4 ms·
Counter argument: So if we've been using radar since WWII, and radar has been capable of signalling our presence to alien civilizations, then we don't need MET
by blueadept111 8y ago
Counter argument:
So if we've been using radar since WWII, and radar has been capable of signalling our presence to alien civilizations, then we don't need METI. Alternatively, if METI is proposing a signal that can reach alien civilizations in a way that TV and radio signals cannot, then the original objections to METI still stand, and the TV/radio signal argument is a red herring.
But really, it's just common sense. Everything we know about the universe tells us that complex organisms exist at the expense of simpler organisms. As a nascent space-faring civilization, we are the minnows in the ocean, and signalling our presence to the bigger fish is the kind of mistake that a minnow only makes once. What exactly is the perceived positive outcome of making contact with a more advanced civilization?
- svachalek 8y agoThis, exactly. What METI is proposing, as I understand, is a stronger, more unmistakable signal of intelligence which carries higher risks. Also, this is 70 years of noise, a blip on the galactic timescale, getting weaker the farther it goes. We can't stop what's gone out already but that doesn't make us obligated to keep advertising our presence forever.
- SOMA_BOFH 8y agoIs there a proposal from METI more capable of reaching out than this 32MW transmitter with a 1.4° beamwidth which has been operating continuously for decades? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglin_AFB_Site_C-6#How_the_radar_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eglin_AFB_Site_C-6#How_the_rad...