6 ms·

It's too late to worry that the aliens will find us

23 points by aresant 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
VengefulCynic 16y ago
I find interesting to note that Shostak doesn't take the time to debate Hawking on the potential dangers of extra-terrestrials but rather claims that deliberately attempting contact poses no additional risks. I will certainly claim no expertise on the subject of contacting extra- terrestrial life, I will note that directed broadcasts will reach far more star systems than background RF radiating off of the Earth, all else being equal.
jerf 16y ago
I was pondering this a few weeks back, and after some thought I realized it's even later than I thought. The logic that an alien civilization should smash its neighbors before it can be smashed doesn't just hold for intelligence, it holds for life; if we can go from metaphorically crawling in the mud in the early 20th century (before radio) to potentially firing our own relativistic projectiles by, say, 2200, in 300 years, who's to say there isn't a species that could pull that trick in 30 years instead of 300? (Maybe somebody who can work together even better than we can, living with a faster biochemistry on a hotter planet? Something like Eliezer's "Maximum Fun-Fun Ultra Super Happy People"? Who knows? It's hard to imagine the human experience has been truly optimal on the technological development speed front.) In which case you may literally have no time at all to try to pick up the "intelligence". You need to smash all life, before you think it might have "intelligence". And Earth has been broadcasting "I'm alive!" for at least 2.4 billion years, since the Great Oxygenation Event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Ever since then, any intelligence within the area of probably several hundred light years or more has had the ability to take a simple spectrograph of our planet, observe free O2 in the atmosphere, decide that's too likely to be the result of life for comfort, and obliterate the planet. Nobody has. (Unless you believe the official Current Earth Destruction Status: http://qntm.org/board http://qntm.org/board However, it appears to simply be instrument failure. Somebody really ought to fix that.) Even on the galactic timescale, 2.4 billion years is not chump change. Either the game theoretic optimum is not to smash your neighbors immediately (for instance, widespread orbital colonization is indeed practical and is what happens, which as people have observed changes the balance away from "smash"), or we are effectively alone. Either way I think we can discard the relatavistic-projectile-death scenario, except as a major, unplannable fluke.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Heck, screw oxygen. Rationally, defense-oriented civilizations should smash all habitable-zone planets just to be on the safe side. But you're right: the fact that our suspiciously life-supporting planet has been sitting here for billions of years unmolested does appear to indicate that there aren't any planet-destroying game theorists in our neighbourhood. Alternative scenario: instead of a relativistic projectile, they sent a starship, which will leave us alone unless we develop enough technology to be a threat to its home planet. If we think that's a likely scenario we should all be sitting around worrying about how to not piss off the starship. On the other hand, since knowing about the starship is a threat to the starship, we should try to avoid even thinking about whether there might be a starship.
  - younata 16y ago
    Your alternative scenario boils down to "who cares if other people are watching, let's go develop warp drive so they will feel right talking to us." As the Prime Directive of Star Fleet tells us.
    - jerf 16y ago
      The Prime Directive is a way of writing exciting television shows that allows you to put characters that ought to be far too powerful to actually be in a dramatic bind into a dramatic bind, not a model for actual interstellar behavior. For that to actually "exist" would require that every species in the galaxy not only has a "human-like" mind, but one of a very particular and unusual bent, most of which probably comes from watching a particular show. This seems unlikely. (Far, far more likely in my mind would be the uplift scenario, that helping these civilizations would be seen as a moral duty once that was actually a real possibility. And it also sort of requires Star-Trek-like limits on technology as well; the Federation lacks the capability to rewrite a primitive civilization from the gene level up, but that seems an unrealistic limitation in real life. And that's not even what I consider the "most likely" scenario; I'm just saying that anyone who tried to instantiate the Prime Directive would probably break down into this moral duty idea pretty quickly. Why sit and wait for them to develop when you can just make it happen? Artificiality of development is a small concern next to potentially billions of unnecessary deaths. Whoever is out there, watching us war and burn and die and doing nothing, is not being an upstanding moral citizen.)
bombs 16y ago
Detecting this leakage radiation won't be that difficult. Its intensity decreases with the square of the distance, but even if the nearest aliens were 1000 light years away, they would still be able to detect it as long as their antenna technology was a century or two ahead of ours. How? If radio waves travel at the speed of light and the first radio transmitters were in operation in the late 1800's, this would mean that the transmissions would be no further than 150 light years or so. There are stars in this range, sure, but I'm interested in how antennas outside of this range might be able to pick up the signal.
- eavc 16y ago
  He means that the signal would still be detectable 1000 light years away. You're right that we're a long time away from that being a possibility.
- younata 16y ago
  I think the statement is more to show that it's not that hard to detect signals.
VBprogrammer 16y ago
You know, strange as this may sound, the length of a human life is but nanoseconds when looked at on galactic scales, I think I could live with having life cut short with the trade off that I'd die knowing the answer to the question is there anyone else out there.
- hugh3 16y ago
  The thing about having the Earth hit by a relativistic projectile is: you wouldn't die knowing that. You'd just die.
jbgoddard 16y ago
I really can't take aliens seriously. But thanks for the laugh imagining aliens watching I love lucy.
- younata 16y ago
  "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
- icey 16y ago
  So... you're not a fan of statistics?
- shasta 16y ago
  Someone should make an alien invasion movie where all the aliens are disguised as characters from "I Love Lucy." A serious one.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Futurama already did a show where aliens invade because they want to find out what happens an a show that's a lot like Ally McBeal.
- omgsean 16y ago
  What's not to take seriously?
ericb 16y ago
I think our fears are unfounded. Development following an industrial revolution is so fast compared to the time scales involved in interstellar travel that we are unlikely to have anything of interest to a society even 500 years "older" than ours. It is somewhat akin to a three year old worrying about a sixteen year old wanting their tricycle.
- omgsean 16y ago
  I don't think the concern is about other societies wanting our tricycles, it's about them wanting our water.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Water? Water is one of the most common non-hydrogen, non-helium substances in the universe. There's several Earth masses' worth of water in the Oort cloud alone, and don't get me started on the interiors of Uranus and Neptune. The piddly amount of water in Earth's oceans is worth nothing.
    - chc 16y ago
      Our water is much more accessible than the interior of Neptune. Even for a species with relativistic technology, I doubt delving into a gas giant will be completely trivial (kind of like the bottom of the sea is still a very inhospitable place for us).
      - hugh3 16y ago
        Which is why I said "don't get me started" on them. Every solid body at or past Jupiter orbit is, however, something like 30%+ water ice.
patio11 16y ago
This whole issue is like Aztecs worrying that Quetyzcoatl is going to burn their villages if he sees their smoke signals, in between the human sacrifices and general non-white-Christianness which got them into trouble when an advanced civilization they couldn't have predicted but which actually existed knocked on the door. I do not want to insult Quetyzcoatl by comparing likelihood of his existence to that of space aliens. Evidence of winged serpent gods is lacking, but since the Drake Equation means that anything which makes for a good sci-fi novel is good enough to write a grant proposal for, I suppose I should cover my bases.
s_m 16y ago
At the present rate of ecological calamity, I'd be more worried that aliens won't find us.

23 points by aresant 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

I find interesting to note that Shostak doesn't take the time to debate Hawking on the potential dangers of extra-terrestrials but rather claims that deliberately attempting contact poses no additional risks. I will certainly claim no expertise on the subject of contacting extra- terrestrial life, I will note that directed broadcasts will reach far more star systems than background RF radiating off of the Earth, all else being equal.

jerf 16y ago

I was pondering this a few weeks back, and after some thought I realized it's even later than I thought. The logic that an alien civilization should smash its neighbors before it can be smashed doesn't just hold for intelligence, it holds for life; if we can go from metaphorically crawling in the mud in the early 20th century (before radio) to potentially firing our own relativistic projectiles by, say, 2200, in 300 years, who's to say there isn't a species that could pull that trick in 30 years instead of 300? (Maybe somebody who can work together even better than we can, living with a faster biochemistry on a hotter planet? Something like Eliezer's "Maximum Fun-Fun Ultra Super Happy People"? Who knows? It's hard to imagine the human experience has been truly optimal on the technological development speed front.) In which case you may literally have no time at all to try to pick up the "intelligence". You need to smash all life, before you think it might have "intelligence". And Earth has been broadcasting "I'm alive!" for at least 2.4 billion years, since the Great Oxygenation Event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Ever since then, any intelligence within the area of probably several hundred light years or more has had the ability to take a simple spectrograph of our planet, observe free O2 in the atmosphere, decide that's too likely to be the result of life for comfort, and obliterate the planet. Nobody has. (Unless you believe the official Current Earth Destruction Status: http://qntm.org/board http://qntm.org/board However, it appears to simply be instrument failure. Somebody really ought to fix that.) Even on the galactic timescale, 2.4 billion years is not chump change. Either the game theoretic optimum is not to smash your neighbors immediately (for instance, widespread orbital colonization is indeed practical and is what happens, which as people have observed changes the balance away from "smash"), or we are effectively alone. Either way I think we can discard the relatavistic-projectile-death scenario, except as a major, unplannable fluke.

hugh3 16y ago
Heck, screw oxygen. Rationally, defense-oriented civilizations should smash all habitable-zone planets just to be on the safe side. But you're right: the fact that our suspiciously life-supporting planet has been sitting here for billions of years unmolested does appear to indicate that there aren't any planet-destroying game theorists in our neighbourhood. Alternative scenario: instead of a relativistic projectile, they sent a starship, which will leave us alone unless we develop enough technology to be a threat to its home planet. If we think that's a likely scenario we should all be sitting around worrying about how to not piss off the starship. On the other hand, since knowing about the starship is a threat to the starship, we should try to avoid even thinking about whether there might be a starship.
- younata 16y ago
  Your alternative scenario boils down to "who cares if other people are watching, let's go develop warp drive so they will feel right talking to us." As the Prime Directive of Star Fleet tells us.
  - jerf 16y ago
    The Prime Directive is a way of writing exciting television shows that allows you to put characters that ought to be far too powerful to actually be in a dramatic bind into a dramatic bind, not a model for actual interstellar behavior. For that to actually "exist" would require that every species in the galaxy not only has a "human-like" mind, but one of a very particular and unusual bent, most of which probably comes from watching a particular show. This seems unlikely. (Far, far more likely in my mind would be the uplift scenario, that helping these civilizations would be seen as a moral duty once that was actually a real possibility. And it also sort of requires Star-Trek-like limits on technology as well; the Federation lacks the capability to rewrite a primitive civilization from the gene level up, but that seems an unrealistic limitation in real life. And that's not even what I consider the "most likely" scenario; I'm just saying that anyone who tried to instantiate the Prime Directive would probably break down into this moral duty idea pretty quickly. Why sit and wait for them to develop when you can just make it happen? Artificiality of development is a small concern next to potentially billions of unnecessary deaths. Whoever is out there, watching us war and burn and die and doing nothing, is not being an upstanding moral citizen.)

bombs 16y ago

Detecting this leakage radiation won't be that difficult. Its intensity decreases with the square of the distance, but even if the nearest aliens were 1000 light years away, they would still be able to detect it as long as their antenna technology was a century or two ahead of ours. How? If radio waves travel at the speed of light and the first radio transmitters were in operation in the late 1800's, this would mean that the transmissions would be no further than 150 light years or so. There are stars in this range, sure, but I'm interested in how antennas outside of this range might be able to pick up the signal.

eavc 16y ago
He means that the signal would still be detectable 1000 light years away. You're right that we're a long time away from that being a possibility.
younata 16y ago
I think the statement is more to show that it's not that hard to detect signals.

VBprogrammer 16y ago

You know, strange as this may sound, the length of a human life is but nanoseconds when looked at on galactic scales, I think I could live with having life cut short with the trade off that I'd die knowing the answer to the question is there anyone else out there.

hugh3 16y ago
The thing about having the Earth hit by a relativistic projectile is: you wouldn't die knowing that. You'd just die.

jbgoddard 16y ago

I really can't take aliens seriously. But thanks for the laugh imagining aliens watching I love lucy.

younata 16y ago
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."
icey 16y ago
So... you're not a fan of statistics?
shasta 16y ago
Someone should make an alien invasion movie where all the aliens are disguised as characters from "I Love Lucy." A serious one.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Futurama already did a show where aliens invade because they want to find out what happens an a show that's a lot like Ally McBeal.
omgsean 16y ago
What's not to take seriously?

ericb 16y ago

I think our fears are unfounded. Development following an industrial revolution is so fast compared to the time scales involved in interstellar travel that we are unlikely to have anything of interest to a society even 500 years "older" than ours. It is somewhat akin to a three year old worrying about a sixteen year old wanting their tricycle.

omgsean 16y ago
I don't think the concern is about other societies wanting our tricycles, it's about them wanting our water.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Water? Water is one of the most common non-hydrogen, non-helium substances in the universe. There's several Earth masses' worth of water in the Oort cloud alone, and don't get me started on the interiors of Uranus and Neptune. The piddly amount of water in Earth's oceans is worth nothing.
  - chc 16y ago
    Our water is much more accessible than the interior of Neptune. Even for a species with relativistic technology, I doubt delving into a gas giant will be completely trivial (kind of like the bottom of the sea is still a very inhospitable place for us).
    - hugh3 16y ago
      Which is why I said "don't get me started" on them. Every solid body at or past Jupiter orbit is, however, something like 30%+ water ice.

patio11 16y ago

This whole issue is like Aztecs worrying that Quetyzcoatl is going to burn their villages if he sees their smoke signals, in between the human sacrifices and general non-white-Christianness which got them into trouble when an advanced civilization they couldn't have predicted but which actually existed knocked on the door. I do not want to insult Quetyzcoatl by comparing likelihood of his existence to that of space aliens. Evidence of winged serpent gods is lacking, but since the Drake Equation means that anything which makes for a good sci-fi novel is good enough to write a grant proposal for, I suppose I should cover my bases.

s_m 16y ago

At the present rate of ecological calamity, I'd be more worried that aliens won't find us.