Astronomers: Please stop shouting out to the universe.

[WalrusLike]

I placed this thread here since it is astronomers I want to reach. Some of you are taking a risk that you do not have the right to take. Some astronomers through ignorance or hubris are deciding for the whole planet that its ok to shout out to the universe at large that we are here on earth.

Repeatedly, messages of various kinds, anything from words of friendship through to Beatles music have been sent to targets nearby in the hope of contacting ET. This MIGHT be a very, very bad idea.

I realise that even those who sent them didn't really think that they would contact anyone out there. I realise that the chances of communication (even if only one-way) are very slim. Further, that there is some reason to hope that if there _are_ ETs, they are not hostile... maybe even friendly.

But there is no certainty that ETs have the best of intentions. Do you have the right to bet Earth's future on it?

Please let me lay out what I am _not_ saying....

I am not saying that it is likely that there is life elsewhere.
I am not saying that it is likely that life elsewhere is intelligent.
I am not saying that it would be bad for our psyche to meet smarter beings.
I am not saying that they would want our women, our land, our water, or to anal probe us.
I am not saying that conflict with the OTHER is inevitable.
I am not saying that it is likely, in a universe as vast and as empty as ours, that we are ever to find that we are not alone.

Ok... so what AM I saying?

Firstly: If there are intelligent species out there (and anyone reasonable must admit the possibility at least exists) then we have no idea at all what they might be like in terms of behaviour, drives, morals(?), or capabilities.

Secondly: That no person, or group of people, has the right to speak for all of earth on this topic.

Thirdly: That in an alien environment the best strategy is caution.

What would I like? I would like us, as a species, to lay low till we know. I would like comms to deep space probes etc to be as narrow beam as possible. I would like to see a massive increase in the SETI program. I would like high intensity military radars to be banned... (that aint gonna happen )

We are either alone in a vast universe or we are not. If we are not alone then we might never know it anyway. But if it turns out that our galaxy has space faring species already.... then it is foolish in the extreme to think that a limited understanding of game theory and some anthropomorphic generalisations about 'advanced' behaviours will be enough to predict an aliens species (or individuals) behaviour.

I am aware of the Fermi paradox, I know that statistically it is unlikely that even if intelligence arises 'locally' it is not likely to be co-existent because of the enormous time periods involved. I know that many folk think its inevitable that a space faring species would be highly intelligent (or at least technologically advanced) and therefore benign. I disagree with that premise... but it doesn't matter.

We don't know... we should go slow. Maybe the reason that we don't hear others singing out is that _they_ are smart enough not to draw the wolves. I don't know.

But I do know that once a message is noticed it is too late... whoever sent it just took the fate of the whole planet into their hands. No one has that right.

[loglo]

Repeatedly, messages of various kinds, anything from words of friendship through to Beatles music have been sent to targets nearby in the hope of contacting ET.

Hi, Could you provide some references please. I am only aware of the recent attempt with the Beatles song and one other attempt during the the 60's I think.

It will take 100 000+ years to alert the whole galaxy to alert the whole galaxy to our presence with this one signal. Why do you think this is too fast?

[Ross PK81]

I totally agree WL. It's stupid to tell aliens where we are, they'll also get an idea of our intelligence and what we're capable off too.

Some aliens, surely, will be hostile, and if they know they could easily dominate us or finish us off, they could pay us a visit, for whatever intention they have.

I think it's highly irresponsible of astronomers and Nasa to send information of exactly where we are and to give hints of our intelligence (records and whatever) into space.

[formulaterp]

Or, we could employ reverse psychology. Invite them, nay .... challenge them. Any advanced alien species would employ game theory and avoid us lest they get their butts handed to them.

[Michael Noonan]

I placed this thread here since it is astronomers I want to reach. Some of you are taking a risk that you do not have the right to take. Some astronomers through ignorance or hubris are deciding for the whole planet that its ok to shout out to the universe at large that we are here on earth.
(snip)

Could I still make phone calls please? Quite likely if intelligent life did exist then they would only come here if they thought intelligent life was resident here. I could reference the Monty Python song ... but it is something they could already have.

Second if they came it might be because we are potentially a threat ... well we are (to ourselves at least).

Thirdly they may come anyway.

Forth they may want to help (more the fools them).

Fifth it may never happen.

Based on various estimates on colony establishment using a base of 500 years to a less organised 5000 years the galaxy should be teeming with life in the 5 million year to 50 million year bracket. If anything, we do seem to be a bit late arriving on the scene. Then if they come from outside the galaxy the potential for a being that advanced to study us might be quite an experience.

Who is to say what is going to happen and if good will come out of it. It may be the last great hope we have. How far beyond shoot it first and ask questions later do you think we have come.

Last option we might create our own replacement, deliberately or accidentally and so if our time is up it is up. Until it isn't then enjoy it, cheers

[spacestart.eu]

If the "targets" to which the shouts are aimed are intelligent and on a technology level that they can reach us. Then the shouts won't be neccesary they probably know that we exsist already

[Dave Mitsky]

I placed this thread here since it is astronomers I want to reach. Some of you are taking a risk that you do not have the right to take. Some astronomers through ignorance or hubris are deciding for the whole planet that its ok to shout out to the universe at large that we are here on earth.

Repeatedly, messages of various kinds, anything from words of friendship through to Beatles music have been sent to targets nearby in the hope of contacting ET. This MIGHT be a very, very bad idea.

I believe that you should do some homework and get the facts straight on this matter before upsetting yourself further.

Dave Mitsky

[Frog march]

Maybe, somewhere in the Galaxy, there are HumanFarms, where humans are packed into huge buildings and farmed like turkeys, by the billion.
"McFudles: the restaurant for happy, inferior intelligent, meat, from a thousand worlds. We're luvin' it."



They came, thousands of years ago and took all they wanted.......so I shouldn't worry OP.

[Fadingstar]

Have we not been propagating space since the birth of the radio and television? I'm not sure on the power outage required to go really deep, so perhaps these signals break down before they get so far. Any answers to that one?

[MeteorWayne]

Have we not been propagating space since the birth of the radio and television? I'm not sure on the power outage required to go really deep, so perhaps these signals break down before they get so far. Any answers to that one?

IIRC, the TV and radio signals we omnidirectionally broadcast into space fall below the noise level before they can even reach Proxima Centauri.

[Ara Pacis]

Some of you are taking a risk that you do not have the right to take.

I believe that you should do some homework and get the facts straight on this matter before upsetting yourself further.

I'm curious about this exchange. Can you elaborate, Dave Mitsky?

[Anthrage]

An interesting post, but it is no more realistic or less naive than those you are taking to task. While it is true the shouts you are referring to are more readily detectible than the ever-present whisper our technological society emits, it is very likely the latter alone would betray our presence to anyone or anything able to detect the shouts and that we should be concerned about.

There is also the fact that radio emissions are not the only artifact of our existence which betrays our presence. Even our own society with it's mediocre level of technological sophistication has the ability to detect the signs of a civilization like our own at great distance. Unless we were to have universally adopted a xenophibic, or extremely cautious, mindset on this matter far earlier in our history and taken the necessary and elaborate precautions...the genie is pretty much out of the bottle.

Then there is the reality that we as a species lack a world government, nor if we did have one, the type of psychology which would prevent an individual from taking action which did not respect the interests of the whole. It is simply not possible except through direct physical effort to ensure the silence you are lamenting does not exist. The impulse and even instinct behind these communication attempts is as unavoidable as the fear which motivates your post. Both are equally valid, and equally human.

I can certainly understand and appreciate what you are saying, but I'm afraid it can only fall on deaf ears. Your best hope may be that our shouts to the cosmos do as well.

[KaiYeves]

Hi, Could you provide some references please. I am only aware of the recent attempt with the Beatles song and one other attempt during the the 60's I think.

70's. The Arecibo Message. Which I would get as a tattoo if I had more nerve.

[crosscountry]

bring 'em on! We're ready!

[fotobits]

WalrusLike, you're worrying over nothing. Our galaxy is unimaginable large. Light takes decades to travel to the nearest stars. Lifting materials and people into space takes tremendous amounts of energy. Moving beyond our solar system to other stellar systems would take several magnitudes more energy. So much that we'll never see a positive energy return on energy spent.

Even a highly advanced civilization is not likely to venture outside its own solar system, other than to send a few probes as we have done. Colonizing or invading other solar systems makes no economic sense. The distances are far too vast and the energy investment too large.

[Fadingstar]

IIRC, the TV and radio signals we omnidirectionally broadcast into space fall below the noise level before they can even reach Proxima Centauri.

I do hope so! The thought of ET receiving deliberately sent messages is one thing, but the thought of them receiving some of the garbage churned out on TV is something else!

[crosscountry]

WalrusLike, you're worrying over nothing. Our galaxy is unimaginable large. Light takes decades to travel to the nearest stars. Lifting materials and people into space takes tremendous amounts of energy. Moving beyond our solar system to other stellar systems would take several magnitudes more energy. So much that we'll never see a positive energy return on energy spent.

Even a highly advanced civilization is not likely to venture outside its own solar system, other than to send a few probes as we have done. Colonizing or invading other solar systems makes no economic sense. The distances are far too vast and the energy investment too large.

yea, but if movie directors knew that our entertainment industry would go flat.

[01101001]

Some of you are taking a risk that you do not have the right to take.

Under what theory would broadcasting a message into space in an earnest attempt to communicate, not be an exercise of the human right of free speech?

Must one have permission from WalrusLike beforehand? Since when?

METI/Active SETI happens -- notwithstanding your personal definition of others' rights.

[crosscountry]

Not only that, we're sending television signals constantly over antennae around the world. Oh well.

[WalrusLike]

Does anyone have anything to say about the three points I made?

I personally do not think that they can be successfully argued against.... and that the logical conclusion is that we should not be deliberately broadcasting our whereabouts.

So far I don't think anyone has spoken to those points.... but perhaps I missed it....

[hhEb09'1]

Under what theory would broadcasting a message into space in an earnest attempt to communicate, not be an exercise of the human right of free speech?

I'm pretty sure he means, like in a game of hide and seek, when you find yourself in the same hole as someone else, it's impolite to shout out your position, as it'd clearly compromise the other's position. It's not a human rights thing.

Some people think no one has the right to build large bombs either.

Me? I'm going to be scared when it's time.

[Ara Pacis]

Under what theory would broadcasting a message into space in an earnest attempt to communicate, not be an exercise of the human right of free speech?

Treason? Yelling fire in a crowded theatre? The theory that government organizations, such as the FCC, claim authority to regulate the airwaves.

[crosscountry]

Does anyone have anything to say about the three points I made?

I personally do not think that they can be successfully argued against.... and that the logical conclusion is that we should not be deliberately broadcasting our whereabouts.

So far I don't think anyone has spoken to those points.... but perhaps I missed it....

can you sum them up?




I think you should have bigger fears than space aliens coming to suck your brains through a straw. There are many, far worse things already on this world.

[Anthrage]

Does anyone have anything to say about the three points I made?

Firstly: If there are intelligent species out there (and anyone reasonable must admit the possibility at least exists) then we have no idea at all what they might be like in terms of behaviour, drives, morals(?), or capabilities.

Secondly: That no person, or group of people, has the right to speak for all of earth on this topic.

Thirdly: That in an alien environment the best strategy is caution.

I believe I did, but perhaps you indeed missed it.


Starting from your third point, unless the conscious decision was made long ago to make ourselves undetectable, it is far too late now. Caution is still wise, but that is rendered moot by the reality of the context of your second point.

That being, while no person or group of people has a right to speak for all of earth on this topic, the psychologiy of humans is such that they will and often do exactly that - on many topics. It is not something you can prevent, given the nature of human beings.

This brings us to the first point. Using the nature of human beings as our example, as it is the only observed example we currently have, it is certainly clear that an intelligence need not be benevolent or benign, it could be belligerent. However, as you say we have no idea what any intelligence beyond our own may be like...and this includes the possibility it will not be hostile. A clear case cannot be made for either of the three options.

Ultimately, while your 3 points are correct, they do not speak to the reality of the situation. In some regards it is far too late for caution, and where caution could be at ths point employed, control does not exist - nor can it exist - over all huamn beings. Absolute silence is not possible - nor in light of our situation, necessarily warranted.

Human beings could just as easily benefit from contact with an intelligence advanced enough to act on detection of our existence as be harmed by it. Given the worst and best case scenarios involved, the reward seems to be worth the risk. Since silence is not possible, this is more a question of whether other civilizations out there are more likely to be hostile than not.

Do you feel this would be the case, that they would be hostile?

[Michael Noonan]

Does anyone have anything to say about the three points I made?

I personally do not think that they can be successfully argued against.... and that the logical conclusion is that we should not be deliberately broadcasting our whereabouts.

So far I don't think anyone has spoken to those points.... but perhaps I missed it....

Let's have a look at those three points:-

Firstly: If there are intelligent species out there (and anyone reasonable must admit the possibility at least exists) then we have no idea at all what they might be like in terms of behaviour, drives, morals(?), or capabilities.

Secondly: That no person, or group of people, has the right to speak for all of earth on this topic.

Thirdly: That in an alien environment the best strategy is caution.

First point is a reasonable speculation and no we do not know if an intelligence is out there nor their motives. If hypothetically it was the case then the extreme distances of space make it unlikely that we would ever meet. Now if a species was to overcome all the barriers to advancement to the high point of interstellar travel that would mean understanding conflict resolution within its own species first. That would be an enormous achievement.

Second is a given and equally the idea of censorship is a sensitive issue. Someday but not now there may be an answer.

Good advice on point three and yet discovery requires courage. When living within the closed confines of any environment a certain amount of fear for anything new can develop. That may lead to drastic measures and closed narrow line of thought and repression ... "fear leads to the dark side".

At some point a child leaves home and takes on the challenges of life. If that didn't happen then we would already be extinct. There are risks and in time they will be faced. But to not step out and explore is to hide within the sanctuaries of life and maybe still be at a loss for not seeing there could be a better way ahead.

The distances our signals will travel may be insignificant to the noise of the universe and who knows if we were too quiet we might even hear more than we need to.

[01101001]

Treason? Yelling fire in a crowded theatre? The theory that government organizations, such as the FCC, claim authority to regulate the airwaves.

Those are not the case I described: communcating a message to possible listeners in space. Read, please.

[Ara Pacis]

Those are not the case I described: communcating a message to possible listeners in space. Read, please.

You asked for theories on human rights. That's what I gave you. Re-read, please.

[WalrusLike]

I believe I did, but perhaps you indeed missed it.

Sorry... it was lost in the noise...

it is far too late now.

I can see your point but I don't believe it is. There is a world of difference between our societies general noise level in the radio spectrum and the targeted, high power signals sent deliberately. The first will be attenuated and may be difficult to detect.... while the second is designed to be as loud and as clear as possible.

Caution is still wise, but that is rendered moot by the reality of the context of your second point.

So... because of the large signal strength and direction difference, I don't think the point is moot.

while no person or group of people has a right to speak for all of earth on this topic,

I agree.

the psychology of humans is such that they will and often do exactly that -

True enough. But in these increasingly enlightened times, organisations and funding bodies recognise that they have a duty of care to their fellow humans. Perhaps if it were bought to their attention that their funding is being used to conduct a bold experiment on behalf of all humans.... and that many of us may be very unhappy with being taken along for the ride to a possible future conflict, they may reconsider whether their science dollar is being well spent. Certainly (and I am _not_ advocating this...) I can imagine a scenario where public hysteria shuts down the funding if the story were beaten up enough.

Ultimately, while your 3 points are correct, they do not speak to the reality of the situation. In some regards it is far too late for caution, and where caution could be at this point employed, control does not exist - nor can it exist - over all human beings.

But it can be _largely_ controlled if we educate the public and the funding bodies and eliminate public funding for this uncontrolled experiment. Perhaps even legislate that it is unacceptable to shout out from the foxhole as was suggested above. Ok... I know none of this is likely to happen... but I feel I would be remiss if I didn't at least try.

Human beings could just as easily benefit from contact

I couldn't agree more.... I personally hope that the Encyclopedia Galactica is being broadcast from some local system and that we can read it... come up to speed, and meet our friendly neighbours. Or even if we can just listen in to the broadcasts of some other species for a while... and see what we learn. (perhaps it will be their last broadcast... telling of the coming of the wolves. )

the reward seems to be worth the risk.

Yes perhaps it is... but also perhaps not... and if we can have the best of both worlds by being a tad cautious until we know more, then even better.

Since silence is not possible

Perhaps not... but avoiding shouting certainly is.

Do you feel this would be the case, that they would be hostile?

I don't know. I can see arguments for and against. One argument for hostility is that natural selection does seem to favour the creation of top predators. And I suspect that on the galactic scale... it isn't us. But I would like to place an each way bet.... I really don't know... I hope for the best... but I advocate caution.

Thanks for your considered arguments... I hope I have persuaded you at least slightly.

[WalrusLike]

Let's have a look at those three points:-

Thanks Michael. I disagree with your points but I see that it is a not unreasonable point of view that you have... I just hope to change it...

If hypothetically it was the case then the extreme distances of space make it unlikely that we would ever meet.

This seems true to us in general.... I know that any time I argue against it, the gut reaction is that I must be wrong.... But given enough time... (and there has been billions of years....) a species might get to the point where a few hundred years coasting at relativistic velocities is no big deal. Or maybe they travel slow but live long... or hibernate regularly anyway... so why not drop in on the neighbours... In any case I agree it is not likely.... but given the enormous potential risk (and enormous potential gains) lets take simple mitigating strategies seriously.

Now if a species was to overcome all the barriers to advancement to the high point of interstellar travel that would mean understanding conflict resolution within its own species first.

Um... not necessarily so, I think. Again given the time spans and the number of life experiments possibly running out there it is possible that ETs are solitary and grumpy... or that they have no internal disagreements because they are a hive or any number of other possibilities.

Good advice on point three and yet discovery requires courage.

I agree.... but caution also. It is no good boldly walking off into the antartic and discovering all sorts of things if you don't survive the experience.

"fear leads to the dark side".

I seem to be repeatedly accused of being fearful.... not so at all. I cant wait to find out what is out there.... I just want to be smart about it.

But to not step out and explore is to hide within the sanctuaries of life and maybe still be at a loss for not seeing there could be a better way ahead.

I am in total agreement... lets explore the cosmos... but while we are building our capabilities (and lets face it we may not even make it out of the cradle the way we are going.... ) Lets keep quite until we know what kind of neighbours we have.

[Anthrage]

I can see your point but I don't believe it is. There is a world of difference between our societies general noise level in the radio spectrum and the targeted, high power signals sent deliberately. The first will be attenuated and may be difficult to detect.... while the second is designed to be as loud and as clear as possible.


So... because of the large signal strength and direction difference, I don't think the point is moot.

This is certainly true as regards radio emissions, but we betray ourselves in many other ways as well. Many of these are beyond our control, and most are not easily controllable at all. Without getting into the litany of examples, looking at the methods used to detect potentialy habitable and inhabited worlds elsewhere. The composition of our atmosphere for example gives us away.

True enough. But in these increasingly enlightened times, organisations and funding bodies recognise that they have a duty of care to their fellow humans. Perhaps if it were bought to their attention that their funding is being used to conduct a bold experiment on behalf of all humans.... and that many of us may be very unhappy with being taken along for the ride to a possible future conflict, they may reconsider whether their science dollar is being well spent. Certainly (and I am _not_ advocating this...) I can imagine a scenario where public hysteria shuts down the funding if the story were beaten up enough.

&

But it can be _largely_ controlled if we educate the public and the funding bodies and eliminate public funding for this uncontrolled experiment. Perhaps even legislate that it is unacceptable to shout out from the foxhole as was suggested above. Ok... I know none of this is likely to happen... but I feel I would be remiss if I didn't at least try.

I have no doubt that a public outcry could shut down programs funded by public money. I also have no doubt that private projects can and will exist and that these would be uneffected. The desire for 'contact' is very very strong, for some people.

I don't know. I can see arguments for and against. One argument for hostility is that natural selection does seem to favour the creation of top predators. And I suspect that on the galactic scale... it isn't us. But I would like to place an each way bet.... I really don't know... I hope for the best... but I advocate caution.

Thanks for your considered arguments... I hope I have persuaded you at least slightly.

I have considered these issues before, as I'm sure many of us have. Perhaps due to my particular view on humanity and it's failings, I feel things can't possibly get much worse, so the risk is favorable in my eyes. I am also not too concerned about the chance that any intelligence that bothers to seek us out would be hostile. There are some rather good arguements that could be made against such a thing.

One thing I can agree on, we definitely need to begin thinking as a species. As a single group with a common destiny, and recognize that it will become increasingly necessary for some decisions to be made in that context, and by a group that can make them.

Who knows if that will ever happen however.