it seems to be whether such regulation and administration is desirable.
Dear All,
I hope that the facts Alexander showed about the Evpatoria transmissions will help us in understanding that “demonizing” an activity (or a person) is not useful in open discussions (in fact, I was already preparing a comment to point out that Team Encounter etc. were involved in the Cosmic Calls, but Alexander was faster).
But is it possible to introduce some objectivity in this debate?
Note that we have
– no facts about ETI (existence, technology, capabilities, intentions,…)
– some facts about US and OUR messages
so I think it is reasonable to check the validity and usefulness of a measure on interstellar messages like the proposed San Marino Scale.
As it was already formulated several times, we actually do not know anything about ETI, its intentions, etc. So I think there is hardly any possibility to assess some measure for the risks/benefits of METI in a quantitative way more than to say METI can be beneficial/harmful/neutral/pointless (in alphabetical order).
What can be attempted is an assessment of OUR human activities in sending interstellar messages; the only known – to me, at least – proposal for this is the San Marino Scale. It is surely debatable, but it is a first effort to measure the “exposure presented by a given transmission from Earth”. I think it is useful to discuss of such a measure in terms of DETECTABILITY (could we detect the message sent by OUR technology?) + INFORMATION CONTENT (what would WE infer from the message, should we be able to decode it?), as the San Marino Scale proposes. Maybe the MINIMAL REACTION TIME (according to our current physics this is twice the target distance in light years) is another aspect to be discussed as a relevant factor in judging a message (yes, I know that this is partly contained in the factor Detectability).
I think it would be useful to devote some really interdisciplinary effort to investigate the role of such a measure like the San Marino Scale. Informatics, social sciences, law, etc. could say a lot about this; so I hope that people knowledgeable in these fields will pick up the issue.
For first application examples of the San Marino Scale, see the paper by Shuch and Almár, 2007, “Quantifying Past Transmissions Using The San Marino Scale”:
http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/IAC07-A4.2.04.pdf
Just for a first taste, here is the assesment of the authors for the cases they investigated in the paper, regarding the significance of the message sent:
Arecibo Message: 8 Far-Reaching
Evpatoria: 7 High
NEO Radar: 6 Noteworthy
Invitation to ETI: 4 Moderate
Thus, I would be happy to see future discussions along these or similar lines, trying to switch off personal prejudices.
Tibor
Hi – David Grinspoon here. I’ve been really enjoying this discussion.
I just wanted to say that Alexander Zaitsev is absolutely correct in saying that my SEED article did not adequately describe the consultative/institutional origins of his existing communication efforts. He has indeed been the prime mover, but he has not acted alone.
My article had to fit into less than 4000 words, and thus I had to leave out many subtleties and details, including this one.
At some point I may post my original draft, or pieces of it, on my website (if I can do this without alienating my editors at SEED**) , as it contains many other details, analyses and quotes which could flesh out the story.
I did not mean to paint Zaitsev as a rogue or an irresponsible or callous person. In fact he is a wonderful, brilliant, thoughtful guy who has done great work and has helped, in his own way, to bring these issues to our awareness.
**(I know what you’re thinking: if they can edit my aliens, why can’t I alienate my editors?)
As we close on the end of 2007, I want to point out that David’s final comment — “(I know what you’re thinking: if they can edit my aliens, why can’t I alienate my editors?)” — is one of the great lines of the year… Always glad to see you here, David, and congratulations on a most insightful article!
Tibor, you’ve championed the San Marino scale before, and it seems to me that the Shuch and Almár paper you reference is something we need to look at here more closely. I’ll try to get a post up about it in the next few days. Thanks for the reminder on this.
Dear Colleagues,
Here (in Moscow) now is 00-52 of 01 Jun 2008!
Happy New 2008!
Alexander.
Best wishes for the New Year to you as well, Alexander, and to all our readers in Russia, who have moved already into 2008!
Personally I think we’re already under surveillance by, at the very least, Bracewell probes if not nomadic ETI artificial planets. The “danger” arrived millennia ago, but so far isn’t looking too dangerous. I do wonder what They think of us, and I sometimes wonder if They haven’t spirited away “samples” of humanity to live in other environments.
Are we like animals in a jungle being watched by naturalists?
Well, that’s one scenario. On the other hand, it may well be that cultures capable of interstellar travel have no real expansionist ethic, even to the point of seeding nearby stars with probes. We’ll look soon at a paper suggesting an entirely different take on ETI, one in which the impulse to such expansion has given way to a host of other activities that may make extraterrestrial visitation unlikely. More on this one in a week or so when I’ve had more time to study it.