Should We Send Messages To Space?

pic07_jpg_18672.jpg Image Credit / Natural History Mag

Should we purposefully transmit messages to space? That is the question posed by a team of earth and space scientists in the February 2013 edition of Space Policy.

The question has been raised because various independent groups have been sending purposefully directed high-intensity messages intended for extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI), or METI’s.

The authors of this study made two conclusions regarding METI:

1) The benefits of radio communication on Earth today outweigh any benefits or harms that could arise from contact with ETI

2) Current METI efforts are weak, mostly symbolic, and harmless

But are the answers to independent groups sending messages into the cosmos really that simple? I mean I think it is fairly obvious that we should continue improving our communication abilities. We have no evidence to support the idea that there are intelligent civilizations in our galactic neighbourhood, much less evidence to support the idea that there is an ETI civilization that poses danger to our existence. However, expanding Earth’s radiosphere and directly sending messages into the cosmos are two very different things. For example, SETI astronomer Seth Shostak has claimed that, due to decreasing signal strength our radiosphere is not detectable beyond five light years. In contrast, purposefully directed, high-intensity messages significantly increase Earth’s detectability beyond the radiosphere.

Essentially, this is the reason SETI pioneer Philip Morrison believed that we, “the newest children” in the cosmos, should be passive and just listen for a long time. We should not ‘shout at the cosmos’. We should not explicitly make our presence known before we know the types of intelligence that may exist.

This is a very complex issue. What should we do moving forward? Should we be engaged in an active search for ETI? Or should we be passive?

For me personally, I mostly agree with astrophysicist and science fiction author David Brin. He supports the International Academy of Astronautics Second Protocol for dealing with Transmissions from Planet Earth. This protocol states that:

all of those controlling radio telescopes forebear from significantly increasing Earth’s visibility with deliberate skyward emanations, until their plans were first discussed before open and widely accepted international fora.

To me, this seems like a reasonable position. If we are to purposefully send a METI, that message should be first discussed by an international panel of experts in astronomy, physics, biology, anthropology, history, and politics. And the message should be collectively sent as a message from Earth and by Earth; not from an independent collective. As David Brin stated, no one should feel free to:

broadcast from Earth, whatever, whenever, and however they want.

On the other hand, there are those who would prefer to completely ban METI’s; I disagree with that stance. Don’t get me wrong, I see wisdom in the perspective that we should remain silent, passively listening to the cosmos for thousands of years, before sending messages into a cosmic environment we are just beginning to understand. However, I feel as though we should send controlled and well thought out messages from our species and planet for two main reasons:

1) If there are highly advanced civilizations in the Milky Way, they would know we are here by studying the physical and chemical patterns of our planet, regardless of our radiosphere.

2) I believe it to be probable that any civilization with the capability of traveling to another solar system would not do so with the intention of eradicating life and high intelligence.

The first point is simple, not controversial, and easily explained: a sufficiently advanced civilization could easily detect the presence of our civilization by analyzing the spectrum of reflected ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared sunlight for our planet’s surface. They could also, perhaps more easily, become cognizant of our existence from artificial nighttime lighting and the unusual chemical composition of our planet due to the excessive burning of fossil fuels.

The second point is far more complex, certainly controversial, and not easily explained. Biologists have often warned that contact between species that evolved in different ecosystems often leads to one species going extinct. Likewise, historians have argued that “first contact” between more advanced and less advanced civilizations have often led to disastrous inter-human relations (e.g., slavery, colonialism, civilization collapse, etc.). From this reasoning, they often conclude that if we make our presence known to a vastly more advanced civilization than our own, we are placing own existence in extreme peril.

However, consider the following: as our species has become more knowledgable and technologically advanced, we have also moved strongly in the direction of compassion, altruism, and the inclusion of all within the protection of law. I believe that this is directly tied to satiation. As we create a world of abundance; a world with drastically reduced levels of hunger and poverty, we elevate our cultural ideals. David Brin referred to this as:

an abstract sympathy, unleashed by full bellies and brains that are capable of seeing enlightened self interest in the long term survival of the world.

Natural selection is the driving force for the creation of our biosphere. It may be that natural selection is the driving force for all biological evolutionary processes in the universe. Natural selection permits populations to evolve via differential survival rates. And although we are a very young species, we are already close to releasing our species from this process. In essence, natural selection is permitted to operate because of resource scarcity. But as we continue to raise the standard of living for our species as a whole, we accelerate ourselves into a world where we all live long enough to reproduce. Differential survival rates will no longer drive our evolution. As a result, we also accelerate ourselves towards a world free of the byproducts of resource scarcity (i.e., extinction, war, slavery, etc).

When we create science fiction work depicting human-alien conflict, we are projecting biological system conflict produced from a world governed by natural selection. But the interaction between two highly advanced technologically-based systems will not likely be governed by that type of system conflict. A new, more intelligently directed form of evolutionary change should take the place of natural selection. Surely, any species with the capability of visiting our planet would have long ago released themselves from the biological tyranny of the process that created them.

As many scientists have pointed out, including theoretical physicist Paul Davies, biological intelligence is likely to be a fleeting phase in the evolution of the universe. If this is the case, it stands to reason that any civilization able to receive our messages and visit our planet would undoubtedly be post-biological. This essentially means they would be post-singularity. And a post-singularity species has not only lifted itself from a world governed by differential survival, but has also lifted itself from finite sentience and death. Therefore, I would not expect conflicts produced by the mechanism of natural selection to dominate an encounter between us and an advanced space faring civilization.

At least, that is my reasoning, and it is why I fully support a controlled, globally agreed upon form of METI. I think the benefits of discovering extraterrestrial intelligence and making “first contact” would outweigh the risks.

That being said, I am sure many would disagree with me. Perhaps it is foolish of me to assume that all advanced intelligent species would have lifted themselves from natural selection and tend towards extraterrestrial altruism. But that is why we must have open dialogue about METI. We can’t tolerate random independent groups to send messages without first consulting the global community. If we send messages we must be prudent. And, from my perspective, prudence would be making sure that any message is sent from Earth and by Earth. No one should be allowed to send whatever messages they want, whenever and however they want.

What do you think?

Discuss this article on Hubski or let me know what you think on Twitter!

 
44
Kudos
 
44
Kudos

Read this next

Genes and Memes

So last night I was doing research when this happened (~4:55): I had no idea how to react when I first watched this and really I still don’t. All I know is that I love it. Apparently Dawkins loved it as well. I know this video is... Continue →