Contacting aliens could end all life on earth. Let’s stop trying.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Contacting aliens could end all life on earth. Let’s stop trying.
Whatever the UFO report says, it’s time to set some rules for talking to extraterrestrials
In April 2020, the Defense Department released videos recorded by infrared cameras on U.S. Navy aircraft that documented the planes’ encounters with a variety of “unidentified aerial phenomena.” Pilots reported seeing objects flying across the sky at hypersonic speeds and changing direction almost instantaneously, capabilities far beyond that of any known aircraft.
What were the pilots seeing? Bizarre atmospheric phenomena? Alien spacecraft? Something else? Several branches of the government have been investigating the events, motivated in part by concern that adversaries such as Russia or China might have made some spectacular technological advance, and later this month, the government plans to publish a report revealing what they know. Reportedly, the government will say there’s no proof of extraterrestrial activity, but that the incidents remain unexplained.
Chances are, though, that we should all be grateful that we don’t yet have any evidence of contact with alien civilizations. Attempting to communicate with extraterrestrials, if they do exist, could be extremely dangerous for us. We need to figure out whether it’s wise — or safe — and how to handle such attempts in an organized manner.
Some scientific circles have already been debating questions around whether to try to contact other civilizations. It’s a topic of profound importance for the entire planet. For 60 years, scientists have been searching with radio telescopes, listening in for possible signals coming from other civilizations on planets orbiting distant stars. These efforts have largely been organized by the SETI institute in California — the acronym stands for Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence — and so far, they’ve had no success. Getting impatient, some other scientists are now pushing for a more active program — METI, for Messaging ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence — that wouldn’t just listen, but actually send out powerful messages toward other stars, seeking to make contact.
The search for aliens has reached a stage of technological sophistication and associated risk that it needs strict regulation at national and international levels. Without oversight, even one person — with access to powerful transmitting technology — could take actions affecting the future of the entire planet.
That’s because any aliens we ultimately encounter will likely be far more technologically advanced than we are, for a simple reason: Most stars in our galaxy are much older than the sun. If civilizations arise fairly frequently on some planets, then there ought to be many civilizations in our galaxy millions of years more advanced than our own. Many of these would likely have taken significant steps to begin exploring and possibly colonizing the galaxy.
Hence, it’s a profound mystery — known as the Fermi Paradox, after the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi — why we haven’t yet seen any such aliens. Many resolutions of the paradox have been proposed, among them the suggestion that all civilizations, once reaching sufficient technological capacity, eventually destroy themselves. Or perhaps aliens are so alien and unlike humans that we simply cannot interact with them.
More alarming is the possibility that alien civilizations are remaining out of contact because they know something: that sending out signals is catastrophically risky. Our history on Earth has given us many examples of what can happen when civilizations with unequal technology meet — generally, the technologically more advanced has destroyed or enslaved the other. A cosmic version of this reality might have convinced many alien civilizations to remain silent. Exposing yourself is an invitation to be preyed upon and devoured.
I’ve written about METI in the past, suggesting such activity takes a huge risk for very little gain. But these concerns don’t convince supporters of trying it, who have some counterarguments. Douglas Vakoch of METI International argues that it’s unrealistic to worry about the danger of an alien invasion. We have, after all, been sending radio and television emissions into space for a century, and a civilization far more advanced than our own will probably have already detected these. If they wanted to invade, they already would have.
He also argues that, in assessing risks, it’s important not only to consider the risk coming from taking an action, but also from not taking that action. Our world faces a number of potentially existential threats, including global warming and destabilization of the environment, and it’s possible that far more advanced civilizations may have already faced these issues and found solutions. If we don’t send out signals, Vakosh writes, we risk “missing guidance that could enhance our own civilization’s sustainability.” It’s also conceivable, he suggests, that we’re making a spectacular misjudgment — and some super-advanced alien civilization may attack us precisely because we haven’t reached out.
For obvious reasons, much of the thinking about these issues has to be rather speculative. The best way forward, perhaps, is to broaden the discussion. If all of humanity is exposed to the possible consequences trying to contact alien civilizations, then more people should be involved in making decisions about what is wise and what isn’t. It shouldn’t be left to a handful of radio astronomers.
One vocal critic of the idea of reaching out to aliens proactively — astronomer John Gertz of SETI — has developed proposals to move toward more inclusive public consideration of these activities. What we need, he suggests, are laws and international treaties to govern more explicit contact attempts. Without prior broad agreement from some globally representative body, Gertz says, contacting extraterrestrials should be considered “as the reckless endangerment of all mankind, and be absolutely proscribed with criminal consequences, presumably as exercised at the national level, or administered through the International Court of Justice in The Hague.”
Currently, no such prohibitions exist. Some informal protocols for interacting with alien civilizations have been adopted by researchers involved in SETI, but these are far from legally binding governmental regulations. That’s mostly because, up to now, talking about meeting or contacting aliens has seemed widely speculative — if not a little deranged — despite the apparent scientific plausibility of such an event.
It’s not easy to weigh the pros and cons of activities around which so much remains unknown. We don’t know if there are any aliens. They might be friendly. They might not be. Given the potential risks involved with trying to make contact, perhaps it would be safer and wiser to just wait — we can always reach out later, and meanwhile, our abilities to do passive listening are rapidly growing more powerful.
In 2015, SETI launched a new 10-year program called Breakthrough Listen, funded by a $100 million donation from Israeli-Russian billionaire Yuri Milner. As a result, SETI is now recording more signals than ever before, over a frequency range some tenfold larger, and bringing more computational power to bear on analyzing the recorded signals. It’s impossible to know how close or far from making a discovery we may be, but Gertz estimates that our chances are at least 100 times greater than they used to be.
The search is also benefiting from astronomers’ knowledge of exoplanets — planets in orbit around stars other than the sun. Since the first exoplanet was found in 1992, we’ve identified nearly 5,000 more, and the rate of discovery is accelerating. Each one give SETI researchers new promising targets to scrutinize.
Personally, all of this makes me dead-set against any experimentation with attempting to contact other civilizations. Why take cosmic risks when we may have a far safer pathway to discovering them, if they’re out there? Of course, even listening comes with some potentially fraught governance issues also: If and when someone really identifies an alien signal, we’ll need to decide if we should reply — and if so, how. Surely such an act — putting all of humanity at risk — ought to be the result of some collective decision. But there’s no mechanism to encourage that now. Any individual or nation could take the human response into their own hands.
Both paths — listening for aliens or trying to call them — have reached the stage where they require broader public discussion, with an eye to developing sensible regulation. That’s going to take the efforts of leaders from many nations, presumably coordinated through the United Nations or some similar international body. It should happen now. Or soon. Before it’s too late.
Twitter: @Mark_Buchanan
Tags
Who is online
384 visitors
In the classic 50's movie War Of The Worlds, there is a famous scene where a Christian minister tries to reason with the invading Martians by reciting Bible passages to them. The Martians were evidently unimpressed because they vaporize the minister with their ray gun before he even finishes talking.
Beings from other planets or galaxies may view us as insects for all we know.
And there is no need to know.
We have enough problems on earth without inviting more from outer space.
The article is silly. Do you think we have any choice if a technologically superior race of beings decides to contact or attack us ? It's absurd.
I dont think its silly.
Of course they could come looking for us and there is nothing we could do. I think the writer is saying we shouldnt be looking for them.
Perhaps. But that's just irrational fear, based on assuming the worst possible scenario.
Exactly, best case scenario they fix all our problems, we gain enlightenment or immortality and venture out beyond the stars ourselves.
I'm an optimist. I'm willing to roll those dice.
Why is it irrational? If the indigenous people in a given area are wary of outsiders with superior technology invading them, are they irrational? On what basis are they irrational?
Fear is not irrational? And we're assuming some advanced alien life, capable of FTL to reach us, will behave like humans with invasion and conquering. Humans are projecting themselves onto aliens and assuming the worst.
You are not seriously suggesting that fear is always irrational are you?
How is it irrational? Think about what you know about the natural world/universe. Walk into any wild environment - the desert, a jungle, a forest. How many living creatures there want to be your friend, and how many would like to just feed on you? You know the answer.
And if you think sentience changes things, look at the history of what happens when distinct human populations come into contact with one another. The result is usually war unless there is some kind of military parity.
There is no justification for assuming that a new, alien species would have any interest whatsoever in being peaceful with us.
Caution based on experience is not irrational. Baseless optimism is irrational.
Yes, fear is an emotion and is irrational. It can cause one to behave or act irrational. It has a purpose. But that doesn't make it less irrational.
No.
Fear is not always irrational.
We are only applying ourselves and our world to the scenario. So our perspective is limited. We cannot possibly know how an alien would respond if they found us. We're automatically assuming it would be malevolent, especially because that's how humans have responded to ourselves in history.
You only reaffirm my point: you're applying human history and perspective to aliens.
There's no reason to assume they would be automatically hostile either. We simply do not know. But the unknown is why we should continue exploring. If you want to use human history as an example, the unknown is why humans have explored, from traveling across the oceans to climbing mountains, to diving in the oceans, ect.. Exploring space is no different in that regard.
I never said we shouldn't be cautious. But there's a thin line between caution and fear.
So is baseless pessimism.
Yeah, it pretty much is. Especially in this case where some are afraid to explore because of a "what if" scenario or because of something unknown. Imagine if the Apollo astronauts were afraid to go to the moon. How different the space race might have been.
Exactly. We are taking what we have learned and we are using it to build a predictive model for the future, so that we may proceed prudently. That is supremely rational.
No one said we shouldn’t explore. The article doesn’t say that and neither did I.
It is neither baseless, nor pessimism. I gave you a clear rational basis for caution. As the article points out, it is one thing to listen for aliens, it is quite another - and foolish - to go broadcasting for them.
I believe we were quite sure there was no hostile life on the moon (or any life) before we sent human beings to set foot on it.
A model as it only applies to us as a species.
Good. Because looking out in space, including trying to find life, is part of the exploratory process.
For all we know, alien life might be looking for us (aliens to them) as we are looking for them. So "broadcasting" ourselves might be the only way to discover anything. If one wants to explore and discover, risk is part of that equation. But cowering to fear and not exploring because of the unknown or because of "what may happen" is irrational. Besides, given the vast distances involved and the limited amount of time we've been "broadcasting," it's unlikely any alien civilization will detect us unless they're already in our galactic neighborhood.
We didn't know much of what was on (or underneath) the moon. The best we could do at the time was visual fly bys before landing astronauts. That's what we currently do with the other planets too. A little more with Mars though.
No. As I have pointed out to you, the model is based on everything we know about all life we have encountered to this point - human or otherwise.
Looking is exploring. Yes. Again, you’re stating a position everyone agrees with, and are arguing against a position no one holds. No one is saying “don’t look.”
“For all we know” is not a rational basis for anything.
We already know that isn’t true. We have been exploring space by passively looking and listening for decades and we have discovered quite a lot. We don’t need to jump around, wave our arms, and shout “here we are!”
If we are smart, we will discover aliens before they discover us, and encounter them on our terms by visiting them first, not the other way around.
If you find yourself in the wild, and you want to find a bear or a lion, it’s not “cowering to fear” to look for it silently. It’s foolish to go making noise and letting all the predators know where you are. You would have us look for ants by covering ourselves with sugar.
Fear is an emotion.
Using knowledge of hostility and the nature of same to make the best of one's situation is rational.
Distinguish the biochemical emotion (irrational) from the logical application of knowledge.
The only life we've encountered is on Earth. We have not encountered any extraterrestrial life. What applies to terrestrial life may not apply to extraterrestrial life.
Trying to contact alien life is also part of the exploration process. Arguing against that limits our ability to explore.
It's the basis for we don't know. So assuming how alien life would respond to finding us one way or another is irrational.
Passively looking will not help us discover more out there. Until we develop the technology to actively travel and explore space, shouting "here we are" is the next best thing to doing that.
Our current level of technology and exploration methods will make that quite implausible.
It's a good thing early explorers didn't take that approach or mentality.
It's a moot point anyway. We've been announcing our presence on this planet for many decades now.
Prudent caution based on experience is not an assumption, nor is it irrational.
That is a ridiculous claim that flies in the face of centuries of observation and discovery.
Are you in a hurry? Our technology is always advancing.
Actually, they did. You clearly haven’t thought it through.
True. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about the fact that radio signals have been escaping into space for decades.
We have a lot of problems! Can you say: "Liberty"? "Don't Tread On Me." "They hate us for our freedom"? And so if we go out beyond the stars - PROBLEMS, Big Time !
Not Dirty Boy
And "civility" carries its own definition with each level of a life-form or entity. That is, what is civilly codified to humans is not an essential to any other life on this planet. Moreover, our biggest issue is a lack of relative communication ability.
The good news is this world has been broadcasting on a 'cylinders' for many decades now; the bad news is any other world that comprehends our 'worth' will probably think we are a 'virus.' I'm being serious. Really, this planet's history on backgroud is pretty schizophrenic and as of right now - the world is not even working on getting better! Who would want 'us' if they don't have to have us?
We don't have experience with aliens. Only ourselves.
Passive observations have proven very valuable. But it's also limited. We can spot other planets, but we can't see what's on them. We can land rovers on Mars at best. But we will never be able to land humans on Mars or other planets, much less spread out in the universe or discover alien life, unless we figure out how to travel there.
Yes, but a little more expediency would be nice.
Actually, I did.
Yes, but here's the thing, normal radio signals will become increasingly faint until they become undetectable or indistinguishable from background cosmic radiation. Radio signals wouldn't even reach Proxima Centauri (our closest neighbor) before they are too weak to be detected. Think of it like a cosmic version of a bad cell phone connection.
I never suggested we shouldn’t try to travel through space.
...or eat us? (To Serve Man - Twilight Zone)
OR....they could introduce a disease that wipes us all out.
Yes, I have an irrational fear. If we do make contact I will be wary
There's something to be said for a good, healthy dose of fear.
The problem with fear is it can override critical or rational thinking, making some irrational.
I suppose...but I avoid rocky areas because I broke my ankle in two places from stepping on a rock. I'm afraid of rocks
That is you applying your learned knowledge (i.e. experience).
Around ~75 years...radio and TV signals
Actually, it's 100 years. The first radio transmission was in 1901. But it doesn't make any difference. Terrestrial radio signal are not strong enough to reach any other solar system before it fades out and becomes indistinguishable from background radiation .
But when aliens out on 'patrol' do reach our solar system: Oh the 'noises' they will hear! We're loud! We're Smart! We're Conflicted.
What if the aliens: Are Biased?! Racist? Arrogant? Uncompromising? Needy? What do we do? Welcome them? Exterminate them (like the pest they are)?
Lucy! You got some splainin to do!
They'll probably think we're some crazy, primitive, backwater planet. Once they learn we're dealing with Covid, they might declare our solar system a quarantine zone. Social distance from Sol by at least 6 light years, Lol
Maybe they'll be an insectoid race of giant ants, come to Earth to enslave mankind. I can get in their good graces by helping them round up other humans to work in their underground sugar mines.
Let's try something a bit more sedate: What if another world is discovered where the inhabitants are advanced but like, well. . . us? 'Flights' as well as 'baggage'? Do we go forward or learn from past experiences?
?????
I am sitting here trying to imagine dimensions on a "giant" ant! 1. Baby-sized. 2. Volkswagen 'Beetle' sized. 3. Wind-mill sized. (Chuckle.)
Agreed. To expand on that, there's no reason to assume that an alien race would even operate in a manner we could even understand. From our perspective, they may seem totally insane in their behavior. There may be no congruence between their way of thinking, logic or rational behavior and ours. What motivates them may be unguessable.
Fear exists as an emotion in us for a reason and experiencing fear is not irrational as long as the fear isn't making the decisions. I would think that only an idiot would dismiss fear simply because it is an emotion. Fear, properly used, helps us to not make bad decisions. To my mind, flinging out signals with the intention of trying to contact other alien intelligences, should they exist, is reckless to the point of insanity. For all we know, should other intelligences out there exist, they may have heard us but not responded. It may be that if they did respond, the message would be "Shut up, idiots! They're going to hear you!"
Further, it seems to me that those who want to fling out signals as powerful as they can send in the hope of getting a response are interested in answering the question "are we alone" and nothing else. They don't seem to consider the price that answer may demand or, if they do, they have some Pollyanna wishful thinking assumption that they are going to be benevolent, based on no actual evidence.
We don't know what any potential aliens, should they exist, would do with us if they knew we are here and if they could get to us. There is no evidence with which to guess, except, in my own opinion, the nature of the life we know already, which tells us that nature is red in tooth and claw. Given that, it seems the sane thing to do is find them before they find us. Anything else is just Russian roulette.
The amygdala is a primitive area of the brain and is commonly viewed as the fear center. It's relevance is in its evidenced ability to help our ancestors stay alive and propagate our species.
As you note, fear is an emotion and it is irrational to make decisions based on the fear emotion. It is rational to make decisions based on knowledge (including knowledge of potential threats). Thus it is rational to make a logical assessment on the probability of our first encounter being with a hostile exolife. It is also rational for us to continue to advance our knowledge and our technology so as to be in the best possible position to have an upper hand on such an encounter.
And, as a few of us have noted, I agree that we should not presume that our first encounter will necessarily be hostile but it would not be surprising if it was.
An old Simpsons reference.
Because it's so unlikely to actually happen it's laughable. We have been transmitting signals into space since roughly 1945....ish.. So those signals have traveled ~70 light years into the void. That's nothing. That doesn't even get out of our own neighborhood.
Besides...those signals are already out there, nothing we can do to stop them. My mom had a saying, "don't borrow trouble", in other words, don't worry about shit you cannot control or change.
Correct.
proving that there is intelligent life in the universe...
Alien: adjective - coming from another world: extraterrestrial
So does this mean humans should stop looking for God as well? What is more alien or "extraterrestrial" than God or angels or spirit creatures not of this earth? In fact, according to the bible the Hebrew God did already end virtually all life on the planet when he regretted making humans. Would that not indicate he/it could do it again? Why would anyone seek out such a malevolent extraterrestrial?
Of course believers would likely respond with "Because of the possible benefits!" which of course is the same response any person looking for life from outer space would have when confronted by such a silly premise as "We should stop looking because aliens could end all life on earth".
If God himself couldn't do it, then I doubt some aliens will be able to wipe out all life on Earth.
Why are you bringing religion into it. The seeded topic is not related to religion.
Sure it is, are God/Gods not extraterrestrials? Or are you claiming they were born here on earth too? Haven't you ever seen an episode of "Ancient Aliens"?
In my opinion you are just off on a tangent, or is it your serious opinion that God may be visiting earth in a spaceship, which begs the question of why God would need to "visit" earth when God is everywhere at once. Presumably God predates life on earth and had been here since the beginning. He would have no need or purpose in "visiting".
You are off topic based on what is in the seeded article.
I wasn't aware that to be an extraterrestrial you had to use space ships, I was under the belief you just had to be something not of this earth.
Since we haven't established with any certainty that God/Gods exist we do not know its traits. Perhaps there is something out there we could rightly call our creator that seeded our planet and does need a spaceship to visit. Perhaps not.
My point is that to say we shouldn't be searching the universe for other forms of life because of the risk without admitting that's exactly what religious zealots are effectively doing, looking to higher powers, seeking contact with an extraterrestrial being, seems woefully blind and hypocritical.
As far as I can see, this is all off topic.
Actually your point was better made @1.3.4 God (as we speak about God) is in-charge of all life in the universe (of things) and has already (in Jesus) dwelled among us. And prophetically plans to accomplish doing so again. So there is that! God will know the time and space needed for humanity to exist when and where. Afterall, God crafts 'allotments.'
It's a great extraterrestrial story. Otherworldly being sends one of his alien minions to impregnate a human female with untainted perfect genetic material and woman gives birth to a human/alien hybrid that apparently would have lived possibly even till today as a super human if he had not been killed by Roman soldiers when he was about 33 years of age. But even having a deity/human hybrid born wouldn't make them no longer an extraterrestrial since their origin is not of this earth. Though a believer I suppose could argue that humans have the same extraterrestrial origin.
Sounds like the origin story of many demi gods of Greek mythology. Zeus is often the otherworldly being too.
Of course when it's Zeus he's coming down to earth to do the deed himself...
Look at you; going all otherworldly on us. I'm a little "dismayed" is all. I could argue that God is the ultimate 'citizen' pervasively. (Smile.)
Even when I was very religious, I couldn't get around the fact that angels, demons, God, Satan, all of them by definition were extraterrestrials. None of them were born on or of this planet. Now some could argue that because they supposedly made the universe they are inherently part of it, or at least it is part of them, but at the same time, from the tiny perspective we have flying around the solar system on a sparkling blue gem of an eco-spaceship, everything outside what we know or is considered "spiritual" is actually foreign to us. In fact, the most "spiritual" feeling events in my life have actually been when I was enjoying the beauty and nature of this planet, so in a way it wasn't spiritual at all but very terrestrial. The sound of the waves, the smell of nature after a spring rain, the roar of a waterfall, the cry of your own newborn baby, while they evoke something within us that we define as spiritual, they are actually just our human senses connecting to the reality of life on this planet.
We even try to define our Gods and spirit creatures with terrestrial traits, beards, wings, male, loving, regretful, angry, forgiving, benevolent, malevolent, all traits we have actually only found among the human race. A truly alien being likely wouldn't understand us at all, or may not even care that we exist, we might as well be a speck of dirt on the landing skid of an alien craft. We project our frailty onto the universe which is why articles like this one, expressing fear of aliens destroying us, exist. We project our own weakness and insecurity onto potential alien life because we know if we humans got a hold of another sentient species in this universe we'd likely first try to figure out a way to either kill it or control it like we do with everything.
Clearly this not the way JR intends for this article to travel, but I am going to challenge you on this. You are placing the word, spiritual, in quotation marks repeatedly, which signals you feel something you label spiritual, but are concerned it really is not. Indeed, the physical manifestations you list are of this world and solely of this world. And the 'rush' you feel is emotional joy (or terror as the case may be).
Proper spirituality is durable, not fleeting. I think you know this.
God is defined as Spirit. And though we have some rather silly and macabre concepts about what spirit is, we really do not have a firm understanding on spirit appearance. Moreover, we can be certain that while we talk about spirit in ways that help us process and communicate, we can be assured that entities expected to be eternal do not operate eternally in human flesh. Indeed, spirit would be more than temporary properties such as death.
Thus, while I won't try to give a description of Spirit, I will suggest that our images and portrayals are for humanities benefit along. Even when we go to far. (A little silliness. I have seen imaginative images of God - floating through the air. . . and. . . demons portrayals as funky and drenched in spit, vomit, and shit. Entertaining? Yes and no. But, who can truly say it is like this in the spirit realm (if the realm exist)?
Darmok on the ocean, Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra, Darmok and Jalad on the ocean
Temba, his arms wide.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
I'm just saying, the way we speak about and describe what is alien or spiritual are the same, we can only reference what we know and find things relatable, essentially we express that through allegory or simile much like the fictional Tamarians on Star Trek. Because of this we can perhaps express what we think it may be like, but if anything spiritual or alien actually exists it is likely far stranger than we will ever expect.
And yes, the terrestrial expressions believers use is of course only for what they think will be other humans benefit, they are trying to share their own supposedly spiritual experience with other humans, perhaps either because they believe it will truly help others or perhaps just to not feel so alone or so small. To have their emotions, feelings and beliefs validated by others and thereby giving themselves the feeling of being part of something larger than themselves. The people from most ancient cultures did the same, believed in all sorts of Gods and Goddesses, shared their spiritual experiences of Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Hestia and Demeter, Hades, Ra, Osiris, Isis, Set, Horus, An, Enlil, Enki, Odin, Balder, Tyr, Baal and thousands of others throughout human history.
I just have to wonder whether it was just the act of connecting to something spiritual, to something larger than oneself that was the benefit for humans and the "who" they connected to didn't really matter as much, real or not making zero difference, or is there some exactly right way to worship and right deity or alien or extraterrestrial creator that actually wants our worship. Without any input from the extraterrestrial/alien/God how will we ever actually know? At this point belief in Zeus or any of the old Gods is just as valid as belief in any of the new, both have had hundreds of thousands of worshipers claiming they know their God is real and has granted them spiritual experiences they struggled to explain to other humans in hope they would validate their belief and join them in their brand of worship.
That is for sure, I'd agree. Yet, the two entities can be entirely distinct from one another. As to the remainder of your comment I have a question, but I will not ask it and am unsure how to tactfully ask it.
Maybe that's why they decided to destroy humanity?
the intergalactic transport and meat processing ship, second coming, is waiting for just the right moment on the other side of the moon to collect all the free range evangelicals to take to their promised land, flash frozen in vacuum packed plastic.
Coming to a TV station near you, Future Alien Theorists ... same cast, same drivel.
Friendly aliens is a sweet idea, but even the most optimistic Sci-Fi out there (Star Trek) is full of aggressive, dangerous aliens. The world is a dangerous place. Animals are dangerous. Other humans are dangerous. There is no reason to think aliens would be any different.
I suspect depictions of hostile aliens in popular culture has shaped many (negative) opinions regarding exploring space or actually contacting aliens.
Those ideas came from somewhere. Think about it.
Yeah, peoples imagination and flair for the dramatic. Not something I'd use when planning a rational course of action.
No, they came from experience. Think: White people coming to America. Where is the great utopia of evenly mixed Native and European Americans? I’ll tell you. It doesn’t exist. Same for the peaceful melding of Mongols and Europeans. Or Romans and pretty much everyone.
Once again, you're making the presumption that humanity's experience or imagination applied to advanced alien races.
Agreed. If exolife is anything like life as we know it, they will seek to conquer to exploit our resources. On the other hand, should we presume that all exolife (especially the very advanced) behaves as we do?
Resources might not be an issue for such an advanced species. It may have nothing to gain from us other than satisfying curiosity. Human beings do that a lot too; we often study lifeforms carefully and seek to not disturb them (as a whole).
I wouldn’t suggest we presume anything. It’s just smart to proceed carefully and set the terms of contact on our terms, if we can.
Granted we only have the human experience to go on, so perhaps aliens are different. But of course we only have our experience to go on… better to be prepared.
After all, we did send out (Voyager) materials from the Earth. And of course, we signed something along the lines, "We Come In Peace." But our very vehicle of delivery or its artifacts could be a hindrance to the "unknown." However, what else can we do? We have only earth understanding to send out and absolutely nothing coming back for planning purposes.
They will come bearing 'gifts' that will be our ruination. Genius or Diabolical?
NOTE: I don't know how I appear on this article. I do not mean to be "cheeky" but it feels to me that I am. I really think my comments have substance, nevertheless As I am well-acquainted with this 'material.'
Let's look at this in the 'inverse.' Mankind is on Mars now. Mars is developing. What does humanity plan for it's 'new found land? A human colony or colonies? Do we bring the best of our word, or do we pack up and bring our emotional 'baggage' to this new world far from home?
How does that help? (We are some "sick puppies" not fit for transport.)
On earth, we are on the verge of the privatization of space travel and exploration. When we finally go far from earth it will probably be a corporation that will do it, in search of some exotic resources to exploit. In the story Aliens the corporation wanting to exploit alien life on the far distant planet is what leads to the ressurection of the monsters.
Who is to say that alien visitors to earth are not mercenaries representing a galactical corporation that wants to harvest something or other from earth without any concern at all for the human inhabitants here ? We simply have no way of knowing.
Which is both amazing and sad.
See my above post regarding pop culture influence.
Seems a little paranoid to me, which is completely irrational.
What’s sad about it?
That we may need to rely on private corporations to explore (and possibly travel in) space, when it should be organizations like NASA to do it. Sad is perhaps the wrong word. Maybe...bittersweet?
Yeah, I don’t see why that would be sad. Nothing against NASA. I like NASA. But people have been exploring and making discoveries for thousands of years without it being a government agency.
Yes, but NASA has been at the forefront of space exploration and travel and discovery. It's a shame if it falls behind or by the wayside in that regard.
I'm with you. I like Star Trek and it's utopian view of the future, but it will probably be corporations that do the exploring.
'Cutthroats In Space'! Bring it on! I can see the looks on the alien worlds already. And hear the phrase:
"Yahoos Go Home!" /s
I tend to think that any civilization-building species that's been out there for millions of years must have gone through several survivability bottlenecks that would have evolved aggressive, predatory nature out of them. Not destroying oneself through conflict, war, resource depletion, and environmental degradation seems to me to be a prerequisite for such long-term survival. Thus, any really ancient advanced civilization would likely be highly efficient, non-wasteful, non-polluting, non-violent, and very likely not in need of Earth's material resources, or of it's indigenous life forms. The galaxy is big and full of the same elements found here.
You never know, though. Less-advanced species may be out there as well. Maybe just a little more advanced than we ourselves are, and could certainly pose a threat if Earth's environment was suitable for them and they could get actually get here. Maybe all these UFO sightings are probes sent to check us out.
Then again, it's always possible that UFOs have an as-yet unexplained, but perfectly terrestrial origin, and that we are actually the only civilization-building species in the entire galaxy, at least at the moment. There were so many environmental and evolutionary variables at play in our development that the likelihood of there being several civilizations out there, full of creatures similar to ourselves, might be exceedingly low.
Hell, evolution itself may prevent such long-term existences of civilizations. Truth be told, civilization keeps making it easier for medical and genetic problems to survive and reproduce, problems that selective pressures would likely weed out in nature. A future, defect-laden genome doesn't exactly seem like a good thing for survivability on the order of millions of years. Then again, we're advanced enough to edit our genes now, so maybe that will come into play someday. Advanced aliens should almost certainly be able to edit their genes as well. It's a topic that can really open up a can of worms, but setting moral issues aside, think of all the different lineages that could be artificially created by a spacefaring species, having little to no gene flow between disparate populations that might be separated by many light years of space. After millions of years (or even billions), the galaxy should be chock full of edited-for-survival species, but it sure doesn't seem to be. At least not to our primitive eyes and detection methods so far.
This is a really interesting topic.
Unless we allow for some really exceptional crafts, we have little to worry about aliens being here, because we have 'eyes' on our surrounding space for 'eons' now. We have crafts in space peering outward and inward. We must remember this.
We are told we can see everything that is not in some 'blind spot' we have not filled up with view-ports. And it is about to get moreso with commercial space travel coming online.
Sadly, with humanity routinely heading off into space ---who wants to venture a guess on when our first MURDER off-world takes place? With a jaundice-eye we are a broken people, a truly messed up bunch.
Have you somehow missed all the recent buzz about those tic tac shaped things the Navy keeps seeing? There's quite a bit of recorded instrument data, including radar and infrared video. They're freakishly more capable than our own aircraft, and totally unexplained. The Pentagon is supposed to be releasing a report about them to the public by the end of this month.
Yeah. But. One of the 'tell-tale' evidences for true alien life and not just UFOs (Unidentified Foreign Objects) will be. . . a clear inarguable image. You may remember that one of the biggest criticisms of farmers and mountaineers and forest dwellers blurry images was this: Why are they all so 'fuzzy'? Do we have images of a 'mother ship'? Or trace elements of their path to our planet? Are we testing the air and environment around the sightings for unusual signs and/or radiation?
Anyway, I could be very wrong. I really don't know.
I could wonder why alien life forms want to come this far for a game of "Peek A Boo." (Okay, that was my best alien sarcasm.)
BTW, if the U. S. and other countries truly thought that alien life forms are prowling here (though we have eyes open everywhere on Earth and in Space, it is clear to me we would not be spending so much time and energy looking at our pretty pathetic "human condition." We would learn to operate on "one accord" for the sake of the human family. Thus, I conclude world leaders do not believe this is alien activity right now.
Ironically, this may be the very reason no one is answering. Advanced beings may not want to deal with us Earthlings. They may look at us and say in whatever their language is, "What a bunch of A-holes!"
They wouldn't be wrong either.
Has there been anything decisive from the government yet about the UFOs?
Imagine if humanity gets to the point where earth becomes unlivable, and we do find a perfect planet that is well suited for our species, and we’ve advanced our technology to the point where it is feasible to travel there. Now imagine that that planet is already inhabited by intelligent beings. We will no doubt become the marauders this article speaks to. There’s no question that at least some governments on earth will be fashioning a virus to spread across that planet that will kill its inhabitants while being inert to ourselves. We just like to pretend we aren’t that guy, but let’s be realistic.
I think if humanity became technologically advanced enough to travel to other planets, it would be easier to fix our planet rather than travel to another one.
One would hope. However, an opportunity to grab new land would be irresistible for those governments on the lower end of the moral spectrum.
I'm armed and ready with my Slim Whitman - Indian Love Call album.
And Michigan is surrounded by water...
The ultimate weapon against invading aliens bent on conquest.
Who comes up with this stuff?! So funny! (Loved that song in its original version!)
Here is a clip from a 'vital' series from the 90's that cuts to the heart of what we are discussing:
"In the 21st century, an alien species known as the Taelons came to Earth, with the promise of peace."They lied."Their true agenda was to dominate us."After years of struggle, the Taelons have perished, leaving more aggressive beings in their wake: the Atavus."My name is Renee Palmer. My mission is to stop this new species from dominating our planet."This is Earth's Final Conflict."
Horrors! This is our real-life 21st century now!!! - CB!
I loved this series, but I think it suffered and died out of story ideas eventually due to Gene Roddenberry's death?
I was just thinking that more intelligent beings would most likely be peaceful rather than the warmongers that humans have incessantly proven themselves to be, so it would be doing the universe a favour if they were to eradicate humanity. So I hope they NEVER find us cause we're doing a good enough job of killing each other already.