Active SETI Is Not Scientific
Research
by Michael Michaud
Member of the SETI Permanent Study Group, International
Academy of Astronautics
Recent discussions within the SETI community have thoroughly explored the
issue of whether people with access to radio telescopes should send powerful
signals to alien civilizations without some process of prior international
consultation. In particular, those exchanges have focused on the question of
"Active SETI."
Some people who oppose prior consultation have framed their arguments in
terms of our right to free speech. Few have addressed the other side of this
coin, which is our responsibility to the human species.
Let’s be clear about this. Active SETI is not scientific research. It is a
deliberate attempt to provoke a response by an alien civilization whose
capabilities, intentions, and distance are not known to us. That makes it a
policy issue.
We can not assume that we already have been detected or that detection is
inevitable. Extraterrestrial civilizations might not be looking for the kinds
of signals we normally radiate. More importantly from a policy perspective,
our leakage signals may be below their detection threshold. An Active SETI
signal much more powerful than the normal background emitted by the Earth
might call us to the attention of a technological civilization that had not
known of our existence. We can not assume that such a civilization would be
benign, nor can we assume that interstellar flight is impossible for a species
more technologically advanced than our own.
This is not just the concern of a few paranoids. Many significant people
have argued against our actively seeking contact. Pulitzer Prize-winning
author and scientist Jared Diamond, calling astronomers’ visions of friendly
relations "the best-case scenario," warned that "those astronomers now
preparing again to beam radio signals out to hoped-for extraterrestrials are
naive, even dangerous" (he was even harsher about the Pioneer plaques, which
provided any species that found them with a kind of map to our location in the
galaxy). Nobel Prize-winning biologist George Wald declared that he could
think of no nightmare so terrifying as establishing communication with a
superior technology in outer space. Even the New York Times questioned the
view that the effect of signals from extraterrestrials would be beneficial,
stating that the astronomers were "boyishly defiant" of our inherited wisdom.
Astronomer Robert Jastrow, addressing the consequences of possible future
contact with an alien civilization, wrote that he saw no reason for optimism.
Astronomer Ronald Bracewell warned that other species too would place a
premium on cunning and weaponry; an alien ship headed our way is likely to be
armed. Astronomer Eric Chaisson thought that physical contact could lead to a
neo-Darwinian subjugation of our culture by theirs. Astronomer Zdenek Kopal
was more specific: should we ever hear the space-phone ringing, for God’s sake
let us not answer, but rather make ourselves as inconspicuous as possible to
avoid attracting attention!
Other scientists who are less widely known have warned of potential
dangers. Biologist Michael Archer said that any creature we contact will also
have had to claw its way up the evolutionary ladder and will be every bit as
nasty as we are. It will likely be an extremely adaptable, extremely
aggressive super-predator. Physicist George Baldwin predicted that any effort
to communicate with extraterrestrials is fraught with grave danger, as they
will show innate contempt for human beings. Robert Rood warned that the
civilization that blurts out its existence on interstellar beacons at the
first opportunity might be like some early hominid descending from the trees
and calling "here kitty" to a saber-toothed tiger.
Consider the cautionary views of SETI Institute astronomers. Seth Shostak
wrote in one of his books that we can no better guess the motivations of alien
intelligence than goldfish can guess ours. Jill Tarter asked rhetorically: who
knows what values might drive an alien culture? Aliens might not have the same
motives we do. Doug Vakoch wrote that we should not assume that the ethics of
extraterrestrials will be like our own.
Physicist Freeman Dyson has written eloquently on this subject. He issued a
warning that should be heeded by SETI researchers: "Our business as scientists
is to search the universe and find out what is there. What is there may
conform to our moral sense or it may not...It is just as unscientific to
impute to remote intelligences wisdom and serenity as it is to impute to them
irrational and murderous impulses. We must be prepared for either possibility
and conduct our searches accordingly."
Dyson posed two alternatives. Intelligence may be a benign influence
creating isolated groups of philsopher-kings far apart in the heavens, sharing
at leisure their accumulated wisdom. Or intelligence may be a cancer of
purposeless technological exploitation sweeping across the galaxy.
None of us knows which alternative prevails. The best-case scenario that
underlies Active SETI is based on belief or preference, not on proven facts.
In modern times, the public, their representatives, and the media have
increasingly demanded accountability when powerful technologies are used for
controversial purposes, especially when those technologies are built and
operated with the taxpayer’s money. Given the fact that there may be risks
involved, using radio telescopes to attract the attention of other
technological civilizations is controversial. We owe our fellow citizens some
respect for their opinions.
More than a year ago, I proposed a standard that recognizes the fact that
signals already sent can not be called back: do not transmit a signal more
powerful than the Earth’s radio leakage (including radars) without
international consultation. Canadian scientist Yvan Dutil, who has designed
portions of two interstellar messages for transmission from the Evpatoria
Radar Telescope, has endorsed a similar approach.
If the advocates of Active SETI are not comfortable with the United
Nations, I suggest an alternative. Take an Active SETI proposal to the
International Astronomical Union and seek that organization’s endorsement. If
the IAU will not endorse Active SETI, there will be even more doubt as to
whether it is legitimate science.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in editorials
are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the
position of The SETI League, Inc., its Trustees, officers, Advisory Board,
members, donors, or commercial sponsors.