People have always struggled with the concept of making contact with extraterrestrial intelligence in science fiction (Extraterrestrial Intelligence). The conversation is increasingly moving away from science fiction and onto more serious areas.
One academic study at a time, debates are taking place over the possible reaction to and geopolitical repercussions of contact with an ET.
Whether you believe it is plausible or even possibly feasible that humans will ever make contact with an ETI, the subject is intriguing. And it could reveal more about humans than an extraterrestrial intelligence.
The most recent argument amongst experts comes from a new publication titled "Geopolitical Implications of a Successful SETI Program." The three writers of the study are connected to organizations including NASA, the Penn State ETI Center, the Philosophy Department at Spring Hill College, and Harvard Law School. Jason T. Wright from Penn State University is the main author.
The article is presently accessible on the pre-press website arxiv.org after being approved for publication by the journal Space Policy.
This essay is a reaction to a previous piece titled "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Realpolitik Consideration," which was written in 2020. The topic around probable contact with an ETI received additional attention when that research was also published in the journal Space Policy.
John Traphagan and Kenneth Wisian are the writers. Wisian comes from the University of Texas' Center for Space Research, while Traphagan comes from the university's Department of Religious Studies and Program in Human Dimensions of Organizations. Their article will be referred to as WT 2020.
The concerns associated with Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and Messaging an Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI), the two authors of WT 2020 noted, dominate most of the thinking around ETIs (METI).
What if the ETI has cutting-edge technology and poses a threat? What if they're anything like conquistadors? When he observed, "Such intelligent aliens might potentially become nomads, aiming to conquer and occupy any worlds they could reach," Stephen Hawking captured this apprehension effectively in 2010.
Hollywood makes millions of dollars off of those kinds of alien invasions, but the writers of WT 2020 concentrated on a different danger that doesn't get as much attention.
What danger is that?
In particular, they write, "the risk of just picking up an extraterrestrial signal through passive SETI operations is often thought to be small."
What's so dangerous about just picking up a signal? Our realpolitik and us.
If you've never heard of realpolitik, history is replete with instances. Realpolitik is described as "Politics focused on practical and material circumstances rather than on theoretical or ethical aims" by Merriam-Webster.
Realpolitik, according to historian John Bew, is "the concept of interstate relations where 'the assumption that the state might be managed or controlled by legislation [is] faulty" and that "power obey[s] only greater power," as stated in WT 2020.
Realpolitik is the gritty, back-alley politics that take place between political parties, often countries. Realpolitik is distinct from the speeches political leaders make during campaigns and in front of the public, when ideology and virtue-signaling run rampant and leaders use political theater to persuade the public and forward their agendas.
Realpolitik is concerned with how power operates in our society. World War 2 is an excellent realpolitik case study.
Stalin and Russia were treated well by American President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill. When they met with Stalin, they addressed him as an ally, shook his hand, and grinned. The Americans even sent a regular supply of supplies to Russia to support their war effort because they knew how important Stalin was to keeping up the battle and weakening Hitler.
All seems to be OK in this well-known Yalta Conference film. The three leaders may be seen getting along with one another at the 2:35 mark. However, realpolitik woven a different web in the background.
Stalin was aware that Churchill and Roosevelt required his assistance to end the war. Stalin made the post-war election pledge to Poland because he needed the allies to defeat Germany. As soon as the war was over, Hitler changed his mind, seized Poland and other nations, and Russia and the West were declared open adversaries. All of it is realpolitik, which Stalin excelled at using.
However, the globe was at war at the time. Why is it pertinent to our more contemporary day and the possibility of encountering an ETI?
Because they are still human.
People who practice religion may find it disturbing if we unintentionally discover a signal from an ETI. Their worldview may be seriously compromised, and there might be a big upheaval in religious nations or perhaps violent religious extremism.
The belief is that it will eventually die down and people would resume their normal lives. For scientists, it would be revolutionary, but most people would go on with their lives. The WT 2020 paper summarizes the reasoning in this manner. However, how may countries and their political leaders respond?
But there will always be some realpolitik wherever countries are competing with one another. Additionally, monopolizing interaction with an ETI might have advantages for the country that has the monopoly.
The authors state in WT 2020 that there is a measurably high danger of conflict over the perceived advantage of monopolistic access to ETI communication channels. This is according to the history of international relations as seen through the realpolitik tradition of realist political thinking.
When weighing the rewards and hazards of contacting extraterrestrial intelligence, this possibility must be taken into account.
The threat to Wisian and Traphagan is posed by what we could do to ourselves.
Any ETI would probably have a huge technical edge over humanity, and if the ETI wasn't intentionally hostile, that advantage offers a chance for countries. A government may acquire a technical advantage if it controls all communication with the ETI.
Imagine China, Russia, or the United States wanting to possess that technical edge. or Iran, North Korea, etc. The writers are looking at realpolitik via this prism. Conflict or other unfavorable outcomes might result from it.
Realpolitik factors should be taken into account while making plans for effective passive SETI, according to WT 2020's authors. They provide a number of suggestions. They recommend that SETI researchers tighten their institutions' perimeters and security, as well as personnel security for researchers and their families. They also advise that researchers increase their contacts with local law enforcement.
The authors of WT 2020 also advocate for the use of security measures seen in nuclear power plants for observational equipment like as radio telescopes.
However, the current study, which responds to the WT 2020 document and its realpolitik concerns, does not consider these security measures as beneficial. They disagree as well with the idea that any country could probably find a way to monopolize contact with an ETI.
It is possible for outsiders to infer from the presence of hardened facilities and restricted information flows that a community or facility is engaged in activities that might have a profound impact on the globe.
from Wright et al2022 .'s study "Geopolitical Implications of a Successful SETI Program."
The authors state that although they "we not question the possibility of a realpolitik approach, we unearth issues with W&T's depiction of the realpolitik paradigm."
There are problems with the WT 2020 study, they claim, and "adequate justification is not supplied to accept this probable scenario as action-guiding above other option geopolitical responses."
Realpolitik could be the most appropriate answer if it is necessary. That much is agreed upon by the authors of the current research, who still demonstrate that "...it is exceedingly improbable that a country could effectively monopolize communication via ETI."
The danger that is most likely to occur is when a country believes it can dominate communications.
Other facets of the WT 2020 realpolitik scenario are also criticized by the writers. For instance, if a signal is found by a democracy in the West, may it monopolize it? The authors contend that this is unlikely given how well-integrated western science is globally.
Monopolization is unlikely since many different countries and organizations are partners with our most potent observatories. Transparency, not informational protectionism, is the lifeblood of the scientific community.
Additionally, the example interaction scenario in WT 2020 is criticized by the authors. According to WT 2020, a contact that seems insignificant to an ETI may really include important technological knowledge that a monopolizing country may find advantageous. This is improbable.
"It is not at all evident that this might happen. First of all, research is cumulative and nonlinear: "We must first have the necessary scientific framework to grasp it before a new discovery may be valuable," they write.
Could a book on nuclear weapon design be used by medieval scholars? Could they act on it if they understood it? According to the authors, it is unlikely that a highly developed ETI will provide knowledge about cutting-edge technology.
What particular technical benefit may be achieved, too? There are already enough nuclear weapons in existence to end humanity. We also have bioweapons. May an ETI mistakenly divulge knowledge that the monopolizer could use to create a superweapon? The writers claim that this is leaving realpolitik behind and entering the domain of science fiction.
The authors contend that openness, as opposed to tighter security and state policing measures, is the greatest approach to stop state actors from ever imagining they may acquire a monopoly. In reality, the actions recommended in WT 2020 may bring about the same realpolitik nightmare that they are seeking to prevent.
The authors of the new article make this point extremely explicit in their paper, saying: "Finally, it is crucial to note that installing substantial security precautions in the SETI and METI domains might potentially result in the issues W&T warns about.
"Even if nothing had been found, the mere presence of hardened facilities and locked-down information flows could be perceived by outsiders as proof that some potentially world-altering activity was taking place within that community or facility, leading to exactly the kind of espionage and conflict that W&T are trying to avoid in the first place."
There is considerable consensus across the articles about the dangers of contact.
The authors of the new article state that "W&T's genuine concern is that the mere idea of an information monopoly may be enough to spark deadly conflict."
History demonstrates that adversarial countries are capable of developing paranoia, banging their sabres, and even launching pre-emptive attacks if they feel threatened. Some civilizations would find it harder to deal with the concern and dread associated with probable contact with an ETI than others because of all the unknowns. Flashpoints would be present.
The safety of scientists engaged in ETI research is another area of consensus.
However, the authors note that "there are additional reasons to impose security measures aimed to safeguard the SETI practitioners themselves, particularly in the case of discovery, even if we have good reason to eschew substantial security protections of facilities per se."
These researchers can end up the targets of harassment and even violence. As the COVID epidemic shown, there are many crazy people out there, and anti-science sentiment is on the rise.
"A realpolitik reaction to a contact situation is worth examining," the authors write in their conclusion, "but we believe that it is merely one of the several possible post-contact responses that need consideration."
They contend that there are much better options available and propose solutions "... that may produce coherence or stronger cooperation at the level of international relations."
Additionally, they claim that the WT 2020 study is predicated on the idea that political leaders would underestimate the likelihood that contact with an ETI will be used as a tool of another state. The authors of this study disagree with the suggestions made in WT 2020, despite the fact that they believe that fear is not without merit and should be taken into account.
When we make contact with an ETI, what do they advise that the world do?
The authors "... propose openness, data sharing, and education of legislators" rather than "hardening security at SETI sites."
Consider that. Although it doesn't make for excellent science fiction, it could stop us from fighting.
Comments
Post a Comment