Is it possible that we can account for the Fermi paradox by looking to our own behavior as a species? Some science fiction of the 1950s pointed in that direction, as witness The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). Dr Kelvin F Long addresses the question in terms of the ‘zoo hypothesis’ in the essay below, asking what our culture could do to make itself less threatening to any outsider. Long is an aerospace engineer, astrophysicist and author. He leads the Interstellar Research Centre, a division of Stellar Engines, which conducts research on the science and technology associated with deep space exploration. He is a Chartered Member of the Institute of Physics and a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society. He tells me he wrote this article as a means of fundamental protest at the current conflicts engulfing humanity and as a plea to any observing ETI not to judge our species by the immorality of those who hold power over the potential of humankind. Also available on his site are two other documents pertaining to this topic: The Second Sun and Open Letter to the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council.
by Kelvin F. Long
As humanity reaches further out into the Cosmos through our long-range astronomical instruments and also robotic probes, our presence is sure to be noticed by any hypothetical extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) that may also exist. Yet the development of our technology is not without complications given the potential dual use. Since it involves large powers and energies, this especially includes that any space propulsion machine can also be turned into a weapon. If ETI does exist then they will surely be mindful of how we use this technology and attempt to gauge whether we will bring peace and prosperity to any life in the Universe, or modes of destruction. Given this scenario, it is reasonable to consider that any civilisation that reaches a certain level will reach a point where they will be either permitted to continue in their advance outwards, or potentially face stagnation by clandestine means. It is argued that since within decades we are likely nearing this point of paradigm shift in space technology, the monitoring of our civilisation should be expected currently. In the near future we should prepare for the eventuality that we will either be greeted by intelligence from another world or forced to be restricted within a permanent zoo that constrains us to the Solar System. Preparing for this, such as through reforms of institutions like the United Nations, should be a key component of our nation state relationships through a moral and legitimate multilateral approach to problem solving, but also our exploration roadmaps.
Keywords: Extraterrestrial Contact, United Nations
Introduction
Life on planet Earth has taken many millions of years to evolve to the complex life-forms that characterise Homo sapiens with all its intelligence and associated technological tools. Yet, for centuries, astronomers have speculated [1] that it may be possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere, and this search has informed some of the motivations for our national space programs [2]. Life may have evolved from the same primordial soup and simply been transmitted from one world to another, such as during planetary collisions during the early stages of the Solar System formation, or it may have separate points of evolution that are independent from each other. A discovery of life representative of a separate biogenesis from Earth [3] would be one of the most profound moments in the history of the scientific endeavour.
This search has become more poignant in recent years since the discovery of thousands of exoplanets around other stars thanks to amazing astronomical observatories like the Hubble Space Telescope, the Kepler Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope. These observatories and others that succeed them are sure to change our perspectives on models of planets, stars and life in the Universe as their sensitivity and resolution improves with each decade of technological development. In our search for planets around other stars we have discovered Hot Jupiter’s, Super Earth’s, tidally locked planets and they range in compositions from mostly iron to mostly water [4]. It seems only a matter of time where instruments like this will be able to directly image exoplanets around other stars and fully characterise their atmospheric composition and possible evidence of technological industrialisation.
In a recent article published in Nature Astronomy, Crawford and Schulze-Makuch [5] has argued that it is likely that the apparent absence of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI) in our solar system might be explained by a form of zoo hypothesis [6] in action around the emerging human civilisation. They argue it is either that, or we are the only intelligence that exists in the galaxy, and possibly in the Universe. This would be unsatisfactory since it would imply a special observer position for planet Earth in contradiction to a Copernican principle of cosmology.
Fundamental to the arguments regarding life visiting our solar system is the Fermi paradox, which asserts that there is a contradiction between our theoretical expectations for intelligent life emerging in the Universe and our apparent lack of observations to confirm it has indeed done so. The calculation for such a prediction is based on the number of galaxies, stars, and planets, their measured ages and spectral types when compared to the solar system from which we originate. From a statistical basis, a calculation of probability suggests that we are not special but perhaps typical of an average system that might evolve.
Even if a zoo containment policy was not in action by ETI around our solar system, assuming they exist, they would be wise to at least monitor our activity. In the future it is possible that we will send a robotic probe towards the planets of another star. Since the average distance between stars is 5 light years, any flyby probe crossing this distance in less than a century, would have a velocity of order 0.05c or 15,000 km/s which would have significant kinetic energy associated with its motion.
The Trinity nuclear test in July 1945 had an associated yield of 25 kilotons TNT equivalent, or around 100 TJ. An object with this energy travelling at a speed of 0.05c would only have to have a mass of around ~1 kg. A much larger mass, let’s say of order 1 ton, for the same velocity would have an associated energy of 112,300 TJ or approximately 26,900 ktons TNT equivalent which is around 1,100 Trinity events. Therefore, any probes sent from our solar system towards a potential habitable exoplanet would be of grave concern to any observing ETI. If a probe is able to be decelerated into orbital velocity this may put at rest some concerns and reassure its scientific nature, but before any deceleration takes place the probe would first travel the majority of the distance at the determined cruise velocity and therefore still require careful scrutiny of its intention and trajectory.
Reversing roles, if we detected an emerging species from a nearby star system that also appeared to be technological, in terms of them maturing to an advanced space capability we might also wish to characterise the threat level. Borrowing ideas from how such threats are categorised by nation states we might determine as: Green: Low threat, intention appears to be benign; Amber: Moderate, intention appears benign but advise caution subject to more data; Red: High threat, actions by ETI indicate a threat to humanity is likely. Indeed, we were potentially treated to such an opportunity in 2017 with the arrival of the interstellar asteroid ‘Omuamua, the nature of which remains controversial today [7].
An analogy for ETI observing humanity’s technological developments is the allied monitoring of German nuclear experiments during World War II. Particularly after 1938 when Otto Hahn first discovered nuclear fission and the creation of the ‘Uranium club’ to investigate the military benefits of a nuclear chain reaction. This effort by Germany prompted the creation of the Manhattan project in the United States, to construct the world’s first atomic bomb. Clearly Germany was seen as a significant global threat at the time.
The problem with any such categories is that threats come in many forms and can be intentional or unintentional. In addition, it is difficult to assess the impact on the development of a society by simply exposing them to a simple piece of knowledge or a technology. This has been well recognised by our own society since at least the 1960s with the publication of the Brookings Institution report which stated: “Certain potential products or consequences of space activities imply such a degree of change in world conditions that it would be unprofitable within the purview of this report to propose research on them. Examples include a controlled thermonuclear fusion rocket power source and face to face meetings with extraterrestrials” [8].
Imagine for example, if we went back in time and communicated to Stone Age people that stars were other suns. That innocent piece of information may have profound implications on social-cultural development and give rise to new philosophies. Alternatively, imagine if we gave them an item as innocent as a single wood nail. What inspiration and technological spin-offs would that promote now that they had been exposed to the broader possibilities?
In his famous physics lecture serious the physicist Richard Feynman imagined that there was a cataclysm and all scientific knowledge was lost or destroyed and he asked what one sentence would you want to be passed onto the next generation so that they could build up science and civilisation again. He opinioned that it was the “atomic fact, that all things are made of atoms…In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied” [9].
Now imagine that if ETI was to come here in a spacecraft propelled by technology which, to quote Arthur C Clarke, appeared to be “indistinguishable from magic” [10] to our eyes, since it was based on principles of physics we were yet to discover. It’s possible they would share that technology with us, but even if they didn’t, we might attempt to steal it. Alternatively, even if they refuse to discuss it, now that we have seen it, it will promote research programs in our society that one day leads to its maturation. In other words, the mere seeing of a new phenomenon is enough to spark interest from a curious species that may lead to its eventual creation here. A few years ago, this idea was suggested as a physics postulate by this author where “No information can be contained in any system indefinitely” [11].
In the television series Star Trek they codified these sentiments into an effective Prime Directive [12]. For this reason, any ETI would be concerned about contaminating our species with knowledge or technology and this would be a prudent reason to keep at a distance. Yet also, if they decide we have hostile tendencies as a part of our nature, they would be mindful not to give us any advantage scientifically which could accelerate our development and so increase the potential threat to them.
In general, it would be prudent to speculate when might ETI be most concerned about a human presence in space and therefore warrant actions to mitigate our excess and reach? Since our progress in space is primarily driven by our technological capacity, our advance with science and engineering machines would be of primary importance and at some point, we would reach a peak of maximum interest and therefore a decision point upon which to take actions over our continued activities in space. This is arguably becoming more important since our technological level is rapidly approaching the point where interstellar missions may become possible in future generations since the science case for making the journey is compelling [13].
Indeed, this author has previously estimated that if there are any ETI civilizations within 200 light years distance then first contact may potentially occur any time in the next 100 – 200 years [14]. This is on the basis that technology advances at a certain pace of generations with increasing levels of performance, to eventually maturate to the required level to achieve a given mission over a set distance at a minimum cruise speed. For example, a mission to the nearest star Proxima Centauri at 4.3 light years in 100 years trip time would require a cruise speed of 0.05c, which is a factor ~150 times what we could do in space today with our most advanced propulsion technology, which suggests at least two orders of magnitude improvement required in our current technological state of art before the interstellar mission becomes feasible.
Detecting Emissions
The evidence to support or refute any solutions to the Fermi Paradox by long-range observations depend on our ability to detect emissions from deep space that might demonstrate technology use, such as through deliberate communication transmissions or on accidental release of power and propulsion signatures that might indicate an ETI presence. The detection of emission signatures from space as potential evidence for ETI has been discussed extensively by the astronomer Carl Sagan [15].
Historically all efforts towards the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) have been focussed on the detection of transmitted radio communications. One of the factors that has influenced this program is the previously believed position that messaging through radio waves (or lasers) is cheaper when compared to sending reconnaissance probes [16], but this is no longer necessarily the case thanks to innovative programs like the Breakthrough Initiatives Project Starshot [17].
In recent years however the perspective on messaging is changing and there is an increased emphasis of technosignatures [18]. This is especially important since the power spectrum emissions of any propulsion technology would likely be several orders of magnitude higher than any transmitted communication signals through radio waves [19].
Since astronomers rely on the detection of natural astrophysical emissions to inform their physical models, it follows that any artificial emissions would also be detected by those same astronomers, so that they could be analysed for either their natural or artificial nature. Therefore, to contain human civilization, to include our awareness of an ETI presence in the galaxy, any artificial emissions coming towards our solar system would have to be filtered by them before arriving at our detectors.
Any filtering would also have to span an enormous range. Diffuse hard x-ray emission from the gas giant Jupiter has been measured at 3.3×1015 erg/s [20]. A recently discovered supergiant x-ray transient XTE J1739-302 was measured with a luminosity or radiated power of 1036 erg/s [21]. A typical supernova at its maximum brightness might have a luminosity exceeding 1043 erg/s, which is a billion times that of the Sun in our own solar system. A Black Hole binary reached a peak gravitational wave luminosity of 3.6×1056 erg/s [22].
The power spectrum from an advanced propulsion fusion engine might be characterised by around 1022 erg/s which would correspond to around 1015 W propulsion jet power, appropriate for a vehicle motion in the range 0.1-0.15c [23]. There are in fact a range of ideas for space propulsion that have been proposed in the literature, from sails to beamers [24], fusion [25] to antimatter [26], relativistic ramjets [27] to space-drives [28], Unruh radiation drives [29] and other methods [30, 31]. To make significant progress, research is required on all of the physics and engineering concepts derived by human imagination and then appropriate links to physics effects in order to estimate the range of emission properties. This includes going beyond known physics and even into the speculative fields of space-time drives or warp drive [32] and wormholes [33], using the tools of General Relativity theory.
How do we distinguish in our models between the discovery of a new astrophysical object and the spectrum from an artificial source such as a power and propulsion technology indicative of industrialisation by ETI? Our interpretation of any data depends strongly on the accuracy of our scientific models to describe physical phenomena in astrophysics but also the physics and engineering of advanced spacecraft machines and how they operate [34].
If a zoo containment policy of our solar system and humanity were in place by ETI, then this raises the question of how this would be practically policed, and a basic analysis of the requirements suggest that it would in fact appear to be rather impractical. Indeed, if we imagine a containment zone around our solar system that was a hollow sphere of radius 100 Astronomical Units, this will have a shell volume of ~2.81×1029 m3.
If we then assumed that any artificial megastructure that made up this filtering material was only 100 m in thickness and assumed a light but smart microporous and transparent optically thin material, perhaps similar to silica aerogel, with an average density of 20 kg/m3, which can survive in space environments whilst maintaining its strength. This then would require a perimeter shell mass of around ~5.62×1030 kg which is approximately ~3 times the mass of our own sun. It would also be noticed gravitationally since it would influence the planetary orbits, and it would need an ability to self-adjust its position to prevent drift.
The use of any material density beyond the one assumed here, such as for metals, would significantly increase the megastructure mass of such a perimeter. If such a material was acting as an emissions filter, the internal matrix of the substance would have to be designed in some way to block out artificial signatures but permit the transmissibility of natural signatures from astrophysical sources to not alert us to the strategy in operation.
In addition, since the presence of our civilization is continually increasing through our robotic probes, the diameter of the wall must be enlarged periodically or altered in some way which may require in-situ management. But then if it is allowed to expand what would be the limit of the containment policy? The barrier would also have to be dynamically operable to allow the passage of long-period comets on eccentric orbits or interstellar objects like ‘Oumuamua [35] and 2I/Borisov [36] to get through and enter our solar system. Instead, perhaps their arrival itself represents evidence that falsifies a containment barrier?
The shell would also have to have a temperature less than the 2.72 K cosmic background microwave radiation, and probably close to 0 K, to prevent its detection through thermal imagers, and so that it did not absorb any energy from its surroundings due to its high transparency. Since it surrounds a star, there is a risk of it trapping the energy from that star in a manner similar to a Dyson sphere, and so any energy passing through it from the star could not undergo attenuation and must be fully transmissible. We might refer to this as a Kelvin shell due to its thermodynamic constraints. It would be manifest of a perfect crystalline material with minimal amorphous material inclusions.
Currently, the Voyager probes launched in 1977 are at a distance of 136 AU for Voyager 2 and 165 AU for Voyager 1 respectively. Since they have apparently been allowed to pass well beyond the 100 AU distance of our solar heliosphere and are also still transmitting science data to the Deep Space Network, this implies that if any such containment wall were in place, it would have to be much further out, and perhaps well into the Oort Cloud. This would then allow for another century or so of human expansion into space as our probes become more sophisticated technologically.
The above physics and engineering requirements illustrate why zoo containment via a physical shell would be problematic and at first glance it could be argued that the lack of finding such a structure may be seen as a partial falsification of the zoo hypothesis. Clearly this would be a project for an advanced technological civilization that goes way beyond the current state of art for human technological maturity and likely implies a high Kardashev level [37] to construct such a large megastructure if indeed it were ever possible.
Alternatively, there is no containment wall and instead it is an artificial boundary that is in some way policed by ETI probes to monitor what we send out there. But then this does not solve the problem of how to prevent us from detecting the presence of ETI in deep space through our astronomical observatories; unless their cloaking and propulsion technology is so advanced that it is beyond our present comprehension. For example, they could have an ability to dampen electromagnetic and gravitational waves as they move across the Cosmos and head towards us; although it is difficult to imagine how this would be completely impermeable. Overall, this implies a contradiction in our understanding and logic for how we are framing the Fermi Paradox within a zoo hypothesis.
It is possible that ETI exists in abundance, but they have made a joint decision not to engage with humanity or to release evidence of their existence and so this results in a null contact. They continue to remain in a stealth mode and do not share any information with us and only keep us under continued observation for their own security. But the technology used in their engines would have to be based on principles so advanced of our science that emissions such as due to electromagnetic waves would not occur.
In effect such an advanced society would be operating a strategy similar to the Planetarium Hypothesis [38] suggested by the science fiction writer Stephen Baxter where external reality is engineered and all we see a form of illusion. Intelligent extraterrestrial life may be in abundance but all signs of it are hidden from our gaze.
On the assumption that some form of containment policy did exist, from our perspective this might manifest itself in the continued failure of our technology programs which aim to achieve far reaching science goals. The sabotage of our technological advancement was explored in the novel The Three-Body Problem written by Liu Cixin [39]. We may get to a point of constructing an interstellar probe for example, but they will never go beyond a certain speed making journey times too long, or they will simply fail in their mission in deep space away from our ability to observe any sabotage of our vehicles.
After many attempts at trying to cross the interstellar void, and presumably at large economic cost, pressure would build on political systems to cease the attempt in the interest of other priorities. In addition, this would also lead to a belief among humanity that interstellar flight is simply not possible since the challenge is too great. A full stagnation of our technology programs past a certain containment zone in space would have been achieved and we may be none the wiser.
We can make preparations to test the existence of a containment zone by equipping our space probes with the appropriate technology and instrumentation sensors to pick up any deep space objects or interference in our probes. Just recently the Voyager 1 mission experienced a major computer malfunction [40], which after months of effort was fixed by designers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory by uploading corrective programming. The error was put down to a faulty chip and was likely due to the increased cosmic ray flux as the probe goes further out into the interstellar medium and away from the protection of the solar heliosphere magnetic field. Yet, if there were interference in the probe, how would we know the difference or if indeed it has happened already? [41]. These sorts of issues need to be discussed by mission planners in parallel with planning for post-Voyager missions which have been proposed [42, 43, 44].
Breaking out of the Zoo
The U.S President Ronald Reagan recognised the potential impact of an ETI presence in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1987 in which he said “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world” [45]. In his speech he was emphasising how much unites the different groups of humanity rather than what makes us different. An imagined alien threat may have been somewhat over dramatized, but the point is still well made, that our disunion is not just a threat to them, but also to ourselves in creating a just and harmonious society. Indeed, this might be precisely what ETI is waiting for, before any meaningful level of inter-species dialogue can take place between two distinct and original interstellar species.
There is a simpler way to break out of any hypothetical zoo and it is one for which all nations of the world should take notice. If it was the case that there are many intelligent technological civilizations out there, but they choose to contain us, perhaps we should instead seek a path of humility and realise that it is highly improbable that we have more wisdom that the collective minds of many vast civilizations that may have existed for millions of years. Perhaps then this should be a prompt for us to look in the mirror at who we are as a species and who we want to become. To conduct ourselves in a manner that would not invite such a containment policy.
Recently, Western nation’s commemorated eighty years since the Normandy invasion of Europe during World War II and the many brave lives lost in the attempt to secure Europe from the grip of Nazi Germany. A mere two decades prior to this was World War I; the supposed war to end all wars. Looking at the world today in 2024, have we changed that much? For all our technological progress and the great truths uncovered by scientific discovery, isn’t our nature fundamentally the same as it always was? A diverse humanity in conflict with each other. This may simply be a result of our evolution through natural selection and undoing millions of years of our nature may not be a trivial undertaking.
We attempted some progress towards a more peaceful union in the construction of the United Nations in 1945 following World War II, and before that the League of Nations following World War I. At the United Nations, this is where all countries can at least sit at a table together and talk through differences without resorting to conflict. But is this institution working? How many conflicts rage around the world today, where it remains impotent to intervene? The United Nations was a good idea, but it clearly needs fundamental reform.
In issue 48 of The Federalist Papers written by James Madison in 1788, he makes a thought-provoking suggestion: “Happy would it be if such a remedy…could be enjoyed by all free governments; if a project equally effectual could be established for the universal peace of mankind” [46]. Whilst adopting a Federalist system for the whole world may be a step too far at this time, perhaps we can at least strive to increase our democratic union.
There may be another way in which the United Nations can be reformed and could lay the foundations for a more peaceful union that is also democratic, whilst also recognising the sovereignty of individual nation states. That is to address Article 27 of the United Nations Charter where “Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote” [47], for a two-thirds majority, and yet only certain states are given the power of a veto. These are the permanent members who include the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, all of which also happen to be nuclear armed states.
Historically, when a conflict continues with the loss of much civilian life despite attempts at resolutions by members of the United Nations, one can find evidence of a veto by one of these permanent members. As of spring 2024 the veto has been used a total of 277 times. This is split into 128 (Russia), 85 (United States), 29 (United Kingdom), 19 (China) and 16 (France) [48, 49]. How many conflicts could have been avoided if the veto power was not there?
Removing the veto power of permanent members and allowing each nation to have one vote may be the only way to fully achieve a democratic union of all countries in the world, whilst also protecting individual nation state sovereignty and preventing the homogenisation of a diverse set of rich human cultures, where diversity should also be seen as a factor in generating maximum creativity for problem solving. However, given the very different population sizes of countries some mechanism would be needed to ensure proportional representation. This might be in a manner similar to the method used by the United States Congress where all states have equal representation in the Senate but a proportional representation in the House of Representatives.
Even if a direct removal of this power is not feasible, perhaps there are variations on this idea which might be adopted as an alternative. This might include for example that with the five permanent members, for any veto to be carried forward it must have a majority among those five members, which means three against and two for any resolutions proposed by members. That would at least represent some progress towards a more cohesive union and dilute the right of any one nation to act on its own and prevent the will of a majority.
Is it reasonable that a single member of an institution which has 193 members in total has the power to prevent a resolution by a majority of the other representative? Indeed, this is manifest of Empire building and gives permission for unilateral actions of one state against another; the likes of which has so defined the last century of conflicts.
Instead of removing the veto it could be argued that it should be expanded to include more members, but this was already tried in the original League of Nations, where at one point the League Council included 15 countries with veto power and where it was difficult for decisions to be made on any complex issues. If the veto power is removed entirely from all nations, this would create a much more democratic process and arguably create the conditions for increased problem solving as nation states are forced to negotiate a settlement.
Whilst the veto allows states to act in their own sovereign rights and best national interests, removing it would force more of a consideration for international best interests and taking a broader view of humanity as one people. Is it not time to consider that adherence to a charter of rules-based order is more important than a principle of unanimty? Indeed, this may also be a pathway towards a more democratic union along the lines of the principle of subsidiarity at a local nation state level, but enhanced co-operation at a global level among civilised nations seeking to address common problems on the planet.
For sure removing the veto would come with consequences, particularly to those permanent members. Yet it would prevent for example the attack on one country by another without a much broader coalition agreement.
Where is the moral leadership on planet Earth today? It is certainly not being provided by any of the existing permanent members. Where are the grown-ups demanding people put their weapons down and break bread? This also highlights the ineffectiveness of the world’s religions, powerless to intervene, and lacking in courage to protect those caught in the middle of global conflicts. If any moral code laid down to the people of Earth should prompt them into action, “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly one of them. Yet, no definitive and unambiguous call towards peace is made by the leaders of these religions.
It should not be assumed that the conduct of these nations is not being observed closely with long term consequences to how our species will be permitted to advance, or even stagnated towards extinction in the interest of a higher principle than any for which we are currently aware.
In general, in the modern integrated geopolitical world, it should be harder to take unilateral action by one state against another, and when action is required, it should involve a multilateral approach. This would prevent the excesses of one dominant party against another, but also the moderation caused by the other members would result in a more reasonable approach to problem solving that represents a consensus position. For sure, such a decision would take a significant amount of courage and trust by the permanent members, but perhaps that is the bridge that must be crossed if our world is to become unified.
It has been argued that removing the veto would lead to the withdrawal of the permanent member states since they can no longer defend their security interests [50]. This may be so, but nations cannot have it both ways, they either want to exist in isolation or construct a harmonious existence with other nations, consistent with a peaceful and prosperous future for planet Earth. Faced with the potential contact with ETI in the near future, we should ask ourselves what arrangement would facilitate a better contact scenario? One where ETI is expected to engage in dialogue with 193 separate entities, or one where it engages with a representative body for which all nations have influence?
Imagine if the roles were reversed, and ETI came to our planet, but they came in 193 different missions representing that many different societies among their civilisations. How confusing would we find that? What would it say about their own societies lack of cohesion to give us pause for concern in reaching any agreements?
This all points towards a requirement for radical reforms in the governance model and how its various missions are executed and monitored. After all, for those permanent members that would oppose a removal of the veto, this sort of conduct gives their argument legitimacy. The primary function of the United Nations should be to prevent conflict, broker peace settlements, protect the innocent and help to create the conditions for a more prosperous human condition on this planet Earth.
That said, it is acknowledged that in removing the veto this potentially creates the conditions for a different type of geopolitical environment, where countries now attempt to ‘buy’ others votes by the promising of large infrastructure investment projects that would benefit their society. A form of nation state barter if you like. It would all need careful consideration.
The author also acknowledges that his own understanding for how the United Nations operates may be somewhat naive, and in fact the veto may be acting as a form of linchpin on the entire geopolitical diplomacy effort. To remove it may lead to unstable conditions which are difficult to predict. Nobody is a true predictor of the possible futures that may unfold. Yet, it must also be acknowledged that the existing system is not working.
To emphasise some of the positive achievements of the United Nations, in 2005 a study by the RAND corporation [51] concluded that the United Nations provides the most suitable institutional framework for nation building missions, with an emphasis on a comparatively low-cost structure and success rate, and the one with the greatest degree of international legitimacy. It is also a champion of human dignity through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, first adopted in 1948.
Currently there is a campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly as a global network of parliamentarians, non-governmental organizations, scholars and citizens that advocate for democratic representation and an influence over global policy [52]. To date 137 nations have so far endorsed the idea. Such a suggestion might go some way to addressing some of the existing problems, but it depends on whether it has any actual power to influence resolutions.
In terms of our activities in outer space Crawford [53] proposed that a World Space Agency is required, possibly acting under the auspices of a federal world government. If the International Space Station in Low Earth Orbit has achieved one thing it has been demonstrating that different nations around the world can co-operate together behind a shared scientific exploration endeavour. This serves as a beacon of hope for what may be possible when we work together, and especially as humanity begins a new age of space exploration in the settlement of the Moon and Mars.
It is likely that significant reforms to our multilateral institutions would be difficult to implement if there is no will do so. Yet, let us not pretend then that the United Nations represents any form of democracy in action. Although the Charter states the words “We the Peoples of the United Nations” [47] the reality is that it has presided over the DisUnited Nations and continued conflict in international affairs. Until we are prepared as a global community to make the changes required to our governing institutions that leads to a more just world, it may be that for any observing ETI we are considered a threat that is to be contained.
A Cosmic Perspective
This is a planet that is spinning through space suspended in a dance of gravity around the Sun, itself spiralling around the Milky Way galaxy, a mere speck of dust in a vast and infinite universe. As we look at our world, we should be reminded of the words of Carl Sagan who said “Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light”. He continued “To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known” [54].
As discussed by Deardorff [55] the motivation for any type of containment may be for protecting any existing ETI civilizations from the aggressive tendencies of other emerging species. Any society that exhibits such characteristics will also become self-destructive and so it would be a sensible policy of ETI to not interfere in the development of emerging societies until they can at least demonstrate they can get over this phase of their development and achieve a state of peaceful cooperation with others. If they do become destructive then this would only serve to illustrate their unfitness to join a broader collective.
In the 1951 science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still, the alien visitor Klaatu gives a speech to the world. He refers to the creation of a galactic police force of robots that have absolute power over hostile life-forms, but where the conditions are created where civilizations can exist free from aggression and war, free to pursue more profitable enterprises. Klaatu states “It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned out cinder” [56]. How would we change if we were really faced with such an ultimatum from outside?
Arthur C Clarke explores this in his 1953 novel Childhood’s End [57] when an alien race known as the Overlords descend to Earth and set about changing it. This includes the creation of a new World Federation using the United Nations to create a golden age of prosperity. Yet, for the humans in the story things do not end well as they eventually say goodbye to their children. When the aliens reveal themselves to humankind, they coincidently have the appearance of the devil, highlighting the illogical prejudice of our species.
In 2023 the United States Congress House Oversight Subcommittee held hearings [58] on the claims of pilots and former federal employees that unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) have been seen flying through our atmosphere today. It is interesting to note, following this saga on the social networks since, the suggestion of a spiritual component to the phenomena is being raised by some, with any potential ETI not being seen as our brothers and sisters among the stars, but rather as angels and demons.
Recently, the Vatican has released a document with new guidelines on the norms for discerning alleged supernatural phenomena [59]. Although the supernatural phenomena of interest to the Catholic Church is multi-varied as miracles, they also include the possible of ETI as divine apparitions.
It is these kinds of speculations which have a propensity to cause disharmony in human relationships and prevent our species from indeed achieving childhoods end. One must wonder what Carl Sagan would have thought about all this when he wrote his 1995 book The Demon-Haunted World [60] in an apparent reference to the irrationality of human thinking. Heaven and Hell do exist, and they exist simultaneously here on Earth today, manifest of our actions or inactions and “With our thoughts we create the world” [61].
In 1945 atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and with the hundreds of thousands of deaths that followed certainly hell on Earth existed for them. Today, in our world of global conflicts there exists over 13,000 nuclear warheads in stockpiles around the world which have a combined energy of around 4,000 Mtons TNT equivalent. Asteroids will hit the Earth with a velocity of between 18 – 30 km/s depending on their origin. Assuming such a spherical object was made entirely of Iron with a density of 7,890 kg/m3, with this total energy it would have a diameter of around ~200-300 m across – equivalent to several football sized fields and where the environmental consequences of such an impact would be devastating.
Depending on the impact angle, ground target density and material, the impact would make a crater perhaps as large as 10 km in diameter and generate global environmental effects that are too profound to consider. In the distant future a new intelligence species may evolve on Earth and they would find themselves studying the fossilized remains of Homo Sapiens the way that we study the dinosaurs that disappeared 66 million years ago.
Given the conflicts that still rage around our planet, it is nothing short of insanity that we risk escalation where a new extinction level event presents a real and present danger as an existential threat to our species. If the United Nations is to have a function, it surely must be to prevent such a scenario as this from ever happening, and if it does happen, we can surely point to the Permanent Members as complicit in humanity’s destruction.
The Permanent Members of the United Nations are a result of winning World War II and they have helped to create the modern world that we live in and the periods of stability that we do enjoy. Yet they are also creating the conditions for instability by their conduct in the world and the constant wars, imposed ideologies and atrocities as crimes against humanity. Instead, imagine a future where instead of fighting each other, they were working towards a peaceful co-existence on Earth and in space; as they have done in the exploration of Antarctica and with the International Space Station. Imagine a future where we were building colonies on the Moon, the first cities on Mars, exploring the outer planets and beyond. What new discoveries await us as a grand prize in those undiscovered lands of hope?
Although it cannot be proven, it is possible that the Cosmos has a fundamental qualification for becoming a part of it instead of just being constrained to one planetary biosphere. Those that engage in disunion, conflict and war are not welcome among the intelligent life forms so natural to the stars. For those that engage in peaceful co-operation with each other and construct a union among a civilised people who value creativity, imagination and compassion to each other, even infinity defines no boundary to what may be achieved.
Perhaps only when we step up and recognise the changes that are required within ourselves, will ETI be prepared to fully engage with us. A global multilateral institution like the United Nations is clearly a primary candidate for such change, and if is not, then it is at least complicit in the disharmony of our world. Until then, like animals in a zoo, the broader truths of the wider universe may forever be hidden from our gaze.
Summary
The possible discovery of ETI is one of the most exciting pursuits of the scientific endeavour which will also have profound implications for our social-culture and our understanding of the Cosmos. Yet, whilst we search with enthusiasm for them, we should not be so sure that they are also keen to meet us. This is due to our nature and the tendency to construct technologies which can be used for the purpose of destruction rather than creation. This would be of grave concern to any ETI that exists in our galaxy which values self-preservation and life.
On the assumption that they do exist, and they also have concerns about us, we have speculated on the possibility that a zoo containment policy may be in place around our solar system and surrounding nearby space. Although we have also suggested that a physical containment zoo would be impractical to implement.
To ensure that containment, it may be necessary for ETI to take direct actions to limit our technology growth or the reach of that technology into deep space. This could be through methods of sabotage or other clandestine operations hidden from our view that ultimately result in the moderation of our capability to go further and faster. As President Reagan once said “Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond” [45]. Yet, they may already be here, and we would be extremely wise to pause and take notice. Benford has suggested that perhaps we should be looking for ETI lurkers within our own solar system and this idea has merit [62].
Since humanity is now reaching a point where certainly missions that travel at speeds of 100 km/s are possible today, and much higher speeds of order 1,000s km/s appear possible towards the end of this century, it would be prudent for us to build protection mechanisms into our space probes to detect the presence of ETI or their attempts to interfere in our space probes. This might include booby-traps in our software programming, or technology sensors which can detect their presence. Whilst this possibility may seem fantastic, this would be the most sensible way to test if a zoo hypothesis containment policy were in action around our solar system.
Meanwhile, it would be a sensible policy to encourage the better angels of our nature and maintain the bonds of affection between nations that are so essential to a peace-loving society which promotes compassion and wisdom as the defining characteristics of what it means to be a human being in a vast and expanding Cosmos, where we may not be alone. As the great scientist Albert Einstein said “Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty” [63].
Any change is likely to necessitate fundamental reforms to our existing multilateral institutions. It is also likely to require the emergence of a new and inspirational moral leadership class that is currently in abeyance. It could be argued that the lack of moral leadership creates the conditions for global conflict and disunion among an otherwise peaceful people. In relation to space, it should certainly be our task “to avoid the extension of present national rivalries into this new field” [64].
Ultimately, the nations of the world must decide “whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force” [65]. A change to the status quo at the United Nations may be the only hope for humanity as we look out upon the precipice of either our fate or our destiny. One of these futures is waiting for us.
References
[1] G. Bruno, “On the Infinite Universe and Worlds” (L’infinito universo e mondi), 1584.
[2] NASA Strategic Plan 2022, NPD 1001.0D, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/fy-22-strategic-plan-1.pdf?emrc=ff1a1e
[3] P. Davis, “The Origin of Life”, Penguin Science, 2003.
[4] Z. Budrikis, 30 Years of Exoplanet Detections, Nature Reviews Physics, 4, 290, 13 April 2022.
[5] I. A. Crawford, D. Schulze-Makuch, “Is the Apparent Absence of Extraterrestrial Technological Civilizations Down to the Zoo Hypothesis or Nothing?”, Nature Astronomy, 8, 44-49, January 2024.
[6] J. A. Ball, “The Zoo Hypothesis”, Icarus, 19(3), 347-349, July 1973.
[7] A. Loeb, “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth”, Mariner Books, 2022.
[8] D. N. Michael, “Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs”, A Report Prepared for the Committee on Long-Range Studies of the NASA, by the Brookings Institution, December 1960.
[9] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, “The Feynman Lectures on Physics”, Volume 1, 1-2, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1963.
[10] A. C. Clarke, “Profiles of the Future”, Originally published 1962, Gateway, 2013.
[11] K. F. Long, “Unstable Equilibrium Hypothesis: A Consideration of Ultra-Relativistic and Faster Than Light Interstellar Spaceflight”, JBIS, 69, 97-101, 2016.
[12] S. E. Whitfield, G. Roddenberry, “The Making of Star Trek”, Ballantine Books, 1968.
[13] I. A. Crawford, “The Astronomical, Astrobiological and Planetary Science Case for Interstellar Spaceflight”, JBIS, 62(11/12), 415-421, November/December 2009.
[14] K. F. Long, “The Temporal Contact Equation: An Estimate for the Time of First Contact with ETI”, JBIS, 76(11), 279-282, November 2023.
[15] C. Sagan, “On the detectivity of Advanced Galactic Civilizations”, Icarus, 19(3), 350-352, July 1973.
[16] B. M. Oliver, “Project Cyclops Study: Conclusions and Recommendations”, Icarus, 19(3), 425-428, July 1973.
[17] K L G Parkin, “The Breakthrough Starshot System Model”, Acta Astronautica, 152, 370-384, November 2018
[18] J. Wright, “NASA and the Search for Technosignatures”, A Report from the NASA Technosignatures Workshop, Houston, Texas, 26-28 September, 2018.
[19] R. Zubrin, “Detection of Extraterrestrial Civilizations via the Spectral Signature of Advanced Interstellar Spacecraft”, Progress in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life ASP Conference Series, Edited by G. Seth Shostak, 74, 1995.
[20] Y. Ezoe, K. Ishikawa, T. Ohashi, Y. Miyoshi, N. Terada, Y. Uchiyama, H. Negoro, “Discovery of Diffuse Hard X-Ray Emission around Jupiter with Suzuku”, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 709, L178-L182, 1 February 2010.
[21] D. M. Smith, W. A. Heindl, C. B. Markwardt, J. H. Swank, I. Negueruela, T. E. Harrison, L. Huss, “XTE J1739-302 as a Supergiant Fast X-Ray Transient”, The Astrophysical Journal, 638, 974-981, 20 February 2006.
[22] B. P. Abbot, “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger”, Physical Review Letters, 116, 061102, 2016.
[23] K. F. Long, “A Case Study in Characterising Nuclear Propulsion Emission Signatures from Astrophysical Sources”, JBIS, 77(6), 2-15, June 2024.
[24] P. A. Lubin, “A Roadmap to Interstellar Flight”, JBIS, 69(2/3), 40-72, February/March 2016.
[25] A. Bond, A. R. Martin, “Project Daedalus: The Mission Profile”, Final Study Report, JBIS, Special Supplement, S37-S42, 1978.
[26] G. P. Jackson, “Antimatter-Based Propulsion for Exoplanet Exploration”, Nuclear Technology, 208, S107-S112, January 2022.
[27] C. Sagan, “Direct Contact Among Galactic Civilisations by Relativistic Interstellar Spaceflight”, Planet.Space Sci, 11, 1963.
[28] M. Millis, E. W. Davis, “Frontiers of Propulsion Science”, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, 227, AIAA, 2009.
[29] M. McCulloch, “Quantised Accelerations, From Anomalies to New Physics”, Polaris Books, 2024.
[30] E. Mallove, E., Matloff, G., “The Starflight Handbook, A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel”, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1989.
[31] K. F. Long, “Deep Space Propulsion, A Roadmap to Interstellar Flight”, Springer, 2011.
[32] M. Alcubierre, “The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel within General Relativity”, Class Quantum Gravity, 11, L73-L77, 1994.
[33] D. Torres et al., “Chromaticity Effects in Microlensing by Wormholes”, Mod. Phys. Lett, A16, 973-984, 2001.
[34] D. R. J. Viewing, C. Horswell, E. W. Palmer, “Detection of Starships”, JBIS, 30, 99-104, 1977.
[35] A. Fitzsimmons., C. Snodrass, B. Rozitis, B. Yang, M. Hyland, T. Seccull, M. T. Bannister, W. C. Fraser, R. Jedicke, P. Lacerda, Spectroscopy and Thermal Modelling of the First Interstellar Object 1I/2017 U1 ‘Oumuamua, Nature Astronomy, 2, 133-137, 2018.
[36] D. Jewitt, J. Luu, Initial Characterization of Interstellar Comet 2I/2019 Q4 (Borisov), The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886(2), L29, November 2019.
[37] N. S. Kardashev, “Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations”, Soviet Astronomy AJ, 8(2), September-October 1964.
[38] S. Baxter, “The Planetarium Hypothesis: A Resolution of the Fermi Paradox”, JBIS, 54(5/6), 210-216, 2001.
[39] L. Cixin, “The Three-Body Problem”, Chongqing Press, 2008.
[40] N. Hartono, “NASA Engineers Make Progress Toward Understanding Voyager 1 Issue”, NASA/JPL News, 15 March 2024.
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/
[41] K. F. Long, “In the Hypothetical Scenario of an Interception of the Voyagers by an ETI Probe”, JBIS, 77(6), June 2024.
[42] S. Abdolrahimi, B. Yale, C. C. Tzounis, J. Fofrich, P. Rohan, J. Cabrera-Guzman, J. C. Welsher, N. Nakhjiri, D. Scott, A. Johnson, “Voyager 3: A Concept Mission to Interstellar Medium”, Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, 59(3), May 2022.
[43] R. L. McNutt Jr, R. F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, M. Gruntman, S. M. Krimigis, E. C. Roelof, P. C. Brandt, S. R. Vernon, M. V. Paul, R. W. Stough, J. D. Kinnison, “Interstellar Probe – Destination: Universe!”, Acta Astronautica, 196, 13-28, July 2022.
[44] K. F. Long, “Development of SunVoyager Interstellar Precursor Probe Driven by Inertial Confinement Fusion Propulsion”, Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, May 2024.
[45] R. Reagan, Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, September 1987.
[46] J. Madison, “Federalist No.48”, The New York Packet, 1 February 1788.
[47] The Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945.
[48] “The Veto: UN Security Council Working Methods”, Security Council Report, 13 February 2024. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php
[49] “General Assembly Adopts Landmark Resolution Aimed at Holding Five Permanent Security Council Members for Use of Veto”,
[50] T. Schindlmayr, “Obstructing the Security Council: The Use of the Veto in the Twentieth Century”, Journal of the History of International Law, 3(2), 218-234, 01 January 2001.
[51] J. Dobbins, S. G. Jones, K. Crane, A. Rathmell, B. Steele, R. Teltschik, A. Timilsina, “The UN’s Role in Nation-Building, From the Congo to Iraq”, RAND Corporation, 2005.
[52] Campaign for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. https://www.unpacampaign.org/
[53] I. A. Crawford, “Who Speaks for Humanity? The Need for a Single Political Voice”, Book Chapter Contribution for “Astrobiology: Science, Ethics and Public Policy” edited by O Torres et al., Scrivener Publishing LLC, 2021.
[54] C. Sagan, “Pale Blue Dot”, Random House, 1997.
[55] J. W. Deardorff, “Possible Extraterrestrial Strategy for Earth”, Q.Jl R. Astr.Soc, 27, 94-101, 1986.
[56] R. Wise (Director), “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, 20th Century Fox, 1951.
[57] A. C. Clarke, “Childhood’s End”, Ballantine Books, 1953.
[58] “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Implications on National Security, Public Safety, and Government Transparency”, United States Congress Subcommittee Hearing, 26 July 2023.
[59] “Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena”, 2024.
[60] C. Sagan, “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, Random House, 1995.
[61] Gautama Buddha, 5th/6th Century religious teacher.
[62] J. Benford, “Looking for Lurkers: Co-orbiters as SETI Observables”, The Astronomical Journal, 158(4), 150, 20 September 2019.
[63] A. Einstein, Letter to Robert S Marcus, February 1950.
[64] G. Clark and L. B. Sohn, “World Peace Through World Law”, Harvard University Press, 1962.
[65] J. Madison, “Federalist 1”, The Federalist Papers, 1787.
[66] “The Constitution of the United States of America and Selected Writings of the Founding Fathers”, Barnes & Noble, 2012.
This is an excellent paper. The scenario reminds me of elements in C.S. Lewis’s “Out of the Silent Planet”, where humanity is contained on Earth due to their dualistic peaceful/warlike ways; and although the novel has a strong supernatural presence rather than Extra-Terrestrial Intelligences, Lewis’s angels might well be considered as a metaphor for ETI.
Conversely, ETI might be considered a religious metaphor. The idea of ETI as some sort of St. Peter deciding whether humanity can enter the “heaven” of a galactic civilization seems to underpin much of the argument, with the speculated barrier keeping us from this civilization a metaphor for the “pearly gates”.
Humanity doesn’t seem to have progressed much at all, something historians apparently know well, while we scientists and engineers seem to see a correlation between technological and moral progress.
I don’t think we need to speculate that ET has already determined we are unfit to join the galactic club and has engaged in a clandestine campaign to ensure we destroy ourselves in one way or another. That is on us and our evolved behaviors doing it to ourselves.
There seems to be a tendency for humans to want to give up self-determination and be ruled instead. Whether political or military dictators, supernatural beings whether religious deities or ETI, or devices of our own making – the robots like Gort in TDTESS, the Colossus AI in Colussus: The Forbin Project, or our current technological infatuation with “AI” to make legal judgments and determine sentences.
Fear of nature attributed to supernatural forces, later supernatural beings, then human control via “connections” to supernatural beings, and now fear of aggressive advanced ETI, or fear of future superintelligent AIs, seems to be a thread that connects human social systems possibly because of our hierarchical social natures that are easy to manipulate.
ETI may be out there, but so far there is no evidence to support this. We may be alone in our particular space and time, separated by vast gulfs of both dimensions. While there may be a future for humanity in space, I suspect we will bring the baggage of our angels and demons.
Well, the perspective is that they are out there somewhere, but this is what they want, to keep us from becoming insecure. Angels and demons are one in the same but as in the east it is just yin and yang, parts of the whole. This is why are systems are designed to keep us in line and not go past the yellow line. Time and again they show us parts to the puzzle but never the full linking of their understanding from the quantum perspective. We live as individuals but no one has look at an exterrestrial civilization from the concept of telepathy and I’m afraid it would be very similar to the current demon in a capitalistic world, real communism. As long as we look at what is in our skies as anomalous phenomena and do not use our science to seriously investigate what it is, the longer we will be the natives in the Amazon jungle…
Do you have anything in mind?
An idea. Suppose we placed high-resolution cameras everywhere to view the dome of the sky. Place on platforms and building to provide a comprehensive coverage of the sky. Software tracks every moving object above a certain radial velocity to track birds, aircraft, meteors, etc. The software integrates the network of cameras so that any object can be tracked back to prior camera tracks, and predicted next cameras. If the software cannot make a determination of the object[s], other sensors are used – local radar, radio reception, and telescopes to further support identification.
This would provide comprehensive coverage that avoids human [mis]identification and can quickly eliminate aircraft and balloons as UAPs.
What might be the result of this effort. Firstly the vast majority of possible UAPs would be identified. Any remaining UAPs would have a welter of sensor data that would provide data on the object that could be assigned to humans to try to identify. Maybe we detect a genuine alien device in our atmosphere, although my bet is that the category of UAPs declines to very few edge case examples.
The US has a land area of ~ 8E6 km^2. So 10 million networked cameras could probably provide a complete, overlapping sky monitoring system, with the majority connected to the internet to coordinate information. This would be relatively inexpensive, perhaps $1bn if left to citizens to mount and set up. More sophisticated systems would be much more expensive, but needn’t be put in place until it was clear that the system couldn’t identify all fast-moving aerial objects. Placement of the more sophisticated equipment could wait for indications of higher probability UAP events in some areas.
We already have a lot of Earth observation satellites in place, offering high-resolution ground images. Is it possible that UAPs have been captured by these satellites – both over land and water?
All these sensors are getting cheaper and increasingly deployed. At some point, I cannot imagine that anything airborne could avoid detection. Maybe that future ubiquitous sky surveillance from the ground and space ends the idea that these alien objects are flitting around the Earth. Or just maybe, we finally capture evidence of one for real? [ However, I suspect that will prove as elusive as ETI signals from space.]
Alex your negativism is obvious and I’m afraid on a par with what most scientist think, it is a shame that your critical thinking is so biased that you go to the extreme to make a pointless argument. I know how bad it is for America. Take a look at this:
How Should Conservatives Respond to the UFO Phenomenon?
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2024/10/conservatives-ufo-phenomenon-justin-naylor.html?
Read the comments to see how closed minded people are.
Here is a personnel example that actual happened to me;
The comments are very telling of how closed minded conservatives are. I had an extremely bad experience with my niece who is the same age as I am. I told her that I had seen a UFO and she went into a rage and threw myself and my wife out of her home that we were visiting. She was a devout southern Baptist and that the world was going to end and they were going to heaven. She then sent me a very ugly email and wanted nothing to do with me. They live in a fantasy and do not understand that there is intelligent life visiting this planet. It was one of the worst days of my life and only added to our nightmare of our visit back to the US in 2023. We have decided to stay in the Philippines for the rest of our life because of the serious problems that exist in the US. It is so sad that this is what is happening and I worry that there will be no end to the stupidity.
So are you just the other side of the coin in your obvious bias?
That’s an interesting article. I don’t think the comments sound very closed-minded (perhaps those were scrubbed away?), but I’m afraid I’m prone to focus on a narrow interpretation myself. Schumer’s proposed amendment contained the text, “The Federal Government shall exercise eminent domain over any and all recovered technologies of unknown origin…” I think this would be applied if, say, a Russian hypersonic missile breaks up over the ocean, and somebody from Raytheon helicopters out to a fishing boat to buy a recovered chunk before anybody else hears about it. Denying them the chance to reverse engineer and patent the tech for themselves could save the federal government billions, which I’d assume is the reason it didn’t pass.
There is also some uncertainty in the explanation for why aliens would be seen by some people. Are they careless and being spotted accidentally, or are they intentionally taunting us? If they’re taunting us, why are they camera shy around cell phones, but still contact military aircraft?
@Michael
I hear your frustration as you make your ad hominem attacks on those who seem to dismiss your beliefs that ET is here now. It must be frustrating that so far nothing has emerged from the new US government transparency over UAPs. I can imagine the new conspiracies being created.
When discussing the “Fermi Question/Paradox” you must think, “Are you blind? There is evidence of visitations everywhere!” I have to wonder what you think about all the posts on CD and elsewhere about theories of ETI, the Drake Equation, are alien civilizations are rare or common, our contemporary knowledge of physics and the limitations it places on ET visits, etc. If even a small fraction of UAPs are ET craft, it would turn most of the speculations apart from the “Zoo Hypothesis” and their ilk on their heads.
I asked you what science would you suggest. I even offered a somewhat fanciful idea. Did you offer any ideas? No, you just offered a piece from “The Imaginative Conservative” [a contradiction of terms?].
Is Naylor “imaginative”? All I read was a rehash of conspiracy theories, some indication that he has never read SciFi other than the Christian C.S. Lewis, the books of Von Daniken (I think based on very old memories), and some vague possibilities of what might happen is ETs were exposed as real. Certainly nothing new that hasn’t been said before both in articles and fiction.
The focus, naturally, is on the US, even though there are nearly 200 nations on this planet with unmarked political borders, and other nations have also investigated the UAP phenomena. Yet despite this, and differing cultures, not one has been able to produce any tangible evidence. Nor has anyone provided details even on their death bed about their experiences examining and testing alien artifacts or “biologicals”. If only the US had had such luck preventing the successful spying of nuclear secrets or the embarrassing press leaks of government secrets! I think the Vatican has the best record of keeping [historical] secrets secret.
If anything, rather than teh US government dismissing UAPs as ETs and hiding the evidence, the better propaganda approach is promoting conspiracy theories to fool the “enemy” that the US has access to alien technology that ensures global superiority. It is a pity that no demonstrations have come to light – just boringly basic physics with extremely expensive development costs.
As always, evidence that has been tested and subject to peer review remains the path for science. When evidence is untested and leads to differing beliefs, we see how that has resulted in the zoo of religions and their competition for dominance.
As to your whatI have done; I joined the U.S. Air Force on November 18 1976 after President Jimmy Carter won the election in November of that year. I was assigned to the 25th Norad Region at the SAGE building at McChord AFB in Tacoma WA. This is where all the raw radar is analysed by the first IBM super computer that was all done with vacuum tubes. It took up the whole 3rd story of a large building with thick walls to handle a nuclear attack. I was a NORAD Aerospace control and Warning Systems Operator and learned about the whole system used in the USA and Canada. Why did I joined? Because President Carter was trying to have the information released on UFOs.
The funny part is I learned a lot more then the public knows and ended up stationed on the Tonopah Radar Ranges not too far from Groom Lake in Nevada just as Dreamland was announced.
Now I need to backtrack a little because the summer of 1969 I and my parents had the pleasure of contacting and speaking to Sir Eric Gary on Grenade when my parents were looking at building a resort there. This was some 18 months after the UFO I showed you had taken place.
After I left the Air Force I applied for becoming an Air-Traffic-Controller with the FAA and was picked up the following November. I worked for the FAA for some 23 years and also became the MUFON State Director for Idaho and did field investigations for UFO reports in Idaho.
Now what is the difference between me and your typical UFO believer? I was into astronomy when I was 12 years old and have been ever since. It was not until I was in the FAA that I could even afford to make my first large 8 inch telescope, After that I built a 20 inch dobsonian based on Richard Berry design in 1983. So in the last 56 years I have learned just about everything that relates to what how and when in astronomy, SETI, Military and commercial aviation and advanced propulsion.
So take your peer review and go outside and take a picture of a serious traffic accident right now and get back to me, because you do not have a clue what is actually going on.
@Michael
You are just trying to make an argument based on authority – your expertise with radars and “inside information” based on your job. You have presented no verifiable evidence, only hinted at [classified?] knowledge you claim to have. This is not a valid way to do science, which relies on evidence, and testing hypotheses. If there is evidence that can be interrogated and the government releases it to the group tasked with investigating it, then if it proves evidence of alien technology, then wonderful. I look forward to reading that result and finding out where it could lead. However, so far, the group has not been given evidence that can be identified that they have publicly reported on. They do not have access to classified material, but withholding evidence just leads to supporting conspiracy theories, which would seem to be self-defeating if the aim is transparency.
Compare the anecdotal evidence of UAP “sightings” [visual, radar, etc.] and the way SETI handles observations from radio and optical telescopic data. They carefully ensure that radio signals are not RFI, of anomalous optical data are not explainable by natural phenomena. So far there has not been any signal that can pass all the tests and be declared as artificial. This is rigorous science and very different from “unexplainable anomalous radar or visual sightings” which are suggested to be ET. To me, this is similar to the Creationists trying to insert supernatural explanations for puzzling or incomplete fossil evidence. Also similar are the religious who believe that a “weeping statue” is evidence of a supernatural event, yet are determined not to investigate the phenomenon which is assuredly trickery and allied to those claiming “psychic powers”. Watch any episode of any tv series about “ancient aliens, ghost hunting, or other “strange happenings” and see how evidence is [if it exists] is sensationalized with the conclusion being the premise of the show – aliens, ghosts, etc.
Arthur C. Clarke lent his imprimatur to several series: “Mysterious World”, “World of Strange Powers”, and “Mysterious Universe”. But his bookend introduction and final comment always only suggested that there might be new discoveries to be made and possibly not ones easy to fit into contemporary knowledge. These series are somewhat dated, but even so are generally more grounded than the sensationalist TV series to capture gullible eyeballs.
Carl Sagan liked to say that science was like a candle illuminating the dark. It is the very antithesis of pre-Enlightenment superstition and unexamined beliefs that were once so prevalent in keeping mankind ignorant. As Richard Feynman famously said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Was reading this debate which ( at this writing) seemed to terminate with my earlier unrelated entry below about driving to New England and the invisible entities called “states” posting their laws…
As a third party, if it is of any consolation, and I hope so, I sympathize with both of you. I have collected the stories of incidents which I had read of or had the chance to interview observers. And at the same time I have tried to come to as much understanding of related natural science as I can. The latter’s laws argue for structure mostly which is con, but puzzles with life’s intensity here and evidence of perhaps nothing elsewhere.
The human element of this controversy, that is, the presumed human keepers of the secret, is such that if there is a secret, it is bound to leak out eventually, in as much as what we have been able to discuss already. But likely as well, there will be floods of false information too, intended or otherwise. And now and then, when one sees a bright light in the fog by an airport, it could be Venus. This has happened to me. Confirmed by follow up the next night which was clear.
On the other hand, confronting a potential alien entity with our canonical
science could turn out to be a bluff only good among ourselves. [E.g., A citation for defying the law of gravity…] And it might be a reason why gathering data by governments is treated in the way that it is.
In between, investigating or remembering impressions of events, I have often ( repeat: often, not always) felt as though I was fooled, misled – or alas, there was nothing there in the first place. Or else, there had to be some type of sustained E-M phenomenon associated with what was observed – and that the E-M itself might have been “alive” or “sentient” in some sense. Now if the latter seemed convincing enough, then where did THAT come from?
Whether skeptical or convinced by this dataset, but clearly interested in journey to stars, there is still a lot of spade work left to do. If ET is on the witness stand, let us continue to treat the exercise as cross-examination.
… Though a very interesting case, it is bound to be long. Glad I am not drawing jury duty on this one.
A more prosaic border comes to mind in this essay: the one between the US Middle Atlantic States and that of New England. When I was young and my family traveled to Maine to visit relatives, crossing this line a sign at the border would greet us Turnpike travels with “Welcome to Connecticut” on the first line and then a request on the next, “Please Obey Our Laws”. Thereafter the State posted regulations every fifty yards until the border of Massachusetts was reached. That next state’s philosophy was different, but not as memorable.
New Englanders seem less reticent than our presumed zoo keepers.
We presume, if sentient forms of life exist, they are less solicitous than humans tend to be about their laws. But owing to our short history and (if extant) their likely long one(s), we tend to imagine their pronouncements as ultimate from the start and that they will be enforced. Often as the narrative runs in science fiction short stories.
But on the other hand, if ETI is so prescient, then one must also wonder, just how long have they known about our existence?
There could be a number of markers due to the ways we have asserted ourselves.
When UFOs became quite topical it was after the detonation of The Bomb. That would be one marker, of course. But since the Earth is a world that is clearly a living entity in a manner unlike, say, Venus, or others we have detected or explored thus far, this must have attracted ETI attention too – very long ago. They might even have had some responsibility for some of the early developments.
I mention this in the sense that if we ASSUME that ETI is maintaining us in a zoo cage, one has to wonder how long this has been going on. And if one explores such an assumption, it might be longer than there have been primates around. ETI or higher powers, if running a zoo, would have to share some responsibility for the results.
On the other hand, if ETI does not exist, not even ones that can carry on a Turnpike service station conversation of pleasantries, should we stop to fill our tanks, if we fly out to greet them, then it becomes a serious head scratcher as to why we live in a place that has life, that deals in mental concepts unappreciated by physical or nuclear chemistry which otherwise morph the stars or planets. As yet we cannot confirm examples of such elsewhere. And that’s a very big empty.
Since ETI has not announced our fate with a real life Twilight Zone pronouncement broadcast from the sky, we might as well just continue as we are: attempting to
catalog worlds we would like to visit or examine more closely. And I suspect it is too early to give up on some type of significant detections either in the solar system or observable star systems.
The ones we can see or detect thus far, we have not been able to determine if anything is alive there. True. Half of the life detection issue is that we have not yet explored as far as we can reach without revolutionary technical development. Were we able to connect life on Earth with evidence of life elsewhere in the solar system or interstellar material, we would not necessarily address the zoo cage question directly, but we would have uncovered something very significant.
The zoo hypothesis from a human perspective would be unreasonable if it included sanitizing surrounding planets and stars of life or any evidence of life residing other than on our planet. That simply interferes with our understanding of life and its origins.
Though if we did find something, it might tell us something about presumed zoo keepers too.
I don’t think we should put our faith in officials. Reagan’s line is meant to make people feel at ease with national leaders, but I recall a more believable science fiction story (I forget the name), where aliens auction off access to their weapons to the nations of the world, and the offers quickly become so large that anyone winning the weapons must enslave the rest of the world with them to pay the price. This seems closer to the reality of the French and Indian War, the conquest of Mexico, or the policy of many modern powers in north Africa and the Middle East.
One of the United Nations’ first triumphs for peace was the Korean War, in which it joined the war, with millions of people killed and North Korea becoming one of the most bombed nations in history. This spirit lives on with measures like Resolution 1973 that paved the way for the overthrow of the Libyan government, creating the paradise we see today. Though the UN was reasonably successful with nation building in Israel, it was surely even more successful in South Sudan, where fighting and famine have been incessant since the world gifted the state with independence, yet the oil still flows.
This isn’t just a feature of the UN of course. Whenever world leaders join together in harmonious unity, misery is in the works for a great many ordinary people. Whether we speak of the anarcho-capitalist utopia of the Congo Free State, the treaties for narcotics prohibition and interdiction, the cap-and-trade system of carbon credits, or Abiy Ahmed’s Nobel Prize for Treason, one way or another, a hefty helping of craftily plotted “unintended” consequences are bound to follow.
True miracles don’t come from people in power, especially not space aliens; they are not cinematic; they don’t defy physics. A miracle is not when some impossible means is employed to achieve a mundane or insignificant end, but rather, when mundane and insignificant means are employed to achieve a plainly impossible end. It is so easy to picture sitting next to Rosa Parks, advising her kindly, only as a matter of common sense of course, how absurd it would be for her to think that keeping her bottom parked on a bus seat would simply end centuries of discrimination, and how sensible it would be for her to give way before she got hurt. Yet in American society we saw how a mere handful of heroic people, seemingly deluded by religious faith, managed to make their dreams into commonplace reality. If there is any possible victory to be had against an alien threat in the future, that too must depend on people with improbable hope and faith, and on the ultimate source from which miracles must emanate.
I was watching ‘Just call me Bill,’ a televised epiphany of soliloquy by William Shatner which include his reaction to a brief trip to space. Once again, he defies any expectations by being horrified by the outer blackness of the final frontier and the fragility of our blue origin below.
First coined by space writer Frank White in 1987, the Overview Effect is described as a feeling of awe for our home planet and a sense of responsibility for taking care of it. There was a time, nearer to the first lunar landing, when this sentiment was relatively strong in the world, lasting almost up to the photographic capture of a pale blue dot through Saturn’s rings.
But the dominant themes resonating across the earth’s crust at the present moment are playing quite a different tune.
There are dissonant themes of orthodox fundamentalist eschatology clashing over the drumbeat of realpolitik. A number of multipolar conductors have simultaneously seized the baton with a polymetric counterpoint of fractal metrics battling. The orchestra has grown weary from pandemic, quavering from semi-natural disaster, falling behind and out of sync as the tempo grows faster and faster. Like zombies, they play out the bars written long ago in an out-of-phase cacophony. The strings of our world orchestra have snapped, the drum heads broken, the reads frayed and only the brass remains audible.
Is there an audience out there, or has this only been a rehearsal for their arrival? We don’t know, but their observations are not a theme in the score at the moment. More likely they have left the building.
A pragmatic conductor will conduct the instruments at hand within the themes of the present to elicit the most sonorous ensemble possible. The skilled player in the ranks not only observes the conductor but listens to the music all around and rises to the moment playing their part in time for all they’re worth. I can feel the vibrancy in Kevin Long’s essay and letter and thank him for his part. Perhaps a conductor will renew the fragile theme accompanying our small blue marble along its lonely journey.
Shatner is or was an actor – not a scientist, not an intellectual, and certainly not a captain of a starship or any other vessel. His reaction to space is undoubtedly disappointing to many fans, but it should not be unexpected.
Films and television series are designed to entertain, not educate. Few are the science fiction programs set in space that show the Universe beyond Earth as it really is. It is also one thing to look at the stars at night from the comfort of your backyard, it is another to be truly immersed in them.
In Andrew Chaikin’s 1994 book about the Apollo astronauts, A Man on the Moon, on one of the later Apollo missions where the astronauts had to conduct an EVA between Earth and the Moon on their way home to retrieve various equipment and samples from the Apollo Service Module (SM), he told how one of the astronauts who did this looked about him at the utter blackness of space, with Earth and the Moon mere spheres in the distance: The man said he gripped those handholds on the spacecraft hull for dear life as he was afraid if he let go he would float off into that void forever. And this from a trained astronaut.
Our intellects know we live on a finite planet in a vast cosmic sea of countless other bodies; now we need to make this part of all our cultural mindsets and act accordingly.
For one possible solution to the above situation, see this book titled The New Universe and the Human Future: How a Shared Cosmology Could Transform the World by Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack (2011, Yale University Press), which you may read my review of here:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2012/07/09/revealing-the-new-universe-and-a-shared-cosmology/
There is also a very informative video of the authors sharing their philosophy in detail, which you may view either here:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/video/the-new-universe-and-the-human-future-how-a-shared-cosmology-could-transform-the-world/
Or here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96nwtXfP1Yg
A relevant quote from The New Universe and the Human Future:
“We need to feel in our bones that something much bigger is going on than our petty quarrels and our obsession with getting and spending, and that the role we each play in this very big something is what really defines the meaning and purpose of our lives.”
We assume — more like hope — that ETI are monitoring us, waiting for that moment when we “grow up” enough to join this presumed Galactic Club. There may be nothing like that, however. I would not be surprised if few or any other more sophisticated intelligences in the galaxy know of our existence, or if they do, we are simply just another note in their catalog of living systems.
If and when we do encounter ETI, it may be an accident or they may want something from us. In any case, they won’t be worried if we are ready to handle their existence or not, and I am predicting chaos based on how humanity has handled other recent sudden events of crisis.
All we can do is hope that at least some of us are ready no matter what.
Cold dark matter may not be the foundation of a shared cosmology or world view foundation. What do we do when theory for a double-dark universe is found to be wrong? Already we find galaxies, clusters, and mega-blackholes that are to mature to have been formed in such a cosmology.
A fine-tuned anthropic universe within a multiverse of otherwise inhospitable universes might provide a more profound foundation? The improbable opportunity for life, for awareness, for self-consciousness, for purpose. Do people feel this in their bones, or what unlocks such a global shift in perspective and direction?
And one more about Shatner – he and most of the other original Star Trek cast members were not fans of being typecast and watching their careers get sidelined after the original series ended… until the fans started having conventions and the actors were invited to speak for fees of tens of thousands of dollars apiece. Suddenly Star Trek was wonderful!
Even Gene Roddenberry wanted to sell off his series for a virtual song after Star Trek was cancelled in 1969 and he considered it a failure:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry
Then he too discovered the all-too-willing fans and ca-ching!
And satirized in the movie Galaxy Quest.
If we’re a zoo exhibit then they are watching us come to the brink of extinguishing ourselves from global heating, possibly cheering it as a fitting end for a species that shows so little regard for its members as we have, especially in the last year.
Or, out of concern for the other intelligent species maybe they will intervene at the last possible moment either to aid humans or to end us. Myself, I would consider it a great disservice if there’s a thriving society mere light years away and that fact has been hidden from us.
I’m glad Mike McCulloch’s quantized inertia was referenced in the piece. I think that and other space drive candidates are on the verge of acceptance and would make stellar probes feasible. I do think it’s very clear that there are some things flying around which our governments do not understand which of course does not mean they are aliens or future humans either. Barring some mundane explanation they may be an existence proof of even more advanced drives being possible.
We will only ever have a partial understanding of reality. We are limited in terms of resources and time. To search thoroughly the space around us out to say 100 light years may take us thousands of years or may never be accomplished given our propensity for self destruction. This is the reality we live in. If ET expose themselves that would change everything but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as they say. I see no extraordinary evidence so far. I see some various types of photography (including infrared) of what look like actual objects but what are they? We may never know whether we are the only intelligent species in this galaxy (I would argue that will be the case i.e. we will never know before our species ceases to exist) and we will certainly never know what other galaxies contain in terms of ET so I think all we can do is continue the quest for knowledge of all kinds.
The question asked was: “what our culture could do to make us less threatening to any foreigner” understated here, extraterrestrial.
This requires a global collective awareness of the specificity of the human species. For there to be this collective consciousness, it is necessary that an event has a major and significant impact on the minds that will lead to communion. For example, the human species must be really threatened by something against which it is totally powerless, which, overall, amounts to the destruction of its planet, therefore of its own existence. Remember “the War of the worlds”.
Another example that brought collective consciousness but this time with something known is the atomic bomb of Hiroshima: for the first time in its history, humanity has become aware of its power of self-destruction. She has control over the cause but does not want effects. (Note that this did not prevent her from producing hundreds of other “pretty” missiles…)
This paradox put a problem for her, as she has a deadly “toy” that she doesn’t know what to do with if we don’t consider the concept of deterrence. We do not know how to manage a few megatons of energy, except to pulverize us entirely, which worries me a little if one considers that one day it will reach the control of the energy of its star or more… Return to consensus processes. It can also occur an event in which humanity identifies as the Apollo 11 mission that has fascinated millions of individuals, all countries and cultures, This is a unique case of quasi-collective consciousness.
The event makes all our differences disappear in the face of the fear of our extinction or the pride of our achievements. In other words, it is the absence of a certain escape and the instinct for survival or a collective human achievement that will bring about collective consciousness and therefore a consensual decision-making…or chaos. If the SF has developed this theme widely, it is also in all major crisis management strategies of us technologically developed countries. We are unfortunately very far from this collective consciousness in an era of withdrawal and generalized consumerism, especially since the majority of people raise their eyes to heaven to question our place in the universe. How to have this collective consciousness in the absence of any spirituality ? BTW we have not even passed the zero stage on the Khadarshev scale and that an ant is more structured than us…
A word about Dr. Long’s speech.
It is a good intention and it is better to do something than not do anything, but isn’t all this childish? If life could develop elsewhere in the universe, there is statistically almost no chance that it has two arms and two eyes and in addition, that it managed to invent the Iphone! How can some chemical compounds reach, in the same universe, at the same time, practically the same stage of evolution, knowing that randomness is everywhere in the universe ?
So to speak of the UN – a dying institution? – and assume “protocols” in the face of the Unknown is meaningless. Worse! if E.T is looking at us, it is precisely to demonstrate that the human species is incapable of cohesion and is only an abominable Babel tower : not sure which E.T gives us the ticket of entry…
Just as if we consider the hypothesis of the “galactic zoo”, we admit de facto indirectly our inferiority in the face of a probably superior entity…and this is what bothers us : the human species wants to do what it wants or she wants ! (hence the question of “barrier”).
These speeches are only to reassure us… but of what or of who?
Note that we already consider the ETI, at best as its equal (what egocentrism !) at worst as a bad “alien” from which it will be necessary to defend itself. It is pure paranoia and/or the hidden will to dominate the human species. Because indeed, the question implies: “make us less threatening to the outside world…in order to exploit it or exploit its resources sooner or later”. Let’s not fool ourselves: the human species is predatory and there is no free food. Would you want to free the hungry lion from its cage? this is one of the possible answers to the Fermi paradox ;)
Finally, the best proof of not being a threat to a hypothetical ETI would be to evolve, at least in stage 1 of Kardashev’scale or even reach and pass this damn barrier – if it exists- to make a snub to E.T ;) Forgive my pessimism.
I wrote a two-part essay on why and how an advanced ETI might want to conquer or outright destroy the human species here:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/10/05/why-do-we-fear-aliens/
and here:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/10/06/rethinking-alien-encounter/
My conclusions are that there are few serious reasons why another intelligence would want to destroy us or anyone else, except in the case they were some kind of direct threat. As for what it would take to wipe us out, it would be relatively easy to do so in our current state, forget any kind of “star wars”.
That we are still here could mean one of the following: They don’t know we exist, they don’t care, advanced means altruistic and peaceful, or they are coming to get us, but they just have not arrived yet.
In framing the zoo proposition, ETI is often portrayed as an entity with a frame of mind different than a typical terrestrial pet owner. “Owner” here used for convenience, owing to lack of an appropriate substitute. The point is that a typical pet “owner” gives much free rein to pets. Moreover, even fish in an aquarium have some notion of the existence of “the owners”, dropping flakes into their tanks at appropriate times And certainly as well do dogs and cats. … At home here there is a colony of turtles in the atrium.
The point is they are aware of you or me and vice versa. The cats and dogs are more likely to intervene in our affairs than some of the aforementioned. [ Turtles are curious about what goes on in the house and wander in.] And as for cats, dogs, fish and reptiles, “we” intervene in their affairs from time to time. For the most part without moral judgment, but for the sake of maintaining the peace or protecting the weaker members of the community. We might admonish the pets, but we seldom sit them down to trials or lectures on morality. A dog owner, for example, will not have a public ceremony with the dog or dogs about the punitive change of plans for the dog house improvements in design or under construction.
The relation between pets and owners also suggests that ETI and human relations could be more nuanced than “zero” and a zoo cage. The zoo as a human institution has facets beyond containing an example or two of a species. Too many to enumerate perhaps, but some of it could be display and study, more humane as the institution has developed over centuries. But it is not necessarily an institution established on account of a species having no place in an environment shared with humans.
Assuming that ETI is older and wiser than we are and is aware of our existence at all, I suspect that their attitude toward us would be something kindred. Interstellar space would appear to be sufficient quarantine for centuries or millennia to come. If we slip out of our cage to a few dozen stars someday and make some impact on them with even so much as a beach head, I’m inclined to think that it will cause no alarm in the councils of the galactic united planets.
I am grateful to see in this essay, among other relevant topics, that the issue of an unknown and unannounced relativistic interstellar probe entering another star system is being addressed.
Imagine if astronomers – or heaven forbid, any military organization – detected a vessel approaching our system and our home planet. If it were revealing nothing as to its purpose as it made a deliberate track towards us, would we not be more than a bit worried, even those of us who assume the benevolence of advanced ETI?
The hope is that if this anonymous vessel were making no effort to hide its presence, then it may be on a non-threatening mission. Of course, there is the possibility that ETI more advanced than humanity might be unafraid of anything we could do and therefore approach us with impunity.
This is why I have been supporting and arguing for the last few decades an actual law that every deep space mission sent by our species have some sort of information package attached to them, so that any finders will know the intention of these probes are peaceful science explorers and not secret weapons of mass destruction.
See here for one of my essays on this topic:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2013/01/18/the-last-pictures-contemporary-pessimism-and-hope-for-the-future/
I am grateful to see that certain organizations are finally answering this need, such as some of the more recent lunar missions. They will also have the major bonus of preserving much of our culture and history in the event of some disaster befalling Earth.
What I do not want to see ever again is what was done – and not done – on only our fifth probe to leave the Sol system, the New Horizons robot explorer sent past Pluto in 2015:
http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-102808a.html
Dear all,
Thank you for the comments you posted. Some specific responses from me:
Alex Tolley, interesting proposing ETI as a metaphor for entering heaven. But do you not feel this is a likely scenario, given the vastness and age of the Cosmos, the probability for the many advanced civilizations far older than ours, and then considering the disharmony in human affairs? My point was, we should focus on our ways so we can look ourselves in the mirror. This is self-determination.
Michael Fidler, people fear what they do not understand. But I believe that knowledge dispels fear.
Wdk, my perspective is that we should work to get out there, as fast and far as we can, as soon as we can, in order to be better informed about the status quo. We need post-Voyager missions which are also equipped with ETI sensor trips.
Mike Serfas, I liked your last paragraph. True that great change often comes from the people and not the leaders. But what then do we do, advocate for a continued disunion of nations? Is it not better to at least strive towards a common view focussed on building prosperity for the human condition, than to allow a continued state of affairs where nations are in perpetual conflict and war? To avoid this, we must find common ground upon which all humanity are seen as brothers and sisters.
Project Studio, actually I found William Shatners description of his space travel insightful. He likened it to what death must be like, going from life to utter darkness. That assumes there is nothing beyond death of course, which is a matter of opinion. But I believe his description was raw and sincere. Nicely done with the music description. Indeed, I’m merely attempting to be one part of a large orchestra, playing my own instrument, hoping others will join the orchestra. Somehow we must find the right resonance upon which all can find participation.
LJK, Whether ETI has us in a zoo or not, assuming that as an agency towards improving our own conduct is a self-fulling prophesy. It makes us a better species and also gets us out there exploring the unknown, instead of fighting each other. A worthy expenditure of our energies. Look how much money we are spending on bombs.
Fred, evolving up the Kardashev scale doesn’t guarantee we will not be a threat, but (arguably) we may in fact become more of a threat technologically. Our wisdom must also evolve in parallel with that technology. Carl Sagan spoke of this many years ago. Eric Weinstein has spoken of it recently in his phrase “we are gods but for the wisdom”. We are like children and we must now transition beyond that phase of our growth.
I guess I would like to see more comments on my suggestion to remove the UN Security Council Veto from the permanent members. I thought that was controversial, but apparently not since it hasn’t been raised. Yet, I am extremely concerned by the chaos I see in the world currently and I partly put this down to a lack of leadership across the board, and the stability for the world is largely held by the Permanent Members of the Security Council. I am pointing out that our existing institutions are not working for humanity and need radical reform or replacement. The many terrible things they do in the people’s name, without consent.
In addition, please see the letter I wrote to the leaders of the Permanent Members. I literally sent this to the White House, the Kremlin, Downing Street, Buckingham Palace, The Elysee and various departments of the CPP, the UN. So far, the only one to give me any form of response, and is the only one calling for a direction of peaceful negotiations in all conflicts, is France.
https://www.kelvinflong.com/myblog/2024/10/3/open-letter-to-the-permanent-members-of-the-un-security-council
I want to be clear in my words. I wrote this because I am concerned for global affairs, but also because it is my belief that they are already here.
Thank you, friends. I hope for better times ahead.
Kelvin
Kevin: the problem with your thesis is that you respond to a hypothetical alien containment policy with a plan to “look in the mirror at who we are as a species and who we want to become” to end it. Basically, this takes your own political decisions and thinly packages them in a skin of alien attribution.
Perhaps the aliens are not waiting until one man rules the world. That has never quite happened before, and when it has come close, the consequences have never been good. The vicious massacres of Alexander the Macedonian. The thorough destruction of the Western Roman Empire at the logical conclusion of Pax Romana.
Perhaps the aliens are actually anarchists, pursuing a hands-off method of separation until such time as humans no longer take orders to do things they know are wrong. Of course, that’s not the only image we can project. Clarke no doubt would have said they’re waiting for us to quit eating meat. Maybe let’s go with a Pirate Party perspective and say they are waiting for us to abolish all ‘intellectual property’ and other censorship, because they’re not going to send us plans for a starship if some company is going to claim it as their personal property.
I’m not ashamed to favor continued disunion. We’ve seen unified policies, such as the convention of refugees, written as political compromises, and in the hands of central authority it is impossible to reform them even as whole industries open up to take advantage of the loopholes and effectively undermine their intent. We’ve seen an attempt to concentrate power (the NPT) lead to the devastation of whole nations like Libya and Ukraine, soon South Korea I fear. Their leaders signed on as subject nations, getting little more than a pat on the head out of it before the invasions began. I think we should focus more on why countries have abandoned their bedrock principles and ideals. If every nation had peoples who could defend their self-evident rights, they would already have much about which they would be united.
Which rights, and self-evident to whom? We cannot agree on them in C21st USA or any nation I have any [passing?] familiarity with. Historically, rights have been determined over time and in various circumstances. We have barely given some animals any rights, and are exploring whether rivers and other natural features and systems have rights that can be legally defined [and enforced?]. Perhaps the idea of a “Prime Directive” may result in our planet, Gaia, being given rights rather than some piecemeal protections of one part or another. The idea of keeping 30% of the planet as wilderness seems to point in that direction.
Whether any such universal rights can be given or applied in a culturally multi-polar world, idk. I think there is tension in wanting to avoid a uniform, culture trapped in a single way of thinking, and having enforceable universal rights. Empires, whether pax or not, have beneficial results, even if unequally distributed. Utopias are usually described as existing in such a world state, or at least in a pocket that can be contained and sealed off from an outer world. Fictional dystopias appear in a variety of worlds, from near-universal culture (“Brave New World”) or the anarchies of “Mad Max” and their ilk. If technological advances are desired, then war is a stimulant, from hot wars to cold wars, and arguably between highly competitive corporations (whilst monopolies stifle technology development).
Alex: I think that there are some rights which have been the object of wide consensus in the past, yet are imperilled at present. Freedom of expression, for example: there should be nothing more obvious than respecting the distinction between talk and action, and preserving the room for people to think together in peace. So I think there is much opportunity for immediate progress.
Now I can’t deny some decisions about the nature of rights involve guesswork at present. With a detailed understanding of a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, they might not need to be. If you could build a quantum detector that accurately measures the presence or absence of conscious activity in any substrate, a fetus, dog, bird, or AI machine, and/or if you could show on theoretical grounds the unity of all consciousness, certain political issues would become much easier for people to agree on.
Yet whether or not we are able to refine the basis for these decisions, well… It is a very bad thing to have a unified central authority tell us how we have to believe physics works, even though it is a very good thing for people to independently and freely agree on how physics works – and the same is true of philosophy, politics, and religion. So I don’t believe there is really any contradiction in what I’ve said there.
Even if we could determine the level of consciousness for every living being, what impact would that make on slavery, suffrage, and even the consumption of animals? If plants proved to have a dim consciousness, how would that change our behaviors and assignation of rights? [c.f. Douglas Adams – The Restaurant at the End of the UIniverse.
When has free speech been accepted historically around the world? Even today, free speech has consequences that mean one cannot question certain ideas – e.g. religion, politics, corporate actions without life-changing consequences. I am not a physicist, but I have heard that String theorists have controlled tenure in physics departments at some leading US universities. Isn’t that like Lysenkoism? When I came to the US I was warned never to discuss religion or politics [in a bar] as these were “taboo” subjects that could get one killed. How different from British pubs!
Ask yourself how many of these UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are fully observed in Western Democracies, let alone nations with very different polities? If a body representing all nations [in 1948] was able to write this declaration but nearly 3/4 of a century later, even the richest nations do not have laws to enforce these rights, indeed are making laws to restrict them, then what hope is there that these rights are respected and protected in even the most progressive nations, let alone all of them?
The UN established universal rights, but how many countries observe them all – the US certainly doesn’t.
But as you say, some rights were agreed in the [recent] past, but are imperiled today. I agree with that statement, which means that these rights are/were not accepted. Even the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights was a mess of compromises undermining the famous sentence of the Declaration of Independence “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”. Written perhaps with crossed fingers behind the back and muttering sotto voci: “as long as you don’t stray from the laws we make to bind you”.
Kelvin F Long said on October 9, 2024 at 12:13:
“LJK, Whether ETI has us in a zoo or not, assuming that as an agency towards improving our own conduct is a self-fulling prophesy. It makes us a better species and also gets us out there exploring the unknown, instead of fighting each other. A worthy expenditure of our energies. Look how much money we are spending on bombs.”
But what got us into space in the first place? Unfortunately, it was not so much altruistic science as it was war. First it was the V-2 rockets developed by Nazi Germany in World War 2. Then the superpowers which emerged from that conflict took that technology and its engineers and scientists to help them develop their own rocket programs as part of the Cold War.
The first rockets designed to loft satellites to explore space came from the powers’ military branches in their development of ICBMs, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, which carried nuclear warheads to replace the aircraft bombers which could take hours to reach their targets.
Many satellite projects were for examining Earth for enemy activities rather than science. Computer technologies received a huge boost in their development from their needs in Cold War activities.
I am not saying that war was a preferable way to make space exploration and modern technological foundations a reality. But we cannot ignore or pretend otherwise that these developments came about, and in an accelerated fashion, due to conflict and the threat of conflict. Without these factors, I doubt we would have the space programs we have today — and look at how certain areas of space progress stalled when the winds of war changed, and are only beginning to pick up again.
Corporations are now taking over space development and infrastructure from government and military agencies. Not completely, of course, but they are definitely starting to dominate the fields. Perhaps this is how we will achieve peace as corporations, which have certainly enjoyed many bounties supporting the military industrial complex, will find war in space to be detrimental to their profits. And oh yes, those who will live and work in the final frontier.
I know you see peace meaning that humanity can then pursue more interesting and worthwhile goals, plus presumably look good to any advanced ETI out there. I would like to think so too, but history has been showing otherwise and while some checks and balances are in place, there are still not enough keep disaster at bay.
It may actually be wiser to keep playing the delicate balancing act of being civilized while also getting ready for war, including the interstellar kind. While I have shown in an essay I linked to in a post above in this thread that advanced ETI could wipe us out without the need for fleets of battlecruisers and troops armed with laser rifles, I would be reluctant so early in the game to toss away all our weaponry in the name of peace on Earth.
“After all it’s not that awful. You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”
https://genius.com/Orson-welles-cuckoo-clock-speech-annotated
I don’t think Welles looked skeptically enough. The Renaissance and its painters arose in Italy following a ‘proto-Renaissance’ that began with the Pope hiring the Venetians (the “Amazon” of the day) to fight the Fourth Crusade. Said Venetians instead sacked Constantinople, looted vast amounts of artwork, and eventually Rome became the beneficiary of a “brain drain” as the Ottoman Empire (yes, the official enemy!) eventually swallowed up the remnants of the former capital of the Eastern Romans. Surely it is a nobler thing to carve a cuckoo clock than to steal an era of progress, but alas, to this very day we are far too gullible in regard to Crusades.
Quick play: an algorithmic analysis of the vocabulary of the letter of Dr Long is quite revealing: it shows a balanced speech, pacifist, or the words “world”, “nation” “people” are the most repeated. The word “life” is only used moderately but what is surprising is that it does not use once the word “alien” or a synonym or the word “contact”. The speech is therefore centered on ourselves – and this is indeed the subject of this interpellation to our leaders – but seems to totally obscure the reflection on ET Can be not overburden the text?
https://voyant-tools.org/?corpus=3698ed3e526475c9944367ddf0f666a1
PS : Dear Dr Long, I regret to tell you that our President in France does not care about all this; the only stars he looks at are those of the European flag !
Fred,
Very good. I had not seen this tool before.
Your analysis is broadly correct.
The controversial parts, are more subtle.
But, there are easter eggs, for those who go searching, carefully crafted for something of each of the five permanent members.
The letter took a lot of my emotional energy to write. It has received hardly any support sadly. But thank you for your attention here.
Dear Mr Long,
I wanted to thank you for your personalized response on CD; it is quite rare to be able to exchange directly with the author of a text. I hope you won’t blame me too much for being a little critical with you and E.T. I admit to remain skeptical about all these theories of “galactic zoo” ;)
However, I welcome your call for peace. Too few personalities in any of their fields, politicians, scientists, artists have remained silent in the face of this dangerous escalation of violence in recent years. Where are the 21st century John Lennon?
I think the most dangerous is not the nuclear weapon that will pulverize us anyway, but the fact that we have BANALIZED it while its power has increased tenfold. Thus, the deterrent principle has lost its power in the minds, which encourages escalation. We must read the testimonies of the survivors of Hiroshima and realize the horror that was, just with this “small” first weapon.
Another equally dangerous effect is to decrease the power of these weapons to make miniature versions and launch them on targets, it is “morally more respectable” but it does not diminish in any way the war and its suffering (I have a Ukrainian friend who has been in Poland for two years, her house where she had received me wonderfully was pulverized she left with a backpack and her children in the other arm. trauma is also violence)
In this sense I see no evolution of the human species that has obviously not retained anything from the second world world war yet so close in time! On the contrary, I think we are in regression. Too often we confuse technological progress with social or moral progress.
the life so precious so mysterious and may be unique in the universe does not weigh very heavy today, it may be precisely because the leaders do not raise their eyes to heaven – or that scientists are not sufficiently present in the political discourse as they were once when Einstein wrote to Roosevelt? The big blocks continue to defend their interests or try to take those opposite; but finally, nothing has evolved since the stone age Man continues to beat each other :( I find it sad, so imagine E.T watching us: what must he think of us ?!
As a French country, a producer and seller of arms, I am also concerned about one thing: I have not seen a single large demonstration of people demanding peace in my country in Europe or the world, these last three years (some in Germany, quickly suffocated). Warlike leaders – who have not known the horrors of war – and amorphous populations, I am not sure that this is the right way… What a dizzying “depoliticization” of the minds when we think back to the era of “flower power”!
I remain convinced that the cause lies in a Man’s blindness, ever greater towards technology, which has [almost] forgotten once again, “human value”. We know where it leads…
A word about France: my country has always had a diplomatic tradition and a role of mediator in conflicts. This is obviously no longer the case (it should be known that the President Macron has fired a large number of quality French diplomats who have not been replaced. (you can not be a Kissinger in fifteen days!) I am therefore a little surprised by your statement on France in so far as we have never heard of your letter to our President. There is thus either a desire to keep things quiet or the administrative routine that has given you a reply-type story to say that she did the “job” …here we have the habit ;)
The minds “serve” to conquer and to seek prosperity. Let’s be honest, if I have lived comfortably and peacefully since I was a child, it is because our kings have built empires and pillaged half the planet (I think of triangular trade) So the question is related to this notion of “growth” in all senses of the word, till where? Why and for what purpose? The winner of the game – a Russian roulette – is the one who will rule the planet…and then?
I think that if we reintroduce the time factor for reflection – reduced by technology that we end up not mastering and a consensual humanitarian goal, precisely in the benefit of humanity, we may be able to be put the sword and shield, but I’m afraid it’s not for tomorrow, you need maturity to do that.
Fred
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Counting-on-Beauty%3A-The-role-of-aesthetic%2C-ethical%2C-Lemarchand/3fc885c37010f933e0094838a15bfda3b5415f48
Corpus ID: 117804925
Counting on Beauty: The role of aesthetic, ethical, and physical universal principles for interstellar communication
G. Lemarchand
Published 28 July 2008
Philosophy, Physics
arXiv: Popular Physics
SETI researchers believe that the basic principles of our science and the science of extraterrestrial beings should be fundamentally the same, and we should be able to communicate with them by referring to those things we share, such as the principles of mathematics, physics, and chemistry (a similar cognitive map of nature).
This view assumes that there is only one way to conceptualize the laws of nature. Consequently, mathematics and the language of nature should be universal.
In this essay, we discuss the epistemological bases of the last assumptions. We describe all the hypotheses behind the universality of the laws of nature and the restrictions that any technology should have to establish contact with other galactic technological civilization. We introduce some discussions about the limitations of homocentric views. We discuss about the possible use of aesthetic cognitive universals as well as ethical ones in the design of interstellar messages.
We discuss the role of symmetry as a universal cognitive map. We give a specific example on how to use the Golden Section principles to design a hypothetical interstellar message based in physical and aesthetical cognitive universals.
We build a space of configuration matrix, representing all the variables to be taken into account for designing an electromagnetic interstellar message (e.g. frequency, polarization, bandwidth, transmitting power, modulation, rate of information, galactic coordinates, etc.) against the limitations imposed by physical, technological, aesthetical and ethical constraints.
We show how to use it, in order to make hypotheses about the characteristics and properties of hypothetical extraterrestrial artificial signals and their detection by existing SETI projects.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.4518
Hi Fred,
In regards the response from the Elysée, I simply got firstly an automated email and then later another email from the communications office to the effect of:
“It will be processed by our teams then passed on, as appropriate, to an adviser or close colleague of the President.”
Two days later President Macron broke ranks from the other NATO members and was calling for an arms embargo and peace negotiations. I am sure that was just a co-incidence however and in reality I had little influence if any.
I judge a person by the deeds they perform and the emissions they make. From an outsiders perspective, I see President Macron calling for peace and I can only applaud that. France is a great nation and a beacon of liberty in the world.
As for demonstrations, in my own country of Britain we have a new government that has just prosecuted and put in prison hundreds of people for merely expressing an opinion. Justice is on life support here and the Marxists have hold. We have a run of successive corrupt government administrations in both the Conservatives and Labour and the situation is not much better than in the United States where its entire congress seems to be beholden to industrial donors – the deliberate and orchestrated polarisation of the Western world for the purpose of fragmenting its authority. So I think people in Britain are afraid to protest because the police will come knocking on their door. There are some horrific stories of this happening. Scaring sweet old ladies because of a facebook post – shame on them.
Indeed, where are the leaders calling for peace. Where is the modern day Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King or John F Kennedy? I fear the only way things will get better is for the system to collapse under its own corruption, and from that a new spring of hope may come forth. For often it takes such a calamity for us to wake up and realise the errors of our ways.
But, I’m with the peacemakers. I’m with the ordinary people who just want to raise their families, work a good job and live a normal life. They didn’t ask for any of these conflicts so motivated by ideology. I’m with the people of Ukraine and Russia, the people of Israel and Palestine, Lebanon and Beirut…..and I’m not with any of their governments who so admire the fruits of war.
All reason and rationality has left the room. When we drop bombs it is because our intellects have failed, and only the coward destroys an apartment block filled with innocent citizens, woman and children. Not in my name. I denounce them all.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.3527
[Submitted on 17 Jun 2010]
Science for Peace in the Benefit of Humankind. The Hippocratic Oath for Scientists concept
Guillermo A. Lemarchand
This article shows the importance that has had the scientific research, the technological development and the innovation processes in increasing the lethality of the available weapons during the last century. A set of initiatives promoted by the scientific community to stop the nuclear arms race that threatened the continuation of life on the planet is described.
At this point, a thorough survey of the texts and proposals of Hippocratic Oaths for Scientists presented at different epochs is made. It is observed that the interest in linking ethical aspects with science and technology issues shows an exponential growth behavior since the Second World War.
It is shown how the several proposals of oaths and ethical commitments for scientists, engineers and technologists are disseminated following a logistic growth behavior, in the same manner as a disembodied technology in a particular niche.
The data analysis shows that there is a coincidence between the maximum rate of proposals and the historical moment at which the world had deployed the largest number of nuclear warheads (70,586) as well as the largest world military expenditures in history (USD 1,485,000,000,000).
Subsequently, the origin of the Hippocratic Oath for Scientists used for more than two decades in graduation ceremonies at the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos Aires is analyzed and linked with the historical circumstances of its birth.
Comments: in Spanish, 71 pages, 6 figures, 8 photos/facsimil, 4 tables, 1 annex with references and texts of 90 Hippocratic Oaths for Scientists, UNESCO Conference Proceedings
Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1006.3527 [physics.hist-ph]
(or arXiv:1006.3527v1 [physics.hist-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1006.3527
Focus to learn more
Journal reference: Estudios y Documentos de Politica cientifica en America Latina y el Caribe, volume 2, pp.39-110, 2010, Montevideo: UNESCO
Submission history
From: Guillermo Lemarchand [view email]
[v1] Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:21:44 UTC (3,663 KB)
https://www.academia.edu/13103472/Universal_Cognitive_Maps_and_the_Search_for_Intelligent_Life_in_the_Universe
Universal Cognitive Maps and the Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe
Guillermo A . Lemarchand and Jon Lomberg
For almost 50 years the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) research program was pursued under the hypothesis of the universality of the physical laws in the cosmos. The authors call attention to some epistemological issues that make it necessary to seek other aesthetic, spiritual and ethical “cognitive universals.”
They propose the participation of a broader community of scholars from natural, social, artistic and humanistic disciplines to explore all the possible “universal cognitive maps” that eventually might favor the detection of extraterrestrial intelligent life.
Long’s analysis of the Zoo Hypothesis seems to prove that it is not possible by reducing it to absurdity; the ‘shell’ around the Solar System at 100 AU would need to mass at least 3 times as much as the Sun. It would be ripped apart by comets.
I am fairly sure that there are no alien craft in our skies, or if they are there, we have never seen them. All the sightings described so far by terrestrial observers seem to have been misidentifications or hoaxes. I refer you to Metabunk.
If we ever create spacecraft powerful enough to take us to the stars, they will effectively be kinetic weapons of vast power – the Kzinti Lesson. Conversely, any ship coming here would be capable of wrecking our civilisation just by failing to decelerate. Nuclear weapons are puny compared to momentum. There is no way to make ourselves non-threatening, and no way to explore the universe without the potential for vast destruction.
In the above essay, Kelvin Long wrote the following:
“In the 1951 science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still, the alien visitor Klaatu gives a speech to the world. He refers to the creation of a galactic police force of robots that have absolute power over hostile life-forms, but where the conditions are created where civilizations can exist free from aggression and war, free to pursue more profitable enterprises. Klaatu states “It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned out cinder” [56]. How would we change if we were really faced with such an ultimatum from outside?”
I wrote an essay on original film version of The Day the Earth Stood Still in this blog, which you may read here:
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2022/09/21/the-decision-rests-with-you-the-day-the-earth-stood-still-seven-decades-later/
I did a thorough analysis of Klaatu’s interstellar society and how they handle themselves and other cultures, especially emerging ones like humanity.
I came to the conclusion that the civilization promoted and frankly pushed upon us may be stable and peaceful, but at a high price.
I quote the following from Klaatu as he gives his farewell speech before an international collection of scientists about their system of a police force of powerful robots:
“Their function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one… and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression… we have given them absolute power over us. This power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action… is too terrible to risk.”
Note that Klaatu’s race had their own aggressive period ages ago, one that led to atomic wars which took them a long while to recover. They decided that the only way to keep such a holocaust from happening again, since they could not trust themselves, was to build and activate an army of machines that decide for themselves what is a threat to the larger society and respond by destroying the aggressor’s entire world.
It is not explained what they consider to be a threat to the enforced peace system they have set up. Do these robots know how to distinguish between, say, an accidental explosion of a non-hostile spaceship and a missile with a nuclear warhead atop it? Can such a controlled society truly be able to progress with such hair-trigger watch dogs?
As for humanity, as we saw with the covid-19 pandemic, a global threat does not necessarily unite our species. There were many who ignored the danger and even considered it a hoax, no matter that people were dying around them from the virus.
Do you think an alien coming to Earth with a shiny spaceship and a big mute robot with a laser weapon would cause humanity to stop fighting and work together? If we can’t control ourselves by ourselves, an outside force demanding the same will probably learn quickly that we either cannot be tamed or that “peace” will come at the loss of what makes us human, both good and bad.
To add, Klaatu also said this in his speech. Note especially the very first sentence:
“It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence… this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder.
“Your choice is simple. Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you.”
I would think if Klaatu and his people really cared about humanity’s welfare, then they would also take steps to have us move towards peace on Earth as an important first phase. Instead, it sounds like they just don’t want us in their club unless we basically become a different type of species. If we take ourselves out before they have to act, then that seems to be saving them some bother and maybe paperwork.
Maybe the only way we can be kept from destroying ourselves is through enforcement. In that case, it doesn’t speak very well for our kind and level of intelligence. Maybe we shouldn’t be given the keys to the Galactic Country Club. And if we do “behave” well enough, have we lost our uniqueness in the process?
For an alternate perspective, let us hope that this episode of The Twilight Zone from 1986 remains science fiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Small_Talent_for_War
LJK, its quite clear that Klaatu is more interested in the planet Earth, rather than us as a species that inhabits it.
By the way, the original is my favourite science fiction film. I own some of the original photos from the movie set.
I guess we may be faced with a similar option too with artificial intelligence. Would a Chat GPT 100 turn around to us and argue for why we should hand all of our power over to it in our best interests? Some may argue for that going forward. To my mind, that just avoids what is required in our evolution as a species, which is that it is our nature that must change, and it is not to be hidden behind protection of an artificial god and we fundamentally remain the same.
Whether Klaatu’s civilization with police robots to exact a terrible price for violence, or the Colossus AI in “Colossus: The Forbin Project” controlling humanity, or even theist religions with an omnipresent and omnipotent deity controlling individual behavior like a maximalist surveillance state exceeding even that in “1984”, humans seem to want to remove the task of making group decisions by consensus and return to the absolute ruler model, whatever the title. This may be a result of our primate hierarchical social structure embedded in our genomes, but this model seems to break out even within established democracies. While writing this comment I recalled that my English history often classified monarchs by whether they were “strong” or “weak” and that “strong monarchs” were [assumed to be?] desirable, even if the country’s wealth and manpower were spent fighting other countries’ armies.
>”humans seem to want to eliminate the task of making group decisions by consensus”
Absolutely, I do! There is a shift in the decision-making power of man to the machine – look at the number of people who question their iPhones about anything all day long – The fascination with screens leads to individualization that allows less and less group DIRECT decision. Human relationships are thus de facto modified.
More worrisome is the same delegation of power to algorithms visibly for those who have the opportunity to press the button of globalized destruction. I don’t want to revive the old debate but are we sure that we still have the mastery of powerful algorithms that manage our technologies when we know that they are now machines that manage billions of data?
The transfer of personality which carcaterizes the individual to machines has been cited by many sociologists.
@Fred
I am less concerned about the shift of decision-making to machines than I am about the vagaries of human decision-makers.
Automation to ease the burden of tasks is fine, as long as it is under the control of teh user. Software that is not under one’s control, is a problem, because it is no longer under consent, e.g. surveillance systems.
Automation of destructive devices is similarly good or bad when user control is present or absent. Killer drones under control is one thing, autonomous drones, battlefield robots, etc, are a serious danger.
Some things must be autonomous for low latency of response. But again, there must be human control to prevent unforeseen “accidents”. The 1964 movie, Fail Safe illustrated what can happen when control of nuclear bombers is lost due to system design to prevent enemy “hacking” of pilot instructions. We also know that the Russians averted a nuclear war when a false alarm triggered an incoming missile attack and it took the human in the loop to prevent releasing their nukes towards the US. 983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident. I doubt there is any system that we have that does not have a person in teh loop. The issue of autonomous battlefield robots remains a hot issue, as do the primitive land mines that still injure people every year and where humans could end this, but for political reasons, do not.
But humans are not good decision-makers. For example, President Kennedy found that his cabinet was too homogenous in supporting the president with a lack of dissenting voices. Dictators eschew dissent, as we have seen with Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, and many others who have led their nations very badly. Algorithms that could provide more neutral feedback might well be a stabilizing influence to at least reduce poor decisions and avoid sycophantic agreement. Wealthy oligarchs could do with such software systems to prevent themselves from making stupid decisions.
This leads us back to Klaatu’s civilization and the use of uncontrollable robot “police”. Until AIs started becoming more accessible, we had a touching belief in perfect machine decisions. We now know that this is unlikely, and in addition, bias can often be baked into the rules/architecture.. Therefore our response should be to have Gort as a decision-support robot and not an autonomous one.
The bottom line is that we should always have checks and balances, especially when actions can have existential consequences.
It is a pity we don’t seem to have such a good system to deal with the rapidly escalating effects of climate heating.
Totally agree with you Alex and I was thinking precisely to “Fail safe” or the sequence of bombers is already scary with rather rudimentary technology of the time, compared to today. That’s why I asked the question of algorithms. I also knew the history of Russian that prevented the launch of missiles in 1982
The anecdotal of N. Armstrong who switches on the engine of the LEM with his pen because the switch was broken always made me meditate: although thousands of lines of checklist were planned and repeated for the mission and that the on-board computer was rudimentary, it is the HUMAN capacity to adapt in a specific environment that has allowed the continuation of the mission.
Moreover, the choice to send humans to the moon while robotic missions were in the works was partly based on human decision-making capacity in case of problems which was apparently considered superior to the machine.
The relationship between man and machine today, made up of microchips, has fundamentally changed: if the “for or against” debate is open, we have much more confidence in these technologies than half a century ago.
Would it be interesting to know why?
A look at the fellow who may have prevented WW3:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
Ironic that the film WarGames was released into theaters in 1983 and just one year later, we had the films Threads and Red Dawn. Just a few months after the Stanislav Petrov incident, we had this television film premiere…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After
I was unimpressed by that movie. It rationed its explanations tightly, but at the end this is what they give us:
“For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one, and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression we have given them absolute power over us. This power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is, we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war, free to pursue more profitable enterprises… It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder.”
Let’s try applying this to a real-world situation. If Hezbollah launches one missile from Lebanon, Gort is going to exterminate the entire country. Therefore, the Lebanese live without missiles or armies? If the Tin God really stays out of internal affairs, what will prevent their demographic groups from having internal conflicts? If they later have an internal conflict where one group is defeated, what is to prevent one angry member of that group from launching an attack simply so that the other will be destroyed?
The way I could retcon the premise is that “the way you run your own planet” is very narrowly interpreted. Whether the lines on the road are white or yellow, perhaps. But, perhaps ostensibly as a matter of self-preservation, the nominal rulers of the planets have begged the Tin Gods to patrol every nook most thoroughly, to ensure no terrorist is scheming in the dead of night lest they all be destroyed together. And I imagine these robots would run their own inquisitions most ruthlessly to make sure no one is discovering technologies to overthrow them or defend against them.
Thus my interpretation of the film was largely consistent with Jack Williamson’s 1947 story “With Folded Hands”. Like the protagonist in that story, Klaatu, as an ambassador, perhaps has some limited immunity dating to the original program of the robots. I picture that he might be timidly hinting, pleading, hoping, for the people of Earth to be able resist while they are also outside formal control, trying to drink in the freedom of an unsurveilled world. Perhaps Earth might on its own invent the power to fight back, to fold space and flee far away, or (if the Tin Gods down strike them down for the attempt) summon by radio some distant Lovecraftian power that would change the situation entirely. But in the end, realizing that Gort would already ravage the Earth over one small act, he surrenders his immunity and becomes, perhaps, the undead or mind-controlled mouthpiece of higher authority.
WHAT?!!! https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/ufo-announcement-aliens-extraterrestrials-nasa-33865539
Given the source is the UK’s “Daily Mirror”. Other stories by MichaeL Moran might be a hint at to its veracity. The Irish Star link just adds more tantalizing details out of whole cloth.
One would naturally ask why the good professor would be giving this exclusive information to this tabloid newspaper, rather than to a more trustworthy one, and for what purpose.
But a quick bit of research suggests that the Simon Holland is another fantacist, rather like Hancock. Holland’s Youtube channel. Imdb has a mini bio. Is it even true?.
But mark your calendar in November and see what transpires… My guess someone is going to be rather disappointed.
I think he has done a lot more then you have to educate the public…
“Simon edits for BBC, Nat Geo, Discovery, Smithsonian TV, Ch4 and Ch5. Produced films for University of Hawaii NASA funded program, finding earth killer asteroids. French recorded history project. Private pilot and keen gardener. He lives with his partner Dorothy Faison in a water mill in SW France. Come and Edit in paradise.”
– IMDb Mini Biography By: Simon Holland
Living in a water mill in southwestern France. Paradisaical indeed! One of my favorite parts of the world.
Unfortunately this beautiful region with good wine, tends to become uniform on a general model. The centralization policies in cities bring problems of violence now in all the cities of France, yet yesterday still known for being peaceful and pleasant (Le Rochelle, Périgueux, Bordeau etc)
By the opposite effect, the countryside is emptying to become real deserts both small businesses and people. Our wealth specificity by territory is disappearing; we feel powerless in the face of commercial zones. As for the mills, they must not remain much more than in ruins, only someone is maintained in state because they have a cultural value.
In fact, the attack of the evil aliens comes from within :)
https://www.alpillesenprovence.com/en/fiches/the-mill-trail-of-alphonse-daudet/
I hate to hear this, Fred. My memories of travels there are delightful, but that was many years ago.
Choose your nuclear weapon; your target and press the button to see the damage, it’s here…
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/missilemap/
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
…the reality is much less true:
https://nuclearfamine.org/
Question: 9500 nuclear weapons currently on the planet, if we take an average power of 50Mt per missile we have 475 000Mt
What could we do with this sum of energy in terms of space exploration or benefit for humanity?
How the search alone may help humanity…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=V11bw1_ipKUpvwoM&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0-vAe86JgEWCBBKgxljl88aw_0u1Te_uWjos80aA21C6AeDkJ32AhlXvg_aem_a0_VCFZWaJN9OFLtLohEuA&v=_eK4-5Kn3ps&feature=youtu.be
Acta Astronautica
Volume 226, Part 1, January 2025, Pages 42-49
Phenomenal consciousness is alien to us: SETI and the fermi paradox seen through the prism of illusionism and attention schema theory
Author
Guillaume Friconnet
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576524005976
Abstract
Illusionism is an eliminativist position about qualia stating that phenomenal consciousness is nothing more than an introspective illusion.
The attention schema theory (AST) relates this philosophical stance to a large body of experimental data and states that phenomenal consciousness arises from an internal model of attention control. In this paper, I intend to show that AST and illusionism have significant implications both in the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence and in the explanation of Fermi paradox.
Firstly, on the basis of findings concerning the evolutionary history of phenomenal consciousness on Earth,
I argue that extraterrestrial biological life is likely to experience phenomenality. In the second part, I set AST in the context of a post-biological universe, where artificial intelligence (AI) is the dominant form of intelligence.
I argue that phenomenal consciousness is probably present in these entities, and that they could even be super-conscious.
Finally, I show that because phenomenality grounds value, illusionism has profound revisionary consequences in the field of ethics. This reconsideration of the justifiability of our values paves the way to AI misalignment and may be the source of neocatastrophic scenarios that explain to Fermi paradox.
I would point out that the Prime Directive, which had to acquire that name, was broken via a loophole in the very first episode that appeared.