SETI bioastro: FW: Centauri Dreams - SETIs Dilemma: Break the Great Silence?

From: LARRY KLAES (ljk4_at_msn.com)
Date: Mon Oct 15 2007 - 13:22:44 PDT

  • Next message: LARRY KLAES: "SETI bioastro: Saving Space Junk"

    >From: Centauri Dreams <gilster_at_mindspring.com>
    >Reply-To: Centauri Dreams <gilster_at_mindspring.com>
    >To: ljk4_at_msn.com
    >Subject: Centauri Dreams
    >Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:04:46 -0500 (CDT)
    >
    >Centauri Dreams
    >
    >///////////////////////////////////////////
    >SETIs Dilemma: Break the Great Silence?
    >
    >Posted: 15 Oct 2007 01:24 PM CDT
    >http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1514
    >
    >
    >When Alexander Zaitsev presented his recent paper at the International
    >Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad (India) recently, he spoke from the
    >center of a widening controversy. The question is straightforward: Should
    >we broadcast messages intentionally designed to be received by
    >extraterrestrial civilizations, thereby notifying them of our existence?
    >Zaitzev, chief scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of
    >Radio Engineering and Electronics, addressed the question by seeing a
    >necessary relationship between SETI (the search for ETI) and METI
    >(messaging to other civilizations).
    >
    >Indeed, the Russian scientist, working at the Evpatoria Deep Space Center
    >in the Ukraine, has the experience to discuss METI from a practical
    >standpoint. Evpatoria has already transmitted a number of messages, the
    >so-called Cosmic Call signal (1999) being made up of various audio, video,
    >image and data files submitted by people around the world. The later
    >Teen-Age Message, aimed at six Sun-like stars, was sent in 2001; another
    >Cosmic Call followed in 2003.
    >
    >Zaitzev has in the interim emerged as a leading spokesman for direct
    >messaging to extraterrestrial civilizations, an idea now hotly debated by a
    >relatively small group of researchers concerned about its implications. I
    >note the size of the debate pointedly it is remarkable to me that an issue
    >that has the potential of involving the entire human species in what could
    >become a first contact scenario is known only to a limited number of
    >professionals, within whose ranks there is by no means agreement.
    >
    >Thus, having coffee with a neighbor not long ago, I brought up the
    >SETI/METI debate, curious about his reaction. I asked whether he believed
    >transmitting messages intentionally designed for contact was a sound idea.
    >Whats the problem? he asked. If anyones out there, the sooner we get to
    >know them, the better. When I urged caution, pointing out that we know
    >nothing whatsoever about what an alien species might think or do, he
    >smiled. Wasnt I just bringing up tired science fiction scenarios like the
    >movie Independence Day? And what about the I Love Lucy factor?
    >
    >The latter, of course, is that expanding sphere of electromagnetic
    >radiation that seems to flag our presence in the form of old television and
    >radio shows (Fred Mertz as Terras first ambassador to the stars the mind
    >boggles). Whether or not such signals would actually be detectible is
    >problematic, but Zaitsev turns to an even stronger source of signalling,
    >planetary radars like Arecibo, Goldstone and Evpatoria itself, whose active
    >search for near-Earth asteroids would represent a more likely chance for
    >reception.
    >
    >When Zaitsev analyzed radar observations of asteroids and comets at the
    >three radar sites, he found that none of these transmissions crosses the
    >habitable zone of a star. That would imply that a civilization like our
    >own, restricted to its own planet, would be unlikely to pick them up. In
    >any case, a civilization bound to its own planet presents no threat to
    >Earth in the first place. Whereas Kardashev Type II or III civilizations,
    >with far greater energy resources at their disposal and presumably at home
    >in interstellar space, would be more likely to receive them.
    >
    >In his paper, Zaitsev puts the matter this way:
    >
    >Accidental detection by such civilizations of signals from the planetary
    >and asteroid radars of some other civilization is extremely unlikely. If we
    >are afraid of powerful and aggressive civilizations of Type II and Type
    >III, which live practically everywhere, it is necessary to forbid numerous
    >pointless transmissions of asteroid and planetary radars as their radiation
    >gradually illuminates greater areas that promotes its detection by star
    >aggressors and interventionists.
    >
    >In other words, if were serious about trying to keep our existence unknown,
    >we had better stop using our planetary radars in the first place, which
    >would mean giving up our protection against catastrophic strikes on Earth
    >by comets or asteroids. Its ironic that were discussing closing Arecibos
    >planetary radar as we ponder such matters, but in any case, Zaitsev goes on
    >to argue that there is less danger from interstellar messages like
    >Evpatorias, targeted at specific stars, than the radar transmissions we
    >have been making for some time in our own defense.
    >
    >Zaitsev sees a close connection between SETI and METI in that both require
    >an identical selection from the same target star lists, both involve
    >consideration of optimum frequencies and likelihoods of success, so that
    >the question of where to search and where to send are equivalent. He calls
    >for the further use of Arecibo, Goldstone and Evpatoria in sending future
    >interstellar messages, and notes that SETI itself may be dangerous. What if
    >an uncontrolled SETI search ended up with fanatics in control of weapons
    >derived from knowledge received from a high-level civilization?
    >
    >As an onlooker in this debate for some time now, I keep running into a
    >crucial problem. Again, it is the size of the participating audience. David
    >Brin has been an advocate of the idea that we need wider involvement from
    >other discipilines in deciding how to handle the METI question, and I have
    >to agree with that assessment. It would be interesting to learn of any
    >first-contact situation on Earth involving a technologically superior
    >civilization and a less developed one where the latter did not suffer.
    >
    >I admit to having little patience with sociology, but it would certainly be
    >helpful to have a historians take on all this, and for that matter, people
    >in the arts. We have a model for this kind of gathering. It is the 1983 Los
    >Alamos meeting called the Conference on Interstellar Migration and the
    >Human Experience. There, biologist met social scientist, historian met
    >physicist, in an attempt to put our past human experience into perspective
    >as we look forward to a future beyond the Solar System.
    >
    >Why relate possible alien contact to scenarios that are expressly human?
    >Because these are all we have to work with, and therefore must form the
    >basis of our investigation. Which raises another troubling question. Human
    >nature has shown its colors for good and ill throughout recorded history, a
    >mixed record of dazzling achievements and horrific barbarism, depending on
    >where you look. Would aliens be better than us, or worse? Or would they be
    >much like us in having a mixture of motivations of the sort that in our own
    >history has often led to misunderstandings, brutality and war?
    >
    >At this point these can only be speculations. But how helpful it would be
    >to see a meeting like the Conference on Interstellar Migration convened to
    >address these matters from as wide a range of perspectives as possible. The
    >interest for such a gathering seems to be growing. I would hope it could
    >also raise the consciousness of the general public to an issue that, as we
    >continue our technological advance, may well play a role in our long-term
    >future. SETI/METI is a good story, but its not science fiction any more.
    >And we need to establish an informed consensus before we send more
    >messages.
    >
    >For more on the Los Alamos conference, see Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones,
    >Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience (Berkeley: University of
    >California Press, 1985).
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >--
    >You are subscribed to email updates from "Centauri Dreams."
    >To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubcribe now
    >http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailunsub?id=3340873&key=2Cz4sEkTio
    >
    >If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Centauri Dreams,
    >c/o FeedBurner, 549 W Randolph, Chicago IL USA 60661
    >
    >This Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner.
    >


  • Next message: LARRY KLAES: "SETI bioastro: Saving Space Junk"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Oct 15 2007 - 13:26:56 PDT