when seti succeeds: - citeseerx

When SETI Succeeds:The Impact of High-Information Contact

A H u m a n i t y 3 0 0 0 K n o w l e d g e W o r k s h o p

A Publication ofThe FoundationFor the Future

Edited byDr. Allen Tough

The Foundation Board of Trustees

Walter Kistler Bob Citron

Trustee and President Trustee and Executive Director

Sesh Velamoor Milt Woods

Trustee and Deputy Director Trustee

The Foundation Board of Advisors

Dr. George Bugliarello Dr. Ricardo Diez-Hochleitner Graham Molitor

New York Polytechnic University Club of Rome Public Policy Forecasting, Inc.

Dr. William H. Calvin Dr. Brian Fagan Dr. Robert Muller

University of Washington University of California, Santa Barbara University for Peace

Dr. Eric Chaisson Barbara Marx Hubbard Dr. Edward O. Wilson

Tufts University Foundation for Conscious Evolution Harvard University

Joseph Coates Dr. Donald Johanson

Coates and Jarratt, Inc. Institute of Human Origins

Dr. Christian de Duve Dr. Michio Kaku

Institute of Cellular Pathology City University of New York

123 105th Avenue SEBellevue, Washington USA 98004

Tel: (425) 451-1333 Fax: (425) 451-1238Email: [email protected]: www.futurefoundation.org

ISBN 0-9677252-2-41. SETI. 2. Extraterrestrials – Contact – Cultural Impact. I. Tough, Allen. II. Title.

© 2000 Foundation For the Future

Cover Art by David Hines

Back Cover Art by Paul Hudson

Astronomical Images

Page i A portion of the Arecibo Observatory, Puerto Rico.

Photo courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF. Photo by Tony Acevedo.

Page iii A cluster of brilliant, massive stars known as Hodge 301 in the Tarantula Nebula.

Image credit: Hubble Heritage Team (AURA/STScI/NASA).

Page v The majestic spiral galaxy NGC 4414.

Image credit: Hubble Heritage Team (AURA/STScI/NASA).

Page vii Apollo Command and Service Module.Page ix Illustration of Carl Sagan with Hubble Space Telescope in background.

Artwork by Paul Hudson.

Page xi Keck II (foreground) and Keck I (background) in Mauna Kea, Hawaii.

Photo copyright 1998, Richard Wainscoat.

Page 1 Galaxy cluster Abell 2218.

Image credit: Andrew Fruchter (STScI) et al., WFPC2, HST, NASA.

Page 7 Apollo 10 view of Earth rising above the lunar horizon.Page 33 A portion of the International Space Station.Page 41 South Candor Chasma on Mars.

Part of a mosaic made from images acquired by both of the Viking Orbiters.

Page 69 Satellite image of Earth.

Digital imagery © copyright 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.

Page 175 A section of the Milky Way.

A copy of this publication is available from the Foundation For the Future for $10 U.S. ($20 U.S. for international) to cover postage and handling.

July 2000

Dear Readers:

What is the status of humanity’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)? How and when might contact occur? What might we expect in terms of positive and negative impacts from that contact? In the following pages you will find the most current thinking concerning the likely long-term impact of a dialogue between humankind and extraterrestrial intelligence.

Scientists and scholars throughout the world have identified extraterrestrial intelligence as one of the critical factors expected to bear significantly on the long-term future of humanity. In summer 1999, the Foundation For the Future sponsored a seminar in Hawaii dedicated to furthering our understanding of likely cultural impacts of such contact.

We are very pleased to present this book, which provides a record and summation of the Hawaii seminar, as well as several insightful papers written by scholars who took part in those discussions. I hope you will enjoy reading their thoughtful conclusions.

Sincerely,

Walter P. KistlerPresident and Benefactor

i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

The Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Section I An Extraordinary Event

–

Allen Tough

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Section II Contact: Long-term Implications for Humanity

–

Albert Harrison and Steven Dick

. . . . . . . . . 7

Section III Who Said What: A Summary and Eleven Conclusions

–

John Billingham

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Section IV Participants’ Statements

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Topic 1: Practical Information

Superluminal Strings Theory: What ETI May Teach Us – Claudio Maccone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Topic 2: Answers to Major Questions

Implications of Contact with ETI Far Older than Humankind – Jill Tarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Extraterrestrials and Objective Knowledge – Steven J. Dick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Topic 3: Changes in Our View of Ourselves

Social Comparison, Identity, and Self-Esteem – Albert A. Harrison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Transformations in Spirituality and Religion – Paul Davies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Crisis at Mid-Millennium: A Report from the Year 2600 – Ben Finney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Topic 4: Cooperation in Joint Galactic Projects

The Role of Artists in Post-Contact Self-Identity – David Hines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Topic 5: Long-Term Effects That Are Primarily Negative

Human Analogues May Portend ET Conduct Toward Humanity – Ragbir Bhathal. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Null or Negative Effects of ETI Contact in the Next Millennium – Eric J. Chaisson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Topic 6: What Next?

Pursuing Five Strategies for Achieving Contact – Allen Tough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

What Can We Do Now? – Douglas Vakoch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Spreading the Word – John Billingham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Speculations on the First Contact – Guillermo A. Lemarchand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Table of Contents

ii Table of Contents

Section V Powerful Insights: In-Depth Papers by Participants and Others

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

The Role of the Social Sciences in SETI –

Albert A. Harrison et al.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of Complexity –

Eric J. Chaisson

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Cosmic Humanity –

Steven J. Dick

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

How Old Is ET? –

Ray P. Norris

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Networking with Our Galactic Neighbors –

Albert A. Harrison

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

How to Achieve Contact: Five Promising Strategies –

Allen Tough

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

The Contact Hypothesis –

Reed D. Riner

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

SETI, Consilience, and the Unity of Knowledge –

Ben Finney

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Cultural Aspects of Astrobiology –

Steven J. Dick

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Speculations on the First Contact –

Guillermo A. Lemarchand

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Roman Catholic Views of Extraterrestrial Intelligence –

Douglas A. Vakoch

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Section VI Participant Biographies

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

iii

Report on:

A SEMINAR ON THE CULTURAL IMPACT OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL CONTACT

July 31–August 1, 1999Kamuela, Hawaii USA

The Foundation For the Future is dedicated to theincrease and diffusion of knowledge concerningthe long-term future of humanity. In view of thelikelihood that a key element of our future in thenext thousand years will be contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence, the Foundation—throughthe Knowledge Workshops of its Humanity 3000program—sponsored a seminar in summer 1999that brought together 16 participants with schol-arly perspectives on the Search for Extraterres-trial Intelligence (SETI).

The seminar was organized and coordinated by Dr.Allen Tough, who has dedicated the past 20 years toresearch on ETI and the future of human civilization.Focused on long-range ramifications, the seminar

emphasized the cultural impact several decades orcenturies after dialogue between humankind and anextraterrestrial civilization commences. The seminarwas held in conjunction with

Bioastronomy ’99: ANew Era in the Search for Life in the Universe

. This report is called

When SETI Succeeds: TheImpact of High-Information Contact

. It presents acomprehensive review of the potential impact thatcontact with a highly advanced intelligence will haveon human civilization.

This report is rather unique in its format as well asits content. It is based partly on the ideas thatemerged during the two-day seminar, and it includesbrief written position statements that each partici-pant brought to the seminar. But it also includes sev-eral powerful insights in additional in-depth paperswritten by several of the participants and by others.

This report, then, is neither a traditional seminarproceedings nor a traditional collection of papers.Instead, it combines the best features of both forms.In this way it provides fresh, lively insights into thelong-term impact when SETI succeeds.

Introduction

iv Introduction

v

Humanity’s interaction with other civilizations in ourgalaxy is likely to have a greater impact for the long-term future of human civilization than virtually anyother event in the current millennium.

This Humanity 3000 Knowledge Workshop focusedon the potential impact of high-information contactwith extraterrestrial intelligence in the followingtopic areas:

1. Practical Information

2. Answers to Major Questions

3. Changes in Our View of Ourselves

4. Cooperation in Joint Galactic Projects

5. Significant Long-Term Effects That Are Primarily Negative

6. What Should Humanity Do Now to Maximize Positive Long-Term Impacts?

The Topics

vi The Topics

vii

Ragbir Bhathal

University of Western Sydney

John Billingham

SETI Institute

Eric J. Chaisson

Tufts University

Bob Citron

Foundation For the Future

Kathleen Connell

NASA Astrobiology Institute

Paul Davies

Burnside, Australia

Steven J. Dick

U.S. Naval Observatory

Ben Finney

University of Hawaii

Participant biographies are provided in Section VI.

Albert A. Harrison

University of California, Davis

David Hines

Santa Clarita, CA


Universidad de Buenos Aires

Claudio Maccone

Alenia Spazio

Jill Tarter

SETI Institute

Keiko Tokunaga

Institute of Zen Studies

Allen Tough

University of Toronto

Douglas A. Vakoch

SETI Institute

The Participants

viii The Participants

ix

Bob Citron, Executive Director, and Donna Hines,Deputy Director, Administration, from the Founda-tion For the Future, made the Hawaii seminar andthis report possible. As a result of their constantencouragement and help, I found that organizingand chairing this seminar was a very happy experi-ence.

Jill Tarter and I met with Bob Citron and WalterKistler, founder and benefactor of the FoundationFor the Future, in October 1998 (at the InternationalAstronautical Congress in Melbourne) to work out agood fit between the core goals of the seminar andthe core mission of the Foundation For the Future.

Karen Meech not only coordinated the logistics ofthe large Bioastronomy conference that followed ourseminar, but also ensured that the Hapuna BeachPrince Hotel successfully met our seminar’s needs.The participants enthusiastically agreed that thelocation and service were superb. Imagine meetingjust steps from a sunlit courtyard for coffee breaks,and just a few more steps from the warm Pacific surffor after-hours recreation!

John Billingham prepared an immediate sum-mary of the seminar for oral presentation at a ple-nary session of the Bioastronomy conference. Thewritten version of his summary is included in thisreport.

Albert Harrison and Steven Dick prepared thesuperb document that forms the core of this report.They have captured all of the major ideas from theseminar papers and discussion, and have woventhese together into a readable and informative chap-ter.

The inspiring and evocative cover painting byDavid Hines provides an excellent portal to the topic.

Congratulations to Jill Tarter for winning a box ofCanadian maple sugar at the Hawaii seminar by

being the first participant to figure out the source ofthis quotation: “If this discovery is confirmed, it willsurely be one of the most stunning insights into theuniverse that science has ever uncovered. Its implica-tions are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can beimagined. Even as it promises answers to some of ouroldest questions, it poses still others even more fun-damental.” (Spoken by President Clinton afterNASA’s 1996 announcement of possible evidence ofprimitive microbial life in a rock from Mars, thesewords were also used in the movie

Contact

.)Staff members of the Foundation For the Future

responsible for the development and completion ofthis report include Jeff Holdsworth, Art Director;Jean Gilbertson, Publications Manager; Cathy Allen,Executive Assistant, and Ann Reid, Executive Assis-tant.

All of us appreciate the cooperation of the Astro-nomical Society of the Pacific, publisher of the pro-ceedings for the much larger conference thatimmediately followed our seminar. That volume,edited by Guillermo Lemarchand and Karen Meech,is called

Bioastronomy ’99: A New Era in Bioastron-omy, Proceedings of a Conference held on the KohalaCoast, Hawaii, 2-6 August 1999

, ASP ConferenceSeries 213. Finally, I want to acknowledge the contributionsof all of the seminar participants themselves. Theirideas provide the intellectual foundation for thisreport, and provide humanity with a fresh and pro-found understanding of just what sorts of impactmight occur during the decades after human intelli-gence and extraterrestrial intelligence begin theirdialogue.

Allen Tough

Seminar Coordinator

Acknowledgements

x Acknowledgements

xi

Summarized below are the contents of each Sectionof the report,

When SETI Succeeds: The Impact ofHigh-Information Contact

.

Section I,

entitled “An Extraordinary Event,” writtenby Seminar Coordinator Allen Tough, provides anintroduction to SETI and to the six seminar topics.

Section II,

entitled “Contact: Long-Term Implica-tions for Humanity,” by Albert A. Harrison andSteven J. Dick, is a comprehensive report on the sem-inar and a review of the SETI field, including therationale and justification for the search, commonassumptions about ETI, discussion of search out-comes, comments on the post-contact society, andwhat humanity’s next steps should be.

Section III

, entitled “Who Said What: A Summaryand Eleven Conclusions,” by John Billingham, cap-tures the highlights of the seminar discussions

addressing each of the key topics. This paper was pre-sented by Billingham at the international conference

Bioastronomy ’99: A New Era in the Search for Life inthe Universe

, held at the same facilities in Hawaiiimmediately following the Humanity 3000 Knowl-edge Seminar on the Cultural Impact of Extraterres-trial Contact.

Section IV

provides the one- to two-page statementswritten by participants before the seminar. Eachstatement addresses one of the key topics and servedas a starting point for seminar dialogue.

Section V

—

“Powerful Insights: In-Depth Papers byParticipants and Others”—is a collection of scholarlypapers on important aspects of the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Section VI

provides biographical information on thesixteen participants in the seminar.

Overview

xii Overview

1

Allen Tough

In recent years, scientists and the general public haverealized that intelligent life may well be foundthroughout the universe. It is extremely unlikely thatwe are the only civilization in our galaxy. It may evencontain dozens or hundreds of civilizations scatteredamong its 400,000,000,000 stars. If we receive a richlydetailed message from one of these civilizations orengage in a lively dialogue, the effects on our civiliza-tion could be pervasive and profound.

Contact with intelligent life from somewhere elsein our galaxy will probably occur sometime inhumanity’s future. It might take the form of a richlydetailed radio or laser message from the distant civi-lization, for instance, or a super-intelligent probethat reaches our planet. Such contact might occurnext year, or 20 or 30 years from now, or not for 100years, or even longer.

Few events in the entire sweep of human historywould be as significant and far-reaching, affectingour deepest beliefs about the nature of the universe,our place in it, and what lies ahead for human civili-zation. Seeking contact and preparing for successfulinteraction should be two of the top priorities on ourcivilization’s current agenda.

Such contact will surely be an extraordinary eventin all of human history. Over the next thousandyears, several significant events will, no doubt, have apowerful, positive impact on human society. Butmaking contact with another civilization will likelybe the event with the highest positive impact of all.

A few hundred scientists, social scientists, artists,engineers, and technicians around the world are cur-rently involved in the search for such contact—thesearch for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Thisvolume,

When SETI Succeeds

, examines the potentialimpact on human culture, science, philosophy, andsociety.

Any other civilizations in our galaxy are probablymuch older than human civilization. Two factorssupport this assumption. First, the vast majority ofstars in our galaxy are much older than our Sun,many of them millions of years older. It follows, then,that any civilizations on planets revolving aroundthose stars likely arose much earlier than our owncivilization did. Second, it seems quite possible thatsome civilizations survive for a million years or evenlonger. If the civilizations in our galaxy range in agefrom a few thousand years up to a million years, thenwe are one of the youngest: by most definitions,human civilization is not much more than 10,000years old.

Because other civilizations in our galaxy are thou-sands of years older than human civilization, theyhave probably advanced in certain ways beyond ourpresent level of development. Some civilizations pre-

It is extremely unlikely that we are the only civilization in our galaxy.

It may even contain dozens or hundreds of civilizations…

Seeking contact and preparing for successful interaction should be two of the top priorities on

our civilization’s current agenda.

An Extraordinary Event

Section I

2 Section I • An Extraordinary Event • Allen Tough

sumably fail to survive once they discover nuclearweapons or other means of causing their own extinc-tion, but surely others learn to cope successfully withsuch problems and then survive for a very long time.Some of them may be 100,000 years or even millionsof years more advanced than we are (Tough, 1999).

A Comprehensive Report

When SETI Succeeds

presents a comprehensivereview of the potential impact that contact with ahighly advanced intelligence will have on human civ-ilization. This report is based partly on the insights ofthe various authors and on other literature. And it isbased partly on the ideas that emerged during aunique two-day seminar in the summer of 1999.

That seminar, on the cultural impact of extrater-restrial contact, was generously sponsored by theFoundation For the Future because of its interest inthe major factors that will affect human civilizationover the next thousand years. Sixteen experts on thetopic gathered together on the Kohala Coast ofHawaii’s Big Island, just before the Bioastronomy ’99conference began at the same location.

This report, then, is neither a traditional “pro-ceedings,” nor a traditional review of the literature.Instead, it combines the best features of both forms.In this way it provides fresh, lively insights into thelong-term impact when SETI succeeds.

SETI has not yet succeeded in detecting anyrepeatable evidence. But the range of strategies andthe intensity of the efforts are growing rapidly, mak-ing success all the more likely in the next few decades.More than one strategy may succeed, of course, sothat by the year 3000 we may well be engaged in dia-logue with several different civilizations (or otherforms of intelligence) that originated in various partsof our Milky Way galaxy.

The Focus: The Long-Term Perspective

Because of our society’s focus on the immediatepresent and on the very short-term future, it is diffi-cult to switch into a long-term perspective. As aresult, most oral and printed discussions of contactfocus on the immediate and short-term effects. Incontrast, right from the beginning, my vision of thisseminar emphasized the long-term perspective. Aspart of my responsibility for organizing the programand discussion, I prepared a set of instructions forthe seminar participants, urging them to focus on thelong-term effects of contact.

Here are the exact words of those instructions:

The discussion will be sharply focused on the likelylong-term impact of a dialogue between humankindand a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization.Although the discussion will be fast-paced in aninformal roll-up-our-sleeves working atmosphere,our time together is limited and therefore a sharplydefined focus is necessary. Unfortunately we will nothave time to discuss the short-term impact, theimpact of detecting simply a dial tone with littleother information, nor social science topics in gen-eral, but I hope other forums will be available forthese topics. Long-term is emphasized because of themajor differences between short-term and long-termeffects of contact. The short-term effects are likely tobe chaotic, frenzied, unsettling—perhaps marked byresistance and conflict, by extreme media reactions,and by political maneuvering or even warfare (mili-tary or covert). Although these effects are veryimportant for the SETI field to study and prepare for,they are not the focus of this particular seminar. Ifhandled well, presumably most of these short-termeffects will fade within a few years. Our discussionhere will focus on the potential effects on human civ-ilization several decades or centuries after contactoccurs.

High-Information Scenarios

If SETI succeeds, two types of contact are possible.One possibility is simply evidence that anotheradvanced intelligence exists somewhere in the uni-verse, with little information about its characteristicsand no dialogue. One example is evidence of a Dysonsphere or some other major astroengineering projectmany light-years away, with no additional informa-tion about its creators. Another example is a radiomessage that arrives from many light-years away butis not successfully decoded even after many years ofeffort.

The short-term effects are likely to be chaotic, frenzied, unsettling…

Section I • An Extraordinary Event • Allen Tough 3

The second possibility is contact that yields a richstorehouse of knowledge about the extraterrestrialintelligence and its history, technology, science, val-ues, social organization, and so on. This could occurthrough an encyclopedic radio or optical messagethat we manage to decode. Because of recent progressin nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and spaceexploration, we now realize that closeup contact witha small but super-smart probe is at least as likely ascenario. In fact, by monitoring our telecommunica-tions, the probe will likely have learned our lan-guages and be able to communicate with us quiteeffectively: no decoding necessary!

Since this seminar focused on contact as a high-impact event, my instructions to participants usedthe following words to emphasize high-informationscenarios:

Because of the Foundation’s interest in the factorsthat are especially likely to have a high impact onhumanity, our discussion will assume that some sortof major information exchange or lively back-and-forth dialogue occurs between humans and someform of extraterrestrial intelligence. The particularscenario is not important in this seminar; it could bea rapidly translated encyclopedic message sent from40 light-years away by radio or laser, for instance, or asmall but extraordinarily intelligent probe sent by acivilization with technology 100,000 years ahead ofours. As Steve Dick noted in his Santa Cruz paper, “A‘dial tone’ signal, only giving evidence of intelligence,will be quite different in impact from the decipher-ment of significant amounts of information” (Dick,1995). We will, therefore, focus exclusively on thepotential effects of high-information scenarios.

The Long-Term Impact of Contact

This report examines five sorts of long-term conse-quences that could result from contact. To give you

an overview before you read the next chapter, here isthe core of each of the five.


We might well receive practical information andadvice that helps our human civilization to surviveand flourish. Possible examples include technology,transportation, a new form of energy, a new way ofproducing food or nourishing ourselves, a feasiblesolution to population growth, more effective gover-nance and social organization, fresh views on valuesand ethics, and inspiration to shift direction dramat-ically in order to achieve a reasonably positive future.The message might also bring home to people theimportance of eliminating warfare or at least elimi-nating weapons of extraordinary destruction. View-ing ourselves from an extraterrestrial perspectivemight be very useful in reducing our emphasis ondifferences and divisions among humans, andinstead seeing ourselves as one human family.


We might gain new insights and knowledge aboutdeep, major questions that go far beyond ordinarypractical day-to-day matters. Topics in an encyclope-dia-like message or closeup dialogue could includeastrophysics, the origin and evolution of the uni-verse, religious questions, the meaning and purposeof life, and answers to philosophical questions. Wemight receive detailed information about the othercivilization (which might be deeply alien to us) andabout its philosophies and beliefs. Similar informa-tion could be provided about several other civiliza-tions throughout our galaxy, too. We might evenreceive a body of knowledge accumulated over thepast billion years through contributions by dozens ofcivilizations throughout the galaxy.

What sorts of consequences will contact have forour religious ideas and institutions? Some religionsmay be deeply shaken by contact, or at least need toreexamine their set of beliefs. It seems clear, however,that humanity’s religions have already flourishedover many centuries despite a variety of scientific dis-coveries that conflict with religious views. And sev-eral religions have already incorporated the idea ofextraterrestrial life. Although some religious leadersmay denounce an extraterrestrial dialogue, most willsurely embrace it as further evidence of God’s infinitegreatness.

Because of recent progress in nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, and space exploration, we now realize that closeup contact with a small but super-smart probe is at least as likely a scenario.

Viewing ourselves from an extraterrestrial perspective might be very useful in reducing our emphasis on differences and divisions

among humans, and instead seeing ourselvesas one human family.



Richly detailed information from an extraterrestrialcivilization might transform our view of ourselvesand our place in the universe, even our ultimate des-tination. We might gain a much deeper sense of our-selves as part of intelligent life and evolving culturethroughout the universe—or at least part of a galac-tic family of civilizations. We might develop a deepersense of meaning and connectedness to a universefilled with biology and intelligence. A new cosmothe-ology or global/cosmic ethic might arise, or a power-ful secular movement of altruistic service to theuniverse and its long-term flourishing. Later in thisvolume, Steven Dick’s paper discusses that theme.

Michael Michaud pointed out 22 years ago that“contact would be immensely broadening anddeprovincializing. It would be a quantum jump inour awareness of things outside ourselves. It wouldchange our criteria of what matters. We would haveto think in interstellar, even galactic frames of refer-ence. We would leave the era of Earth history, andenter an era of cosmic history” (Michaud, 1977).

In

The SETI Factor

, Frank White raised the possi-bility that SETI “may be an effort to achieve a newkind of connection with the universe, workingwithin the framework that is acceptable to the West-ern scientific model. Perhaps SETI is an acceptableway for us to seek that reintegration, a feeling of con-nectedness which has been shattered by standingapart from the cosmos and examining it as some-thing that is not alive, not intelligent, and separatefrom ourselves” (White, 1990).


We might eventually play a role in some grand galac-tic project in art, science, philosophy, or philan-t h ro p y. Su c h p ro j e c t s m i g h t a i m to s o l vefundamental mysteries of the universe, help othercivilizations develop and flourish, or spread harmo-nious intelligent life throughout the galaxy.

In

The Extraterrestrial Encyclopedia

, JosephAngelo has noted that contact “might lead to thedevelopment of branches of art and science that sim-ply cannot be undertaken by just one planetary civili-zation but rather require joint, multiple-civilizationparticipation across interstellar distances. Perhapsthe very survival and salvation of the human racedepends on finding ourselves cast in a larger cosmicrole—a role far greater in significance than anyhuman can now imagine” (Angelo, 1985).

5. Long-term Negative Effects

If we incorporate extraterrestrial knowledge andadvice into our human society, we may experiencesevere disruption, at least for a short time. We mightsuffer from enormous culture shock, temporarily feelinferior, or lose confidence in our own culture. Mas-sive and rapid change could occur in the sciences ifextraterrestrial science is deeply different, in businessand industry if we learn about new processes andproducts, in the legal system if we move toward cos-mic or universal laws, and in the armed forces andtheir suppliers if we eliminate the threat of war. Prob-ably all of this should be regarded as simply themajor cost we have to pay for incorporating newknowledge and possibilities. But will the short-termchaos and conflict be so severe that the negative con-sequences continue for decades or centuries?

Will our human culture (and even our genes) beobliterated by a more advanced civilization?

Will our science or philosophy “lose its nerve”when faced with far superior knowledge, and perma-nently retreat into trivia or resistance rather thanembracing the new?

What other sorts of negative effects might be pro-found and long lasting?

What Next?

After exploring those five sorts of impact, the semi-nar participants turned to the question of “Whatnext?” in their final session together. What shouldhumanity do

now

in order to maximize the positivelong-term impact from an eventual dialogue—inorder to achieve the greatest possible benefits for ourculture, science, worldview, and long-term future?

For me personally, the highlight of the seminaroccurred during the exploration of this topic whenKeiko Tokunaga, a young Buddhist priest, brought afresh perspective to the discussion. Emphasizing thepersonal level, she gently pointed out the need for allof us to become better prepared for contact with analien intelligence. Our own personal growth could

Massive and rapid change could occur in the sciences…in business and industry…in the legal

system…in the armed forces…

What should humanity do now in order to maximize the positive long-term impact from

an eventual dialogue…

Section I • An Extraordinary Event • Allen Tough 5

enable us to be more sensitive to the signals that wemay be inadvertently sending out to extraterrestrialintelligence, for instance, and to reduce our ego andour defenses so that we become truly open to contactwith something so alien—truly warm, welcoming,receptive, compassionate, and centered rather thanscared or defensive or hostile.

With strength, courage, and a touch of whimsy,Keiko Tokunaga pointed out that perhaps some peo-ple in the room were already having the experience ofbeing in contact with an alien—her! “Perhaps someof you respond to me as an alien, because I am not inyour world of science or philosophy. Perhaps youlook at me as some kind of another being, especiallythe way that I am dressed [as a Buddhist priest]. Yourencounter here with me may be similar in some waysto your eventual encounter with ETI, whenever andwherever that occurs.”

When asked what next steps I recommend inorder to understand and prepare for the impact ofcontact, I always make three suggestions.

One, we need more research (focus groups and in-depth surveys, for instance) to understand the likelyreactions of various cultural and religious groups inour society. Even raw data can be highly useful. Forexample, it is very instructive to read the verbatimresponses of various religious leaders to VictoriaAlexander’s survey at http://www.accessnv.com/nids/articles/alexander/response_analysis.html.

Two, we need additional seminars to build on theresults of the Hawaii seminar. As this report demon-strates, that seminar made a significant contributionto our understanding of the likely long-term impactof contact. But more thinking and discussion areclearly needed in order to reach a deeper and morecohesive understanding. In addition to the 1999Hawaii seminar, three 1991–92 meetings on the cul-tural aspects of SETI provided a useful foundationfor further thought. Those earlier meetings focusedon SETI and history, human responses to contact,policy issues, and possible relationships betweenSETI and education, news, and entertainment (Bill-ingham and others, 1994).

Third, we need workshops that use role-playing toimmerse the participants in the experience of con-tact. I experienced one useful model for such a work-

shop just two weeks before the Hawaii seminar.Called the second “Contact Planning” meeting andheld in Denver, Colorado, this workshop was spon-sored by the International Space Sciences Organiza-tion and organized by Kyle Pickford and MichaelLindemann. For me, there were three personal high-lights. (1) The 23 participants offered a fascinatingmix of backgrounds, beliefs, and competencies, butall became enthusiastically involved with the effort toanticipate just what might happen during the hoursand days after contact with ETI. It was quite an expe-rience to spend 48 hours immersed in contact! (2)We spent one afternoon in five groups: business, reli-gion, science, government, and media/public. Eachgroup role-played its behavior for each of eight sce-narios. Although I have read lots of literature onpost-contact behavior, this was the first time that Ideeply grasped just how people in each of those cate-gories may actually behave right after contact. Verysobering. (3) What can we do now to prepare? Wespent the last few hours of the meeting generatingand clustering various strategic planning possibili-ties. A large number of these ideas clearly fit into twoclusters that I find very encouraging: (a) tell the gen-eral public the truth right away and (b) prepare tocommunicate and negotiate with ETI in a friendlyand cooperative manner, even if its behavior seemsunfriendly.

An Extraordinary Event

Each participant of the 1999 Hawaii seminar choseand thought about one of the six topics outlinedabove, and then summarized any resulting insights ina one- or two-page handout. When the seminar dis-cussion reached that topic, we all took a few minutesto read the handout and then its author expanded onit. This procedure gave us a quick but thoughtfulfoundation for our discussion of each topic. Thehandouts are included in this report, along with thebiographical sheet that each participant prepared.

During the past few years, the scientific search forextraterrestrial intelligence has become quite main-stream within science. Several strategies have alreadybeen implemented and more are being considered(Tough, 1999). Public interest is high. It now seemsquite possible that our first contact with another civ-ilization will occur within the next few decades. Thisfirst contact will, in turn, lead to redoubled effortsusing a variety of strategies to achieve contact withadditional civilizations.

…prepare to communicate and negotiate with ETI in a friendly and cooperative manner,

even if its behavior seems unfriendly.


Of all the positive events that occur during thenext thousand years, this surely will have the mostprofound and pervasive impact on human civiliza-tion. It truly will be an extraordinary event.

References

Joseph A. Angelo, Jr

.

The Extraterrestrial Encyclopedia: OurSearch for Life in Outer Space

. New York: Facts on File, 1985.

John Billingham

,

Roger Heyns

,

David Milne

,

Stephen Doyle

,

Michael Klein

,

John Heilbron

,

Michael Ashkenazi

,

MichaelMichaud

,

Julie Lutz

, and

Seth Shostak

(editors).

Social Implica-tions of the Detection of an Extraterrestrial Civilization

. MountainView, California: SETI Press, 1994 (slightly revised 1999).

Steven J. Dick

. “Consequences of Success in SETI: Lessons fromthe History of Science.” In

G. Seth Shostak

(editor),

Progress inthe Search for Extraterrestrial Life

. ASP Conference Series, Volume74, 1995.

Michael A. G. Michaud

. “The Consequences of Contact.”

AIAAStudent Journal

, Winter 1977-1978: 18-23.

Allen Tough

. “The Array of Search Strategies.” Paper IAA-99-IAA.9.1.06

presented at the 50th International AstronauticalCongress, Amsterdam, October 1999. Revised version is includedin this volume. Also available at http://members.aol.com/AllenTough/strategies.html.

Frank White

.

The SETI Factor: How the Search for ExtraterrestrialIntelligence Is Changing Our View of the Universe and Ourselves

.New York: Walker, 1990.

7

Albert A. Harrison

University of California, Davis

Steven J. Dick

United States Naval Observatory

INTRODUCTION

Confirmation of the existence of extraterrestrialintelligence (ETI) is one of the major scientific dis-coveries that could instantly alter the course of soci-ety and have profound cumulative effects onhumanity for all time. Confirmation has yet to occur,but changing views of the universe, a parade of scien-tific discoveries, and themes in popular culture haveled to the widespread belief that “we are not alone.”Many people expect that some day we will findincontrovertible evidence of intelligent extraterres-trial life.

Since earliest recorded history, humans have won-dered about the possibility of intelligent life amongthe stars (Dick, 1982). Only in recent centuries, how-ever, have we been able to pursue this problem withthe sophisticated techniques required (Crowe, 1986,1994; Dick, 1996; Guthke, 1990; Shostak, 1998). Inthe 17th through 19th centuries, theory and observa-tion indicated that the same physical laws apply in allplaces and at all times. In the 20th century, growingevidence pointed to the conclusion that the laws ofbiology are universal also. If this is so, then life,including intelligent life, may have evolved in nearbysolar systems.

As we attempt to forecast humanity’s long-termfuture, the possibility of contact between human andextraterrestrial intelligence requires careful thought.Australian astronomer Ray Norris (1998) points outthat our ability to conduct radio telescope searchescontinues to increase dramatically, and estimates a50–50 chance of a confirmed detection within thenext ten years. This estimate is based on only one ofmany possible search strategies. If extraterrestrialintelligence exists, given a thousand-year time per-spective and burgeoning technology, its discoverymay not be so much of a “wild card” as a high proba-bility—perhaps inevitable—event.

The scientists who formulated SETI, the scientificsearch for extraterrestrial intelligence, were keenlyinterested in how people would react to “contact,” orincontrovertible evidence that we are not alone in theuniverse (Finney, 1999; Morrison, Billingham, andWolfe, 1977; Swift, 1990). Most past discussions ofthe impact of contact (Berenzden, 1973; Billinghamet al., 1999; Harrison, 1997; Morrison et al., 1977; USCongress, 1961) were predicated on the microwavesearch strategy, and emphasized people’s initial reac-tions to the discovery of extraterrestrial life.

If extraterrestrial intelligence exists…its discovery may not

be so much of a “wild card” as a high probability

—perhaps inevitable—event.

During the next millennium we may not only establish a perma-

nent human presence throughout our solar system, but also begin

interstellar migration.

Contact: Long-Term Implications for Humanity

Section II

8 Section II • Contact: Long-Term Implications for Humanity • Harrison and Dick

The present essay extends this tradition. Based ona symposium sponsored by the Foundation For theFuture on the Island of Hawaii in July 1999, our essaydraws heavily on the ideas of the participants as wellas on the literature that we cite. In keeping with thegoals and objectives of the Foundation, our discus-sion encompasses a range of search strategies, andemphasizes the long-term consequences: how con-tact with a communicative civilization might shapehumanity over the next thousand years.

Rationale and Justification for the Search

Estimates of the number of extraterrestrial civiliza-tions in our galaxy rest upon an elegant but simpleheuristic known as the Drake Equation. This statesthat the number of extraterrestrial civilizations exist-ing simultaneously with our own depends upon acombination of physical, biological, and social vari-ables (Drake and Sobel, 1992). These are the numberof suitable stars in our galaxy, the fraction of thosestars that have planets, the fraction of those planetsthat give rise to life, the fraction of life forms thatevolve into technologically advanced civilizations,and finally the average longevity of advanced civiliza-tions. (Longevity is important because it affects thechances that civilizations will exist simultaneously.)

In essence, as we proceed through the DrakeEquation we eliminate sites that do not host extrater-restrial civilizations that coincide with our own. Peo-ple who desire a positive search outcome hope thatdespite the many points for elimination, the resultingnumber of civilizations will be large. Since Drake for-mulated his equation in 1961, almost all findingssupport the “many inhabited worlds” hypothesis.These include discoveries that planets are commonrather than rare in other solar systems (Croswell,1997; Goldsmith, 1997; Marcy and Butler, 1998;Marcy et al., 1999); that complex organic moleculesare commonly found in comets and in giant cloudswhere stars and planets form; and that the initiationof life may be a “cosmic imperative” that dependsupon reliable principles of self-organization ratherthan nearly impossible chance events (Davies, 1998;de Duve, 1995; Kauffman, 1995). As suggested by theevaporation of the Cold War, societies may survivetheir own technological adolescence and achieve veryold age with the result that many advanced societiesexist at the present time. Despite growing circum-stantial evidence, we have yet to confirm the exist-ence of any extraterrestrial life.

There are strong justifications for continuing,indeed accelerating, the search. Professional astrono-mers have, in essence, a commission to keep an eyeon the universe. Even as astronomers are obliged toinventory stars and the rest of the physical universe,they must now join with a variety of other disciplinesto survey the biological universe (Dick, 1996). Theirresponsibilities include looking for evidence of cos-mic life in all of its forms, ranging from fossilized sin-gle-celled organisms through technologicallyadvanced civilizations.

During the next millennium we may not onlyestablish a permanent human presence throughoutour solar system, but also begin interstellar migra-tion. As we prepare to move beyond our solar systemover the next few centuries, it will be essential tounderstand the nature and distribution of life withinour part of the galactic neighborhood.

Depending on what we find, our discoveries couldbe crucial for averting disasters ranging from back-contamination and disease through conflict withextraterrestrial spacefarers. The sheer discovery ofany form of life would have profound effects on phi-losophy, science, and religion. The ability to commu-nicate freely with a technologically and perhapsspiritually advanced civilization would intensify andaugment those effects, altering our culture in bothstraightforward and subtle ways.

As we look to the distant future, we should realizethat the dominant microwave search strategy is onlyone way that we could discover extraterrestrial life(Tough, 1999). At some point we may switch toactive SETI (sending encoded signals rather thanpassively receiving them), or major advances in suchareas as transportation and communication may giverise to new search strategies. New scientific discover-ies could generate scientific interest in strategies(such as UFO studies) that are now largely discred-ited or, like planetary archaeology, seem unlikely towork. We must even be open to the possibility thatcontact has occurred in the past and we are livingwith the consequences of this contact. Right now, notone of these strategies has yielded scientific proof.

Section II • Contact: Long-Term Implications for Humanity • Harrison and Dick 9

At the conceptual level, our search for extraterres-trial life is based on a hunger for knowledge and adesire to find new purpose in the universe. At theprocedural level, our search depends upon our cur-rent understanding of interstellar travel and commu-nication and the technologies that are available to us.While we may expect interest in ETI to persist, wecan expect search strategies and technologies tochange, and with these the nature of the post-contactworld.

Common Assumptions about ETI

Despite widespread expectations that the discoveryof ETI will have an enormous impact on humanity inAD 3000, only with very broad strokes can we paint apicture of the future. The consequences of contactfor our descendants will depend upon the nature ofETI culture; the specifics of the contact scenario; andhuman psychology, institutions, and cultures.

Perhaps the greatest deterrent to accurate predic-tions is that since scientists have yet to observe ETIwe can only guess what it will be like. Furthermore,attempts to make such guesses are fraught with haz-ard. We are sensitive to cross-species and cross-cul-tural variability on Earth. How much greater couldthis variability be if we were to extend our observa-tions to biological entities whose genetic and culturalbackgrounds have nothing in common with ourown? Another risk is our tendency to anthropomor-phize, that is, wrongly impute human characteristicsto nonhumans and even inanimate objects. There aremany hypotheses about ETI, but until we actuallymake contact, we will not know which (if any) ofthese hypotheses are correct.

There are at least three ways that these hypotheseshave come about. Some reflect a process called

imag-inative production

and express human wishes andfears. Imaginative production is evident in precon-ceptions of benevolent space brothers arriving tosolve Earth’s problems, and in evil space invaderswho want to take over our planet. Some of theseimages are contemporary renditions of the angelsand devils that people have imagined since muchearlier times (Thompson, 1991). These images canbe very powerful and have been used to good effect in

science fiction (Billingham et al., 1999). MichaelMichaud eloquently expressed the role of psycholog-ical factors in our thinking about ETI:

In our thinking about alien intelligence, we revealourselves. We are variously hostile, intolerant, hopeful,naïve: influenced by science fiction, we see the aliens asimplacable, grotesque conquerors, or as benign, altruis-tic teachers who can save us from ourselves. Usually wethink of them as superior to us in some way: either theirmiraculous but malevolently applied technology mustbe overcome by simpler virtues, or we must accept themas gods who will raise humanity from its fallen condi-tion. Here we display fear, insecurity, wishful thinking,defeatism, even self-loathing, everything but the calmmaturity appropriate for our emergence into the galac-tic community. We are not ready

(Michaud, 1974, 33).Reverse engineering is a second process that gen-

erates expectations about ETI. We begin by acknowl-edging that ETI

could

be almost anything: a giant gasbag, creatures reminiscent of those portrayed in

Alien

or

Star Wars

movies—perhaps even free-floatingconsciousness. However, we then note that oursearch procedures will not lead us to all conceivablelife forms, only a small subset—such as life formsthat transmit microwaves. Once these constraints arein place, we can infer what ET “must” be like, just aswe might make an inference about an automobileengine on the basis of its acceleration and top speed.Compared to the process of imaginative production,which is almost entirely emotional, reverse engineer-ing has elements of rationality and logic.

Universal principles of behavior are the third ave-nue to generating hypotheses about ETI. If successivediscoveries imply universal principles in the physicaland biological sciences, it is conceivable that there areuniversal principles in the behavioral sciences also(Harrison, 1993, 1997). Perhaps there are deep lawsof individual and social behavior that hold true forall species, all times, and all cultures. If so, ourknowledge of biological and social entities on Earthgives us a starting place for organizing our thinkingabout intelligent life elsewhere. Although Earth isonly one case, nested within it is a multitude ofexamples—millions of species, thousands of cul-tures, hundreds of nations spanning a written historyextending back over 5,000 years. Neither reverse

At the conceptual level, our search for extraterrestrial life is based on a hunger for knowledge and a desire to find new purpose

in the universe.

Neither reverse engineering nor the search for universal principles of behavior can give us more

than an educated guess about ETI…


engineering nor the search for universal principles ofbehavior can give us more than an educated guessabout ETI, but they help move us beyond the sheerfantasy of imaginative productions.

Perhaps the most common expectation is that ETcivilizations will be technologically advanced (White,1990). Given present search procedures, we areunlikely to encounter a civilization that is below ourcurrent technological level, since such a civilization isunlikely to use powerful radios, engage in spacetravel, or undertake other activities that we candetect. It seems statistically unlikely that we wouldencounter a civilization that is exactly at our level oftechnological maturity; hence, we expect to encoun-ter civilizations that, compared to us, are technologi-cally advanced. Astronomer Ray Norris (1998)calculates that the average civilization may be

two bil-lion years

older than our own. Human experiencesuggests that technological advances accelerate overtime; we have seen more technological advances dur-ing the last one hundred years than in the precedingtwo million years. What are the chances that wecould identify, never mind understand, such a soci-ety? It might be much easier for prehistoric man tograsp cellular telephones, computers, lasers, and jettransports.

In our attempts to envision ETI science and tech-nology we must be wary of slipping from science toscience fiction. As we look into the future, we shouldask if our projection conflicts with known theoriesand facts. Years of conditioning by science fictionmay lead us to expect technologies that are not onlybeyond our own current grasp, but are foreverbeyond anyone’s grasp.

We should distinguish between technologies thatare possible in principle (but beyond our currentengineering capabilities) and those that conflict withknown laws of physics. For example, at the turn ofthe 20th century there was no scientific principle thatprecluded humans from flying beyond the speed ofsound, but 50 years had to pass before we had thenecessary technology. Similarly, it may be possible inprinciple to construct a wormhole to facilitate travelbetween remote parts of the universe, but it is cur-rently beyond our capability to do this. Or, we may

be able to alter the perception of the passage of timethrough space travel at relativistic speeds, but neverexceed the speed of light.

There are two ways by which technology that cur-rently strikes us as impossible may become availableto an advanced civilization or to ourselves later on.One possibility is that as we continue to collect andrefine data, seemingly impossible technologies willprove consistent with our current laws of nature(Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff, 1998). The other possi-bility is that our current scientific framework isfaulty or incomplete. True, science has progressedrapidly during the past century or two, but anothertwo billion years or so would leave ample time forimprovement. Past discoveries took us beyond New-tonian dynamics to relativity. Will future discoveriestake us beyond relativity? We must walk a fine linehere. On the one hand, we must avoid assumptionsthat confuse the public about such matters as inter-stellar or time travel, or divert our attention fromproven options. On the other hand, we would do wellto remember the overworked patent officer who, atthe turn of the 20th century commented that every-thing that could be patented had been patented.

Another expectation is that ETI will be prosper-ous. This extrapolation is based on the associationbetween technological development and quality oflife on Earth. Despite millions of hungry people, theaverage person, at least in technologically advancedsocieties, eats better and lives better than his or herancestors, even 50 years ago (Berry, 1996). Theamount of discretionary income—that is, money notrequired for subsistence—has risen steadily toapproximately 40 percent and will rise further in thefirst decades of our new millennium. The ability totap the immense resources of space should contrib-ute to ET’s wealth.

A third common assumption is that ETI’s civiliza-tion will be stable. It will not have succumbed to run-away technology, environmental disasters, or war.Many people expect ET to have full control of itstechnology, show sensitivity to its environment, and,as we shall see, to be peaceful.

Another common assumption is that extraterres-trial societies will be willing to share informationwith Earth. Giovanni Vulpetti suggests that acting

What are the chances that we could identify, never mind understand, such a society? It might be much

easier for prehistoric man to grasp cellular telephones, computers, lasers, and jet transports.

Many people expect ET to have full control of its technology, show sensitivity to its

environment and…to be peaceful.


under a cosmic imperative, intelligent and self-awaresocieties will explore the universe. As a part of thenatural course of social evolution, such societies willfeel compelled to diffuse high-level life outside of theareas where they originated (Vulpetti, 1998). AllenTough points out that interactive communicationwould allow ETI to satisfy its own curiosity, espe-cially in the humanities and social sciences where itmay be interested in comparative data (Tough,1998b). An outward orientation would allow ETI todetect potential dangers (such as astrobiological haz-ards, war-like societies, and problematic alliances),and form collaborative partnerships (Tough, 1998).Moreover, ETI may be willing to share informationin order to perpetuate its values and endow its ideaswith a degree of immortality (Harrison, 1993, 1997).Historical precedents on Earth show that there is noguarantee that a technologically advanced societywould reach outward (Matloff, Schenkel, andMarchan, 1999), but SETI social scientists find manyreasons that ETI will be forthcoming.

Perhaps some ETI societies will be interested insharing their ideas and others won’t. It is the formersocieties that would help shape humanity in 3000,and it is the former societies that are likely to aggre-gate into a large supranational entity known infor-mally as a Galactic Club (Bracewell, 1975).

OVERVIEW OF SEARCH OUTCOMES

One thousand years from now the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence will be associated with one ofthree outcomes. These are: (1) no evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, (2) confirmation of the exist-ence of extraterrestrial intelligence but with little orno additional information, and (3) confirmation ofthe existence of extraterrestrial intelligence coupledwith significant, perhaps rich and detailed informa-tion about our interstellar neighbors. Under the thirdoutcome, we may have entered into interactive com-munication and perhaps earned membership in theGalactic Club.

If we view these outcomes as sequential stages,right now we are 40 years into Stage 1 (no evidence ofextraterrestrial intelligence). We do not know if andwhen we will enter Stage 2, or how long we wouldremain in Stage 2 before entering Stage 3, or even ifwe will enter Stage 2 before entering Stage 3 (whichcould occur if our initial contact is with a member ofthe Galactic Club). A thousand years from now, wecould be at any stage of the search process.

No Confirmation

If the search continues for centuries, perhaps to thedawn of the next millennium, then we will live withthe implication that we are alone in the universe. Wewill conclude that the circumstantial evidenceassembled during the 20th century was misleading.Ben Finney suggests that if we do not find ETI, weourselves may be encouraged to spread the universewith intelligent life:

However sobering [no confirmation would be] forcosmic evolutionists, those interested in human spaceexpansion would certainly take the apparent absence ofextraterrestrials in our galactic neighborhood as agreen light for humanity spreading throughout thatregion. Let us further imagine that through learninghow to settle in and around various planets and smallerbodies of our solar system and the development of pow-erful space drives and multigeneration spaceships,humans would eventually be able to migrate to nearbystar systems and found viable communities there. Thenfrustrated would-be students of independently evolvedextraterrestrials would have the opportunity to studyhow our descendants evolve culturally and biologicallyas they scatter through space…

(Finney, 1999) Would we ever concede that we are alone in the

universe? Given that beliefs in extraterrestrial lifehave persevered for centuries, it is doubtful that allcitizens of our solar system would accept this conclu-sion. As new generations are born, as new searchrationales are developed, and as new search technol-ogies come on line we might expect sporadic searchesinto the indefinite future.

Confirmation

At the end of a thousand years, we may have detectedunequivocal evidence of ETI but have few or no addi-tional details. This is a standard SETI detection sce-nario: our interception of a carrier wave or “dialtone” from somewhere else in the galaxy. Anotherway that unadorned confirmation could come about

If the search continues for centuries, perhaps to the dawn of the next millennium, then

we will live with the implication that we are alone in the universe.

…a standard SETI detection scenario: our interception of a carrier wave or “dial tone” from

somewhere else in the galaxy.


is through some types of optical detections: forexample, patterns of energy use suggestive of a TypeIII civilization (Kardashev, 1964) or of an interstellarrocket exhaust. Or, we could discover an alien probeor artifact that we could not understand.

Maybe we will intercept a communication that hashigh information content but that is indecipherableto us. Given that our two civilizations may be sepa-rated by millions of years of evolution, translationand interpretation could be very difficult. Perhapswhole careers and institutes will be devoted to theseprocesses, but with very little progress and very littleimpact on our descendants’ daily lives. How wellcould we communicate with humanity of the year3000, much less with even more advanced beingsfrom entirely different genetic and cultural back-grounds?

There may be ethical as well as linguistic barriersto communication. Among the many reasons listedfor our current “absence of evidence” are that ETIcivilizations consider it unethical to alter the courseof a developing civilization, or consider it desirable topreserve some civilizations for future study (Ball,1973). Our ability to learn from ETI may depend ontheir perception of our readiness to acquire advancedinformation or to meet entrance-level requirementsfor the Galactic Club. We must be prepared for thepossibility that we are not considered worth talkingto, or that we will receive limited information thatdoes not put the continuity of our physical, scientific,and moral evolution at risk.

Despite the fact that we may have little or noinformation beyond knowledge that the other civili-zation exists, confirmation would have two profoundimplications. First, it would tell us that we are notalone in the universe, that the rise of intelligent life isnot a unique event. This, by itself, could have a majorimpact on our philosophy, science, religion, andviews of ourselves. Second, confirmation would tellus that civilizations can survive their period of tech-nological adolescence and achieve a level of technol-ogy that makes interstellar communication possible.It would strengthen hope that we can work our waythrough population growth, environmental decline,war, and the other threats that cloud humanity’sfuture.

Confirmation and Information Exchange

Instead of an information-poor “dial tone” type ofsignal, we might receive an “information-rich” signalthat is easily understood by us. Earth’s first contactmight be with a highly experienced civilization thathas procedures for communicating with civilizationssuch as our own. Perhaps they will teach us a univer-sal language, or send a multilayered communicationthat includes different levels of complexity geared todifferent recipients. Perhaps a probe that has beenstudying us for years will know our language andcommunicate immediately in forthcoming anddetailed ways.

If first contact is relatively uninformative, we willnot be content with the sheer fact that we share theuniverse; we will work very hard to learn more. As aresult of many years of hard work, we may partially ifnot fully decode the information. Discovery of life ofany type, ranging from an indisputable fossil onMars to a distant Type III civilization, would acceler-ate the search process and perhaps lead to the detec-tion of different civilizations with which we couldcommunicate. ETI encountered late in the searchprocess may help us communicate with otherwisemysterious civilizations that we had detected earlier.In a thousand years, we may have considerableknowledge of many different extraterrestrial lifeforms and cultures.

On the whole, our ability to enter into a rich andvaried dialogue with ET will depend on several fac-tors. One will be the availability of interactive com-munication technologies such as translatingsupercomputers. Presumably it will be easier to com-municate with a probe that is already within oursolar system, or with a civilization that has commu-nication technology that exceeds the speed of light,than with a civilization whose messages take years toreach us.

Ultimately, our ability to enter into full interactivecommunication will depend on our respective simi-larities and differences. ETI’s information-process-ing capacities may be so great that we cannot keepup. Given an objective reality, humans and ETI mayhave such different sensory and information-pro-cessing systems that they evolve contrasting concep-tions of reality. If reality is socially constructed, or in

Perhaps a probe that has been studying us for years will know our language and communicate immediately in forthcoming and detailed ways.


the eye of the beholder, the lack of a common refer-ence point may make it impossible to communicate.

At the heart of the matter is shared knowledge.Possibilities include a complete overlap in knowledge(Case 1), partial overlap in knowledge (Case 2), andno overlap in knowledge (Case 3). It will be increas-ingly difficult to communicate as we decrease theproportion of shared knowledge. We tend to assumeCase 1 or Case 2, perhaps because if Case 3 provestrue, communication would be impossible. We havealready encountered many situations that fall withinthe very broad Case 2 category (for example, whencultural and linguistic barriers make it difficult tocommunicate with someone from another society)and even some Case 3 situations (for example, cer-tain dead languages, and people whose pathologicalstates make it impossible for them to communicateverbally).

If and when we try to communicate with ETI, wemay believe our dialogue is based on objective reality.Yet our “understanding” may be based more heavilyon our own culture, on our collective unconscious,or on other sources that are shared by humans buthave little or no basis in ETI’s construal of the uni-verse. A test “conversation” might be necessary todetermine if our two societies have similar episte-mologies or “ways of knowing.” It may be that wewould uncover important differences, if, for exam-ple, they had difficulty explaining to us their con-cepts of space and time. This should make us verywary of the possibility of further communication.Or, maybe each species can see only a tiny slice ofreality; trying to communicate by sharing different“slices” of reality could be frustrating and confusing.If their message originates from very far away, we willlearn about their past, not their current circum-stances. If information arrives via a probe, ourunderstanding may be based on a time capsule froma long-dead civilization.

If we are lucky, we will not be stymied by suchproblems. If we are unlucky, humanity in 3000 mayhave had as much as a thousand years to workaround them. At the dawn of the Third Millennium,if multiple contacts have occurred, humanity’s pri-mary task may be to synthesize the knowledge ofmany worlds. This itself raises some interesting ques-

tions, given our problems integrating terrestrialknowledge in our current information age.

POST-CONTACT SOCIETY

Short-term effects of contact will be measured indays, weeks, and months. Long-term effects will bemeasured in decades, centuries, and perhaps millen-nia. Short-term effects will be evident in sharp andintense focus in the media, organizations scramblingto redefine themselves and cope with a new reality,and collective behavior. Long-term effects could per-meate all aspects of our culture and its institutions.Yet we should not take “an assumption of maximumimpact” (White, 1990) for granted, because majorscientific discoveries have not necessarily impactedaverage people who are grappling with the problemsof everyday life. It may be that the only people whoare really interested are academics and the intellec-tual descendants of those who are now involved inSETI.

If contact is delayed for centuries, it will impactpeople who may be very different from us. Recentyears have seen enormous changes in philosophy, sci-ence, and popular beliefs. Certainly, we expect that,compared to people who believed that the Sun circlesthe Earth, who never heard of evolution, and whonever read science fiction, the people of today wouldrespond very differently to ETI. Similarly, the peopleof tomorrow may have values, interests, and technol-ogies that differ substantially from our own and forthis reason react to ETI in ways that we cannot imag-ine.

According to Freeman Dyson, on a time scale of athousand years, we can predict neither technologynor politics (Dyson, 1997). He expects that a thou-sand years from now, there will still be a diversity oflanguages, cultures, and religions. Humanity’smigration to the high frontier will make it possible topreserve, even expand diversity—in essence, vastphysical distances among populations will preventconflict among very dissimilar peoples. Both naturalselection and genetic engineering will increase thegenetic differences among people, and will have initi-ated the process of speciation, the division of ourspecies into many varieties.

Dyson adds that the human population (broadlydefined) will reach staggering size. Our current twopercent per year growth could continue if we spreadout within the solar system. By his calculations, thisrate of growth, over a thousand years, would

It may be that we would uncover important differences, if, for example, they had difficulty

explaining to us their concepts of space and time.


“increase our population and resources and livingspace by a factor of five hundred million” and therewould still be ample reserves for continued growth.

Long before that time, we will be capable of modi-fying our bodies, our own existence. The humangenome will be completely mapped. There will be ameld of biotic and abiotic parts, creating organismsendowed with the capacity to thrive in the currentlethal and improvident environments of outer space.Bioengineered hybrids may set forth on interstellarflights or undertake new kinds of searches for extra-terrestrial life. A thousand years from now, first con-tact with new extraterrestrial civilizations couldoccur so regularly as to evoke little notice, apart fromlatter-day anthropologists and government bureau-crats.

ETI’s impact on us will depend on the specific sce-nario that reveals ETI’s presence. The interception ofan impersonal broadcast from a neighboring galaxywill have less effect than the discovery of a probewithin our solar system. Low-level electromagneticcommunication could have very little effect on usbecause of the steady stream of terrestrial globalproblems inevitably confronting humankind.

In a recent discussion of astrobiology and SETI,Harrison proposed a fourfold classification systemfor detection scenarios (Harrison, 1999b). He beganby noting that the NASA Astrobiology Program andSETI share interests in life in the universe, but thatthere are also important differences. Astrobiologistslean heavily towards the preliminary terms in theDrake Equation (stars, planets, habitability, initia-tion of life) and tend to search for life’s precursorsand for simple forms of life within our solar system.SETI scientists’ interests extend to the final terms ofthe Drake Equation (evolution of intelligence, lon-gevity) and seek advanced technological civilizationselsewhere in the galaxy. Thus, astrobiology and SETIdiffer along two major dimensions: where they con-centrate their search (within or outside of our solarsystem) and the level or complexity of the living sys-tem that they seek (simple or complex). Combiningthe two levels of the two dimensions that differenti-ate astrobiology and SETI yields four detection sce-narios. These were assigned the working titles of

Distant Dust

(distal and simple),

Microbes on Mars

(proximal and simple),

ET Calling

(distal and com-plex), and

Space Visitors

(proximal and complex).This classification captures the weakest possible case(evidence of life’s precursors in distant galaxies) andthe strongest possible case (robot probes, UFOs, andextraterrestrial visitations) as well as the intermedi-ate cases favored in astrobiology and SETI.

The unfolding of any of these detection scenarioswould represent a great scientific discovery and couldhave profound effects on our intellectual and emo-tional lives. Nonetheless, it should prove more chal-lenging easing humanity through some of thesescenarios (

Space Visitors

and

ET Calling

) than others(

Microbes on Mars

and

Distant Dust

). Furthermore,each scenario has different implications for our sci-ence and technology, our religion and arts, and oureveryday lives. This framework was designed as auseful heuristic for organizing various hypothesesabout long-term and short-term reactions to humanlife. It should be useful also for developing scenario-contingent strategies for managing contact and itsaftermath.

Let us sharpen our focus on a future world wherewe are able to learn about extraterrestrial life formsand cultures. In an informal survey of approximately200 people from 12 countries, Allen Tough (1997)asked, “If a radio dialogue with an extraterrestrialcivilization occurs someday, what questions do youhope to ask, and what topics do you hope we discuss?From this wise, knowledgeable civilization, what doyou want to learn most of all?” This resulted in over athousand questions addressing everything fromeveryday practical matters to profound questionsabout science, religion, and the arts.

Practical Information

Tough’s respondents hoped that through communi-cating with advanced extraterrestrial societies we willgain practical information that will help us solvecontemporary problems, improve the quality ofhuman life, and secure our own future as a species.We imagine ETI as having made technologicaladvances that we seek in our own future: increasinglyminiaturized and powerful information processingdevices; cheap and inexhaustible sources of power;gentle chemical procedures that replace the surgeon’sscalpel; workable means for interstellar travel; pro-

A thousand years from now, first contact with new extraterrestrial civilizations could occur so

regularly as to evoke little notice…

We imagine ETI as having made technological advances that we seek in our own future…


longed life; and cyborgs endowed with near-immor-tality. Perhaps we will be coached in faster-than-lightcommunication, interstellar travel, and other tech-nologies that appear at the cusp between science andscience fiction. If contact leads to the transfer of tech-nology, and if we understand how to use this technol-ogy and are able to cope with the full range ofenvironmental, social, and psychological conse-quences, we may become empowered to solve someof our biggest problems, improve the quality ofhuman life, and accelerate our own evolution.

Interaction with many ETI societies would exposeus to unprecedented levels of diversity and stimula-tion. Over time, knowledge gained from an extrater-restrial civilization could shape human leisure-timeor recreational activities. For example, at some pointpeople may embrace extraterrestrial costumes,dances, foodstuff, and customs. At first, these mightbe mimicked at “trendy” social events. Theme parksor museums could convey a sense of what it might belike to live within ETI society. Amusement park ridescould be based on ETI conveyances (even as imag-ined spaceships shape many amusement park ridestoday). And, if interstellar travel proves to be muchless daunting than it appears right now, then it isconceivable that in a thousand years extraterrestrialsocieties could become desirable tourist destinations.Already, there are energetic efforts to develop spacetourism, including suborbital and orbital flights,space hotels, and luxury cruises around the moon.

On the other hand, we might question whether ornot advanced civilizations would have, or at least use,some of the technology that we impute to them. Forexample, Dyson spheres and omnidirectional bea-cons may be avoided because they constitute needlessexpense, squander resources, and manufacture pol-lution as well as being irrelevant to their life forms.Additionally, we may not be judged “ready” to receivesuch information. After all, would you give a childthe secret code of ballistic missiles just so he or shecould enjoy playing with them? Finally, informationthat is practical to them may or may not be practicalto us, especially if they were radically different fromus, such as would be the case if they were “machineintelligence.” Their ideas may seem very “academic”

to us, depending on the problems that confront us atthat future time.

Perhaps the most exciting prospect is that we willlearn how ET civilizations survived their technologi-cal adolescence. Perhaps they will have a developedempirical field of study that can define critical bottle-necks in civilizational advances and elaborate ways ofnavigating them (Tough, 1986). In the very long run,the challenge will be outliving one’s star, by buildingone’s own “world” or using giant transports tomigrate to another solar system. As far as we can tell,there are no phenomena suggestive of astroengineer-ing in the vicinity of stars about to become red giants.

Answers to Major Questions

Information from ETI may help us grapple withsome of the greatest scientific and existential ques-tions of all time. We, and they, may have a biastowards expecting scientific discourse in part becauseadvanced technology is a prerequisite for interstellarcommunication and in part because science is a con-venient reference point for languages that transcenddifferent cultures. On the other hand, the primacythat we accord math and logic may reflect the factthat on Earth the search is conducted by physical sci-entists. If we restrict our discourse to science, we willeliminate broad spectra of human activities: philoso-phy, humanity, religion, and the arts.

Science

The discovery of extraterrestrial life would have pro-found implications for physical, biological, andsocial science. This discovery would either validate orchallenge our beliefs in the wide-scale applicability ofour own scientific principles. One view is thatalthough ETI will necessarily have to deal with thesame physical universe that we do, their science maybe unrecognizable because they will come from dif-ferent environments, will have different methods ofsensing their environments, and will apply differenttechniques to different scientific topics (Rescher,1985). Another view is that ETI will think like we dodespite their different origins. They will be subjectedto the same general space, time, and materials con-straints that we are, and hence forced to devise sim-ple and effective ways of thinking about the universe.As a result, their science will be easily recognized byus (Minsky, 1985).

…information that is practical to them may or may not be practical to us, especially if they were radically different from us, such as would be the

case if they were “machine intelligence.”


Contact with ETI may expose us to new meta-physics and epistemologies. Post-contact humanitymay be privy to partial or full answers to questionsabout such things as the origin and fate of the uni-verse and the course of evolution and of civilization.We dream of learning “comparative cosmologies,”contrasting theories of the ultimate origin of the uni-verse. We dream also of learning the mathematicaltheory unifying all known forces of nature, or per-haps a theory of the superstrings or a unified theoryof science of a type that we have not yet conceived.

Ben Finney points out that one of the reasons thatthe social sciences lack the maturity of the physicalsciences is that so far we have had only one opportu-nity to study the development of consciousness,intelligence, and culture (Finney, 1999). That is theopportunity available on Earth. He points out thatastronomy, for example, would have not progressedvery far if astronomers had been forced to develop atheory of planetary evolution based solely on knowl-edge of our own planet. We need extraterrestrial civi-lizations “to introduce us to an array of possibilitiesand variations beyond our experience, and also toshock us out of such parochial views as regardingourselves as the summit and final goal of evolu-tion….”

Information about other civilizations would con-fer opportunities for comparative scientific studies ofcultures, life forms, and psychologies. By the year3000, under an information-rich detection scenario,we may have assembled a database containing hun-dreds, perhaps thousands of societies that enduredfrom decades to millions or billions of years. Wemight have, for tomorrow’s social scientists, theequivalent of anthropology’s Human Relations AreasFiles that facilitate cross-cultural studies for anthro-pologists. Historians would be able to do quantita-tive research on comparative civilizations.

Multiple opportunities, notes Finney, could moveus in the direction of consilience, or the unificationof knowledge (Wilson, 1998). So far, only physicsand chemistry have achieved consilience to anyappreciable degree. The chance to study extraterres-trial civilizations may help us build bridges amongthe physical sciences, natural sciences, social sci-ences, and humanities. Finney adds that SETI is oneof the endeavors led by physical and natural scientists

that has welcomed the participation of social scien-tists and humanists.

Religion

We draw a distinction between spirituality and orga-nized religion. Spirituality is an almost mystical senseof purpose and meaning in the universe, perhapsaccompanied by feelings of awe, reverence, and tran-scendence. Spirituality is not inconsistent with sci-ence, and it is evident in discussions of design, order,and beauty in the universe. Spacefarers have reportedspiritual experiences after viewing the Earth from adistance. These “overview effects” often include asense of transcendence, oneness with the cosmos,and universal brotherhood. For example, in an inter-view with Frank White, astronaut Eugene Cernanreported:

When I was the last man to walk on the moon inDecember 1972, I stood in the blue darkness and lookedin awe at the Earth from the lunar surface. What I sawwas almost too beautiful to grasp. There was too muchlogic, too much purpose—it was just too beautiful tohave happened by accident. It doesn’t matter how youchoose to worship God… He has to exist to have createdwhat I was privileged to see (Eugene Cernan, quotedin Frank White, 1987, p. 26).

Astronaut Ed Gibson stated: You can see howdiminutive your life and concerns are compared toother things in the universe. Your life and concerns areimportant to you, of course. But you can see that a lot ofthe things that you worry about don’t make much dif-ference in an overall sense. The result is that you enjoythe life that is before you; you don’t sweat the next mile-stone…. It allows you to have inner peace (Ed Gibson,reported in White, 1987, p. 43).

Organized religion often includes social structure,highly articulated and sometimes inflexible beliefsystems, specific loyalties, and group rituals. Discus-sions of SETI and religion typically center on orga-nized religion and emphasize concerns about sectsthat are characterized by high rigidity and disagree-ment with science. In some cases, narrow religiousbeliefs hold sway over objective evidence and, in thisway, obstruct science. Because of this, it is temptingto expect that ETI will have moved beyond religionand that science will dominate their value system.

Post-contact humanity may be privy to partial or full answers to questions about such things as

the origin and fate of the universe…Spirituality is not inconsistent with science, and it is evident in discussions of design, order, and

beauty in the universe.


One might argue that longevity, a requirement fortheir civilization to overlap with ours, is inconsistentwith organized monotheistic religions typical ofEarth. Despite their positive side, such religions arealso responsible for long-lasting warfare and destruc-tion. Religious warfare, in turn, can lead to thedestruction of a civilization. Hence, the absence ofcompeting religious sects would be one more factorcontributing to longevity. Yet this would not pre-clude spirituality.

When we review the basic principles of the reli-gions that attract broad segments of the world popu-lation (Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam,and Judaism), we find certain similarities. In a studyof this, Douglas Vakoch (1999a) began with a pool of200 principles drawn from the world’s religions. Hegave a sample of these principles to research partici-pants and, on the basis of their responses, organizedthem into 13 clusters. Examples of these clustersinclude giving and helping, forgiving, positiveactions, humility, thanksgiving, and positive atti-tudes. Whether or not similar principles evolve inETI societies, knowledge of them would help giveETI a comprehensive view of humanity.

Contact with an extraterrestrial society couldexpose us to ethical principles developed by creaturesthat are very different from us. Will we be able to rec-ognize and understand the ethics of an advancedsociety, or that of machine intelligence? As it stands,we often have difficulty understanding each other’sethics. If we can recognize ETI ethical principles, inwhat ways (if any) will they correspond with princi-ples already developed on Earth? Longevity mayimply a highly established code of ethics that centerson the perpetuation of individuals and all compo-nents of the natural environment.

Knowledge of extraterrestrial religious beliefscould result in a super-religion that encompassesmultiple intelligent societies. Another possibility isthat some ETI views will, in a sense, validate the basictenets of some terrestrial religions. This couldstrengthen terrestrial religions that have sharedviews, but perhaps spark conflict with religions thatmaintain opposing views. Especially worrisome isthe possibility that ETI beliefs will conflict withmajor world religions. Conflict may be particularly

likely if extraterrestrials have a monotheistic orAdamist-type religion that differs on key points withterrestrial monotheistic religions.

The mere possibility of “saintly” aliens couldeventually force a radical rethinking of Christian the-ology, and may cause a split in the church towardssupport for SETI. Even if their religion prevails, itcould take generations for humans to be absorbedinto their religions. Conflict would depend less onthe objective properties of ETI religion than on howpeople interpret and reinterpret it. Various religionswould look to their own past for guidance.

Surveys suggesting that religious leaders (Alex-ander, 1998) and followers (Ashkenazi, 1990) take arelaxed view of the possibility of ETI may be mislead-ing. Many religions are geocentric and homocentric.This is especially true of Christianity. From theChristian point of view, the discovery might be “tothe Glory of God,” but there will be no consensus. Onthe whole, we will be challenged by the sheer discov-ery of extraterrestrial life; even a single bacterium onMars would have implications for some fundamen-talists. The alternative—that God became incarnateon planet after planet—has an air of absurd theatri-cality to it. Organized religions, however, have thecapacity to change in response to new discoveries,even if historically the response has been slow. Whenthe alternative is extinction, there is strong incentivefor rapid change.

Steven Dick (2000a) notes that growing belief in abiological universe is a worldview, not just anothertheory or hypothesis. This, by itself, is forcing us torethink our theology. We are moving in the directionof a “cosmotheology” that accommodates a universefull of life. Among the principles of that cosmotheol-ogy are that humanity is neither physically nor bio-logically central to the universe; that humanity is atbest somewhere midway in the great chain of intelli-gent beings; and that we must evolve a reverence andrespect for life that includes all of the species in theuniverse. In addition, cosmotheology fosters a radi-cally different conception of God—a God of theentire universe, a God whose roots are found in cos-mic evolution. Dick writes, “With due respect forpresent religious traditions whose history stretchesback four millennia, the natural God of cosmic evo-

Will we be able to recognize and understand the ethics of an advanced society, or that of

machine intelligence?

We are moving in the direction of a “cosmotheology” that accommodates

a universe full of life.


lution and the biological universe, not the supernat-ural God of the ancient Near East, may be the God ofthe next millennium.” Since we are accelerating ourown progress into space and increasing our chancesof encountering ETI, cosmotheology may havetransformed humanity by the year 3000. ETI also willbe aware of the biological universe; perhaps cosmo-theology will become a shared religion.

Politics and Law

In his seminal work Living Systems, James GrierMiller points out a trend towards increasingly largersystems (Miller, 1978). In human history we see ashift from small communities to cities and nations,and now interstate political systems. Thus, someEuropean city-states and principalities first joinedtogether into nations recently have become part ofthe European Union. This tendency to form increas-ingly large sociopolitical units is noted in discussionsof world government (Schenkel, 1999) and of theGalactic Club (Bracewell, 1975). The potentialadvantages of joining together include aggregatedresources and peace.

Miller views supranational systems as relativelyrecent developments. Their evolution is slow and notinviolate: consider the fragmentation of statesaccompanying the dissolution of the Soviet Union.At this point, most supranational entities—such asthe United Nations—exert only spotty control overconstituents’ lives. Still, movement towards suprana-tional entities is a continuation of billions of years ofevolution towards larger, more complex social sys-tems. It points in the direction of world governmentand even larger sociopolitical systems.

Peter Schenkel sees two ways that we on Earthcould unite to solve our planet’s problems (Schenkel,1999). The less painful is to minimize the differencesamong the peoples of the world and increase ourefforts to develop a world government. The morepainful course is for the survivors of a nuclear holo-caust or other disaster of human making to findthemselves compelled down the road to unification.Surviving societies that are older than ours will havefollowed one of these two paths and have establisheda stable government, eliminated war, and developedpositive relationships with other species. Schenkelhypothesizes that contact with such an advancedsociety will inspire Earth’s superpowers “to abandonruinous rivalry and tilt the scales for a peaceful worldgovernment” (Schenkel, 1999, p. 7).

An extended legal framework that encompassesnot only all nations on Earth, but also human societ-ies dispersed throughout the solar system and ETIelsewhere, may govern humanity by the year 3000.Such laws could assure orderly progress of humansinto space and regulate interstellar affairs. The chal-lenge of international law—to find a framework thatis acceptable to diverse people who live under verydifferent circumstances—will be magnified manytimes over as we struggle to organize radically differ-ent and widely separated species.

Simplicity rather than complexity must character-ize any legal framework promulgated for galacticapplication. To survive, it must consist of a few prin-ciples that are at a sufficiently high level of abstrac-tion that they can be creatively adapted to diverse“local” populations and conditions. To draw an anal-ogy from United States law, we expect that this legalframework would bear a closer resemblance to theUS Constitution than to state laws or local ordi-nances. An interstellar legal framework may beoffered to us if we encounter civilizations that havealready formed a supranational entity or GalacticClub. Or, we ourselves may contribute to its develop-ment.

Knowledge about extraterrestrial societies willallow us to evaluate Francis Fukuyama’s (1992)hypothesis that the ascendance of liberal democra-cies on Earth rests on deep or universal principles.Some of those who venture a guess suggest that ETcivilization will be peaceful, since, as noted briefly inour discussion of “Assumptions about ET,” warlikesocieties may earn low scores on the longevity factor.

Despite frightening images of extraterrestrials andtalk of evil empires, Harrison theorizes that mostadvanced civilizations are peaceful rather than bellig-erent (Harrison 1996, 1997). This thesis rests uponconvergent evidence that relations among nations onEarth are becoming less warlike. First is the shiftfrom autocratic forms of government that resolveproblems through force to democratic forms of gov-ernment that seek peaceful, negotiated solutions toproblems (Russett, 1993). Second is a decrease in thefrequency and intensity of war (Fukuyama, 1992;Keegan, 1994; Mueller, 1998), accompanied by

An extended legal framework that encompasses… all nations on Earth…human societies dispersed

throughout the solar system and ETI elsewhere, may govern humanity by the year 3000.


increased interest in nonlethal alternatives (Alex-ander, 1999). Third, mathematical models andgame-theoretic research show that nations thatrefrain from belligerence and enter into defensivepacts are ecologically superior (last longer) than soci-eties that follow aggressive foreign policies (Axelrod,1984; Cusack and Stoll, 1994). This does not violatethe principle of survival of the fittest. The aggressiveskills that assure the survival of wild animals in thejungle are not the same skills that promote a society’ssurvival within even larger social systems.

This type of analysis, which draws on understand-ing life on Earth to forecast life elsewhere, is subjectto two major qualifications. First, we must be sensi-tive to the internal validity of the analysis. Do thedata demonstrate a powerful trend, or are they noth-ing more than random variations that appear impor-tant because they happen at our particular point inhistory? Second, even if these data reflect powerfuland pervasive laws of behavior on Earth, we must becautious about extrapolation to societies that weknow nothing about.

The Arts

All societies on Earth have both creative and per-forming arts, and, if we are willing to include oraltraditions, a literature. These serve both an expres-sive and communicative function, and play on theintellect and emotions of the audience. Our empha-sis on science should not obscure the possibility thatETI will have a creative flair. By the year 3000 ETImay have influenced all of the creative and perform-ing arts. Perhaps we will be delighted by radicallynew art forms, either developed by ETI or collabora-tive projects jointly developed by ETI and humans.Perhaps human art will receive critical acclaim inother worlds.

Would ET art be discernible, much less under-standable to us? Would ETI art be too complex, ordifferent, for us to appreciate? Would ETI music vali-date our ideas of music from space, and would it beattractive to porpoises and whales? Will the limitednumber of basic plots that account for all human fic-tion account for all ETI fiction as well?

John Barrow is among those whose work hintsthat art may have universal components (1995). This

is because some of the attributes that equip us forsurvival also nudge us in the direction of compre-hending art. For example, Barrow notes that planetswith conditions conducive to the evolution of lifealso promote good color vision. Knowledge of ETIart forms will help us evaluate theories that there areuniversal principles of aesthetics, including a strongrelationship between music and mathematics.Indeed, in the movie Close Encounters of the ThirdKind, humans communicated with extraterrestrialspaceships by means of tones and chords.

Even if principles of beauty are not universal,notes Douglas Vakoch, it might be possible for onecivilization to teach its aesthetics to another (Vakoch,1999b). This would require establishing a commonmedium—if ETI has poor vision, for example, itmight be difficult to communicate pictorially—andfinding ways to factor in culturally based artistic con-ventions. Maori artistic conventions, for instance,involve representations of people that are integratedinto abstract forms. Unlike the Maori, visitors fromother societies usually see beautiful abstract formsbut do not understand that these forms representpeople.

Our strategies for communicating our sciencemay be adapted for communicating our art. Vakochpoints out that one way to convey our concepts ofchemistry would be through transmitting at frequen-cies corresponding to a combination of spectral linesassociated with a specific element. The same basictechnique could convey some of our ideas aboutmusic. In this case, we could transmit at multiple fre-quencies that correspond to the tones that constitutewell-tempered polyphonic music (von Hoerner,1974). Through some combination of universals,analogies, and relationships, we might be able to helpanother civilization develop a sense of appreciationfor our graphic arts, our sculptures, and our music.

Changes in Our Views of Ourselves

Post-contact society is likely to affect our views ofourselves in at least three ways. First, it will speedawareness that we are part of the biological universe(Dick, 1996). Contact, even under minimum detec-

Would ET art be discernible, much less understandable to us…would it be attractive to

porpoises and whales? Through some combination of universals, analogies, and relationships, we might…

help another civilization develop a sense of appreciation for our graphic arts,

our sculptures, and our music.


tion scenarios, is likely to accelerate our views of our-selves as part of cosmic man or “interstellarhumanity,” to extend the terminology of Olaf Staple-ton’s “interplanetary man” (Dick, this volume).Many other factors—such as our progress in space-faring—will contribute to our consciousness of thecosmos.

Second, knowledge of relationships among extra-terrestrial subpopulations could help us gain insightinto intergroup relations on Earth. We may learn, forexample, from how ETI societies treat different soci-eties as well as their own subpopulations. This dis-covery could cause us to reflect on how we ourselvestreat people from different cultures and subcultures.By seeing how ETI manages diversity, we may learnnew models for group relations on Earth.

Almost a century of work in psychology and soci-ology shows that other people’s treatment of usshapes our views of ourselves. People who are treatedas competent and worthwhile individuals tend todevelop high self-confidence and perform well. Self-confidence and success tend to feed upon each otherand generate an upward spiral of events. People whoare treated as inferior and incompetent lose self-con-fidence and motivation, and perform poorly. Lowself-confidence and poor performance also feed oneach other, in this case creating a downward spiral.

A very large and important question is howadvanced societies would treat us. Will they considerus equals, protégés, or inferiors? Despite technologi-cal superiority, would they maintain a sense ofrespect towards younger societies, and would theyallow such societies to put their best foot forward?Under a high information-exchange scenario, ETI’sopenness, tolerance, understanding, and ability tohelp younger societies to gain strength would beimportant to us in many ways, including their contri-bution to our views of ourselves.

Whether or not ETI makes advanced technologyavailable to us could be important psychologically aswell as materially. Withholding advanced technologyfrom us could be interpreted as a sign that we havefailed to pass muster as well as a source of frustrationand possibly tensions between the two civilizations.Offering ETI technology to us could contribute to asense of competence and mastery, providing that we

considered ourselves in control of the new technolo-gies and understood their operation. This sensewould be enhanced if we were able to see new appli-cations or find ways to improve it. We could beaffected adversely if we felt controlled by the technol-ogy or didn’t really understand how it worked.

We need to address the possible adverse effects ofcontact—feelings of inferiority, loss of internal senseof control, learned helplessness and the like—through studies of caste systems, colonies, subjectivedeterminants of self-esteem, and the preservation ofidentity following culture contact.

Risks and Concerns

Contact with powerful societies poses certain risks inaddition to possible challenges to our self-confi-dence. One such risk is domination, whether result-ing from military subjugation or misguided attemptsto impose their superior ways on less-advanced soci-eties. A perfect civilization could take pity on a poor,struggling civilization such as our own, uplift it, andin the process destroy our unique properties.

Dominance may be a natural, indeed inevitable,stance of any advanced life form. Drawing on sim-plistic notions of survival of the fittest, it is easy toargue that advanced life elsewhere in the cosmos willtend to control other life. Yet discussions of contacthave downplayed the possibility of military subjuga-tion. Immense interstellar distances would make itextremely expensive and difficult, if not impossible,to conduct interstellar warfare. Furthermore, weexpect that many of the justifications for war will beabsent (for example, an advanced spacefaring civili-zation would have plenty of unoccupied land for thetaking). And, as repeatedly noted, many have specu-lated that societies with great longevity haveadvanced beyond war.

Of course, if these analyses are wrong, and boththe physical and sociological barriers to interstellartravel evaporate, subjugation could be a risk. Given

A very large and important question is how advanced societies would treat us. Will they

consider us equals, protégés, or inferiors?

One such risk is domination, whether resulting from military subjugation or misguided

attempts to impose their superior ways on less-advanced societies.

…the differences in technologies could be far greater than that between slingshots and

thermonuclear bombs.


their vast experience and highly evolved weaponssystems, our contemporary military would not seemto offer much of a defense. If the discrepancy is mea-sured in millions of years of technological develop-ment, the differences in technologies could be fargreater than that between slingshots and thermonu-clear bombs.

Subjugation would not necessarily require actualphysical contact between their civilization and ours.As an alternative, they could deploy proxies on Earthto do their bidding. A powerful group of proxiescould have the knowledge, power, and technology tocontrol humanity, even as colonial troops controllednatives less than a century ago. People on Earth maylose the will to fight the proxies if they do not havethe technology and self-confidence to succeed.

Another clear risk is culture shock, the import oftechnology and ideas that are so radical that they dis-rupt our value system and pose severe threats tosocial order. Culture shock occurs when technologyoutpaces the human capacity to adapt. Again, wemust point to the great discrepancy between the twocultures. We expect ETI to be several rungs ahead ofus on the ladder of civilizations (farming, industry,nuclear, computing, etc.). It is likely not just a matterof their being one step ahead of us, but many steps,each step representing hundreds or thousands ofyears. It could take a long time to grasp—never mindassimilate—such a radically different culture.

Possible Intercivilization Projects

Human history is studded with projects that haverequired immense amounts of financial and materialresources and cutting-edge technologies. Such“megaprojects” (Harris, 1996) have included thepyramids, Stonehenge, the Suez and Panama canals,landing people on the Moon, and the “chunnel” thatlinks England and France. These efforts require sucha stretch of the imagination and such massive invest-ments of resources that they seem almost impossibleuntil they are done. In the case of ancient mega-projects such as the pyramids and Stonehenge, somepeople continue to invoke extraterrestrial interven-tion, despite the fact that engineers have mappedEarthly explanations.

Imagine, then, the magnitude of the projects thatmight be undertaken by a group of advanced civiliza-tions, including human civilization, sharing infor-mation and working in concert. Possibilities includecomparative studies based upon a sharing of infor-mation, vigilance against Von Neumann self-repli-cating probes and other potential threats, directedpanspermia to create additional islands of life, assis-tance with planetary engineering, and in the remotefuture perhaps even the creation of designer uni-verses to create a “multiverse” (Rees, 1997; Smolin,1997).

Interstellar collaboration could allow differentsocieties to utilize their distinctive strengths andcompensate for their idiosyncratic weaknesses. Pre-sumably, by virtue of ecological niche and historicalcircumstances, different societies will have differentintellectual and material resources and will havemade uneven progress in different areas of endeavor.For example, a society that early in the course of itshistory found evidence of other civilizations withinits solar system may have made rapid advances inrockets and spacecraft, while another society, threat-ened by a series of near-calamities, may have pro-gressed dramatically in environmental protection.Societies with complementary strengths could findmany ways to collaborate. If communication werepossible, a society with brilliant theoreticians mightshow a society with the necessary natural resources,technicians, and laborers how to make a workablestarship.

THE NEXT STEPS

The past century has been marked by growing evi-dence for the “many worlds” hypothesis and increas-ing enthusiasm for the idea that “we are not alone.”We have the reason and the technology to expand thesearch. At the same time, we must prepare ourselvesfor the possibility that the search will be successful.This includes finding ways to communicate withETI, better assessing the impact of detection onhumanity, and developing a reply policy.

Possibilities include…directed panspermia to create additional islands of life…perhaps even

the creation of designer universes to create a “multiverse.”


Accelerating the Search

Confirmation of extraterrestrial intelligence couldcome about in any of a number of ways, but givenour known laws of nature and current technology,some search procedures seem more promising thanothers. At present, the favored approaches of mostscientific searchers are radio SETI, which involvesusing radiotelescopes to detect electromagnetic pat-terns that are of extraterrestrial but intelligent origin,and optical SETI, based on searching other segmentsof the electromagnetic spectrum for laser communi-cations or signature patterns of energy use.

Proponents of these dominant strategies note thatmoving information around the universe is incredi-bly more economical than moving matter, and thatwhereas radio and optical signals move at the speedof light, spaceships or probes can move at but a tinyfraction of that speed. From this perspective,expanding the search means involving more radio-telescopes, engaging them in the search a greater per-centage of their time, including more areas of the skyin the survey, and scanning a greater number ofchannels. Radio astronomers could increase thechances of success further by building an observatoryon the Moon, and analyzing anomalous data that arenormally locked in bottom desk drawers.

We can expand the search further by bringing newsearch strategies on line. For example, we might trylooking for small robot probes (Tough, 1998a,1998b). As a result of advances in rocketry and min-iaturization, we are able to send small, sophisticatedinterplanetary probes that collect and return muchmore scientific data than could their larger and moreexpensive predecessors. Whereas seminar partici-pants expressed little enthusiasm for the existence ofself-replicating probes, it is conceivable that follow-ing remote detection of intelligent life on Earth, ahighly advanced civilization could send a probe toour region. To the extent that this is plausible, itwould be worthwhile to broaden the search to lookfor probes or other artifacts in our solar system.

Gregory Matloff and associates raise the intrigu-ing possibility of ETI spaceships or habitats withinour solar system (Matloff, 1999; Matloff, Schenkel,and Marchan, 1999). He suggests that, as their starsleave the main sequence and expand towards the

giant phase, residents of neighboring solar systemscould unfurl giant solar sails and set forth on worldships to our own solar system (Matloff, 1999). Such ajourney could be measured in centuries rather thanmillennia: since life emerged in Earth’s seas, hun-dreds of other stars have come within one or twolight-years of our Sun (Matloff et al., 1999). Starsmay pass within this range every 300,000 years or so.

Certain features make this scenario more attrac-tive than others suggesting that ETI is hiding withinour solar system. Solar sails are more consistent withour current understanding of physics than are someof the other means envisioned for interstellar travel(Matloff et al., 1999). We do not have to wait forbreakthrough propulsion to explain how ETI gothere. Furthermore, Matloff ’s hypothesis is testable. Aparticular type of infrared signature and the proper-ties of the orbit could tip off the presence of an alienhabitat within our solar system (Matloff et al., 1999).Finally, this hypothesis raises many provocative ques-tions about managing contact. If ETI silently orbitsour Sun, and has done so for millennia, it would beup to us to initiate contact. Why have they remainedsilent, and how would they react if we tried to com-municate with them?

Generally, the possibility of face-to-face encounteris left to science fiction writers and UFOlogists.Given our present level of knowledge, a face-to-faceencounter would depend upon both interstellartravel and life support systems that could keep thespacecraft inhabitants alive under all-but-impossibleconditions. Furthermore, unless one wishes tostrengthen the assumptions by presuming that ETIwill set forth in vast armadas, given the vastness ofspace a chance encounter would be all but impossi-ble. Most reports of encounters with extraterrestrialentities or their artifacts are dismissed as misidentifi-cation of natural phenomena (planets, airplanes),deliberate hoaxes, or hallucinations. Given this, sci-entists see such reports as a waste of time. If they stillhave interest, they are likely to be deterred by ridiculefrom the intellectual community. The underlyingreason that many SETI scientists are unwilling toconsider the possibility of ETI in our solar system,writes Michael A. G. Michaud, is “fear that theirenterprise will be discredited by association withUFO advocates” (Michaud, 1998, p. 174).

Radio astronomers could increase the chances of success further by building an observatory

on the Moon…

If ETI silently orbits our Sun, and has done so for millennia, it would be up to us to initiate contact.


We see two areas in which massive changes in ourown science could lead to rapid adjustments in oursearch strategies and perhaps force us to rethink theconsequences of contact. The first of these would bedevelopments in breakthrough propulsion physics,which could facilitate interstellar travel. If we becomecapable of faster-than-light travel, for example, it is agood bet that a much older civilization would also becapable of this feat. Speculation that “they” couldappear in our solar system would be much less far-fetched.

The second revolutionary development would bebreakthroughs in mental telepathy, leading to a reas-sessment of consciousness as a vehicle for interstellarcommunication. Freeman Dyson suggests that, in athousand years, humans may become more inter-ested in mental activities, perhaps experimentingwith radiotelepathy, communication through meansthat are presently unavailable to us, and creating, ineffect, a larger entity, a true group mind (Dyson,1997). Could we ourselves be part of an even greaterconsciousness, one that includes beings not like us?Could we at some point—perhaps following addi-tional evolution—find ourselves communicatingwith creatures from other places, other times? Per-haps rightfully we tend to put such suggestions on anequal footing with reports of a reincarnated ElvisPresley in the parking lot at the local mall. Yet, para-psychologists are employing tight experimentalmethodology, including double-blind procedures, toput remote viewing, mental telepathy, and relatedphenomena on a firm scientific footing (Radin,1997). Certainly, success rates have been high enoughto generate spirited discussion in mainstream psy-chology journals—and to attract research supportfrom national security agencies, the military, andeven the business community (Radin, 1997). Askedin 1992 why SETI did not use some sort of alteredstate of consciousness as well as radiotelescopes tosearch for extraterrestrial intelligence, MIT physicistPhilip Morrison responded that consciousness was“messy” and that he and his associates were havingenough trouble with their equipment as it was with-out adding consciousness into the mix (Mack, 1999,p. 27).

Messy indeed. Most of the carefully conductedresearch suggests that psychic abilities at best pro-

duce only a small performance edge—for example,boosting chance performance of 25% “hits” to some-thing on the order of 35% “hits,” a small but highlyreliable gain given metanalyses of scores of studies,each encompassing an enormous number of trials.Given the small magnitude of these effects, parapsy-chologists suspect that people’s expectations andwishes would completely overpower any psychiccommunications that might emanate from manylight-years away. Nonetheless, there are acceptableways to validate claims of psychic contact with extra-terrestrial beings, such as by soliciting informationthat is not known by us but can be verified usingpresent scientific procedures. For example, any “ET”that is “channeling” information to someone coulddraw our attention to an astronomical event that wehad not yet noticed but that we could confirm withour telescopes. So far, no such claims have been veri-fied.

As a corollary of expanding the search, we shouldmake ourselves a more attractive target for ETI. Forexample, if we suppose that an extraterrestrial civili-zation were to monitor Earth (using either remote orup-close surveillance techniques) with the intent ofself-manifestation following signs of humanity’s“readiness,” then we could try to signify this. Thismight be accomplished, for example, through self-preparation or an open invitation such as the “Invi-tation to ET” that a group of 60 people, primarily sci-entists, has placed on the internet.

Understanding Extraterrestrial Life

Increased knowledge of intelligence and behavioraldiversity on Earth will position us better to under-stand ETI. Psychologists, animal behaviorists, andother researchers have already conducted studies thatwould be of some use for understanding extraterres-trial intelligence, but it is doubtful that many havethought of their work in this context. Black and Stull(1977, p. 100) suggest a direction for such studies:

Our goals should be (1) to catalog and classifybehavioral patterns and cultural differences; (2) todetermine how these are related to the environment,physiology, and evolutionary history of each speciesstudied; (3) to determine what traits, if any, appearcommon to all intelligent animals; (4) to gain experi-

If we become capable of faster-than-light travel, for example, it is a good bet that a much older civilization would also be capable of this feat.

Increased knowledge of intelligence and behavioral diversity on Earth will position us

better to understand ETI.


ence in communication and other extraterrestrial spe-cies; and (5) to develop theoretical models that willallow extrapolation to extraterrestrial cultures, andallow us to evaluate at least semi-quantitatively theuncertainties in such an extrapolation. To the extentthat this might enable us better to understand humanbehavior, it could result in one of the most importantbenefits of the SETI program.

There is a promising model for extrapolationfrom terrestrial to extraterrestrial life (Harrison,1993, 1997) and it is James Grier Miller’s Living Sys-tems Theory or LST (Miller, 1978). Terrestrial andextraterrestrial life reside in the same universe. Theyare constructed of the same elemental buildingblocks, and governed by the same natural laws. Thesame assumptions (empiricism, determinism,monism) and methods that make it possible to con-duct scientific studies of humans should be equallyforceful when applied to ETI.

Any theory that is potentially applicable to ETImust have a broad perspective and have wide-scaleapplicability on Earth. It must offer proven princi-ples that are extrapolated easily to new situations.LST is a universal theory of behavior in the sense thatit cuts across species, forms of behavior, and histori-cal epochs. An outgrowth of Open Systems Theory,with its widely known concepts of inputs, through-puts, outputs, feedback, homeostasis, and entropy,LST is an interdisciplinary framework that integratesall of the biological and social sciences from cellularbiology to international relations. LST is biological,social, evolutionary, and applicable to individualorganisms as well as a spectrum of social entities.

According to LST, after life originated on Earth 3.8billion years ago, it evolved from single-celled organ-isms to increasingly complex biological and socialforms. These are, in ascending order: cells, organs,organisms, groups, organizations, communities,societies, and supranational systems. In the course ofthis evolution certain structures and functions main-tained their identities, although specific manifesta-tions changed. LST proposes that the same terms andprinciples can describe systems at each level,although higher-order systems may have distinctiveemergent properties that are not found at lower lev-els. Consequently, complex systems of differentscales can be disassembled into the same constituent

subsystems and analyzed in terms of the same con-cepts and relationships. Thus there are parallel struc-tures and processes as we move up the scale from thecell to the organization of societies. Living systemscomprise 20 specialized subsystems that have dis-tinctive structures and process matter, energy, andinformation. Such reductionistic building blocksseem plausible for unknown life forms.

Harrison applied a simplified version of LSTinvolving two generic processes (matter-energy andinformation) to three system levels (individual, soci-ety, and supranational system) (Harrison, 1993,1997). He used this framework to organize pasthypotheses about ETI, and generate new ones. Manyof the hypotheses advanced by astronomers, astrobi-ologists, and other SETI scientists are fully consistentwith LST and are occasionally expressed in termsthat are reminiscent of LST terminology. It is notentirely coincidental that Davoust (1991, p. 72)defines life as a “complex, organized open system”and that Seielstad (1989, p. 140) describes sub-systems, systems, and suprasystems as a set of nestedRussian dolls. Living systems theorists and SETI sci-entists are interested in the same phenomena andapply similar intellectual tools. Researchers fromboth traditions are accustomed to thinking in termsof energy, matter, and information; in terms of inter-connections and systems; and in terms of microcosmand macrocosm.

As Molton (1989) points out, in the absence ofprobes and radio signals we are limited to what wecan deduce from ourselves and our terrestrial experi-ence, and without a logical framework we will haveonly random data. We can deduce a great deal fromourselves, and LST is a logical and credible frame-work for organizing our thinking.

Will attempts to anticipate ETI be so much wastedeffort if ETI doesn’t exist, or is never found? By con-sidering the possible natures of the universe, wecome to understand the actual nature of the universe.Similarly, by considering the possible nature of ETIwe may understand more fully the characteristicsthat make us what we are (Ruse, 1985, p. 71):

Exploring the possibility of life elsewhere in the uni-verse is full of philosophical interest. Such explorationputs a bright light on our own powers and limita-tions…. By speculating on what other life forms wouldbe, we see more clearly the nature and extent of ourown knowledge. Such fairy-story telling does not proveanything empirically that we do not already know, butit does force us to think again about ourselves from anovel perspective.

…there are parallel structures and processes as we move up the scale from the cell to

the organization of societies.


Preparing Communication Strategies

How can we hope to communicate with an advancedand distant society whose languages have nothing incommon with ours? How can we communicate witha radically different species? Our current limited suc-cess in communicating with chimpanzees and dol-phins bodes ill for successful communication withoff-world beings.

Further research on interspecies communicationwould expand our overall knowledge of behavior aswell as contribute to SETI (Baird, 1987). Similaradvantages might be gained from studies of peoplewho for neurological or psychological reasons haveextreme difficulty communicating with otherhumans.

We should also accelerate research on interstellarlanguages. This work was initiated by mathemati-cians and physical scientists, who suggest that logic,mathematics, and the physical world offer shared ref-erence points that will facilitate human-ET commu-nication (Freudenthal, 1985; DeVito and Oehrle,1990). Learning one another’s languages via radiocould involve very long and repetitious sequences ofmessages with the two cultures trading facts that theyboth already know long before moving the discus-sion into broader areas such as art, history, and socialscience. Yet there may be ways to speed the process ofacquiring a mutual language or to initiate discussionoutside of physics and math. As already noted, psy-cholinguist Douglas Vakoch is working on means tocommunicate spiritual principles (Vakoch, 1999a)and aesthetics (Vakoch, 1999b). Additionally, wemight entertain the possibility of translating super-computers, working at the highest levels of logic andcurrently known as “theorem proving.”

Anticipating the Post-Contact World

Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization is notpreordained, but it could occur at any time and withthe speed of light. Contact could be a high-impactevent, and, as such, it deserves serious prior thought.Anthropologist Ashley Montagu presents the casewell (Berenzden, 1973):

I do not think we should wait until the encounteroccurs; we should do all in our power to prepare our-selves for it. The manner in which we first meet may

determine the character for all our subsequent rela-tions. Let us never forget the fatal impact we have hadupon innumerable peoples on this Earth—peoples ofour own species who trusted us, befriended us, andwhom we destroyed by our thoughtlessness and insensi-tivity to their needs and vulnerabilities.

We need preparation before confirmation of extra-terrestrial intelligence. For example, it would be use-ful to develop reply strategies prior to intercepting aninitial message. By developing a reply policy beforethe fact, we will maximize our chance of framing amessage that preserves our security, has the supportof broad segments of the population, and (if interac-tive communication is available) encourages a favor-able response. In the absence of advance planning,anyone who has access to a powerful transmitter mayattempt to speak in behalf of humanity.

Advanced preparation must proceed beyond theusual tiny groups of search advocates. Different peo-ple look to different types of leaders to ease humanitythrough detection and its aftermath, so it makessense to involve politicians, military leaders, businessleaders, and religious leaders as well as scientists inthe planning effort. Since contact will involve all ofhumanity, planning groups should have broad inter-national representation. It might make sense for theUnited Nations to be involved, or to convene a WorldCouncil.

Often we hear that when it comes to extraterres-trial intelligence, the only thing that we can expect isthe unexpected! For this reason, it makes sense toplan for many different contingencies. Our planningefforts should include a range of search technologies(radio SETI, optical SETI, interstellar probes), open-ness to many different forms of intelligence, and anawareness that contact could unfold in many differ-ent ways. For example, the consequences for human-ity would be very different if ETI were located in thesolar system rather than in a remote part of the gal-axy, or if recognition of ETI’s existence took the formof a sudden insight or a slow dawning awareness.Other variables include “the other’s” technologicalcapabilities, whether or not ETI took a familiar orunfamiliar form, and our perception of ETI’s per-ceived posture (benevolent, neutral, malevolent)toward humankind.

Our current limited success in communicating with chimpanzees and dolphins bodes ill for successful

communication with off-world beings.

By developing a reply policy before the fact, we will maximize our chance of framing a message that

preserves our security…


Failure to plan could exact a substantial price(Harrison, 1999a). The less planning, the more stressdetection will place on human decision-makers. Ifthere are few time pressures, the result may be“defensive avoidance,” symptomatized by ignoringpotentially important information, procrastinating,disowning responsibility, and “passing the buck”(Janis and Mann, 1985). We might expect someagencies to simply retreat beyond a veil of secrecy, “siton the matter,” and engage consultants who are bet-ter known for their demonstrated loyalty to theagency than for their expertise in shaping post-con-tact civilization. While these agencies dither, self-appointed groups may attempt to manage relationsbetween human and extraterrestrial life.

On the other hand, if there are intense pressures to“do something,” the response is likely to be one ofhypervigilance, rather than defensive avoidance. Thisconsists of panicky, ineffective decision-making(Janis and Mann, 1985). Under this intense pressure,decision-makers are likely to see only a small part ofthe overall picture. They focus on some cues andignore others. It becomes difficult to explore a fullrange of alternatives and think through all of theimplications. They turn first to those solutions thathave worked in the past, and, once having chosen acourse of action, stick with it despite growing evi-dence of a mistake. Hypervigilant people do notmake sufficient allowance for contingencies, normake complete plans for implementing their deci-sions.

Despite the advantages of planning for low-proba-bility but high-impact events, we see very little activ-ity. In many quarters, there is strong reluctance totake the possibility of “contact” seriously. This isunderstandable. Only recently have scientists assem-bled evidence that we may encounter intelligentextraterrestrial life. Many leaders in science, govern-ment, and industry are either unaware of this evi-dence or fail to appreciate its credibility. Decades ofunverified reports (including honest mistakes, delu-sions, and deliberate hoaxes) have tainted views ofthe search enterprise and cooled receptivity on thepart of those who should lead the effort. Even indi-viduals who have strong personal interests mayrefuse to discuss the topic openly because of expectedadverse reactions from their colleagues. The possibil-ity of encountering ETI must be acknowledged morewidely, and more scholars need to be brought into

the loop. Panelists consider it important to involvescholars with strong backgrounds in futures studies,decision theory, decision analysis, game theory, andutility theory, as well as a broad range of social sci-ences and humanities (see “The Role of the SocialSciences in SETI,” this volume).

Keeping in mind that human response will be sce-nario-specific, and that some scenarios seem morelikely than others do, several areas are ripe for sys-tematic study. First, the humanities provide us with avast set of social experiments useful for any assess-ment of potential impacts of contact. Althoughdirect physical, cultural contacts are one form of ana-logue often cited, the long-term impact of high-information contact provided by electromagneticsignals is more analogous to intellectual contactbetween terrestrial civilizations. Particularly relevantis the transmission of knowledge from the ancientGreeks to the Latin West via the Arabs in the 12th and13th centuries (Dick, 1995), an event that led to theEuropean Renaissance. More generally, if one acceptsthe claim that the biological universe is very differentfrom the physical universe, we can study the effectchanging worldviews have had on society (Dick,1995). We can also ask how humans have reacted topast false alarms of extraterrestrial life, whether thecanals of Mars, Orson Welles’ broadcast of War of theWorlds in 1938, the mistaken belief that quasars andpulsars were interstellar navigation beacons, andreports of UFOs (Harrison, 1997). Such analogies,cautiously used, can serve as a starting point for dis-cussion of likely similarities and differences betweenterrestrial and extraterrestrial experiences.

Human imagination is a rich resource for study-ing the implications of contact. The best science fic-tion gives us detailed potential scenarios for differentmodes of contact, ranging from War of the Worlds onthe negative side to Arthur C. Clarke’s Childhood’sEnd, Rendezvous with Rama and 2001: A Space Odys-sey on the positive side. Novels such as StanislawLem’s Solaris raise yet another scenario that must beconsidered: contact with intelligence so differentfrom us that it remains beyond our understanding.

Failure to plan could exact a substantial price.

…the humanities provide us with a vast set of social experiments useful for any assessment of

potential impacts of contact.


Many of the planning efforts so far have beengeared to managing the short-term response, whichmay range from complete apathy to rioting mobs. Sofar, less attention has been paid to the long-termeffects of contact. If we, in fact, encounter a techno-logically advanced and communicative society, thenthe diffusion of science and technology will be a cen-tral issue (Harrison and Elms, 1990). What more canhistory tell us about the introduction of advancedtechnologies into relatively stable “disadvantaged”cultures? What are the variables that determine theacceptance or rejection of new ways? What about theproblem of “culture lag,” a situation that arises whenthe rate of technological change exceeds the rate ofcultural change, with the result that there is a grow-ing gap between technology and its human users?Massive advances in technology can create problemsas well as solve them. For example, technologies thatlead to the extension of the human lifespan by manyyears could also generate monumental environmen-tal, economic, and psychological problems.

Reply Policy

More thought should be given to reply policy; that is,how the Earth might respond if ETI were detected.Most of the preliminary work was conducted by SETIscientists, oftentimes in committees of the Interna-tional Academy of Astronautics (Michaud, 1998). Inkeeping with the dominant radiotelescope searchparadigm, it has proceeded under the assumptionthat ETI will be light-years away and unaware of ourexistence. Under this particular scenario, we mightbe able to proceed at a leisurely pace, holding ourreply until we are confident that we are on safe foot-ing.

Reply policy rests on three fundamental issues.The first is, should we reveal our presence to anextraterrestrial civilization? Even if “most” advancedcivilizations are peaceful and beneficent, we won’tknow for sure about any individual civilization and,if ETI doesn’t already know of our existence, the saf-est course might be to maintain a low profile. Second,if we do choose to reply, who replies? As socially

enlightened members of the international scientificcommunity, many scientists believe that the responseshould be made in behalf of humanity as a whole, sosupranational systems such as the United Nationsloom large in the discussions. Third, what should wesay? The goal here is to frame a response that guaran-tees our own security, reassures “the other,” and setsthe stage for sharing knowledge.

There are two reasons why we need to develop areply policy before actual contact. First, a leisurelypace seems less appropriate following detection ofETI in our solar system than following interceptionof a dial tone at a distance. Second, even if ETI islight-years away, any individual with access to a pow-erful transmitter may choose to reply and may retaincomplete control over the message. This could createan erroneous but powerful first impression thatwould govern the course of future relations. To fore-stall this possibility, Donald E. Tarter suggests thatduly designated authorities should reply instantly. Inthe first reply the authorities would identify them-selves, state that additional information will be forth-coming, and that in the interim ETI should ignoremessages from all other parties (Tarter, 1997).

Closely related to the issue of reply policy is that ofactive SETI: deliberately proclaiming our presence toan unknown civilization. As a result of our use ofenergy or powerful radar broadcasts, another civili-zation may be aware of us already. However, deliber-ate action on our part should increase our visibility.If our current passive strategy is successful, we canallay lingering insecurities by simply not responding.If active SETI is successful, we may find ourselvesdrawing the attention of an unwelcome acquain-tance. Another concern with active SETI is that hun-dreds of years (or more) may pass between the timethat we make our presence known and the time thatwe receive a response. A response that would delightus today may be less welcome to humanity in the year3000.

By the dawn of the 21st century, there had beenseveral ad hoc radio broadcasts and even discussionsof launching a private interstellar probe. Perhapsthese efforts have a very low probability of success.Nonetheless, since any one of these could affect bothpresent and future generations, there would be an

If we, in fact, encounter a technologically advanced and communicative society, then the diffusion of

science and technology will be a central issue.

…if we do choose to reply, who replies?

…hundreds of years (or more) may pass between the time that we make our presence known and

the time that we receive a response.


advantage if humanity as a whole, perhaps operatingthrough the United Nations, were able to regulatesuch efforts. This is unlikely because of the largenumber of legal and technical problems that wouldhave to be solved in order to do this. Free speech is apart of many cultures, and given current technologyit would be difficult if not impossible to suppress“rogue” broadcasts.

By the year 3000, as a result of some mixture ofcareful planning, trial and error, and accident,humanity may have worked through the issues ofactive SETI and reply policy. We speculate that at thattime humanity may be quite comfortable interactingwith ETI, and not at all worried about reply policy oractive SETI.

Developing Educational Programs

Advanced preparation should include educationalprograms for preparing people for the possibility ofcontact. SETI provides a wonderful “hook” forengaging people in science. Properly designed educa-tional programs can enhance people’s understandingof astronomy and life sciences, as well as acquaintthem with SETI and its possible aftermath. The SETIInstitute’s “Social Implications” report (Billinghamet al., 1999) devoted close attention to this andlooked to broad partnerships including planetariaand libraries as well as schools, colleges, and univer-sities. This report also described how SETI scientistscould work with the news and entertainment mediato educate people and help shape public opinion. Amultimedia approach can help, for example, by usingthe visual arts to make the extraterrestrial presencereal but in nonthreatening ways.

Several education efforts are already underway.The SETI Institute’s “Life in the Universe” curricu-lum is noteworthy in part because it is under transla-tion into different languages to make it moreaccessible to the world’s population. The SETI Aus-tralia Centre also has a large educational component.Relevant also are the websites and outreach programsmaintained by the NASA-Ames Astrobiology Insti-tute.

Specific target populations include the media,opinion leaders, and children. The media must behighly informed so that it can provide high-qualitycoverage even in the event of rapidly unfolding

developments. Politicians, scholars, business mag-nates, military officers, and other opinion leadersmust be informed, because they will help shape thereactions of the many people who look to them forguidance. Children are important because it is theywho will carry on the search, and their generationmay be the first to experience the full impact of con-tact. As a useful spin-off, educational efforts aimed atchildren will help them separate science and fiction,and nudge them toward careers in science and tech-nology.

In addition to reaching individuals, we need toreach organizations and institutions that will havemuch to do with managing contact and its aftermath.These include intelligence-gathering organizations,legislative and regulatory bodies, the military, themedia, and professional organizations of all sorts.

Preparing Ourselves Spiritually and Psychologically

Those of us in the SETI community are self-anointedto lead the search and help manage the conse-quences. But are we prepared personally? Accordingto Zen, everyone is an enlightened individual. Are wetruly ready to encounter an “alien mind”? As long aswe quibble among ourselves, can we consider our-selves ready for contact?

Those of us engaged in the SETI enterprise spendsubstantial time addressing purely scientific issuesand intellectualizing the impact of contact. Perhaps itwould be useful to supplement these efforts by devel-oping inner strengths to brave confirmation and thepost-contact world.

Taking our cue from the Buddhist tradition, wemight spend more time in self-contemplation,becoming more at ease with ourselves and oneanother. If we can’t relate to our fellow humanbeings, how can we expect to understand beingsfrom another part of the galaxy? The qualities weseek are openness to new experience, comfort withourselves, and sensitivity and compassion for others.

CONCLUSION

No one is sure whether or not ETI exists, and, if itexists, whether or not it will be detectable to us.

Specific target populations include the media, opinion leaders, and children.

If we can’t relate to our fellow human beings, how can we expect to understand beings from

another part of the galaxy?


Nonetheless, growing circumstantial evidence andaccelerating search technologies have marked thepast four decades. Those who are willing to guesswhen contact will occur couch their estimates indecades, not in centuries or millennia. If theirguesses prove accurate, humanity in the year 3000will have long since discovered extraterrestrial life.

The impact of the detection of extraterrestrial lifewill depend upon the nature of ETI, the unfolding ofthe contact scenario, and the people involved. If infact ETI meets optimistic expectations (advanced,beneficent, communicative), we speculate that fol-lowing an initial period of confusion and consterna-tion, interstellar relations will be marked by threestages. During Stage 1, humans will have strong, pos-itive attitudes towards ETI. This will stem in partfrom the benefits of receiving ETI’s largesse and inpart from a human tendency to become emotionallyenamored of older, wiser, richer, and more powerfulindividuals. Inevitably, at some point, ETI will fallshort of our descendants’ expectations. Perhaps ETIwill not have the information that they want, will notbe inclined to come to humanity’s rescue, or willreveal something that we interpret as a serious flaw intheir character or society. Or perhaps some of ETI’sadvice won’t work, or will have hidden, undesirableconsequences.

Stage 2, then, will be predominated by suspicion,cynicism, and negative emotions—all proportionalto the height of the expectations generated earlier.However, if interaction continues, Stage 2 also willpass. As future generations of humanity gain moreexperience, they will develop a more complex pictureof ETI and enter Stage 3. At that point, people will nolonger view ETI as gods or devils, but as complexcreatures with unique patterns of strengths andweaknesses. Humanity in the year 3000 may havemature, Stage 3 relations with many different ETIcivilizations.

REFERENCES

Alexander, John (1999). Future War: Non-Lethal Warfare in theTwenty-First Century (St. Martins Press, New York).

Alexander, Victoria (1998). “The Alexander UFO Religious Cri-sis Survey.” http://www.anv.net/nids/articles/alexander/survey/_religion.html (National Institute for Discovery Science, LasVegas).

Ashkenazi, Michael (1992). “Not the Sons of Adam: ReligiousResponse to ETI,” Space Policy, 8, 341-350.

Axelrod, Robert (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation (BasicBooks, New York).

Baird, John (1987). The Inner Limits of Outer Space (The Univer-sity Press of New England, Hanover, NH).

Ball, John A. (1973). “The Zoo Hypothesis,” Icarus, 19, 347.

Barrow, John (1995). The Artful Universe (Clarendon Press,Cambridge, UK).

Berenzden, Richard (1973). Life Beyond Earth and the Mind ofMan NASA SP-328 (National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion, Washington, DC).

Berry, Adrian (1996). The Next 500 Years: Life in the Coming Mil-lennium (W. W. Freeman and Company, New York).

Billingham, John; Heyns, Roger; Milne, David; et al. (1999).Social Implications of the Detection of an Extraterrestrial Civiliza-tion (The SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA).

Black, D. C., and Stull, M. A. (1977). “The Science of SETI,” inMorrison, Phillip; Billingham, John; and Wolfe, John, eds.(1977). The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. NASA SpecialPublication SP 419 (National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion, Washington, DC), 93-120.

Bracewell, Ronald (1975). The Galactic Club: Intelligent Life inOuter Space (San Francisco Books, San Francisco).

Crosswell, Ken (1997). Planet Quest: The Epic Discovery of AlienSolar Systems (The Free Press, New York).

Crowe, Michael (1986). The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900: The Idea of a Plurality of Worlds from Kant to Lowell (Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge; Dover reprint, 1999).

Crowe, Michael (1994). Modern Theories of the Universe: FromHerschel to Hubble (Dover, New York).

Cusack, Thomas R. and Stoll, Richard A. (1994). “CollectiveSecurity and State Survival in the Interstate System,” InternationalStudies Quarterly, 38, 33-59.

Davies, Paul (1998). The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Originof Life (Penguin Press, London).

Davoust, Emmanuel (1991). The Cosmic Water Hole (MIT Press,Cambridge, MA)

De Duve, Christian (1995). Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Impera-tive (Basic Books, New York).

DeVito, C. L., and Oehrle, R. T. (1990). “A Language Based on theFundamental Facts of Science, Journal of the British InterplanetarySociety, 43, 561-568.

Dick, Steven J. (1982). Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of theExtraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge).

Dick, Steven J. (1995). “Consequences of Success in SETI: Les-sons from the History of Science,” in G. Seth Shostak, ed.,Progress in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life (Astronomical Soci-ety of the Pacific, San Francisco), 521-532.

Dick, Steven J. (1996). The Biological Universe: The TwentiethCentury Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

Dick, Steven J. (1998). Life on Other Worlds (Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge).

Dick, Steven J. (2000a). “Cosmotheology,” in Steven J. Dick, ed.,Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and its Theo-logical Implications (Templeton Press, Philadelphia).


Dick, Steven J., ed. (2000b). Many Worlds: The New Universe,Extraterrestrial Life and its Theological Implications (TempletonPress, Philadelphia).

Doyle, Stephen G. (1996). “Post Detection Global InstitutionalArrangements.” Paper presented at the 47th International Astro-nautical Congress, (Beijing, China, October).

Drake, Frank and Sobel, Dava (1992). Is Anyone Out There?: TheScientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (Delacorte Press,New York).

Dyson, Freeman (1997). Imagined Worlds (Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA).

Finney, Ben (2000). “Consilience and the Unity of Knowledge.”In Guillermo Lemarchand and Karen Meech (editors), Bioastron-omy ’99—A New Era in Bioastronomy, Proceedings of a Conferenceheld on the Kohala Coast, Hawaii, 2-6 August, 1999, ASP Confer-ence Series 213. Reprinted in this volume.

Freudenthal, Hans (1985). Excerpts from “Lincos: Design of aLanguage for Cosmic Intercourse,” in Edward Regis, Jr., ed.,Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, New York), 215-228.

Fukuyama, Francis (1992). The End of History and the Last Man(Avon Books, New York).

Goldsmith, Donald (1997). Worlds Unnumbered: The Search forExtrasolar Planets (University Science Books, Sausalito, CA).

Guthke, Karl (1990). The Last Frontier: Imagining Other Worldsfrom the Copernican Revolution to Modern Science Fiction (Cor-nell University Press, Ithaca, NY).

Haisch, A., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, Hal (1998). “Advances in theProposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia.”Paper presented at the 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Pro-pulsion Conference and Exhibit, (Cleveland, Ohio, July).

Harris, Philip R. (1996). Living and Working in Space, Second Ed.(Wiley-Praxis, Chichester, UK).

Harrison, Albert A. (1993) “Thinking Intelligently About Extra-terrestrial Intelligence: An Application of Living Systems Theory,”Behavioral Science, 33, 189-217.

Harrison, Albert A. (1996). “On the Relative Preponderance ofBelligerent and Peaceful Civilizations: Implications for SETI.”Paper presented at the 47th International Astronautical Congress,(Beijing, China, October).

Harrison, Albert A. (1997). After Contact: The Human Responseto Extraterrestrial Life (Plenum, New York).

Harrison, Albert A. (1999a) “Confirmation of ETI: Initial Orga-nizational Response.” Paper presented to the 50th InternationalAstronautical Congress, (Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October).

Harrison, Albert A. (1999b). “Proximity, System Level, and theHuman Response to Extraterrestrial Life.” Paper presented atCultural Implications of Astrobiology Symposium, (NASA–AmesResearch Center, November).

Harrison, Albert A., and Elms, Alan C. (1990). “Psychology andthe Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” Behavioral Science,35, 207-218.

Janis, Irving L., and Mann, Leon (1985). Psychological Analysis ofConflict, Choice and Commitment (The Free Press, Homewood,IL).

Karadashev, Nicolai (1964). “Transmission of Information byExtraterrestrial Civilizations,” Soviet Astronomy, 8, 217, reprintedin D. Goldsmith The Quest for Extraterrestrial Life (University Sci-ence Books, Mill Valley, CA), 136.

Kauffman, Stuart (1995). At Home in the Universe: The Search forthe Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (Oxford UniversityPress, New York).

Keegan, John (1994). A History of Warfare (Vintage Books, NewYork).

Mack, John E. (1999). Passport to the Cosmos (Crown Publishers,New York).

Marcy, Geoffrey W. and Butler, R. Paul (1998). “Detection ofExtrasolar Giant Planets,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro-physics, 36, 57-97.

Maruyama, M., and Harkins, A. (1975). Cultures Beyond Earth:The Role of Anthropology in Outer Space (Vintage Books, NewYork).

Matloff, G. L. (1999). “Interstellar Solar Sailing: Comparison ofFive Candidate Sail Materials.” Paper presented at the 50th Inter-national Astronautical Congress, (Amsterdam, the Netherlands,October).

Matloff, G. L., Schenkel, P., and Marchan, J. (1999). “Direct Con-tact with Extraterrestrials: Possibilities and Implications.” Paperpresented to the 50th International Astronautical Congress,(Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October).

Michaud, M. A. G. (1974). “On Communicating with Aliens.”Foreign Service Journal, June, 33-40.

Michaud, M. A. G. (1998). “Policy Issues in Communicating withETI,” Space Policy, 14, 173-178.

Miller, James Grier (1978). Living Systems (McGraw-Hill, NewYork).

Minsky, Marvin (1985). “Why Intelligent Aliens will be Intelligi-ble,” in Edward Regis, Jr., ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and AlienIntelligence (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 117-128.

Molton, P. M. (1989). “An Experimental Approach to Extraterres-trial Life,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 42, 423-429.

Morrison, Phillip, Billingham, John, and Wolfe, John, eds.(1977). The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. NASA SpecialPublication SP 419 (National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion, Washington, DC).

Mueller, John (1988). Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescenceof Major War (Basic Books, New York).

Norris, Ray P. (1998). “Can Science Survive a SETI Detection?”Paper presented at the International Conference on SETI in the21st Century, UWS Macarthur, (Sydney, Australia, October).

Norris, Ray P. (1999) “How Old Is ET?” Paper presented to the50th International Astronautical Congress, (Amsterdam, theNetherlands, October). Reprinted in this volume.

Radin, Dean (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truthof Psychic Phenomena (HarperEdge, San Francisco).

Rees, Martin (1997). Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Oth-ers (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).


Rescher, Nicholas (1985). “Extraterrestrial Science,” in EdwardRegis, Jr., ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 83-116.

Ruse, M. (1985). “Is Rape Wrong on Andromeda?” in EdwardRegis, Jr., ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 43-78.

Russett, Bruce (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace (PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, New Jersey).

Seielstad, George A. (1989). At The Heart of the Web: The Inevita-ble Genesis of Extraterrestrial Life (Harcourt Brace Jovanavich,Boston).

Schenkel, P. (1999). “Contact with ETI: Implications for a NewWorld Order.” Paper presented to the 50th International Astro-nautical Congress, (Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October).

Shostak, Seth (1998). Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extra-terrestrial Life (Berkeley Hills Books, Berkeley, CA).

Shostak, Seth (1998). “The Lifetime of Intelligent Civilizations.”Paper presented at CONTACT XV, (Santa Clara, CA, March).

Smolin, Lee (1997). The Life of the Cosmos (Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford).

Swift, David (1990). SETI Pioneers (University of Arizona Press,Tucson, AZ).

Tarter, D. E. (1997). “Security Considerations in Signal Detec-tion.” Paper presented at the 48th International AstronauticalCongress, (Milan, Italy, October).

Thompson, Keith (1991). Angels and Aliens: UFOs and the MythicImagination (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

Tough, Allen (1986). “What Role Will Extraterrestrials Play inHumanity’s Future?” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society,39, 491-498.

Tough, Allen (1991). Crucial Questions About the Future (Univer-sity Press of America, Lanham, MD).

Tough, Allen (1997). “What People Hope to Learn from OtherCivilizations.” Paper presented to the 48th International Astro-nautical Congress, (Turin, Italy, October). Acta Astronautica, inpress.

Tough, Allen (1998a). “Interstellar Probes Within SETI, 1960-1998.” Paper presented to the 49th International AstronauticalCongress, (Melbourne, Australia, September–October).

Tough, Allen (1998b). “Small, Smart Interstellar Probes,” Journalof the British Interplanetary Society, 51, 167-174.

Tough, Allen (1999). “A Long-Term Perspective on InterstellarContact.” Paper presented to the 50th International AstronauticalCongress, (Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October).

U. S. Congress (1961). “Proposed Studies on the Implications ofPeaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs.” Report of the Com-mittee on Science and Astronautics, U. S. House of Representa-tives, 87th Congress, First Session, prepared for NASA by theBrookings Institution (U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, DC).

Vakoch, D. L. (1999a) “Communicating Scientifically FormulatedSpiritual Principles in Interstellar Messages.” Paper presented tothe 50th International Astronautical Congress, (Amsterdam, theNetherlands, October).

Vakoch, D. L. (1999b). “The Aesthetics of Composing InterstellarMessages.” Paper presented to the 50th International Astronauti-cal Congress, (Amsterdam, the Netherlands, October).

Vakoch, D. L., and Lee, Y. (1997). “Reactions to Receipt of a Mes-sage from Extraterrestrials: A Cross-Cultural Empirical Study.”Paper presented to the 48th International Astronautical Congress,(Turin, Italy, October).

Von Hoerner, S. (1974). “Universal Music?” Psychology of Music,2, 18-28.

Vulpetti, G. (1998). “On the Viability of the Interstellar Flight.”Paper presented at the 49th International Astronautical Congress,(Melbourne, Australia, September–October).

White, Frank (1990). The SETI Factor. (Walker and Company,New York).

White, Frank (1987). The Overview Effect (Houghton Mifflin,Boston).

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Knopf,New York).

33

John BillinghamSETI Institute

Introduction

This seminar, organized by the Foundation For theFuture, took place on July 31 and August 1, 1999, inthe same location as the Bioastronomy ’99 Confer-ence. It focused on the long-term implications of apotential dialogue with an extraterrestrial civiliza-tion. The following topics were addressed in a discus-sion format:

• The impact of any practical information andadvice that we receive.

• The impact of new insights, understanding, andknowledge about major questions that go farbeyond ordinary, practical, day-to-day matters.

• The impact of a transformation in our view of our-selves and our place in the universe.

• Any other significant impact or effects, either posi-tive or negative.

• What should humanity do NOW in order to maxi-mize the positive long-term impact from an even-tual dialogue—in order to achieve the greatestpossible benefits for our culture, science, world-view, and long-term future?

The coordinator of the seminar was Allen Tough,University of Toronto.

Bob Citron opened the meeting by saying that theFoundation For the Future is interested in how ourcollective culture will respond to contact over thecoming millennium.

Allen Tough opened the discussion by noting thatthere are a number of ways of searching for extrater-restrial intelligence (SETI), and that any of thesemight be successful, at any time into the future, inmaking an unequivocal detection. One consequencecould then be a deluge of information from a societyfar in advance of ours. Some early studies haveaddressed what might be the immediate and near-term effects of the discovery. But Tough observedthat the major impact would probably develop overdecades, or centuries, and could have a profoundeffect on the evolution of our own civilization intothe future. He therefore invited the participants toleapfrog over the near future and consider possibleconsequences of the detection over a thousand yearsby examining, in a group discussion format, the top-ics given above.

Topic 1 dealt with the impact of any practical infor-mation and advice that we receive. Claudio Macconenoted that they could have mastered superluminalstring theory, unifying all known forces of nature,and would therefore know how to harness the hugeenergies connected with the zero-point field, andhow to achieve faster-than-light travel. We should

…there are a number of ways of searching for extraterrestrial

intelligence (SETI)…any of these might be successful, at any time

into the future…

Who Said What: A Summary and Eleven Conclusions

Section III

34 Section III • Who Said What: A Summary and Eleven Conclusions • John Billingham

therefore be ready to decipher such information bytheorem-proving and other advanced techniques. Ifit were then possible to create wormholes, we couldrevolutionize interstellar communication andachieve a much more rapid dialogue. This would be apractical impact of extraordinary importance. JillTarter asked why we should communicate throughthe wormholes with photons rather than baryons,that is, spaceflight of the type envisaged in Sagan’snovel Contact. Maccone said that photons were agreat deal easier. John Billingham recalled Oliver’scalculation of the energy needed to transfer a certainamount of information by spaceflight was 1040

greater than that needed for electromagnetic waves.Guillermo Lemarchand argued that advanced

societies, having long since passed their level of tech-nological adolescence, would have a high level of“cosmo-ethics.” This would mean that they them-selves would be unlikely to attempt ecologicallythreatening projects like Dyson spheres or 1026 Wattomnidirectional transmitters, and that they wouldnot want to pass on to emerging civilizations theknowledge of how to achieve such unrewardingendeavors. Therefore, they would likely pass infor-mation to us, or to other civilizations, in stages, sothat there would be time to absorb and assimilate theknowledge in discrete increments. In other words,they would have chosen deliberately not to put ourevolution and societal life expectancy in danger.

Therefore they will not transmit to us until theyhave detected us. If this is correct, we will only be ableto receive from a distance Rt < 35 + Tf/2 + τ light-years, where Rt is the distance at any time t in thefuture, Tf is that time t expressed in years, and τ is thetime the society needs to analyze our behavior anddegree of evolution. So in 2053, with τ = 5, the dis-tance Rt = 67 light-years. Lemarchand concludedthat Project Phoenix is best suited to get a high infor-mation content under these circumstances. (Note:This is rather a pessimistic scenario in that we willnot hear from anyone, except for leakage, beyond Rt,and success in the near future would be achievedonly if there were civilizations close to us.)

In the discussion that followed, Douglas Vakochnoted that this scenario assumes that ETI ethics aresomething like our own, and asked about the depen-dence of ethics on one’s biology. Or if they have gonebeyond the stage of biology to artificial intelligence,what then? Tough said it would be interesting andimportant to learn what their ethics actually are. EricChaisson said the ethics issue is huge. We have todevelop our own, rather than from ETI, and if we do

it right, we will survive. But Tarter said it is mostimportant for us to receive information about waysof surviving one’s technological infancy.

It was agreed that ETI might not have the samemotives and behaviors as we do. They may be devel-oping along a different evolutionary pathway andhave no interest in contacting others. On the otherhand, should they be interested in communicatingwith us, one of the most important practical resultsof contact would be the knowledge that it is possibleto survive far beyond our own level of evolution, andperhaps how they did it.

Topic 2 addressed new insights: knowledge andunderstanding of the big questions and mysteries ofthe universe that go far beyond practical day-to-daymatters. Against the background of epistemologyand objective knowledge, Steven Dick asked whetherwe and ETI perceive the universe in the same way.There are three alternative cases:

Case 1 holds out hope for easy dialogue and agree-ment. Case 3 implies such complete separation ofsentience or mental processes as to prevent dialogue,or the mutual examination of objective knowledge.

The problem of objective knowledge bears on thepossibility of communication, on the role of lan-guage, and on those aspects of the universe that havethe possibility of verification. Knowledge must bedistinguished from belief, which may have no basisin the objective world; one would not expect extra-terrestrial religious belief, for example, to take thesame form as on Earth, though the existence of Godmay be an objective question. If contact is successful,a major task over the next millennium will be to syn-

…ETI might not have the same motives and behaviors as we do. They may be developing along

a different evolutionary pathway and have no interest in contacting others.

The problem of objective knowledge bears on the possibility of communication, on the role of

language, and on those aspects of the universe that have the possibility of verification.

Section III • Who Said What: A Summary and Eleven Conclusions • John Billingham 35

thesize the knowledge of many worlds. The nature ofthis task will depend greatly on which of the threecases above turns out to be most common amonggalactic civilizations. Ben Finney said that the betterwe understand each other’s jokes, the closer we willbe to Case 1.

Vakoch drew up a fourth case for overlaps ofobjective knowledge:

Finney observed that this is known in anthropol-ogy as a dialect chain. (Note: It is possible that ourfirst contact with ETI may be like Dick’s Case 3, butthat with further discoveries of additional ETIs, onemight achieve understanding and dialogue throughthese additional ETIs, each of whom has Case 2 over-laps with the others and us. Or we may learn fromETI No. 1 about all the others even though we havenot detected the others ourselves.)

Tarter reminded everyone that any ETI we detectwill likely be far older than we are. She listed someimplications as follows: First, it is possible to surviveone’s technological infancy. (Note: This now reap-pears as an answer to a major fundamental questionas well as important practical new knowledge.) Sec-ond, they may have a well-developed empirical fieldof study that can define critical bottlenecks and elab-orate different ways through them. Third, they mayhave survived the red giant phase of their star.Fourth, their longevity is at odds with organizedmonotheistic religions typical of Earth. Fifth, theremay be something like a universal religion, and therewill be a highly established code of ethics. Sixth, theymay tell us how it is possible to change from theprimitive “My God versus your God” conflicts onEarth to a more stable universal understanding.

Lemarchand raised the question of religious issuesin connection with the long-term impact of the dis-covery of ETI. He pointed out that all religions onEarth have common “Principles of Fraternity.” Ontop of these is often superimposed the ritual dogmasof individual church power structures, sometimesresulting in control by an elite. If we learn that an ETIspecies has different or no thoughts about God, thiswill not generate reactions or conflict except amongthose terrestrial religions that are fanatical abouttheir dogmas. But if we learn that there are some uni-

versal “Principles of Fraternity” like the universallaws of physics, then Lemarchand imagines a stimu-lating revolution of the most positive kind in terres-trial thinking about religion as a whole.

In the discussion of these Topic 2 papers there wassome agreement on the untoward effects of theaggressive and autocratic aspects of the Adamist reli-gions. Albert Harrison said that the revolution inreligious thought could well be a slow process, espe-cially if the information from ETI came in slowly.Keiko Tokunaga noted that in the Buddhist sutrasthere is some evidence that contact has alreadyoccurred. Vakoch pointed out that ethics couldevolve differently for ETIs who might live for 100,000years, and that the corollary is that the emergence ofuniversal ethics (as an extension of the global ethicsenvisaged by Chaisson) might facilitate great longev-ity for individuals and species as a whole.

Case 3 scenarios were envisaged for ETIs whosebiological evolution has been quite different. Forexample, said Vakoch, how would we understandETIs whose main means of communication wasolfaction? Dick quoted Kuhn’s opinion that we caneasily talk past each other if we have different para-digms. Finney elaborated, with the example that wemight have had a Case 3 situation at this meeting ifpost-modernists had been present. Lemarchandreminded us that Piaget said that the circles wouldeventually merge.

Tarter quoted Dawkins’ firm belief that evolutionon Earth is the end result of predator/prey relation-ships. Billingham felt that a majority of exobiologistswould postulate the same for ETI, up to our stage ofevolution today. But Dick said different ET environ-ments could lead to different pathways for ETI evolu-tion. Vakoch thought that evolutionary stories couldbe the basis for interstellar messages.

Tarter said that the major fundamental question iswhether ETI exists: detection of their signal wouldprovide the answer. Everyone agreed that the knowl-edge that they had achieved great longevity wasanother answer to the fundamental, as well as practi-cal, question as to whether long-term survival isactually possible.

Topic 3 was concerned with changes in our views ofourselves. Paul Davies focused on the fact that reli-gion is already being transformed by the prospect of

…in the Buddhist sutras there is some evidence that contact has already occurred.


the existence of ETI. While theologians may express arelaxed view of the possibility of ETI, they may behiding some deep concerns because of the geocentricor homocentric nature of many religions, especiallyChristianity, vulnerable because of the unique posi-tion of Jesus Christ as God incarnate. The shock willbe worse if ETI turns out to have achieved, bydirected evolution, a more spiritual or saintly statefar beyond ours.

Finney imagined a crisis in the middle of theThird Millennium. SETI would already have beensuccessful, the field of comparative exosemioticswould be maturing, and Tsiolkovsky biosphereswould be capable of cruising to the stars at 0.3 c. Butthe sobering news on the interstellar communicationchannels is that many star systems are occupied byadvanced ETIs who do not want us, have little inter-est in us, and are not inclined to give us tutorials.Whither now, self-anointed Homo sapiens?

Harrison asked some interesting new questionsabout social comparisons, identity, and self-esteem amillennium after the discovery of ETI. While enthu-siasts paint rosy pictures, they rely on the hope thatET will treat us as equals, that we will continue tocompare ourselves with one another, and that ourchanging cultures will retain distinctive elements.But the opposite of all of these could dominate. Weshould study historical analogs further, searchingespecially for positive outcomes of contact in theareas of the amicable co-existence of caste systems,positive lessons from the colonial experience, subjec-tive determinants of self-esteem, and preservation ofidentity following contact between cultures.

Gender parity was taken by Kathleen Connell as aspecific question of the societal impact of an extrater-restrial cultural exchange. Specifically, would ETIsembody a different gender construct? In turn, woulda radically different gender model positively impactthe existing disparity in human society? Connelllisted variations in genderism that ETIs may mani-fest. Her conclusion was that some social inequities,such as gender-based disparities, may be integratedonly by the introduction of off-home-planet geneticparadigms and role modeling.

There was much discussion of the remarkablechange in our view of ourselves over the last few hun-dred years. Before that, as Davies said, human beings

were thought to have been created by God and tooccupy a central position in the universe. Today thatview has largely disappeared. Chaisson called it aremarkable U-turn in everything from the Big Bangto intelligence. Tarter said it was now reasonable tothink that we are actually made of star stuff. (Note:One wonders whether similar dramatic changes mayawait us in the coming millennium with or withoutthe advent of contact with ETI.) Harrison cautionedthat the transition was not exactly smooth, and weshould examine the bumps in the curve. Billinghamreferred to the discovery of the lost knowledge of theancient Greek civilization in the Moorish civilizationin Spain in the 12th century. There are two pointshere: The first is the stimulus this gave to the start ofthe Renaissance. The second is the analogy with ourdiscovery of new knowledge from ETI. (If there is anyreality to the analog, then contact with ETI couldbode well for a new Enlightenment for us.) Dickagreed with the importance of the discoveries inSpain, but cautioned against predicting the futurefrom perceived analogs with the past.

Connell said that some people believe that SETIhas elements of a secular religion. Billingham asked if“secular religion” was not an oxymoron. Baseball,said Finney, has been described as a secular religion.Tarter said SETI has indeed been accused of being asecular religion. But SETI people are hard-nosed sci-entists who are prepared to accept that we are alone ifthat could be proved. So our beliefs are subject totest, and change on the basis of hard evidence, whichis not the case for religions.

Topic 4 covered long-term effects that are primarilynegative. For the sake of argument, Chaisson postu-lated no positive effects from contact with ETI overthe coming millennium. For electromagnetic con-tact, there will be a small cadre of academics publish-ing on ETI in cyberspace journals, but the vastmajority will be consumed with the continuing tra-vails of life on Earth. Physical contact would be muchworse, and lead to a neo-Darwinian subjugation ofour culture by theirs. Advanced societies might dom-inate the less advanced, just as has happened in manycases on Earth.

Ragbir Bhathal agreed. ETIs would want to con-trol the resources of the universe for their own ends,just as has happened on Earth. Physical contact is notactually necessary, because proxies can be installed

While enthusiasts paint rosy pictures, they rely on the hope that ET will treat us as equals…

…it could be the end of civilization as we know it.


by ETI, just as the Soviet brand of Communismrelied on home-grown dictators in East Asia. Theculture shock will be severe and disruptive, and ourinstitutions will fail. So it could be the end of civiliza-tion as we know it.

Tarter noted that the real impact might be to trivi-alize the severe differences between humans. Lemarc-hand noted that President Reagan said that a hostileETI could unite us like nothing else. Lemarchandalso made the important point that their dominationof us may be the natural order of things. Davies wasworried that bad guys might actually prevail. Connellwarned that evolving into a monotheistic culturemight threaten democracy and the rule of law.

Topic 5 explored the really practical question of“What can we do now?”

Vakoch pleaded for a recognition that long-termimpacts of a dialogue with ETI may be determined toa significant extent by our initial response. We woulddo well to ponder all the issues in advance. Specialattempts should be made to construct messages our-selves, not just in terms of mathematics and science,but in the arts. Musical intelligence is a candidate,witness the paper by Von Hoerner on three of fouralternative scales of possibly universal significance.Do not forget the Buddhist question: “What is thesound of one hand clapping?” Perhaps part of themessage should itself be a work of art. Billinghamsaid that we should attach an asterisk saying that thisis not the real thing. Vakoch said it could be arguedthat the asterisk might go on the science and mathsaying it was not the real thing. He concluded by say-ing we should look for ways of opening up barriers sothat Case 3 situations might be nudged towards Case2 and then to Case 1.

Tough worried that if they are here, they may be inCase 3 because there is no contact. Davies remindedeveryone that worldviews can change dramatically in100 years, witness the arrival of the Information Age.Vakoch said that we should be sure to use environ-mental phenomena, such as pulsar locations, as com-mon reference points so that those, at least, are inCase 1.

Citron emphasized that over the next thousandyears we will be modifying our own existence andcapabilities. We may gradually move towards sometype of humanoid machinery, or machine intelli-gence, endowed with great longevity. How will thishelp us to detect ETI, or to conduct a dialogue withETI? Davies pointed out that genetic engineeringmay be used to eliminate criminal or antisocial

behavior, and that the distinction between nanotech-nology and biotechnology will soon disappear. Fur-ther, ETI will already have done all this.

There was much concern about what we might do,and what they might have already done, to speciesbehavior. For example, will the exploration gene bedeleted, enhanced, or left as it is in humans of today?Citron and others hoped that positive aspects ofhuman behavior would be programmed intocyborgs, if there are cyborgs, so that it is not lost.Davies proposed a Committee on Urges, to examinewhat should be done with each. Tarter remindedeveryone that it may be possible in the future to tele-port the complete intelligence of a human being.

Tough presented arguments for augmenting SETIin five areas:

1. Pursue a variety of means for searching the solar system and our planet for physical evidence of an extraterrestrial object or its effects.

2. Invite contact through invitations to ETI on theWorld Wide Web.

3. Encourage contact by becoming sufficiently pre-pared.

4. Search for evidence of astroengineering projectsand their by-products.

5. Use radio and optical SETI to detect artificial sig-nals.

He has already signed up a group of 40 SETI scien-tists for Item 2.

Finney said we should pursue an archeologicalsearch for artifacts in the solar system. Lemarchandencouraged everyone to spread the word about SETIsignals buried in astronomers’ existing data, perhapssquirreled away in their bottom drawers. Tarteragreed we should systematize such retrospectivesearches. Maccone envisaged searching for an ETIprobe in a sphere of radius 550 AU from the Sun—which might be the location of their communicationantenna at the gravitational focus of the Sun.

Billingham argued for an expansion of the currentsmall group studying the societal issues surroundingthe contact scenario. Bring on board additionalexperts in all the disciplines to stimulate discussion.Vakoch will serve as the Institute’s focal point for col-lecting names of good candidates. At the moment weare 25 years behind the SETI physical scientists andengineers in achieving respectability. He passedaround the first publication of the SETI Institute’sSETI Press, entitled Social Implications of the Detec-


tion of an Extraterrestrial Civilization,1 put togethersome years ago by the Workshops on the CulturalAspects of SETI. This was a group of distinguishedscholars from most of the disciplines involved inSETI and Society. One of their recommendationswas to conduct a broader international conferenceon SETI and Society, funds for which are now beingsought. Billingham said also that most of the existingreferences on SETI and Society are included in thenew SETI Press publication, and in Harrison’s bookAfter Contact,2 and in the publications of Dick,3

Michaud,4 and others at the seminar.In the discussion that followed, many suggestions

were made for augmenting the SETI and Societybase. These are included in “Contact: Long-TermImplications for Humanity,” by Dick and Harrison.[See Section II, this volume.]

The final paper was given by Tokunaga and dealtwith the significance, in terms of Zen Buddhism, ofhow we send signals to each other, and how wereceive and interpret them. This has major impor-tance for our own interactions here on Earth. Thereare still different ways of looking at the world here—witness the different conceptual frameworks of Bud-dhism and the Western world. Could some of thesedifferences be analogs of what we might expect inencounters with ETI? In any event, we should domore to prepare for a dialogue by becoming morereceptive, breaking away from our individual egos,using our basic intuition, becoming more compas-sionate, and finding places where contact could bemade. She said it was important to resolve our owndifferences. Perhaps this is why we have not heardfrom them. She described the cycles of life in theBuddhist philosophy, and left open the possibilitythat one could include extraterrestrial life. ETI isclearly not excluded in Buddhism.

Tarter asked how the news of a detection would bereceived in the Buddhist temple. Tokunaga said therewould be a wide range of reactions depending onindividual perceptions and intuition. The results ofthe encounter will depend on who you are. Finneywondered if they would really want to contact us,given all our current problems. Tokunaga noted that

Tarter wants an answer to the question, “Are wealone?” and everyone seems to be pining for contact.In the Buddhist view, the eating of garlic is forbid-den, because it is considered to cloud the mind. Per-haps our group should follow suit and then be able tocome up with some clearer ideas and insights.

In closing the meeting, Tough said that detectionwould be a major event of the next thousand years,and that we should continue to search and to exam-ine the long-term impact of detection.

Citron said that this topic might be worth repeat-ing, with follow-up discussions in two or five years.

Conclusion

This meeting was conducted in a brainstorming for-mat, and did not attempt to cover all aspects of thelong-term societal implications of contact. Areas thatwill surely be explored in future meetings are: socialattributes and context over the years before, during,and after detection; the desirability, or not, of trans-mitting from Earth, either after we have detected ETIor de novo; interstellar languages; political and insti-tutional processes and arrangements for trying toreach consensus on transmissions from Earth; andmore details of the role of education and the media.

In those areas that were discussed, some generalfindings emerged:

1. A detection would have profound practical andlong-term implications for our civilization.

2. At the very least, we would have answered thequestion, “Are we alone?”

3. The ETI we detect will likely be much older thanwe are, proving that a civilization can achieve longev-ity.

4. We may be faced, either gradually or rapidly, witha flood of information from an advanced civilization.

5. This information may be difficult to comprehend,either because it is so advanced, or because it is atotally different epistemological frame of reference,or both.

6. We should prepare for detection by further studiesinvolving people from many walks of life, by closerself-examination, by education, and by the pursuit ofthe topic in bodies such as UNESCO and COPUOS,or by the establishment of a World Council.

…we should do more to prepare for a dialogue by becoming more receptive, breaking away from our

individual egos, using our basic intuition, becoming more compassionate, and finding

places where contact could be made.


7. We should consider the content of a transmissionto ETI with great care, since the course of subsequentdialogue could be deeply influenced by the composi-tion and tenor of our first message.

8. We should continue studying historical analogs ofcontact, but not rely on them as predictors of thefuture. We should analyze analogs involving the posi-tive consequences of a less advanced society commu-nicating with a more advanced society, especiallywhere there is no physical contact.

9. The implications for religions on Earth are alreadybeing felt before contact, and may be of great importfor a long time after contact. It is possible that frater-nal principles found in most terrestrial religions mayhave been blended into a universal code of ethics byETI.

10. Over the next millennium we will developincreasing ability to control our own evolution, andmay see the advent of cyborgs and machine intelli-

gence. Hopes were expressed that we will not losedesirable characteristics, for example, altruistic orexploration genes, in the process. We should be pre-pared for ETIs to have gone through such evolution-ary steps long ago.

11. The millennia after contact could be a normalevolutionary phase for citizens and civilizations ofthe universe.

References1Billingham, J., et al. (1999). Societal Implications of the Detectionof an Extraterrestrial Civilization (SETI Press, Mountain View,CA).2Harrison, A. (1997). After Contact: The Human Response toExtraterrestrial Life (Plenum Press, New York).3Dick, S. (1996). The Biological Universe: The Twentieth CenturyExtraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge).4Michaud, M. and Tarter, J., Eds. (1989). Special Issue of ActaAstronautica: SETI Post-Detection Protocol (Pergamon Press,Oxford, UK).

Paper presented at the conference Bioastronomy ’99: A New Era in the Search for Life in the Universe, August 2-6, 1999, Kohala Coast, Hawaii.

…the course of subsequent dialogue could be deeply influenced by the composition and tenor

of our first message.

41

Prior to convening for the workshop, participantswere asked to prepare one- to two-page statementsto present as handouts during the session. Thesebrief papers, each related to one aspect or another ofthe cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact,reflected the participants’ early deliberation on thetopics and served as starting points for the group dis-cussions. The topics were as follows:





5. Significant Long-Term Effects That Are Primarily Negative

6. What Should Humanity Do Now to Maximize Positive Long-Term Impacts?

Following are the participants’ statements.

Participants’ Statements

Section IV

42 Section IV • Participants’ Statements

43

Claudio MacconeAlenia Spazio

Suppose that at least one of several galactic civiliza-tions broadcasts intentional signals to signal its ownexistence. Leakage from that civilization is not takeninto account in the following considerations. Then,either 1) they do know about humanity, or 2) theydon’t.

In Case 1, they also know about our stage of tech-nological development, so they may choose to nar-row-beam only aimed informat ion ( i .e . , noEncyclopedia Galactica stuff). In Case 2, they havenot the least idea—or only very vague ideas—abouthow much science and technology a civilizationreceiving the signal has developed on the average.This case is ruled out here because it seems obviousthat they would waste too much energy in broadcast-ing signals that may not pay off much. Therefore,Case 1 is the appropriate case for all stars encom-passed in a sphere centered around the Sun with aradius of about 100 light-years away from the Sun(where our own radio leakage has reached so far).

Let us investigate this “realistic case” now. Theyknow that we know about:

1. Special and general relativity.

2. Quantum physics at the level that it overlaps rela-tivity only in part (Dirac theory).

3. Spaceflight science capable of exploring this solarsystem only, but not capable of reaching other stars.

They then decide to teach us:

1. The mathematical theory unifying all knownforces of nature, a theory of the superstrings typethat we shall provisionally name “superluminalstrings.”

2. Based on that theory, the technology to master thehuge energies connected with the zero-point field.

3. Spaceflight science, “Star Trek-like,” enabling us tobend space-time at will and to such an extent thatfaster-than-light (FTL) phenomena can be achievedand mastered without contrast with general relativ-ity. Wormholes are examples of that, but they are notthe only example.

In summary, humanity must then be ready todecipher such a message telling us about superlumi-nal strings theory and its technological outreaches.This deciphering task would be best accomplished by“translating computers” working at the highest levelsof logic (currently called “theorem proving”). Theseresearch fields seem thus to be what deserves thegreatest research effort.

Once superluminal strings theory is mastered, thegradual creation of more and more “wormhole-likealleys of information” around the Sun would revolu-tionize interstellar communications, making thembecome fully FTL. Thus, we believe that, in contrastto the FTL spaceflights through wormholesdescribed in the movie Contact, reception and trans-mission of FTL signals, rather than any FTL space-flight itself, are going to be the keynote of the long-range cultural impact of contact.

…humanity must then be ready to decipher such a message telling us about superluminal strings theory and its technological outreaches.

…reception and transmission of FTL signals, rather than any FTL spaceflight itself,

are going to be the keynote of the long-range cultural impact of contact.

Section IV • Topic 1: Practical Information

Superluminal Strings Theory:What ETI May Teach Us

44 Section IV • Topic 1: Practical Information

45

Jill TarterSETI Institute

The scenario Allen has set for us—detection of anextraterrestrial intelligence, sufficiently soon that ourdiscussions have any relevance to our own society asit will be then—guarantees that the ETIs (or theirrobotic emissaries) will be far older than we. This fol-lows from even the simple degenerate form of theDrake Equation (N ≤ L, where N is the number ofcurrently communicative civilizations in the MilkyWay and L is the longevity of the communicationmethodology in years). For our primitive technologyto succeed in a detection in the near future, N mustbe large, which can happen only if L is large. At theSETI Institute, the next 20 years will probably berequired to explore systematically a million nearbystars (and indirectly, a number of background stars).Success during the million-star search requires thatN ≥ 4 x 105, or an average longevity L ≥ 4 x 105 years.

This longevity has many implications:

• It is possible to survive one’s technological infancy.Perhaps they will have a well-developed empiricalfield of study that can define the critical bottle-necks and elaborate several different ways throughthem.

• The real challenge is surviving one’s star. Perhapswe will learn how they did it.

• However, there are few who do so. This conclusionis consistent with the state of observational astron-omy. There have been no detected phenomena inthe vicinity of stars about to become red giants, orred giants, novae, or supernovae that might beinterpreted as astroengineering. It may be possibleto preserve a civilization from the impendingdeath of its star, but it is difficult to understandhow this might happen without some observableconsequences. It’s possible that the consequencescould be there, and we’ve just missed them, butnothing has hit us in the eye yet.

• Their longevity is inconsistent with organizedmonotheistic religions typical of Earth. Such reli-gions are responsible for the longest lasting warfareand destruction we have witnessed.

• There may be something like a universal religionthat integrates the existence of intelligent life formswith a fully developed cosmology. There will be nosects, as religious warfare would be the result, andthat is inconsistent with longevity.

• There will be a highly established code of ethicsthat centers around the perpetuation of individuals(or a colonial entity), and all components of thenatural environment.

• They may tell us how it is possible to transitionfrom the “My God vs. Your God” conflicts of 20thcentury Earth to a more stable universal religion/understanding. Or perhaps humans are the onlyspecies that started out on the wrong path.

…the ETIs (or their robotic emissaries) will be far older than we. This follows from

even the simple degenerate form of the Drake Equation…

Perhaps they will have a well-developed empirical field of study that can define the critical bottlenecks and elaborate several different ways through them.

Section IV • Topic 2: Answers to Major Questions

Implications of Contact with ETI Far Older than Humankind

46 Section IV • Topic 2: Answers to Major Questions

47

Steven J. DickU.S. Naval Observatory

In the concluding chapter of The Biological Universe,I remarked very briefly about the compatibility ofextraterrestrial and terrestrial science. “If compari-son is possible,” I wrote, “one wonders whether thelong-sought ‘objective knowledge’ might be found atlast by gleaning the common elements remainingafter processing by many sensory and mind systemsindependently evolved throughout the universe”(Dick, 1996). With few exceptions (Minsky, 1985;Rescher, 1985), no one has taken up the fundamentalproblem of objective knowledge in the extraterres-trial context. Here I offer a few thoughts for discus-sion, because this may be one of the major questionsthat could be answered by extraterrestrial contact inthe next millennium, and in fact may significantlyaffect our chances of contact.

The problem of objective knowledge is one of theoldest problems of philosophy, and forms a branchof that field known as “epistemology,” the nature,origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge.Hume, Kant, and many other classical philosophershad much to say about the relation between the mindand external reality, as do modern philosophers. Noris this an abstruse academic argument; the current“science wars” embody the question in the form ofpostmodernism and the social constructionismdebate, one element of which claims that science, likeeverything else, is socially constructed, and thus thatthere is no objective knowledge. While this seems to

me absurd in the terrestrial context, the epistemolog-ical question takes on new meaning in the context ofextraterrestrial biologies and minds.

Contact with extraterrestrial intelligence wouldprovide a major insight into the question of objectiveknowledge on a universal, not just a terrestrial, scale.The basic question is, “Do humans and putativeextraterrestrials perceive the universe in the sameway?” There are three cases in comparative terrestrialand extraterrestrial perception: 1) complete overlap,2) partial overlap, and 3) zero overlap, graphicallyshown as follows:

On one level, these sets may be taken to representterrestrial and extraterrestrial knowledge, but moredeeply they represent terrestrial and extraterrestrialways of perceiving. Case 1, in which ETI perceives thesame electromagnetic spectrum as we do, processesthe information in the same way, and comes to thesame conclusions, holds out hope for easy dialogueand objective agreement. Case 2, in which there maybe differences to a greater or lesser degree in sensoryorgans and mental processes, implies some commonbasis for dialogue. In Case 3, with no senses or men-tal processes in common, there may be no possibilityof dialogue or objective knowledge.

The problem of objective knowledge bears on thepossibility of communication, on the role of lan-guage, and on those aspects of the universe that havethe possibility of verification. Knowledge must bedistinguished from belief, which may have no basisin the objective world; one would not expect extra-

The basic question is, “Do humans and putative

extraterrestrials perceive the universe in the same way?”

If contact is successful, a major task over the next millennium will be to synthesize the

knowledge of many worlds.

Section IV • Topic 2: Answers to Major Questions

Extraterrestrials and Objective Knowledge

48 Section IV • Topic 2: Answers to Major Questions

terrestrial religious belief, for example, to take thesame form as on Earth, though the existence of Godmay be an objective question. If contact is successful,a major task over the next millennium will be to syn-thesize the knowledge of many worlds. The nature ofthis task will depend greatly on which of the threecases above turns out to be most common amonggalactic civilizations.

ReferencesDick, Steven J. 1996. The Biological Universe: The Twentieth Cen-tury Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science (Cam-bridge University Press: Cambridge), pp. 549-550.

Minksy, M. 1985. “Why Intelligent Aliens Will Be Intelligible,” inEdward Regis, Jr., ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelli-gence (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 117-128.

Rescher, N. 1985. “Extraterrestrial Science,” in Edward Regis, Jr.,ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge), 83-116.

49

Albert A. HarrisonUniversity of California

Among the commonly accepted assumptions about“contact” is that ET will come from a society that ismuch older and more technologically advanced thanour own. We are admonished not to view ourselves asspecial or holding a privileged place in the universebecause in the course of doing so we succumb to the“Anti-Copernican Conceit.” While we are at least“mediocre,” we expect to encounter a civilization farolder than our own, perhaps by millions or billionsof years. We are warned that ET’s science will be likemagic to us, or perhaps the relationship between ETand us will be analogous to the relationship betweenhumans and slugs. It is one thing to imagine this inthe abstract; it is another thing to experience thisprofound discrepancy. How many of the scientistswho urge us to accept mediocrity would respondwith awe, reverence, and humility after being put outof business by researchers from another laboratory?

This raises existential questions, which we canapproach from the viewpoint of psychologicalresearch. There is a vast empirical literature on thevariables associated with positive, can-do attitudesand self-esteem, the extent to which a people feelcapable, worthwhile, and good about themselves.

1. Altercasting and the Social Construction of Self.Sociological theories of self stress the importance ofself–other interactions. In essence, the way that otherpeople define us, as evidenced in their expectationsand reactions, affects our sense of identity or the way

that we define ourselves. Such self-definition may bebased on class membership, as would be the case forpeople who are beneficiaries or victims of cultural orracial discrimination.

2. Social Comparison and Frames of Reference.How we feel about ourselves depends upon withwhom we compare ourselves. In essence, this is a“size of frog/size of pond” issue. For example,whether or not a dentist feels good about herself maydepend on whether she compares herself with moresuccessful physicians or less successful pharmacists.

3. Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control and Spheres ofControl, and Proactive Personalities. These threeclosely related variables describe the extent to whichpeople believe that they have control over their phys-ical, interpersonal, and sociopolitical environments.People who understand what they are doing andbelieve that they can determine their personal out-comes try harder and succeed more than people whosee themselves as ineffective.

4. Cultural Integrity and the Preservation of Iden-tity. When more technologically advanced societiesmeet less technologically advanced societies, it is theless technologically advanced societies that are themost likely to change. For those of us who prizediversity and tradition, this could result in a loss ofidentity.

Given a high rate of information exchange, weshould hope that: (1) ET will treat us as equals; (2)we will continue to compare ourselves with oneanother; (3) we will retain a sense of control over ourenvironments; and (4) although our culture willchange, it will retain distinctive elements. However,we could encounter one or more of the following: (1)ET conveys a sense of superiority; (2) we make invid-

Among the commonly accepted assumptions about “contact” is

that ET will come from a society that is much older and more technologically advanced…

When more technologically advanced societies meet less technologically advanced societies, it is

the less technologically advanced societies that are the most likely to change.

Section IV • Topic 3: Changes in Our View of Ourselves

Social Comparison, Identity, and Self-Esteem

50 Section IV • Topic 3: Changes in Our View of Ourselves

ious comparisons between ourselves and ET’s “superrace,” (3) ET somehow limits our choices or webecome dependent on advanced technology that wedon’t really understand; and (4) human culture is nolonger distinctive but a cheap imitation (“cargo cul-ture”) of what we see as ET’s superior culture. Suchundesirable conditions could give rise to the follow-ing:

1. Learned Helplessness: If ET constrains ourchoices, solves our problems for us, or gives us accessto technology that we don’t really understand, wemay feel that nothing we do makes much of a differ-ence and then give up trying.

2. Loss of Identity: If we abandon distinctive humanculture, we may define ourselves as second-ratemembers of a larger, somewhat uncomfortable galac-tic culture.

3. Feelings of Inferiority: Learned helplessness andinvidious comparisons with superior beings couldlead to crime and to immature, attention-seekingbehaviors.

4. Depression: This sometimes follows from learnedhelplessness, loss of identity, and feelings of inferior-ity coupled with anger that is displaced inward sinceit is not safely directed towards the more powerful ETcivilization.

The die will be cast within a few decades and, wemight expect, strengthened over the ensuing centu-

ries. Enthusiasts write most discussions of post-con-tact humanity and, indeed, it may be that thediscovery that we are not alone in the universe, cou-pled with the interplay of extraterrestrial and humanculture, will yield positive results. Nonetheless, wemust consider the psychological “down side” of con-tact with a vastly superior culture. To do this, wemight expand our search for historical prototypesand conduct new studies on the following:

1. Caste Systems: These should be studied to iden-tify those conditions under which castes, if any, liveamicably and without adverse psychological conse-quences.

2. Colonies: Although we do not expect that Earthwill be “colonized,” there may be certain characteris-tic elements, for example, laws established andenforced by distant government(s). What positivelessons, if any, can we learn from the colonial experi-ence?

3. Subjective Determinants of Self-Esteem: Manypeople who, by objective standards, “do not seem tohave all that much going for them” do fine. Whatmay we learn from them?

4. Preservation of Identity following Culture Con-tact: What are some models of post-contact culturepreservation and how might these be applied in thewake of contact with an extraterrestrial civilization?

51

Paul Davies Burnside, S. Australia

Religion is one subject that would not only be trans-formed by contact with advanced extraterrestrialcommunities, but is already being transformedmerely by the prospect of the existence of such com-munities. Most surveys show that theologians andministers of religion take a relaxed view of the possi-bility of extraterrestrials. They do not regard theprospect of contact as threatening to their belief sys-tems. However, they are being dishonest. All themajor world religions are strongly geocentric, indeedhomocentric. Christianity is particularly vulnerablebecause of the unique position of Jesus Christ as Godincarnate. Christians believe that Christ died specifi-cally to save humankind. He did not die to save “littlegreen men.”

This species specificity has already caused discom-fort in relation to animal rights, but in the case ofextraterrestrial beings, there would arise a very seri-ous problem. For example, it is reasonable to sup-pose that in advanced communities, geneticengineering would have been used to eliminatestrongly criminal and antisocial behavior. In makingcontact with extraterrestrials, we would most likelybe dealing with beings who are far in advance of usnot only technologically and scientifically, but also,in the general sense, spiritually. Are we to supposethat humans are theologically favoured over andabove these “saintly” beings?

The alternative—that God became incarnate onplanet after planet—not only has an air of absurdtheatricality to it, it is also a heresy in Catholicism.Even if contact is unsuccessful, the mere possibility ofthe existence of “saintly” extraterrestrials will eventu-ally force a radical rethinking of Christian theology,and could cause a split in the Church towards sup-port for SETI.

The search for life elsewhere carries a more funda-mental implication for religion. Four hundred yearsago Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting theexistence of other inhabited planets. At that time,human beings were thought to have been created byGod and to occupy a central position in the universe.Today that worldview has largely disappeared. Tothose who accept that life on Earth arose naturally,the theological situation has dramatically reversed. Itis atheists who now prefer to believe that life is theproduct of a stupendously improbable accident(Jacques Monod was most explicit on this topic).This is because contingency is the opposite of pur-pose (as Stephen Jay Gould has stressed in support ofatheism). Therefore, atheism fits most comfortablywith the nonexistence of extraterrestrials and apointless universe ruled by blind and purposelessforces. By contrast, if life emerges more or less auto-matically on many Earthlike planets as the result ofinherently bio-friendly laws of nature, then descrip-tions like “design” and “purpose” once more seemappropriate to some (as Christian de Duve haspointed out). Atheists see biological determinism—the view that life is an inevitable consequence ofphysics and chemistry given suitable conditions—asan attempt to smuggle in the guiding hand of God inthe guise of physical law.

Not all atheists are consistent in their thinking onthis issue, however. Richard Dawkins, a strong advo-cate of atheism, seems comfortable with the possibil-ity of extraterrestrial life, even of an advanced nature.

…we would most likely be dealing with beings who are far in advance of us not only technologically and

scientifically, but also, in the general sense, spiritually.


Transformations in Spirituality and Religion


In my view, atheists can consistently believe inextraterrestrial beings only if they accept thepanspermia hypothesis, since that combines theassumption of life forming purely by chance against

enormous odds, with its widespread prevalence inthe universe. (Note that the converse need not be thecase: Fred Hoyle, for example, combines a type oftheism with panspermia, but only at the price ofdivine interventionism.) If life were discovered else-where, even at the level of bacteria, establishing apanspermia mechanism would become a key priorityfor atheists.

If life were discovered elsewhere, even at the level of bacteria, establishing a panspermia mechanism

would become a key priority for atheists.

53

Ben Finney University of Hawaii

During the first century of the new millennium, twogrand endeavors initiated in the previous centurybegan to bear fruit. The first human settlements wereestablished beyond Earth (but still in the Solar Sys-tem) and radio signals originating from elsewhere inthe galaxy were confirmed as coming from intelligentsources. Although these developments weredenounced by some naysayers, by and large the real-ization that we could live off Earth and that we werenot alone served to invigorate the human spirit.

However, during the centuries that immediatelyfollowed, progress in both space colonization andunderstanding the meaning of the radio signals wasagonizingly slow. Developing thriving, self-repro-ducing communities proved much more difficultthan expected, and deciphering signals fromunknown sources baffled generations of would-betranslators. Finally, during the 26th century critical

breakthroughs were made in constructing viable bio-spheres from asteroids, as Tsiolkovsky had originallyproposed, and in applying consilient techniques tothe new field of comparative exosemiotics.

That’s when the real crisis for humanity hit. Spacecolonizers were no longer satisfied with spreadingjust within the Solar System. With the new Tsiolk-ovsky biospheres, powered by vacuum-energy drivesto cruising speeds of upwards of .3c, hundreds ofinviting star systems beckoned to multigenerationalvoyagers. At last interstellar migration was withinhumanity’s reach! Countering this expansive eupho-ria, however, was sobering news from the exosemi-oticians. Many of the star systems around us seemedto be already occupied, though whether by intelligentbiologs, machines, or cyborgs was in dispute. Fur-thermore, the impression gained from the sketchyand incomplete translations was that our neighborswould probably not invite physical visits, much lesscolonial intrusions. Furthermore, analyses of textsfrom several star systems suggested that their occu-pants already knew of our existence, but consideredus to be so minimally advanced as to be hardly worththeir consideration, much less tutorial outreach.Whither now, self-anointed Homo sapiens?

…during the 26th century critical breakthroughs were made in

constructing viable biospheres from asteroids…

…our neighbors would probably not invite physical visits, much less colonial intrusions.


Crisis at Mid-Millennium: A Report from the Year 2600

55

David Hines Santa Clarita, CA

Artists have always played a vital role in shaping ourcultural identities. This role is not merely cognitive,for the arts do far more than instruct or interpret. Attheir most meaningful level, the arts provide power-ful life experiences that are a rich amalgam of percep-tual, cognitive, emotional, and perhaps spiritual orpsychic aspects of human consciousness. The artshave always (in Western societies, at least) served thepurpose of heightening awareness of our mythic self-identity, helping both to illustrate and to create anawareness of shared human values. Perhaps in thisregard the arts share some purpose with religion.Unlike religion, however, the arts have never quar-reled with science. And at least during the 20th cen-tury, the arts have shared with the sciences theintellectual adventure of exploring the new andunknown.

I make this introduction because I feel sure thatfrom the moment of first contact with an ETI (bar-ring total social disintegration or worse), artists willembrace the experience of contact and explore therelevance of that initial contact and its long-termcontent to our collective self-identity. Indeed, artistsmay prove more resilient to the impact of initial con-tact with an ETI than members of some other profes-sions who are locked into more rigid identities.

The questions of what art is, and what subjectmatters and techniques are appropriate for art, arefundamental to 20th century aesthetics and have abearing on post-contact art. What new forms of

expression may arise to meet the challenge of seeingourselves as part of a cosmic citizenry? Is there an ETart and are we capable of identifying it as such andappreciating it? Are artistic collaborations withextraterrestrials possible? Is there a cosmological aes-thetic? (It may seem so since there appears to be aqualitatively unique aesthetic appreciation shared byall human beings that is fundamental both to art andto scientific intuition. If extraterrestrials are techno-logical beings, they may experience some form ofsimilar aesthetic appreciation.) Might artists be morecapable of recognizing ET art than other members ofour society? These questions, of course, presupposecertain conditions: that communication is possibleand that extraterrestrials desire to communicate.

Contact, however, may not occur exclusivelythrough such technological prostheses as radio oroptical telescopes. It is at least conceivable that con-tact may also be transmitted directly through theminds of humans. Indeed, contact may be occurringnow. Perhaps the phenomenon of UFOs, if it repre-sents an alien intelligence, is some form of extrater-restrial art project involving the human species (orperhaps a sort of koan leading the public to gradualenlightenment about alien existence). WhetherUFOs are alien or not, it seems safe to say that forhumans the range of artistic experience—encom-passing as it does today such forms as Happenings,Installations, Performance Art, and site-specific“Earth Art,” all unimagined a century ago—will beexpanded further as a result of contact with extrater-restrial intelligence.

As an artist, I find exciting the possibility ofhumans deriving inspiration from alien art forms, orof some form of human/alien collaboration in thearts. Collaborative efforts in the arts may precede

…artists will embrace the experience of contact and

explore the relevance of that initial contact…

to our collective self-identity.

Perhaps the phenomenon of UFOs, if it represents an alien intelligence, is some form of

extraterrestrial art project involving the human species…

Section IV • Topic 4: Cooperation in Joint Galactic Projects

The Role of Artists in Post-Contact Self-Identity

56 Section IV • Topic 4: Cooperation in Joint Galactic Projects

such efforts in the sciences or other intellectual disci-plines. While we may not initially have the wisdom,knowledge, or technology to share ventures in thesciences or economic spheres, we have a storehouseof species-specific myths and aesthetic/emotionalcapacities that may be unique to our evolutionarydevelopment on this planet and hence of great valueto an extraterrestrial audience. I take heart that we in21st century Western societies can have so much

appreciation of the “primitive” art forms of indige-nous peoples and in the fact that an understanding ofthe cultural content of such art actually augments itsexpressive power for us. The basic value of art seemsto lie beyond matters of technological prowess orsophisticated scientific understanding. An extrater-restrial culture that may initially find us scientificallyunimportant may also find in our human spiritunique opportunities for interspecies involvement.

57

Ragbir Bhathal University of Western Sydney

If it is assumed that the laws of physics and biologyare the same here as elsewhere in the universe, thenthe evolution of life in all parts of the universe wouldhave progressed from the simple to the complex. Inthe process Darwin’s philosophy would have beenuppermost. Almost everything in the universe wouldfall under the control of the most fit, most intelligent,and the strongest. The needs of this group would bejustified on rational arguments and philosophies—rational being defined by the group to suit its ownpurposes and agendas. This has been the history ofhuman civilizations throughout the ages. There is noa priori reason that ETI civilizations will be any dif-ferent. They would also want to control the resourcesof the universe or other galactic civilizations for theirown ends. The history of Earth civilizations will bemirrored in the civilizations in other parts of the uni-verse.

SETI literature normally ascribes attributes ofgoodness, humaneness, and a general willingness ofETI civilizations to assist the less advanced civiliza-tions. From a Darwinian perspective, this will notnecessarily be the case. This is very well illustrated byan analogue from planet Earth. At the end of the 18thcentury an advanced civilization landed in Australiaand confronted the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.The advanced civilization had passed through thehunter and gatherer stage and the agricultural stage,and was, at the end of the 18th century, at the heightof its technological development. It was at a stage

where it could move over the entire oceanic and ter-restrial space on Earth. When the advanced civiliza-tion arrived in Australia, there was a gap of over10,000 years between the technologies of theadvanced civilization and that of the Aboriginal peo-ples. Rather than treating the Aboriginal peoples in acivilized and humane manner, the advanced civiliza-tion took over their lands and in Tasmania theAboriginal population was wiped out. It was one ofthe greatest genocides in the history of human civili-zation.

Will a much more advanced civilization do thesame with us if and when they discover planet Earthwithin a thousand years from now? If a discovery andphysical contact are made with ETI civilizations inthe distant future, the culture shock we will experi-ence will be extremely disruptive and continue forseveral centuries. Our institutions will be incapableof handling the crisis and it may be the end of humancivilization, as we know it today.

This has been the case with the Aboriginal peoplesin Australia. They are still recovering from the con-tact they made with a technologically advanced civi-lization at the end of the 18th century.

Let us look at another scenario. It may be the casethat an advanced civilization need not actually makephysical contact with us. ETI civilizations could usehuman proxies on Earth to do their bidding throughhigh-technology intelligent probes and the galacticinternet. Thus a powerful group of human proxiesmay be given the knowledge and technology by ETIfor the control and manipulation of human popula-tions for political and social agendas of the ETI civili-zation. Again, we have human analogues for thisscenario. If this happens, human civilization will bein for a long culture shock and it may not recoverfrom the disruption of its institutions.

The history of Earth civilizations will be mirrored in

the civilizations in other parts of the universe.

…the culture shock we will experience will be extremely disruptive and continue for

several centuries…

Section IV • Topic 5: Long-Term Effects Primarily Negative

Human Analogues May Portend ET Conduct Toward Humanity

58 Section IV • Topic 5: Long-Term Effects Primarily Negative

59

Eric J. Chaisson Tufts University

Every productive meeting needs an agent provoca-teur. Since I cannot be sure, looking at the list ofattendees, that we have one among us, I shall assumethat role until otherwise deposed.

My hypotheses are that there will likely be no pos-itive effect from contact with ETI during the nextthousand years. Yes, it would be nice to know if ETIsexist in space; the “commission” that astronomershave from the public to keep an eye on the universedemands that we strive to inventory cosmic life in allits forms, just as we do for matter and radiation.However, in the long run, electromagnetic (indirect)contact will probably have negligible effect on us,and physical (direct) contact will probably be harm-ful to us.

Should contact with ETI be limited to electromag-netic means, and there be little chance of ETI travel-ing to Earth (or us to their home) within the nextmillennium (owing largely to light-speed restric-tions), then the impact of ETI on our civilization willbe minimal, perhaps virtually zero, given the steadystream of “in-house” global problems inevitably con-fronting humankind while pushing out along thearrow of time. Of course, we shall study ETIs’ signals,decipher their messages, perhaps even learn somethings from them (since any ETI initiating contactwith us will be, essentially by definition, moreadvanced and knowledgeable than we). Earth’s aca-demics will publish scholarly analyses of ETI data inthe specialized cyberspace journals; commentators

will propagate opinions among the bits and bytes ofthe new Net; and the media hype of each new ETIfinding and its cultural vicissitudes will cause themainstream press of the third millennium to resem-ble the tabloid press of the late-second millennium.But indirect contact alone will likely be of meaning-ful concern only to a small minority of Earth’s citi-zens—essentially an ensemble of future peoplestatistically indistinguishable from those currentlyinterested in SETI. As long as contact remains solelyelectromagnetic, Earth-based global issues of(mostly) our own making will dominate our lives,indeed drive our future evolution during the nextthousand years.

Should contact with ETI be physical, even as amere ceremonial visitation, then the impact could belarge and negative for our species. I refer to the uni-versality of physical and chemical phenomena in thecosmos, and by extension to the subjects of biologyand its allied behavioral sciences. In short, if neo-Darwinism (or some version of it) holds cosmically,meaning that competition is at least part of any com-plex being’s methodology, then it is not inconceiv-able that they (who will be, again, more advancedthan we are) would dominate us. Not that they would“come and eat us”—though they might; we do, infact, consume many other, “lesser” species—and notthat their alien posture toward us would be overtlyhostile. Rather, dominance is likely to be the natural,indeed perhaps inevitable, stance of any advancedlife form. It is just as reasonable to argue thatadvanced life, anywhere in the cosmos, will tend tocontrol other life (as well as controlling matter andradiation locally) if given the opportunity and if inphysical contact, as it is to suggest that positive con-sequences will result from our detection of and inter-action with extraterrestrial intelligence.

…electromagnetic (indirect) contact will probably have negligible effect on us, and

physical (direct) contact will probably be harmful to us.

…dominance is likely to be the natural, indeed perhaps inevitable, stance of any

advanced life form.

Section IV • Topic 5: Long-Term Effects Primarily Negative

Null or Negative Effects of ETI Contact in the Next Millennium

60 Section IV • Topic 5: Long-Term Effects Primarily Negative

61

Allen Tough University of Toronto

If highly intelligent life has evolved elsewhere, howmight scientists detect it? Five strategies are espe-cially promising. Because of all the positive conse-quences that contact will likely produce, as notedthroughout the seminar, humankind should putmajor thought and resources into all five strategies.

Because a highly advanced civilization, thousandsof years beyond our technology, could readily sendsmall but extremely smart probes to monitor oursociety and telecommunications, we should try todetect such probes:

1. Pursue a variety of means for searching the solarsystem and our planet for physical evidence of anextraterrestrial object or its effects.

2. Invite contact through invitations to ETI on theWorld Wide Web.

3. Encourage contact by becoming sufficiently pre-pared.

In the search for extraterrestrial intelligence ortechnology, there is also a good chance of detectingevidence from many light-years away:

4. Search for evidence of astroengineering projectsand their by-products.

5. Use radio and optical SETI to detect artificial sig-nals.

Additional discussion of all five strategies, and thereasons for widening the array of strategies, can befound at http://members.aol.com/AllenTough/strat-egies.html.

The SETI field is united by its common aim ofdetecting irrefutable scientific evidence of genuineextraterrestrial intelligence. To maximize the chancesof success, the wisest approach is to encourage andsupport all five strategies. The benefits to humankindcould be extraordinary.

[The full paper is available in Section V of this volume, pages115–125.]

Five strategies are especially promising…humankind should put major thought and resources

into all five…

Section IV • Topic 6: What Next?

Pursuing Five Strategies for Achieving Contact[Abridged Version]

62 Section IV • Topic 6: What Next?

63

Douglas Vakoch SETI Institute

The long-term impact of dialogue with an extrater-restrial civilization may be determined to a signifi-cant extent by our initial response. This firstimpression may set the tone for subsequent dialogue,and in fact, may determine whether or not there willeven be further communication with ETI. For exam-ple, even a reply message with completely benevolentintentions might be misinterpreted. Some people,for instance, might want ETI to help us overcomesome of our greatest threats to survival as a species,such as nuclear war. But how can we make sure thatanother civilization understands that we are seekingfriendly guidance and not being threatening (byshowing that we have nuclear weapons)? Given thehigh stakes, we would do well to ponder these issuesin very concrete terms long before we have theopportunity to reply.

One of the standard premises of SETI policy isthat decisions following confirmation of the exist-ence of ETI should be made on behalf of humankind,with decisions not being made by a single nation orother small group. It is often assumed that access to asignal will lead to access to the message. However,given the linguistic challenges we may encounter inattempting to understand a message from anotherspecies, even having the full “text” of a message maynot guarantee that it could be comprehended by allinterested parties.

Contact via information-rich signals may be par-ticularly likely to lead to discrepancies between whatdifferent groups of people know about the message:some may know much, while others know little. Tocite an example from fiction, in the movie Contactthe initial “layers” of the message were relatively easyto understand, but the more complex parts took con-siderable effort. Ultimately the code was broken, notby a UN task force, a group of academics, or a gov-ernment intelligence agency, but by a giant corpora-tion with significant resources. It is conceivable thateven if the contents of a message were made public,only large groups with significant power andresources could understand them. One benefit ofincreased attention to message-making prior to sig-nal detection is that we may be better prepared forinformed, open discussion and analysis of messagesthat we may receive in the future.

We should also become more open about therange of forms that a reply message might take. Mostpeople who have considered the matter seriouslyenough to draft messages themselves have back-grounds in mathematics, the physical sciences, orengineering. It is only natural that the content oftheir messages has reflected the same disciplines.There has been some speculation that messages fromanother civilization may contain information abouttheir cultures, philosophies, and arts. But there havebeen no attempts to construct such messages our-selves. We might, for example, construct messagesthat are intended not merely to convey informationabout our existing forms of art, but instead sendmessages that are themselves works of art. If some daywe decide to focus on math and science in reply mes-sages, we should do so with the conscious recogni-tion that this would provide a very truncated view ofhuman concerns.

This first impression may set the tone for subsequent dialogue, and in fact, may determine whether or

not there will even be further communication with ETI.

We might, for example, construct messages…that are themselves works of art.


What Can We Do Now?

65

John Billingham SETI Institute

Two areas are selected below from the many thatcould be discussed. They are the recruitment of emi-nent and respected thinkers in all the fields relevantto the topic, and the involvement of specialists indecision theory and related fields in the challengeswe face. It should be noted that Al Harrison has writ-ten a thoughtful paper, covering all aspects of the“What Next?” question, which should be requiredreading for us and for these two groups as theyemerge.

At the moment, serious issues of the culturalimpact of contact have been discussed by only ahandful of key people who, to their credit, have cometo recognize the significance of the questions that are

being raised. It is important that we seek to includeadditional thinkers in the years to come. One groupis especially important. This is composed of the peo-ple who are recognized by their peers as being at thetop of their own disciplines, especially in the aca-demic world. They are those who are sought after,worldwide, to be prominent advisors to many orga-nizations, whose publications are the finest, whoseoriginal contributions are notable, and who havereceived honors and awards for their work. A goodexample is the late Roger Heyns, one-time Chancel-lor of UC Berkeley and an eminent social psycholo-gist. Exciting the interest of such leaders could beviewed as elitist. This could be good, because of theirenormous importance in our own cultural evolution.But it should not prevent us from growing, or har-nessing, in parallel, great communicators like CarlSagan, who can spread knowledge and discussion topeople from all walks of life.

In many universities there are departments ordivisions focused on decision theory, decision analy-sis, game theory, and utility theory. These techniquesare seldom used in the real world, yet they offerapproaches that can offer clearer insights into thecomplexity of the issues we face.

…the recruitment of eminent and respected thinkers in all the fields

relevant to the topic, and the involvement of specialists in

decision theory…


Spreading the Word

67

Guillermo A. Lemarchand Universidad de Buenos Aires

Based on a hypothetical distribution of advancedtechnological civilizations in the galaxy, Sebastianvon Hoerner (1961) estimated that the civilizationswe will find will probably be much older than we are,and they will be more advanced. He considered thatour chance of learning from them might be the mostimportant incentive for our search. According tothese ideas and due to the large interstellar distances,the extraterrestrial contacting signals would alreadycontain high-information messages (including anintroduction to a language). There might be somespeaking and listening , but mutual exchange ofknowledge would be rather limited because of thelong time scale involved.

Shklovskii and Sagan (1966) and Sagan (1973,1980) took all these original ideas and extended theminto the concept of Encyclopedia Galactica. Theyimagined that a hypothetical network of civilizationsin the galaxy compiled all the accumulated knowl-edge from each independent evolutionary historyand put it at the disposal of the emerging technologi-cal societies. After the detection of an extraterrestrialmessage, they foresaw big technological gains, hints,and leads of extraordinary value. They speculatedabout all sorts of scientific and technological results,ranging from a valid picture of the past and future ofthe universe through theories of fundamental parti-cles to whole new biologies. They also made conjec-tures that we might learn from the views of distant

and venerable thinkers of the deepest values of con-scious beings and their societies. Finally, the mostspeculative and seductive argument to pursue in thesearch for extraterrestrial signals is that we canobtain information that may help us to solve ourpolitical, social, or environmental global crises andthereby pass through our technological adolescence.

These dreams have dominated the scientific andpopular literature over the last 40 years, includingmost of the presentations made in this workshop.Very little discussion took place around the basichypotheses behind these ideas.

The purpose of this essay is twofold: The first pur-pose is the introduction of restrictions to some of theoriginal hypotheses about the technological charac-teristics and intentions of the extraterrestrial civiliza-tions. The second is the construction of differentcommunication scenarios, based on the inclusion ofethical and artistic universal principles. To do that,we will analyze the proposed characteristics of theextraterrestrial supercivilizations that would have thehypothetical capability to send interstellar messageswith high-information content. We will present aseries of theoretical and empirical arguments toreject the concept of advanced civilizations transmit-ting omnidirectional signals in a full-time mode. Inthis way, we will place a limit on the detectability ofthese high-information messages. Then we will com-ment on the life expectancy of our contemporary ter-restrial civilization, with special emphasis on theconsequences generated during the last 50 years ofthe nuclear era. The present state of planet Earth andits long violent human history create an urgent needfor a deep and strong ethical, societal mutation. Oth-erwise, our species will become extinct.

All technological civilizations that already havepassed through their technological adolescence andhave avoided their self-destruction (by misuse ofadvanced technologies or by environmental degrada-tion of their home planet) must have developed ethi-cal rules to extend their societal life expectancy. In

The existence of very advancedtechnological civilizations ishighly conditioned by very

large societal lifetimes.


Speculations on the First Contact[Abridged Version]


doing so, they must have learned how to respect thenatural evolutionary times of other beings in the uni-verse. To build this scenario, we will introduce theconcept of Lex Galactica, based in Kantian ethicalprinciples, as hypothetical guidelines for advancedcivilizations in how to contact emerging societies. Ifthe advanced galactic civilizations are unable tocheck the level of technical and ethical evolution ofthe possible recipients of their signals, they will beunable to send high-information-content messagesdue to Lex Galactica. Using these alternative bound-ary conditions, we will discuss different contact sce-narios and their possible message characteristics. Wewill consider the possibility that the first messagefrom an advanced technological society wouldinclude some extraterrestrial artistic manifestation.

The existence of very advanced technological civi-lizations is highly conditioned by very large societallifetimes. Analysis of the history of our incipienttechnological human society shows that we are fac-ing the dangerous technological adolescent era, whenour civilization can became extinct in the following30 to a thousand years. Probably, most technologicalcivilizations have to pass through a similar adoles-cent era. In any case, the only possibility to avoid self-destruction is a deep and strong societal mutation,based in some sort of Kantian ethics. The implemen-tation of these ethical guidelines would prohibitplacing potentially destructive knowledge at the dis-posal of any ethically underdeveloped society. Thisknowledge could be a threat to the survival of therecipient civilization.

From these assumptions, we can derive the fol-lowing observational predictions:

1. No omnidirectional electromagnetic transmis-sions with high-information content will beobserved.

2. Only beacon, low-information signals should besent, in an intermittent and target mode, to thosestars that have planets suitable for life. For detectingterrestrial-type planets, extraterrestrials can useadvanced space interferometry techniques (Beich-man et al., 1999). We should expect this type of sig-nals from all advanced technological civilizations atdistances over [35 + (tf -2000)/2] light-years, where tfis the observing date in years and tf ≥ 2000.

3. An alternative transmission strategy could be theaddition of some extraterrestrial artistic creations tothe beacon signals. Extraterrestrial art contemplationwould help us to expand our perceptive horizons.

4. Those nearby advanced societies that have alreadyreceived our initial radio transmissions, with thetechnical capability to detect and decode our weakestsignals, will have some idea about our technologicaland moral level of development. These civilizationsmay be transmitting to us high-information mes-sages or those chapters from their EncyclopediaGalactica that our civilization is in a position tounderstand—but only those stars at distances Rt<[35 + [(tf -2000)/2] +τ] light-years, where Rt is thedistance at the observing date tf and τ is the time thatthe extraterrestrial society needs to analyze and eval-uate our technological and ethical stage.

5. We may also be able to detect some radiation leak-age from nearby civilizations, but this will probablybe with very low-information content. The samething would happen with any serendipitous detec-tion of evidences of technological extraterrestrialactivities (Dyson, 1959; Lemarchand, 1994 and1997).

[The full paper is available in Section V of this volume, pages153–164.]

Only beacon, low-information signals should be sent, in an intermittent and target mode, to those

stars that have planets suitable for life.

69

Participants in A Seminar on the Cultural Impact ofExtraterrestrial Contact contributed to the value ofthe event through preconference writing of state-ments on individual agenda topics and by sharing indiscussion sessions the results of their considerablestudy and reflection on the subject. Further, severalof the participants, along with two additional scien-tists, were invited to submit scholarly papers for thisreport to shed further light on particular aspects ofthis large issue. These papers include:

The Role of the Social Sciences in SETI By Albert A. Harrison, John Billingham, Steven J. Dick, Ben Finney, Michael A. G. Michaud, Donald E. Tarter, Allen Tough, and Douglas A. Vakoch – Page 71

The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of ComplexityBy Eric J. Chaisson – Page 87

Cosmic HumanityBy Steven J. Dick – Page 93

How Old Is ET?By Ray P. Norris – Page 103

Networking with Our Galactic NeighborsBy Albert A. Harrison – Page 107

How to Achieve Contact: Five Promising StrategiesBy Allen Tough – Page 115

The Contact Hypothesis: On the Impossibility of Sustained and Mutually Beneficial Contact between Aliens, and Two Proofs to the ContraryBy Reed D. Riner – Page 127

SETI, Consilience, and the Unity of KnowledgeBy Ben Finney – Page 139

Cultural Aspects of AstrobiologyBy Steven J. Dick – Page 145

Speculations on the First Contact: Encyclopedia Galactica or the Music of the Spheres?By Guillermo A. Lemarchand – Page 153

Roman Catholic Views of Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Anticipating the Future by Examining the PastBy Douglas A. Vakoch – Page 165

Section V

Powerful Insights: In-Depth Papers by Participants and Others

70 Section V • Powerful Insights: In-Depth Papers by Participants and Others

71

Albert A. HarrisonJohn BillinghamSteven J. DickBen FinneyMichael A. G. MichaudDonald E. Tarter Allen ToughDouglas A. Vakoch

OVERVIEW

Since its inception, the scientific search for extrater-restrial intelligence (SETI) has been recognized as aninterdisciplinary effort. It has attracted people notonly from the physical and biological sciences, butalso from the behavioral and social sciences. Thereare many areas where anthropologists, economists,futurists, historians, philosophers, psychologists,political scientists, and sociologists can assist withSETI. Salient interdisciplinary topics include publicbeliefs in extraterrestrial intelligence and support forSETI; the conduct of the search; signal detection,decryption, and interpretation; news disseminationand rumor control; and both short- and long-termimpact of detection on societies, institutions, andindividuals.

Factors that militate against greater participationof social scientists include unfamiliarity with SETI,disciplinary biases that tend to focus research on alimited range of research topics, and the lack of asuitable infrastructure such as an extensive literaturebase, dedicated conferences and journals, and ade-quate funding. This essay suggests various ways topublicize SETI and various techniques for strength-ening the infrastructure, such as increasing funding,sponsoring conferences, publishing in disciplinary-based refereed journals, developing new publicationoutlets, and building a high-profile peer group. Fur-thermore, we can involve social scientists as consult-ants, train graduate students whose interests

encompass SETI, encourage piggyback projects thatserve both mainstream disciplinary and SETI inter-ests, and provide both role models and social supportfor newcomers.

SETI

Successive discoveries that the Earth circles the Sun,that the Sun is but one of many billions of stars in ourgalaxy, and that there are billions of galaxies, coupledwith a growing understanding of the origin and evo-lution of life, have led to widespread abandonment ofthe once-prevalent view of humankind as central andunique in the universe (Dick, 1996; Shklovskii andSagan, 1966; Shostak, 1998). Over the past four cen-turies, physical scientists have established that thelaws of physics and chemistry are universal in thesense that they apply at all times in all places. Overthe past century, biological scientists have followed asimilar path and it now appears that the laws of biol-ogy also hold for all places and all times (Dick, 1996).If the laws of physics and biology are universal, and ifthere are many solar systems with habitable planets,then we would expect life, including intelligent life,to evolve again and again. Recent discoveries of plan-ets in other solar systems and of reliable self-organiz-ing physical processes that may initiate life add to theplausibility of the “many inhabited worlds” hypothe-sis.

Whereas we have long since refuted the view thathumankind occupies a central place in the physicaluniverse, we have yet to disprove the hypothesis thathumankind is the only intelligent (or technologicallyadvanced) form of life. SETI, the scientific search forextraterrestrial intelligence, involves observationalprocedures that can disprove human uniqueness byuncovering evidence of equal or superior intelli-gence.

There are five particularly promising strategies forfinding extraterrestrial intelligence, according toTough (1999b). The most common strategy has beenthe microwave search, that is, the use of radio tele-

Section V, Paper 1

The Role of the Social Sciences in SETI

72 Section V, Paper 1 • The Role of the Social Sciences in SETI

scopes to identify patterns of electromagnetic radia-tion that are of extraterrestrial and intelligent origin.In 1998, several optical SETI (OSETI) projects wereadded in order to search for pulsed laser messages orother optical signals from many light-years away. Asecond strategy is to search for astroengineeringprojects, such as Dyson spheres. Another strategy,which has gained plausibility as we ourselves havedeveloped small and efficient technology, is to searchfor robot probes within our solar system. Theseprobes could still be monitoring us, or they couldhave lost their capability to function millions of yearsago. If these probes are intelligent enough to monitorour telecommunications, we might establish contactby issuing an invitation or by demonstrating ourreadiness.

What all SETI searches share, and what distin-guishes SETI from other attempts to find extraterres-trial intelligence, is a steadfast insistence onremaining within the assumptions and methods ofscience. The bedrock is SETI’s insistence on (a) skep-ticism, verification, peer review, and the scientificmethod, (b) strict safeguards against hoaxes, self-delusion, and erroneous data, and (c) protocols toavoid premature and immodest claims.

Beliefs in extraterrestrial intelligence have waxedand waned over the centuries, but seem to haveattained new heights in recent decades (Dick, 1996).Many factors have strengthened this belief withinpopular culture (Dick, 1996; McCurdy, 1997). Peopleattend to the source, as well as the content, of ideas,and one of the distinguishing features of SETI is thestrong scientific qualifications and prestigious insti-tutions of many of its adherents. Over the years thesehave included scholars affiliated with major aca-demic institutions such as the University of Alabama,the University of California (Berkeley, Davis, andSanta Cruz), Cornell University, Harvard University,and the Universities of Hawaii, Paris, and Toronto.SETI researchers have also included affiliates of theUnited States Naval Observatory, Jet Propulsion Lab-oratories, the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, and the RAND Corporation.

SOCIAL SCIENCE INVOLVEMENT IN SETI

For approximately 20 years, beginning with ProjectCyclops in 1971, NASA–Ames Research Center wasthe site of workshops in support of SETI. A role forsocial science was set forth in Philip Morrison, JohnBillingham, and John Wolfe’s The Search for Extrater-

restrial Intelligence (1977). Mary M. Connors’unpublished papers, “The Role of the Social Scientistin the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence” (1976)and “The Consequences of Detecting ExtraterrestrialIntelligence for Telecommunications Policy” (1977),illustrated some of the ways that social sciences couldcontribute to the effort. The “InterdisciplinaryAspects of SETI” panels at the annual congresses ofthe International Astronautical Federation provide avenue for ongoing discussions of social scienceissues, and additional opportunities have been pro-vided by the conferences that led to the Third Decen-nial US–USSR Conference on SETI (Shostak, 1993);the 1993 Bioastronomy Symposium (Shostak, 1995);and the 1992 NASA workshop that generated SocialImplications of the Detection of an ExtraterrestrialCivilization: A Report on the Workshops on the Cul-tural Aspects of SETI (Billingham et al., 1999).

In his discussion of SETI, Harrison (1997) pointsout that our experiences as humans have conditionedour expectations about intelligent life in the universeand have channeled the search process. If “contact”occurs—we will use this term loosely to refer to theacquisition of incontrovertible evidence of one ormore technologically advanced civilizations else-where—social scientists may help us decode andinterpret information and even help us understandextraterrestrial civilizations. If interactive communi-cation is possible, social scientists may help informthe decision whether or not to send a communica-tion, and, if the decision is affirmative, help frame areply. Contact, we expect, could have a broad andprofound impact on individuals, societies, andhumanity as a whole. Social scientists could be usefulfor forecasting and advising how to manage thisimpact.

Many of these issues have already been discussedwithin SETI, typically by astronomers, physicists,and astrobiologists. However, the social sciences aredistinct fields with their own literature bases, meth-ods, and traditions. It is time for social scientists,with their broad knowledge of the relevant back-ground literature and their in-depth understandingof social science method and practice, to providegreater leadership in these discussions. Given thatthere are probably fewer than 100 scientists world-wide and from all fields who are immersed in SETI, itis not necessary to recruit large numbers of social sci-entists. Instead, we need to increase modestly thenumber of social scientists to ensure ongoing repre-sentation, expand the range of disciplines that are

Section V, Paper 1 • The Role of the Social Sciences in SETI 73

involved, seek greater international involvement, andrecruit scholars who are still in the early stages oftheir careers. We also need to recruit some seniorsocial scientists whose involvement will send a strongand important message to other members of theirdisciplines.

OPPORTUNITIES

Potential opportunities for social science contribu-tions to SETI range from understanding the natureof extraterrestrial organisms and cultures, whichcould radically affect the conduct of the search, toforecasting the human response to confirmation ofextraterrestrial life. In this report, we present tenareas where SETI can benefit from social science: (1)attitudes and public support; (2) conduct and expan-sion of the search; (3) composing a model reply fromEarth; (4) decryption and interpretation; (5) newsdissemination and rumor control; (6) other prepara-tions and readiness for contact; (7) short-termimpact and (8) long-term impact on societies, insti-tutions, and people. Under some conditions, socialscientists may be helpful for (9) the analysis of extra-terrestrial organisms and civilizations; and (10) theinitiation and conduct of relations with extraterres-trial civilizations.

Public Attitudes and Support

Social scientists can identify and help us understandpeople’s attitudes towards extraterrestrial intelli-gence and towards SETI itself. A comprehensiveresearch program would include social scientists whoare interested in popular culture, public opinionpolling and survey research, attitude formation andchange, persuasive communications, and the media.This research could have an action componentintended to help people understand SETI as a scien-tific enterprise, help reduce the confusion of SETIand UFOlogy, and allay fears based on naive miscon-ceptions about such things as the ease of interstellartravel.

Conduct and Expansion of the Search

Detection (along with rigorous confirmation) is thecore task of the SETI enterprise. It is thereforeextremely important for social scientists to contrib-ute to search strategies to the best of their ability.Each SETI search strategy rests upon certain assump-tions about the deeply unknown phenomenon that itis trying to detect. We know so little about the tech-

nology, goals, values, and distribution of extraterres-trial intelligence. In order to search intelligently, theSETI community must devote plenty of thought towhom and what it is trying to detect. Social scientistscan contribute to a fresh examination of the currentassumptions underlying the choice of search strate-gies (Tough, 1999b). The search procedures restupon our understanding of the physical universe,and our assumptions about “the other” and theirlikely level of technological development. RadioSETI, for instance, is based on the assumption thatthey, like us, will use radio for communicating. Disciplined thinking by futurists about the long-term future of human technology and goals can helpus anticipate the technology and goals of extraterres-trials, since their civilization is likely thousands ofyears more advanced than ours. Thoughtful explora-tion of possible alien psychology and sociology (dis-cussed below) can also help us get a better sense ofthe phenomenon we are trying to detect. In addition,social scientists may help the SETI field understandthe cultural, intellectual, and emotional factors thatshape the search, and may help move us beyondunnecessarily limiting mind-sets about search strate-gies. Thus, an important potential role for social sci-entists is to help the scientists who conduct thesearch to expand their efforts into new and poten-tially fruitful areas. Indeed, one major search strategyis itself primarily a social science strategy eventhough it relies on the elaborate technical infrastruc-ture provided by the World Wide Web (Tough,1999a).

Composing a Model Reply from Earth

Social scientists can play a key role in developing amodel reply message for use someday when someofficial international body decides to send a replyfrom Earth. In the urgency and confusion that mayfollow confirmed contact, the United Nations or theappropriate global scientific organization shouldwelcome a draft reply. They may not use it word-for-word, of course, because the content of the incomingmessage may influence what we decide to send. Buthaving a draft in place, especially if the process ofdrafting it has solicited suggestions from around theworld, could have a very strong influence on theactual message that is eventually sent. And if the ideaof humans actively sending messages to the stars evergains widespread support, as one way to encourage amessage from afar, a model message could be veryuseful if it reflected widespread consultation.


Decryption and Interpretation

Whereas it is easier to grapple with the possibility ofan information-poor detection—that is, the mereidentification of something as of extraterrestrial andintelligent origin—we should be prepared for thepossibility of an information-rich detection. Unlessthe “message” is devised in such a way as to be easilydeciphered by neophytes in interstellar affairs, itcould be very difficult (if not impossible) for us tounderstand. Thus far, most of the efforts directed atunderstanding interstellar communications havebeen undertaken by mathematicians and physicalscientists. Here we should welcome the efforts ofpeople trained in such fields as animal communica-tion, archaeology, cryptoanalysis, cultural anthro-pology, education, linguistics, psychology, and allother fields that impinge upon language and com-munication. Such scholars can add breadth of per-spective by drawing on their knowledge of diversespecies, cultures, and languages in their efforts todecrypt and interpret messages. Among the mostdirectly comparable past efforts are attempts to deci-pher long-dead languages, but even here we have hadthe advantage of artifacts and our knowledge ofhuman life forms and cultures.

News Dissemination and Rumor Control

Social scientists can help keep politicians, adminis-trators, and other decision-makers accuratelyinformed on the progress of the search and help facil-itate the orderly dissemination of news to the public.Here we can benefit from historical precedent andour understanding of the media and mass communi-cations, organizational functioning, social and psy-chological influences on attitude formation andchange, rumor and rumor control, and many relatedtopics.

Other Preparations and Readiness for Contact

In addition to the areas already discussed, there maybe other ways in which the social sciences can con-tribute to humanity’s readiness for contact. Interestin this topic is rapidly becoming much stronger. In1999 alone, a three-day seminar on contact planningwas held in Denver; the final session of the two-dayFoundation For the Future seminar in Hawaii wasdevoted to “What next?”; and a one-hour SETI paneldiscussion at the International Astronautical Con-gress in Amsterdam explored the major challengesduring the 28 days after confirmed contact. In addi-tion, in November 1999, NASA-Ames Research Cen-

ter sponsored a symposium on “The SocietalImplications of Astrobiology,” the philosophical,religious, political, sociological, and psychologicalimplications of the discovery of extraterrestrial life.The Denver meeting was noteworthy for its disci-plined futures thinking (eight scenarios) and its useof simulation and role-playing. As social scientistsdirect their minds and their skills to the question ofhow to prepare for contact, they will no doubt comeup with additional needs and solutions. Acting onsome of these solutions soon could pay off in reducedconfusion and conflict after contact.

Short-Term Impact

Social scientists can help us forecast, understand, andguide human reaction to contact. As Mary Connorswas the first to point out, very different issues arelikely to come to the fore right after detection andthen later on (Connors, 1976). Short-term impactbegins as soon as news is released. It is measured inminutes, hours, and days. Short-term impactincludes initial reactions to the news, first impres-sions of the extraterrestrials, attitude perseveranceand change, rumor, and collective behavior, includ-ing possible panic. Here, expertise on demographicand cultural differences, human information pro-cessing, social influence processes, and collectivebehavior will help.

Long-Term Impact

Long-term impact can range from a rethinking ofour own place in the universe based upon the sheerconfirmation of the “other inhabited worlds”hypothesis to profound changes in human cultureand institutions. It is possible to rate the potentialimpact in terms of the amount of information that isavailable and in terms of the potential for interactivecommunication.

At Force 1, impact will involve the assimilation ofknowledge that we are not alone in the universe.This, by itself, will affect our philosophy, our scienceworldview, our religion, and our culture.

At Force 2, we may gain scientific, technical, orother information from the extraterrestrial culturethat will affect our own science and technology, withfar-reaching implications for our economy, ourpolitical institutions, and our international affairs.

At Force 3, we will communicate and interact withthe extraterrestrial culture, trading information, andperhaps even developing a long-term dialogue(Michaud, 1979, 1990, 1998).


Assessing and guiding the long-term impact willrequire expertise from essentially all fields. Obviousareas of concern include social change, cultural diffu-sion, technology diffusion, international relations,metalaw, sociology of knowledge, sociology of law,sociology of occupations, social welfare, the historyof science and technology, the psychology of inter-group relations, and so on. There will be no shortageof expert involvement after contact, and the maindifficulty will be separating meritorious ideas fromthe noise. What we can do now is establish a group ofsocial scientists who will have given advance thoughtto these matters and who are in a position to helpother scientists—and the public—think productivelyabout contact and its aftermath. In particular, thisgroup might develop a conceptual framework and aresearch agenda that form a solid base for recom-mended actions.

Analysis of Extraterrestrial Organisms and Civilizations

The riskiest or most dubious opportunities for socialscientists are in the analysis of extraterrestrial organ-isms and societies. Opinion is divided on the value ofundertaking this effort. On the one hand, detectionmay involve a civilization that is so different fromours and so remote in time or space that any attemptsat understanding are a waste of time. This claim maybe accurate, or a mere convenience that allows thesearch to continue apace without serious consider-ation of the aftermath. On the other hand, even asthere are universal laws in the physical and biologicalsciences, there may be universal laws in anthropol-ogy, political science, psychology, and sociology, thatis, basic functional relationships that apply at alltimes in all cultures (Harrison, 1997). If so, then it ispossible that “they” will be recognizable to us, andadvance preparation may help.

One of the challenges that people will face afterreceipt of a signal is in understanding an alien world-view. We might gain insights into how we could bet-ter understand extraterrestrial perspectives bydrawing parallels with ways that diverse groups ofhumans can overcome differences in conceptualiza-tions of reality. One analogue of this is found in com-parative psychotherapy research, specifically inattempts to understand how psychotherapists withdifferent theoretical orientations interpret the sameclinical phenomena. It has been found that theimplicit assumptions that psychotherapists haveabout human nature and the process of human

change can directly affect how these therapistsunderstand their patients (e.g., Vakoch & Goldfried,in press). Unless these differences are made explicit,they can be obstacles to communication betweentherapists with different backgrounds. Research suchas this may yield insights into the basic processes ofunderstanding alternative worldviews.

Relations with Extraterrestrial Civilizations

Social science research and disciplined thought couldprovide an excellent foundation for preparing for theinitiation and conduct of relations with extraterres-trial civilizations. Someday that will be a very impor-tant topic. Why not begin studying and preparingnow? Insights could come from recent and freshresearch into negotiations, diplomatic relations, loveand altruism, human relations, and other fields.Work by Michael Michaud (1972-1998) and ErnstFasan (1990) illustrate some of the opportunitieshere.

CURRENT INVOLVEMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENTISTS IN SETI

Thus far, social scientists have had only modestinvolvement in SETI, and there is very uneven cover-age in different areas. At present, efforts appear to bedominated by Americans who are either retired or ata relatively late stage in their professional careers,suggesting that in the absence of prompt, concertedeffort, soon social scientists will have less, rather thangreater impact on SETI. Social scientists have tendedto focus on individual reactions, neglecting serioustreatment of organizations, societies, and interstatepolitical systems. Even representatives from anthro-pology and sociology have shown a strong psycho-logical bias, meaning that many subfields ofanthropology and sociology have yet to be tapped.We find no clear involvement on the part of econo-mists and only modest involvement on the part ofhistorians, who have tended to focus on the intellec-tual and social histories of the search. There is evenmore modest involvement on the part of political sci-entists.

Anthropology

Anthropology, “the study of man,” with its emphasison evolution and culture, is eminently well suited tocontribute to the SETI effort. One of the earliestbooks on the cultural aspects of SETI, Maruyamaand Harkins’ Cultures beyond Earth: The Role of


Anthropology in Outer Space (1975) provides usefulinsights into early social science thinking on thetopic. Written during the Apollo Applications Pro-grams, this volume was based on the assumption thatcontact would occur when astronauts encounteredextraterrestrials in the course of exploring the solarsystem. Today, the chances of such an encounterseem remote relative to more distal forms of contact,such as through microwave observation, but weshould be open to many possibilities. Still relevant isFinney and Jones’ anthology Interstellar Migrationand the Human Experience (1984). Although only alimited number of chapters are focused specificallyon SETI, the other chapters in this volume are perti-nent in that they give us some models for advancedspacefaring civilizations.

Economics

Economics studies the creation, distribution, and useof wealth. There are two major focal points: micro-economics, which studies economic activity on thepart of individuals, small groups, and organizations,and macroeconomics which studies economic activ-ity at the level of the state or beyond. Economicsresearch strategies include mathematical models,empirical studies of economic behavior, and histori-cal precedents. Quantitative procedures predomi-nate. Given the demonstrated volatility of the stockmarket, word of contact could affect economic activ-ity. It could, for example, affect confidence in invest-ments or investment institutions and stimulate orretard certain kinds of investments (for example,stimulate investments in search equipment andsearch-related activities and in mass-marketed itemsrelated to the search or to the detected culture).

Presumably, any information of a scientific ortechnical nature that is received from an extraterres-trial culture could have profound effects on terres-trial technology, with the potential of causing majordisruptions in large sectors of the economy (forexample, utilities, information processing, andhealth care), perhaps rendering some occupationsobsolete while opening up new opportunities inother areas. Social scientists from economics andmany other disciplines could also address efforts byinstitutions and interest groups to control, manage,and even suppress information from ETI because itmight affect their economic interests.

Futures Studies

The SETI enterprise is trying to detect a technologythat is likely thousands of years more advanced thanour technology. In order to make good choicesregarding just what to search for, it is valuable to lookahead to our own future technology. This gives us aglimpse of what advanced alien technology might belike. Although the field of futures studies oftenfocuses on the next five or ten years instead of thenext 10,000, it nonetheless can offer some usefulinsights for SETI strategies. Disciplined science-based thinking about the potential future of spacetravel, computing and artificial intelligence, robotics,and nanotechnology can also provide useful insightsinto the likely capacities of extraterrestrial technol-ogy. One effort to relate such thinking to SETI strate-gies is provided by Tough (1999b).

History

History has a long-recognized role in SETI. First,intellectual history is useful for putting the search inperspective, both within the framework of scienceand within the framework of popular culture. Histo-rians have produced several works on the extraterres-trial life debate back to antiquity, but particularlypertinent here is Steven Dick’s more recent effort,The Biological Universe (1996), which stressed devel-opments during the 20th century. Historians canhelp us identify precedents that can serve as ana-logues for contact under varying scenarios. The ageof discovery and the age of empire may be of use, forduring these eras Chinese, Dutch, English, Portu-guese, Spanish, and others sailed forth to encounternew worlds in Africa and the Americas. To the extentthat we are more likely to encounter extraterrestrialideas rather than organisms, the diffusion of ideasacross the face of the Earth may provide the best ana-logues. Here, an analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls,including people’s reactions to confirmed and dis-confirmed prophecies, would be relevant. History,like political science, can help us analyze how theintroduction of a powerful and technologicallyadvanced “third party” affects the relationshipamong nations.

Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of science can play a central role as weattempt to expand our own science to encompassextraterrestrial life forms and intelligences. Addi-tionally, given that search procedures frequentlypush our observational powers and our technology


to the limit (Dick, 1996), philosophy of science canhelp us understand criteria for evidence. That is,given an information-poor detection scenario, whatconstitutes “incontrovertible” evidence of extrater-restrial intelligence? Finally, philosophers of sciencecan help us understand the perhaps rapid and pro-found changes in our own science and technologythat may result from interacting with extraterrestrialintelligences.

Political Science

Political science is of high relevance but low visibilitywithin SETI. Political scientists who, like economists,draw on mathematical models, empirical observa-tion, and historical analysis, could aid our under-standing of public support for the search and ways toorganize the search at the national and internationallevels. Additionally, if the search is successful, we mayexpect political repercussions that political scientistscould both predict and help shape. Under some sce-narios, a positive search outcome could alter the bal-ance of power, and conceivably, extraterrestrialsocieties could become “players,” of sorts, in humanpolitical affairs. Political science can also analyze howgovernments might react to a confirmed detection,including motivations for secrecy. This could be par-ticularly relevant if the first detection were madeaccidentally by a government installation designedfor other purposes. SETI enthusiasts from manyfields have raised questions of security, internationalcoordination, and the like, but these questions havereceived only minimal attention (Michaud, 1972-1998).

Psychology

Psychology is a broad-based discipline. The leadingprofessional organization, the American Psychologi-cal Association, has 159,000 members and affiliates.Despite its historical focus on “the individual,” psy-chology has many different subfields ranging fromcomparative and physiological psychology (whichoverlap with biology) to social and organizationalpsychology (which overlap with sociology).

Simply because of the sheer number of psycholo-gists we would expect significant representation inSETI. The first major work by a psychologist on SETIwas John Baird’s Inner Limits of Outer Space (1987).Baird, an experimental psychologist with a strongemphasis on cognitive psychology, presents a usefuldiscussion of the role of human information process-ing in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and

the problems of interspecies communication. Thiswork urges caution on the topic of extraterrestrialintelligence and stresses the limitations of SETI. Aslightly later book that is heavily psychological waspublished by management consultant Frank White.His work, The SETI Factor (1990), is based largely oninterviews and dwells on potential human reactions.Of particular interest are his semi-formal proposi-tions regarding preparing humankind for contact. Amore recent work with a strong psychological flavoris Harrison’s After Contact: The Human Response toExtraterrestrial Life (1997). Harrison, a social psy-chologist whose graduate education involved bothpsychology and sociology, addresses the psychologyof the search, the nature of extraterrestrials, and pre-dicted human reactions to various search outcomes.

Although at least three psychologists have beeninvolved in recent International Astronautical Feder-ation Congresses, there is very little representationgiven the large number of psychologists in this world.In recent years, as UFO claims expanded to encom-pass alien abductions, a growing number of psychol-ogists have turned their attention to abductionreports. Almost without exception these investigatorshave adopted a critical stance and have found evi-dence supporting mundane interpretations ofunusual experiences. Whereas their research is usefulif it dispels misconceptions, it is of little direct benefitto SETI.

Sociology

Sociology focuses on abstract social relations andlarge social entities. With the exception of sociologi-cal social psychologists, sociologists tend to discountthe role of the individual and direct attention to theimpact of expectations and other situational forceson behavior. So far, it is social psychologists who havetended to represent sociology in SETI. SociologistDavid Swift’s SETI Pioneers (1990), represents amajor contribution from sociology to SETI. In thispartly psychobiographic work, Swift examines thevarious forces that led scientists to SETI and alsotheir ideas about extraterrestrial intelligence. Otherparticipants include William Bainbridge (1983), whohas done work on people’s attitudes towards extra-terrestrial intelligence, and Donald E. Tarter (1992),who has written extensively on reply policy amongmany other topics.


FACTORS LIMITING INVOLVEMENT

Many forces limit involvement of social scientists inSETI. Some social scientists have not heard of SETI,or confuse it with UFOlogy. Disciplinary biases thatfavor a limited subset of topics work against SETI.Social scientists who choose to work in SETI will notfind a strong infrastructure or an established peergroup, and may risk ridicule or professional censure.There is little funding to support social scienceinvolvement and few quality publication outlets.

Disciplinary Biases

Although many sciences are defined in a very broadway, our sense is that within each field maybe 5 per-cent of the topics occupy 95 percent of the research-ers. This reflects history, politics, and culturalinfluences as well as intellectual significance. Forexample, despite its self-proclaimed interest in abroad range of phenomena, the field of social psy-chology was dominated by cognitive dissonance the-ory in the 1950s and 1960s, social problems in the1960s and 1970s, and attribution theory ever since.Other areas that had long been considered funda-mental, such as group dynamics, have received a frac-tion of the attention that they had received untilabout 1960. Gender-related issues seem to predomi-nate in sociology and may be gaining ascendance insome areas of anthropology. Whether or not similarexamples can be developed in each and every socialscience, the point is that professional organizations,funding agencies, and journal editors dictate fashionand thereby draw disproportionately large numberstowards mainstream areas, leaving relatively few peo-ple to work on “avant garde” (or, if you prefer,“fringe”) topics. This tendency towards mainstream-ing is self-amplifying, in that it has a heavy influenceon choices for dissertation topics and on hiring andtenure practices.

By some measures SETI appears to have gainedmainstream status in the physical sciences—witnesscoverage of SETI in astronomy texts—but isunknown or misunderstood in the social sciences.Indeed, it may be that SETI is less well known in thesocial sciences than among the public because socialscientists’ interests divert them from the intereststhat prevail in popular culture.

Social science has modeled itself on the physicalsciences. Perhaps nowhere is the influence of logicalpositivism as strong as in the field of psychology. Inthe early decades of the 20th century, psychology hadboth an experimental tradition (based on research

continuous with biology) and a psychoanalytic tradi-tion (based on an emphasis on early childhood expe-riences and inferred mental constructs). By the 1920sthe “school” of behaviorism became dominant.Behaviorism focused on the antecedents of behaviorand on behavior itself, making no assumptions aboutpossible mental events that mediated between theantecedent stimulus and the consequent response. Byfocusing on observables and eschewing “ghosts andsocial glue,” psychology hoped to become respectablethrough emulating physics. Early requirements formembership in the American Psychological Associa-tion included three research publications to ensurehigh professional qualifications. The founder ofbehaviorism, John B. Watson, is reputed to have said,“If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist, and if it doesn’tmove, you can’t study it.” The situation has easedtoday with strong interest in “cognition” (mentalstates and information processing) and the (numeri-cal) domination of the field by clinical psychologists.However, the “spirit” of behaviorism still influencesthe field and the hypothetical nature of extraterres-trial intelligence may make it difficult to enlist psy-chologists.

For some psychologists, there is a thin linebetween hypothetical beings and imaginary beings.In mental health work, imaginary beings are associ-ated with weak intellect or mental illness. Because ofthis, there is a debilitating ridicule factor and a goodchance that one’s work will be dismissed as “para-science.” One of us, who published an article in arespected journal, was dismayed to discover that theabstracting service classified this article as parapsy-chology, thereby lumping it with clairvoyance, teleki-nesis, past life regressions, and the like.

Limited Funding

For the most part, social science research is not veryexpensive, at least, in comparison to research in thephysical and biological sciences. This is fortunatebecause governmental funding for the social scienceshas decreased dramatically over the past few decades.This poses two problems. First, even though somework on the “cultural aspects of SETI” can be doneon the proverbial shoestring, funding is useful forbasic equipment, research assistants, travel forinspecting archives, attending conventions, and soforth. The lack of travel funds is a particular prob-lem, since the major SETI meetings take place atinternational locations and have registration feesgeared to the salaries of aerospace executives and


engineers. Social scientists who might be interestedin SETI find their energies drawn to more conven-tional areas where they can get funds to coverresearch expenses, course releases, and summer sala-ries. The lack of funding in the social sciences hasdrawn many social scientists away from research andto summer teaching, consulting, and other income-generating activities.

Weak Literature Base

Science includes assumptions, methods, and a set ofdata that are accessible through that field’s literaturebase. With two or three exceptions, books thataddress the cultural aspects of SETI appear as popu-lar science literature or in the physical science litera-ture, not within the social science literature. Forexample, many bookstores classify Harrison’s (1997)After Contact as astronomy, astrophysics and spacescience, or as UFOlogy. Similarly, we find very fewrelevant articles in the social science databases. Forexample, although Psychological Abstracts publishestens of thousands of abstracts each year, there arevery few abstracts related to extraterrestrial intelli-gence (as of April 2000, 48 books and articles) andfewer yet when we subtract from the total those thataddress UFO abductions. When we search for SETIin the mammoth PsychInfo database, we find not onearticle under SETI. Thus, social scientists who mightwant to get involved in SETI have had to go beyondtheir fields to learn about the search and its culturalimplications. There is a chicken-egg problem here:The lack of a literature base means that few social sci-entists are drawn to the area; the lack of involvementprevents development of the literature base.

Limited Publication Outlets

Leading scholarly journals seem to have a conserva-tive bias. Usually they are edited by senior membersof the field who have an understandable fondness forthe topics and procedures that allowed them toachieve fame. Even if the conservative editorial estab-lishment does not consider articles on SETI to be “atthe fringe,” manuscripts on this topic are likely to falloutside of these editors’ past experiences. There is noestablished literature base to set a baseline for evalu-ating new articles, and it may be difficult if notimpossible to find qualified peer reviewers within thediscipline. Some of us have had difficulties publish-ing social scientific research in discipline-based jour-nals. At the worst, social science editors define SETIas a “fringe area” of dubious intellectual merit and ofno interest to a scientific audience.

Minimal Peer Support

The primary reference group for academics consistsof the peers who share their specific research inter-ests. This community of scholars is not necessarilyfound on one’s home campus, but at other campusesand research institutions, both nationally and inter-nationally. Through attendance at meetings, mail,telephone, and now email, this community providesmembers with encouragement, feedback, and emo-tional support. For many academics, it is the acco-lades of this peer group—not the praise of campusadministrators or of the public—that serves as themost powerful motivator. For all intents and pur-poses, there is no established peer group to supportsocial scientists’ interests in SETI. This means thatresearchers in this area have to operate without peersupport, or else develop a peer group on some otherbasis (for example, a shared interest in unusual top-ics).

INCREASING SOCIAL SCIENCE INVOLVEMENT

Social science is crucial for the SETI endeavor andthere are many points at which scholars from anthro-pology, economics, history, political science, andsociology can make positive contributions. Indeed, ifwe can increase involvement, the social scientists thatwe involve will identify many new analogues andfruitful topics. SETI as an empirical endeavor is rap-idly approaching its 40th birthday. Almost all of theevidence that has been accrued in recent years boostsmany of the estimates that enter into the DrakeEquation. This, coupled with massive advances insearch technology, augurs well for a positive out-come. We are way beyond that point where the cul-tural aspects of SETI can be treated as a side issue,and we are rapidly moving beyond that point wherewe can advance based on the ideas of popular writersor of well-intended physical or biological scientistswho, by treating sociocultural issues, operate beyondtheir area of training.

Powerful forces tend to complicate the task ofinvolving social scientists in SETI. As already noted,many social scientists have not heard of SETI or con-fuse it with nonscientific interests. Social scientists,whose tools currently lack the precision of those usedin the physical sciences, and who sometimes smartfollowing invidious comparisons with the “hard” sci-entists, may be leery of people with strong technicalbackgrounds.

Such factors as the lack of funding and limitedpublication outlets discourage all of us, but may


make SETI particularly unattractive to academicswho have yet to earn tenure or who are interested inrapid advancement. The ability to attract funds andpublish in refereed journals are two of the mostimportant indicators of scholarly achievement andare essential for advancement in many research uni-versities. This is particularly discouraging for juniorfaculty members who could make long-term contri-butions to the SETI effort. These dissuaders feedupon and amplify one another, and make it both dif-ficult, and potentially unrewarding, for social scien-tists to get involved in SETI. Steps must be taken toremedy this situation.

High-Profile Leadership

We need a visible, full-time leader to serve as a rolemodel, to rally social scientists, and to facilitate goodsocial scientific research in behalf of SETI. Fordecades such leadership was provided by John Bill-ingham, a physician by training who became veryattuned to the interdisciplinary aspects of SETI. Atfirst, Dr. Billingham provided leadership for biologi-cal and social sciences at NASA-Ames, and, followingthe loss of government funding for SETI, at the SETIInstitute.

There are many reasons for establishing a high-profile position at the SETI Institute, the SETI Aus-tralia Centre, or comparable location. First, SETI is acomplex endeavor, which requires a broad under-standing of SETI as well as a firm foundation withinone’s own social science discipline. A scholar who islocated at a SETI research institute will have a muchbetter understanding of SETI than one who is tryingto do similar work in an isolated academic setting.Second, too many social scientists have had to doSETI-related research “on the side” while working onother, more conventional projects. The opportunityto focus on SETI itself will accelerate this person’sresearch progress. Third, a full-time position with astable SETI organization will help legitimize the roleof social science within the SETI community andincrease acceptance of SETI in the social sciencecommunity.

This person’s work will have a salutary effect onthe work of other social scientists who may be drawnto SETI. Through lectures and writings, he or she willengage the interests of other social scientists. He orshe can mentor newcomers, help them locate rele-vant books and articles, and develop professionalnetworks. He or she will serve the larger interdiscipli-nary community, for example, by organizing confer-

ences and workshops, providing editorial services,and identifying funding sources and other opportu-nities.

At the same time, a resident social scientist willoffer certain benefits to the host institution. Even asthe social scientist serves as a spokesperson whoinforms the social science community about SETI, heor she will keep the physical scientists at the instituteinformed about pertinent developments in fieldsoutside their disciplines. If and when contact occurs,the resident social scientist will help the institutemake the transition from pre-contact to post-contactactivities. Adding social science to the institute’s rep-ertoire represents a form of diversification, whichmay help the host institute survive if contact is madeby a competing organization or in a manner thatdeparts from current expectations.

A few months after this section was written fordiscussion at the Melbourne meeting, the SETI Insti-tute displayed outstanding vision and leadership bycreating a new position to promote research into cul-tural issues. The Institute appointed Dr. DouglasVakoch as resident Social Scientist in February 1999.This is an excellent start toward the goals discussed inthe previous three paragraphs, and may stimulatesimilar appointments of social scientists around theworld.

Looking to the future, our model should be noth-ing less than a permanently endowed position. Weshould seek funding from organizations and individ-uals who are not interested in providing additionalsupport for the technical aspects of the search, butwho have interest in the cultural aspects. Separatefunding sources are essential to prevent in-housecompetition for funds between the physical scientistsand the social scientists. The reason we should seek apermanent endowment is to ensure that the positionsurvives during periods of low financial support forthe technical side of SETI. If the social scientist’sposition were funded from a central source, the posi-tion would be too tempting a target if budget cutsbecame necessary. It is therefore incumbent uponsocial scientists to take the lead role in developing anendowment for this position. Although we shouldnot lose sight of the greater goal, temporary fundingwould permit a quick start, and the position’s firstincumbent could help raise permanent funding.

Publicizing SETI

We need to inform social scientists about the ratio-nale behind SETI, the search procedures, and the


potential role for social scientists. One strategywould be to reach different disciplines, or clusters ofdisciplines, through their disciplinary or interdisci-plinary academic journals. Because of the biases dis-cussed earlier, our manuscripts must be clear,compelling, scholarly, and targeted toward special-ized audiences. When people are uncertain about thecontent of a message, they look to the qualificationsof the source. Thus, it would be helpful to have thematerials drafted by recognized scholars or peopleassociated with highly regarded institutions. Wemight consider having large numbers of coauthors,including astronomers with prestigious affiliations.This would signal the respectability of SETI in thephysical sciences and reassure readers that SETI hasthe support of a scientific community.

Another step is to identify select groups of schol-ars within a discipline and organize paper sessions orsymposia at a regional, national, or internationalmeeting. This will be very difficult because, atpresent, no individual discipline has a strong nucleusof social scientists who are already interested. In ourattempts to organize such a meeting we will have toestablish SETI’s reputability and relevance for thediscipline.

Funding

Although funding is limited, we need to ensure thatsocial science receives a “share of the pie.” To qualifyfor this, social scientists will have to work with otherSETI scientists to “enlarge the pie.” This will requirecasting SETI-related social science in ways that areattractive to governmental agencies and finding allnew sources of funds. To these ends, we must workwith philanthropic organizations and individual phi-lanthropists, and our success may depend upon cre-ative new partnerships.

Some universities still provide funds to offsettravel costs, for example, airfare for one internationaltrip per year. The rub is that such funds may be lim-ited to those who will present “original research,”which in the sciences may mean new empirical data,thus limiting funding opportunities to only a subsetof the many topics that need to be addressed forSETI. Additionally, such funds may be administeredby committees whose members have disciplinary orother biases against SETI. Because there are no obvi-ous existing funding mechanisms for social scientificresearch in SETI, social scientists are often not will-ing to search out possible funding sources, butinstead take the safer route of seeking funding formore conventional lines of research.

The endowed position could allow a secure basefrom which the incumbent social scientist could seekmore long-term external funding for his/her ownresearch, as well as facilitate contacts between fund-ing agencies and other social scientists. One of thefunctions of an endowed position would be analo-gous to the provision of startup funding to new aca-demics. In research-oriented academic departmentsin the social sciences, it is recognized that the institu-tion must make an initial investment in its new fac-ulty members in order to increase the likelihood oflong-term productivity and eventual outside fund-ing. Thus, it is possible that an endowed positionmight eventually pay for itself in increased externalfunding.

It is particularly important to defray the costs ofattending International Astronautical Congresses,the triennial International Astronautical Union Bio-astronomy Conferences, and other meetings whereSETI social science is welcome. Participation in thesemeetings serves several goals. First, the price ofadmission is an original paper, which encouragesnew research on SETI. Second, fellow panelists canoffer useful suggestions and feedback. Third, overtwo or three meetings, the neophyte becomes a partof the research community, adding new friendshipsto the justifications for continued involvement.Defraying travel costs is particularly important forjunior faculty whose salaries are low.

Dedicated Conferences

In the early 1990s, scholars who were interested inthe cultural aspects of SETI planned a major week-long conference, The 1995 International Conferenceon SETI and Society, to be held at the Majestic Con-gress Center in Chamonix, Mount Blanc, France.This conference, subtitled “Cultural Aspects of theSearch for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Dis-covery of Signals from Other Civilizations in the Gal-axy” was to be of unprecedented size, scope, andduration, a true watershed for increasing the role ofsocial science in SETI. The Chamonix Conferencewas to address a full array of issues regarding the cul-tural aspects of SETI, ranging from philosophicalunderpinnings through the immediate and long-term effects of contact.

Unfortunately, due to the loss of NASA fundingfor SETI, the Chamonix Conference did not materi-alize. Thus, since the mid-1990s, social scientistshave largely had to content themselves with subsid-iary roles at more general SETI gatherings. (Uniqueexceptions were the 1992 workshops reported by


Billingham and others [1999], the 1999 Hawaii sem-inar that provided the foundation for the presentvolume, and NASA’s Societal Implications of Astro-biology Symposium.) Dedicated conferences can behigh-profile events that attract the attention of bothsocial science and SETI communities. They can allowus to build a “critical mass” of qualified social scien-tists who can spend an extended period of time dis-cussing cultural aspects in depth. They also allow usto publish conference proceedings that will at onceprovide an archival record of our efforts and stimu-late further work. Conferences have proven useful forwinning the support for SETI of distinguished physi-cal and biological scientists and should prove usefulfor winning the support of distinguished social sci-entists also.

There are many conference models ranging fromsmall, transient work groups that meet for a few daysto discuss a limited number of issues to large, com-prehensive, multistage events that encourage sus-tained thought and culminate in the publication ofcomprehensive proceedings.

This latter model holds great promise for involv-ing leading social scientists in SETI. For such a seriesof conferences, the first stage is to identify outstand-ing social scientists and then use travel funds, hono-raria, and other incentives to make their involvementin a planning conference attractive to them. The sec-ond stage is to implement the resulting plans with aseries of larger conferences that are held at six- toeight-month intervals and in the aggregate allow forin-depth coverage of a wide range of topics. Each ofthese conferences builds on the other, and there are“homework” assignments between meetings. Theconference organizers assign staff to handle logistics,provide clerical and research support, and make surethat the meetings are successful. The organizers alsoassume responsibility for final preparation of theproceedings or other documents. This expensive andtime-consuming effort would be justified by (1)gaining the interest of top leaders within differentsocial science disciplines; (2) developing superiorpublications that can then be widely distributed; and(3) the wave of support that will come from othersocial scientists when they discover that some of theirdiscipline’s leaders have an interest in SETI.

Developing a Scholarly Literature Base

Those of us who are already involved in SETI must“bite the bullet” and develop papers that will be pub-lishable within our disciplines. It is no longer good

enough to limit ourselves to journals that attractaudiences from the physical sciences or that areintended for “space buffs” who are already support-ers of SETI. If we have become somewhat lax becausewe have been targeting audiences from outside of ourdisciplines, we will have to tighten our standards.Presumably, the best place to start is with the leastcontroversial aspects of SETI.

Some professional societies publish journals thatpertain to the field as a whole and are circulated tothe entire membership of the association. Examplesinclude the American Psychological Association’sAmerican Psychologist and the American Psychologi-cal Society’s Psychological Science. A very high-qual-ity article, with multiple authors of demonstratedreputability, may be accepted by this kind of journal.An article submitted to the American Psychologistabout ten years ago was returned to the authors with-out having undergone peer review on the basis that“Psychology and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intel-ligence” would not interest many readers. Changes inSETI and popular culture may make it worth tryingthis again.

As an interim step, we should try to increase ourpublishing in reputable sources that already do rec-ognize SETI as a scholarly activity. One possibilitywould be an expansion of publication in Acta Astro-nautica, which currently devotes a special issue toSETI every four or five years. The current practice,which precludes relatively rapid publication of arti-cles, could be alleviated by more frequent publica-tion of special SETI issues. Another promising outletis the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. Asocial scientist in an endowed position could serve asa focal point to encourage such publishing, for exam-ple, by acting as guest editor of special issues of jour-nals. Increasing publication of SETI-related socialscience articles in such sources would help build a lit-erature base for subsequent articles submitted to dis-cipline-based journals in the social sciences. Weemphasize that developing a better literature base injournals that are devoted to space exploration,although valuable, is not a substitute for increasedpublication in social science journals.

Other opportunities for developing the literaturebase include newsletters and anthologies. Newslet-ters often feature nonrefereed articles and containscant detail. Furthermore, while they may informand enthuse researchers who are already in a field,they are not necessarily suitable for attracting newcontributors. Anthologies such as conference pro-


ceedings or books of readings serve a useful purposebecause they do become a part of the archives. How-ever, collections of specialized papers may not bevery widely distributed and hence suffer some of theproblems of newsletters. In addition, proceedingseditors sometimes fail to deliver on their promises, orat least fail to do so in a timely manner, and such badexperiences can discourage potential contributors.For example, a NASA-sponsored study of humans inspace conducted in San Diego in 1984 did not appearin print for over a decade. A study of the mannedMars mission eventually published by the AmericanAstronautical Society was first drafted in 1988 butnot printed until 1996. Many publishers are wary ofheavily multiple-authored books such as conferenceproceedings. These tend not to sell well; hence, pub-lishers are reluctant to produce them.

There are strategies that can reduce the cost ofconference proceedings and hence make them moreattractive to publishers. One of us has had experiencewith a volume that had approximately 50 contribu-tors. Each agreed to waive royalties. Also, the pro-ceedings were from a conference that had NASA-NSFfunding, and some of the remaining funds were usedto purchase and distribute copies to contributors inlieu of royalties. None of this is to be confused with“vanity” publishing. The manuscript went throughthe same editorial review and production process asany other manuscript. The subsidy restructured theeconomics of the project and made it possible toprint and distribute a professional, hard-coveredbook instead of a paperback based on camera-readycopy. These two concessions made publicationattractive to an otherwise unenthusiastic publisher.

Increasing Visibility as a Peer Group

Social scientists who are already in SETI must form aconspicuous interdisciplinary peer group for anthro-pologists, economists, historians, psychologists,political scientists, sociologists, and indeed human-ists who might contribute to SETI. We need promi-nent, enthusiastic role models who are willing toactively recruit and serve as mentors. We are in atransitional period when people are learning aboutSETI and it is a good time to “stand up and becounted.”

Some of us have received support from groups ofspace advocates. These have provided us with theopportunity to try out new ideas and to receive pre-liminary feedback. Some of us have presented papersat such meetings that have subsequently been revised

for presentation at the International AstronauticalCongresses or entered into the literature. Becausethese space advocacy groups tend to be very hetero-geneous and enthusiasm sometimes outruns criticalthinking, they may be more useful for getting peoplestarted than supporting sustained professional con-tributions.

If it is to be effective, the social science peer groupmust be well accepted within the broader SETI com-munity. It will not attract new adherents if there is astrong view among astronomers and astrobiologiststhat social science is a “weak sibling” or somewhattangential to SETI. We cannot expect to find newrecruits if we ourselves are not accepted, or, as insome space advocacy groups, continually overpow-ered by people who are totally preoccupied withtechnology.

Piggyback Projects

Another strategy is to develop piggyback projects, thatis, encourage projects that develop somewhat stan-dard disciplinary themes but at the same time yieldvaluable insights for SETI. For example, people’sbeliefs about extraterrestrial intelligence can serve asan arena for testing theories of attitude formationand change, or people’s beliefs about governmentcoverup may give us some insights as to the steps thatgovernments might take to improve credibility.

The basic model here is SERENDIP (Search forExtraterrestrial Emissions from Nearby DevelopedIntelligent Populations), a microwave search thatserves the interests of both basic astronomy andSETI. The way that this is done is searching formicrowave evidence at the same time that the radiotelescope is collecting data of interest to “main-stream” astronomy. As an example from the socialsciences, in a study comparing American and Chi-nese attitudes about ETI (Vakoch and Lee, 1997), theChinese collaborator administered the question-naires for the study in the same testing session atwhich she gathered data for her experiments in cog-nitive psychology. This required little extra effort forher, because she had already recruited participantsfor her own research unrelated to SETI. Questionsabout SETI can examine broader social scientificissues, as when a study of attitudes towards ETI helpsbuild our understanding of basic processes of atti-tude formation and change.


Other Strategies for Encouraging Involvement

There are many strategies in addition to those setforth above. One additional strategy is to involve vol-unteer consultants. Those of us who are alreadyengaged may be able to identify people who are will-ing to donate one or two hours of their time to steerus in promising directions or to critique our work.This will broaden our perspectives and also provideadditional quality checks without making heavydemands on marginally interested colleagues.

Another opportunity is to train covert Ph.D.s.There are some highly qualified students who areinterested in space exploration, including bothhuman expansion into space and SETI. A few of thesecan receive graduate training at the InternationalSpace University and then move forward to anuncertain future. As for the rest, because of disciplin-ary biases, lack of funding for space-related research,the low priority accorded social scientists for thefunding that is available, and so forth, there are veryfew job opportunities, even for the best graduates.One of us will not accept a graduate student unless itis possible for that person to develop dual compe-tence, for example, strength in environmental psy-chology, as it is generally perceived, as well asinterests in life in isolation and confinement. Thedissertations of such students can follow the Piggy-back strategy identified in the preceding section.

Another way to get people involved is to includecoauthors. That is, invite colleagues and students tohelp develop a paper that you are working on inbehalf of SETI. This will engage their interest, showthem that SETI is a responsible endeavor, and (if youchoose the right person) make your work easier. It ishelpful if the end product is at least a conventionpaper and preferably publishable. This strategy canbe particularly fruitful with students and with juniorcolleagues.

Most social scientists currently involved in SETIare North American. This is problematic, becausereactions to contact may differ from culture to cul-ture, and our goal is to understand world reaction.This lack of diversity, recognized by the IAA SETICommittee, could in part be overcome by encourag-ing social scientists with interests in SETI to collabo-rate with colleagues from other cultures. Anendowed social scientist at a place like the SETI Insti-tute or the SETI Australia Centre could play a centralrole in facilitating such collaborations, by virtue ofhis or her contacts with a range of colleagues both in

the social sciences and in the broader SETI commu-nity.

Finally, we can develop professional networks. Psy-chology is an immense field and although the othersocial sciences have nowhere near so many profes-sionals, they are still large. Of these hundreds ofthousands of social scientists there must be somewho are already interested in SETI but have yet to beidentified. Active networking can help us find andcultivate such individuals. We have seen the impactthat email groups like the ALLSETI list can have onmaintaining periodic contact between members ofthe SETI community. An endowed social scientistcould serve as a “facilitator” or “hub” of such a com-munication network.

The Quality of Social Science Insights and Ideas

This essay has outlined a wide variety of steps thatcan help the social sciences increase their visibility,status, and contribution within the SETI field. In allof this, however, it is important to remember that thecore factor is the quality of social science insights andideas. The impact of social scientists will be profoundif they contribute fresh ideas about the nature of ETIand how to detect it, bold insights into the variety ofhuman reactions if the search succeeds, and far-sighted scenarios of humanity’s eventual relationswith extraterrestrial intelligence. The quality of theirthought, the ingenuity of their research designs, andthe depth of their findings will, in the long run, beparticularly significant factors in their contributionto the SETI field.

REFERENCES

Bainbridge, William S. (1983). “Attitudes toward InterstellarCommunication: An Empirical Study.” Journal of the BritishInterplanetary Society, 36, 298-304.

Baird, John, (1987). The Inner Limits of Outer Space, Hanover,New Hampshire, The University Press of New England.

Billingham, John; Heynes, Roger; Milne, David; Doyle, Steven;Klein, Michael; Heilbron, John; Ashkenazi, Michael; Michaud,Michael; Lutz, Julie; and Shostak, Seth, Editors (1999). SocialImplications of the Detection of an Extraterrestrial Civilization: AReport of the Workshops on the Cultural Aspects of SETI, MountainView, California: SETI Institute Press.

Connors, Mary M. (1976). “The Role of the Social Scientist in theSearch For Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” unpublished manu-script, Moffett Field, CA: NASA–Ames Research Center.

Connors, Mary M. (1977). “The Consequences of DetectingExtraterrestrial Intelligence for Communication Policy,” unpub-lished manuscript, Moffett Field, CA: NASA–Ames ResearchCenter.


Dick, Steven J. (1996). The Biological Universe: The TwentiethCentury Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Fasan, Ernst (1990). “Discovery of ETI: Terrestrial and Extrater-restrial Legal Implications.” Acta Astronautica, 21, 131.

Finney, Ben R. and Jones, Eric M. (1984). Interstellar Migrationand the Human Experience, Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.

Harrison, Albert A. (1997). After Contact: The Human Responseto Extraterrestrial Life, New York: Plenum.

McCurdy, Howard (1997). Space and the American Imagination,Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Maruyama, M. and Harkins, A. (1975). Cultures Beyond Earth:The Role of Anthropology in Outer Space, New York: VintageBooks.

Michaud, Michael A. G. (1979). “Extraterrestrial Politics,” CosmicSearch, 1(3), 11-14.

Michaud, Michael A. G. (1990). “A Unique Moment in HumanHistory,” in Ben Bova and Byron Preiss, Eds. First Contact: TheSearch for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, New York, NAL Books, 243-261.

Michaud, Michael A. G. (1998). “Policy Issues in Communicat-ing with ETI,” Space Policy, 14, 173-178.

Morrison, Philip; Billingham, John; and Wolfe, John, Eds.(1977). The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, NASA SpecialPublication SP-419, Washington, DC: National Aeronautics andSpace Administration.

Shklovskii, I.S. and Sagan, Carl (1966). Intelligent Life in the Uni-verse, San Francisco: Holden-Day.

Shostak, G. Seth, Ed. (1993). Third Decennial US-USSR Confer-ence on SETI, San Francisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific,San Francisco.

Shostak, G. Seth, Ed. (1995). Progress in the Search for Extrater-restrial Intelligence: The 1993 Bioastronomy Conference, San Fran-cisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

Shostak, G. Seth, Ed. (1998). Sharing the Universe: Perspectives onExtraterrestrial Intelligence. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Press.

Swift, David (1990). SETI Pioneers. Tucson: University of ArizonaPress.

Tarter, Donald E. (1992). “Interpreting and Reporting on a SETIDiscovery,” Space Policy, May, 137.

Tarter, Donald E. (1995). “Reply Policy and Signal Type:Assumptions Drawn from Minimal Source Information.” Paperpresented at the 46th International Astronautical Congress, Oslo,Norway, October.

Tough, Allen (1999a). About Allen Tough and the Invitation toETI. See http://members.aol.com/WelcomeETI/4.html.

Tough, Allen (1999b). “The Array of Search Strategies.” Paperpresented at the International Astronautical Congress, Amster-dam, October. A revised version is included in this volume. Alsoat http://members.aol.com/AllenTough/strategies.html.

Vakoch, Douglas A. (in press). “Constructing Messages to Extra-terrestrials: An Exosemiotic Approach.” Acta Astronautica.

Vakoch, Douglas A. and Goldfried, Marvin R. (in press). “Psy-chodynamic and Cognitive-Behavioral Perceptions of Interper-sonal Therapeutic Issues.” Psychotherapy Research.

Vakoch, Douglas A. and Lee, Yuh-shiow (1997). “Reactions toReceipt of a Message from Extraterrestrials: A Cross-CulturalEmpirical Study.” Paper presented at the 48th InternationalAstronautical Congress, Torino, Italy.

White, Frank (1990). The SETI Factor, New York: Walker andCompany.

This essay is a revised and updated version of a report that wasdiscussed in Melbourne at the October 1998 meeting of theSETI Committee of the International Academy of Astronautics,and again in Amsterdam at the October 1999 meeting of itsSubcommittee on Issues of Policy Concerning Communica-tions with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Albert Harrison was thelead author for the original report in 1998. Toward the end of1999, Allen Tough produced this slightly revised and updatedversion, which incorporates additional suggestions from sev-eral of the original authors.

87

Eric J. ChaissonWright Center for Science EducationTufts UniversityMedford, Massachusetts 02155 USAhttp://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/index.html

ABSTRACT

The unifying scenario of cosmic evolution is outlinedby following the natural changes among radiation,matter and life in standard, big-bang cosmology.Using aspects of non-equilibrium thermodynamics,especially energy flow considerations, we argue thatit is the contrasting temporal behavior of variousenergy densities that have given rise to the environ-ments needed for the emergence of galaxies, stars,planets, and life forms. We furthermore argue that anecessary (though perhaps not sufficient) condi-tion—a veritable prime mover—for the emergenceof such ordered structures of growing complexity isthe expansion of the Universe itself. Neither demon-strably new science nor appeals to non-science areneeded to explain the impressive hierarchy of genera-tive change, from atoms to galaxies, from cells tosociety.

Keywords: Cosmology; Evolution; Thermodynam-ics; Energetics; Free energy rate density.

1. Introduction

Cosmic evolution is the study of change throughtime—the totality of the many varied changes thathave occurred throughout all time and across allspace. More specifically, cosmic evolution comprisesthe generative and developmental changes in theassembly and composition of radiation, matter, andlife throughout the Universe. These are the changesthat have produced our Galaxy, our Sun, our Earth,and ourselves (Chaisson, 1979).

Figure 1 shows the arrow of time, which providesan archetypical illustration of cosmic evolution.Regardless of its shape or orientation, such an arrowrepresents an intellectual road map of the sequence ofevents that have changed systems from simplicity tocomplexity, from inorganic to organic, from chaos toorder. That sequence, as determined from a substan-tial body of post-Renaissance observations, is galax-ies first, then stars, planets, and eventually life forms.In particular, we can identify seven major construc-tion phases in the history of the Universe: particulate,galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological, andcultural evolution. These are the specializedphases—separated by discontinuities on localizedscales—that are responsible for the disciplinary andfragmented fields of reductionistic science.

Figure 1. An arrow of time can be used to highlight salient fea-tures of cosmic history, from the beginning of the Universe to thepresent. Sketched diagonally along the top of this arrow are themajor evolutionary phases that have acted, in turn, to yieldincreasing amounts of order, form, and structure among allmaterial things. Despite its drawn implication of “time marchingon,” the arrow implies nothing strictly deterministic; rather,much as for its most celebrated component—neo-Darwinism—the twin elements of chance and necessity, of randomness anddeterminism, embed all aspects of the cosmic evolutionary sce-nario.

As such, the modern subject of biological evolu-tion—neo-Darwinism—is just one, albeit impor-tant, subset of a much broader evolutionary schemeencompassing much more than mere life on Earth.In short, what Darwinism does for plants and ani-mals, cosmic evolution aspires to do for all things.And if Darwinism created a revolution in under-

Section V, Paper 2

The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of Complexity

88 Section V, Paper 2 • The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of Complexity

standing by helping to free us from the anthropocen-tric belief that humans basically differ from other lifeforms on our planet, then cosmic evolution is des-tined to extend that intellectual revolution by releas-ing us from regarding matter on Earth and in ourbodies any differently from that in the stars and gal-axies beyond.

Of central importance, we can now trace a threadof understanding—a loose continuity of sorts—link-ing the evolution of primal energy into elementaryparticles, the evolution of those particles into atoms,in turn of those atoms into galaxies and stars, theevolution of stars into heavy elements, the evolutionof those elements into the molecular building blocksof life, of those molecules into life itself, of advancedlife forms into intelligence, and of intelligent life intothe cultured and technological civilization that wenow share. These are the historical phases—muchthe same as those noted above, but now reidentifiedfrom a broader, integrated perspective—that areresponsible for the interdisciplinary world-view ofthe present paper. The claim here is that, despite thecompartmentalization of modern science, evolutionknows no disciplinary boundaries.

2. Matter

Although modern cosmology—the study of Natureon the grandest scale—stipulates that matter onlylater emerged from the radiation of the early Uni-verse, it is pedagogically useful to quantify first therole of matter and thereafter the primacy of radia-tion. In this way, the potentially greatest change inthe history of the Universe—the transformationfrom radiation to matter—can be clearly and mathe-matically justified.

Imagine an arbitrary shell of mass, m, and radius,r, expanding isotropically with the Universe at avelocity, v, from some central point. The spherewithin the shell is not necessarily meant to representthe entire Universe, as much as an exceedingly large,isotropic gas cloud—in fact, larger than the extent ofa typical galaxy supercluster (≅50 Megaparsecsacross) which comprises the topmost rung in theknown hierarchy of matter assemblages in the Uni-verse. Invoking the principle of energy conservation,we quickly arrive at the Friedmann-Lemaitre equa-tion that describes a family of models for the Uni-verse in bulk,

H2– 8/3 � G �m = – k R-2,

where H is Hubble’s constant (a measure of galaxyrecession in an expanding Universe), G is the univer-sal gravitational constant, �m is the matter density,and k is a time-dependent curvature constant. R is ascale factor which relates the radius, r, at any time, t,in cosmic history to the current radius, ro, at thepresent epoch—namely, r = Rro. Solutions to theabove equation specify three general models for theUniverse:

• The Universe can be “open” (i.e., k negative) andthus recede forevermore to infinity (and beyond).

• The Universe can be “closed” (i.e., k positive)wherein its contents eventually stop, thereaftercontracting to a point much like that from which itbegan.

• The Universe is precisely balanced between theopen and closed models; in fact such a model Uni-verse would eternally expand toward infinity andnever contract.

Consider the simplest case, when k = 0 in the aboveequation, also known as the Einstein-deSitter solu-tion. Here, we find the critical density for closure,

�m,c = 3H2/8 � G,

which, when evaluated for G and for H (≅65 km/sec/Mpc), equals 10-29 gm/cm3. This is approximately 6atoms in each cubic meter of space, or about a mil-lion times more rarefied than the matter in the“empty space” between Earth and the Moon.Whether the actual current density is smaller orlarger than this value, making the Universe open orclosed, respectively, is not currently known, given theuncertainty concerning “dark matter” within andaround galaxies.

To follow the evolution of matter throughout cos-mic history, we appeal to the conservation of ma-terial particles in the huge sphere noted above, �m =�m,o R-3, substitute into the special (k = 0) case of theFriedmann-Lemaitre equation, and manipulate,

� dt = �8/3 � G �m,c �-0.5 � R0.5 dR.

The result is that t = 2/3 H-1, which accounts for thedeceleration of the Universe, and also suggests thatthe Universe (for the special k = 0 case) is about 12billion years old. (Neither H nor t is known to betterthan 30 percent accuracy.) This equation addition-ally stipulates how the average matter density thinswith time,

Section V, Paper 2 • The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of Complexity 89

�m ≅ 106 t-2,

where �m is expressed in gm/cm3 and t in seconds.Figure 2 plots this evolution of matter, in bulk,

throughout all of universal history.

Figure 2. A log-log plot of �m , the density of matter on average,and of T, the temperature of radiation on average, over the courseof all time, to date. These plots refer to nothing in particular, justeverything in general. The width of the line drawn for �m repre-sents the considerable range of uncertainty in the value of �mobserved today; by contrast, T is very accurately measured today.

3. Radiation

The same analysis regarding matter can be applied toradiation in order to map the change of temperaturewith time. Again, for the simplest k = 0 case,

H2 = 8 � G �r,c /3 R 4,

where �r is the equivalent mass density of radiation.Here the R4 term derives from the fact that radiationscales not only as the volume (�R3) but also by oneadditional factor of R because radiation (unlike mat-ter) is also affected linearly by the Doppler effect.And noting that �rc2 = aT4 , where a is the universalradiation constant for any black-body emitter and Tis the temperature of radiation, we find the temporaldependence of average temperature throughout alltime (in seconds),

T ≅ 1010 t-0.5.

The universal radiation, having begun in a fieryexplosion (called the “big bang”), has now cooled to2.7K, the average value of the cosmic microwave

background measured today by radio telescopes onthe ground and satellites in orbit. Figure 2 also plotsthis run of T versus t.

For the first hundred centuries of the Universe,radiation had reigned supreme over matter. All spacewas flooded with photons, especially light, X rays,and � rays, ensuring a non-structured, undifferenti-ated, (virtually) informationless, and highly uniformblob of plasma; we say that matter and radiation wereintimately coupled to each other—thermalized andequilibrated. As the universal expansion paralleledthe march of time, however, the energy housed inradiation decreased faster than the energy equiva-lently contained in matter.

Figure 3. The temporal behavior of both matter energy densityand radiation energy density. The two curves intersect at t ≅10,000 years, at which time the Radiation Era changed into theMatter Era.

To see this, compare the energy densities of radia-tion and matter, and especially how these two quan-tities have evolved in time. First convert the matterdensity derived earlier to an equivalent energy den-sity by invoking the Einsteinian mass (m)–energy (E)relation, E = mc 2—that is, by multiplying the aboveequation for �m by c 2 . Now, some 12 billion yearsafter the big bang, �m,o c 2 ≅ 10-9 erg/cm3, whereasaTo

4 ≅ 4x10 -13 erg/cm3; thus, in the current epoch,�m,o c2 > aTo

4 by several orders of magnitude, prov-ing that matter is now in firm control (gravitation-ally) of cosmic changes, despite the Universe stillbeing flooded today with (2.7-K) radiation. But,given that �mc 2 scales as R-3 and aT 4 scales as R-4,we conclude that there must have been a time in the


past when �m c 2 = aT 4 , and an even earlier timewhen �mc 2 < aT 4 . Manipulation of the above equa-tions shows that these two energy densities crossedover at t ≅ 10,000 years, well less than a million yearsafter the big bang. Figure 3 is a graphical presentationof the contents of this paragraph (Field and Chais-son, 1985).

This crossover represents a preeminent change inall of cosmic history. The event, �mc 2 = aT 4 , sepa-rates the Radiation Era from the Matter Era, and des-ignates that time (~10,000 years) at which theUniverse gradually began to become transparent.Thermal equilibrium was destroyed and symmetrybroken, causing the radiative fireball and the mattergas to decouple; it was as though a fog had lifted.Photons, previously scattered innumerable times bysubatomic material particles (especially free elec-trons) of the expanding, hot, opaque plasma in theRadiation Era, were no longer so affected once theelectrons became bound into atoms in the MatterEra. This crucial and dramatic change was over byabout 100,000 years, when the last throes of the earlyplasma state had finally transformed into neutralmatter. The microwave (2.7-K) radiation reachingEarth today is a relic of this signal phase transition,having streamed unimpeded (except for beinggreatly red-shifted) across space and time for most ofthe age of the Universe, granting us a “view” of thisgrandest of all evolutionary events that occurredlong, long ago.

4. Life

Of all the known clumps of matter in the Universe,life forms, especially those enjoying membership inadvanced technological civilizations, arguably com-prise the most fascinating complexities of all. What ismore, technologically competent life differs funda-mentally from lower forms of life and from othertypes of matter scattered throughout the Universe.This is hardly an anthropocentric statement; aftermore than ten billion years of cosmic evolution, thedominant species on planet Earth—we, the humanbeing—has learned to tinker not only with matterand energy but also with evolution. Whereas previ-ously the gene (strands of DNA) and the environ-ment (whether stellar, planetary, biological, orcultural) governed evolution, twentieth-centuryEarthlings are rather suddenly gaining control ofaspects of both these agents of change. We are nowtampering with matter, diminishing the resources ofour planet while constructing the trappings of utility

and comfort. And we now stand at the verge ofmanipulating life itself, potentially altering thegenetic makeup of human beings. The physicistunleashes the forces of Nature; the biologist experi-ments with the structure of genes; the psychologistinfluences behavior with drugs. We are, quite liter-ally, forcing a change in the way things change.

The emergence of technologically intelligent life,on Earth and perhaps elsewhere, heralds a whole newera: a Life Era. Why? Because technology, despite allits pitfalls, enables life to begin to control matter,much as matter evolved to control radiation morethan ten billion years ago. Accordingly, matter is nowlosing its total dominance, at least at those isolatedresidences of technological society—such as onplanet Earth. Literally, life is now taking matter intoits own hands—a clear case of mind over matter,without any Cartesian separation asserted orimplied. Such a consummate reductionist viewpoint,materialistic yet not entirely deterministic, alsoembraces holism as well, for here we postulate a con-tinuous spectrum of complexity all the way up anddown the line, from amorphous and uncomplicatedprotogalaxies to socially stratified cultures of highorder (Chaisson, 1989).

A central question before us is this: How did theneural network within human beings grow to thecomplexity needed to fashion societies, weapons,cathedrals, philosophies, and the like? To appreciatethe essence of life’s development, especially of life’sevolving dominance, we resume our study of the cos-mic environment, broadly considered. And here wereturn to some of the thermodynamic issues raisedearlier.

5. Growth of Complexity

When matter and radiation were still equilibrated inthe Radiation Era, only a single temperature isneeded to describe the thermal history of the Uni-verse; the absence of any thermal gradients dictated(virtually) zero information content, or zero macro-scopic order, in the early Universe. But once the Mat-ter Era began, matter became atomic, the gas-energyequilibrium was destroyed, and a single temperaturewas insufficient to specify the bulk evolution of thecosmos. As things turn out, since the randommotions of the hydrogen and helium atoms failed tokeep pace with the rate of general expansion of theatoms away from one another (Layzer, 1976), thematter cooled faster, Tm ≅ 6x1016 t -1, than the radia-tion, Tr ≅ 1010 t -0.5.

Section V, Paper 2 • The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of Complexity 91

Such a thermal gradient is the patent signature ofa heat engine, and it is this ever-widening gradientthat enabled matter, in the main, to “build things.” Atleast theoretically, the environmental conditionsbecame naturally established to permit a rise in“negentropy” of statistical mechanics (Schroedinger,1944) or in “information content” of the informationsciences (Shannon and Weaver, 1949)—both factorsqualititatively synonymous with the term “complex-ity” (Lewin, 1992). Such non-equilibrium states aresuitable, indeed apparently necessary, for the emer-gence of order; thus we reason that cosmic expansionitself is the prime mover for the gradual construction ofa hierarchy of structures throughout the Universe.

Figure 4. (a) The temperature of matter and radiation went theirseparate ways once these quantities became fully decoupled at t ≅100,000 years. Since that time, the Universe has been in anon-equilibrium state—a kind of cosmic heat engine. (b) Thepotential for rising negentropy or information content—unquantified here but conceptual synonyms for “complexity”—isbroadly proportional to the growing thermal gradient in the Uni-verse.

The key question is this: Have the many and var-ied real structures known to exist in the Universe dis-played this sort of progressive increase in orderduring the course of time? The answer is yes, and

more. Yet how shall we quantify that order—withoutresorting to tricky empirical values of negentropywhose measurements are virtually impossible, orslippery interpretations of information contentwhose meaning and connotation are unclear (Mari-juan, 1996; Matsuno, 1996)? In the spirit of not hav-ing to invent any new science, we return to thenon-equilibrium thermodynamics of open systems(Prigogine, 1980). Here, we are not concerned withthe absolute value of a structure’s total free energy(available for work) as much as with its free energydensity; it is the organized energy density that bestcharacterizes the degree of order or complexity inany system, just as it was radiation energy densityand matter energy density that were important ear-lier in the Universe. In fact, what is most important isthe rate at which free energy transits a complex sys-tem of given size. In Table 1 below (Chaisson, 2000),we list our calculated values of �, the free energy ratedensities for six representative structures (and theirspecific cases computed in parentheses). We also listthe ages (in years) of such structures, dating back totheir origins in the observational record. Figure 5plots these results. Clearly, � has increased steadily asmore intricately ordered structures have emergedthroughout cosmic history, and dramatically so inrelatively recent times.

For each structure, the entropy increase of the sur-rounding environment can be mathematicallyshown to exceed the entropy decrease of the systemper se, guaranteeing good agreement with the secondlaw of thermodynamics. We thus arrive at a clean rec-onciliation of the evident destructiveness of thermo-dynamics with the observed constructiveness ofcosmic evolution. The sources and sinks of suchenergy flows, indeed through complex, yet disparate,entities such as stars, planets and life forms, all relateback to the time of thermal decoupling in the early

Table 1: Some Estimated Free Energy Rate Densities

Structure Age (10 9years) � (erg/sec/cm3)

Stars (Sun) 10 4

Planets (Earth’s climasphere) 5 80

Plants (biosphere) 3 1,000

Animals (hominid body) 0.01 17,000

Brains (human cranial) 0.001 150,000

Society ( modern culture) 0 750,000


Universe, when the conditions naturally emerged forthe onset of order and organization.

Figure 5. The rise in free energy rate density, �, plotted as hori-zontal histograms for those times at which various open struc-tures have existed in Nature, has been dramatic in the last fewbillion years. The dashed line approximates the rise in negen-tropy, information, or complexity sketched in the previous figure,but it is energy flow, as graphed here, that best characterizes theorder, form, and structure in the Universe. The three principaleras, discussed in this paper, are bracketed across the top.

6. Conclusion

Cosmic evolution accords well with observationsthat demonstrate an entire hierarchy of structures tohave emerged, in turn, during the history of the Uni-verse: energy, particles, atoms, galaxies, stars, planets,life, intelligence, and culture. As a general trend, werecognize an overall increase in complexity with theinexorable march of time—a distinctly temporalizedCosmic Change of Being, without any notion ofprogress, purpose or design implied. With cosmicevolution as an intellectual basis, we can begin tounderstand the environmental conditions needed formaterial assemblages to have become progressivelymore ordered, organized, and complex, especially inthe relatively recent past. This rise in order, form, andstructure violates no laws of physics, and certainlynot those of modern thermodynamics. Nor is the

idea of ubiquitous change novel to our contempo-rary world-views. What is new and exciting is the waythat frontier, non-equilibrium science now helps usto unify a holistic cosmology wherein life plays anintegral role.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported in part by the Fonda-tion H. Dudley Wright of Geneva, Switzerland. It isbased partly on two invited talks given at conferencesin the summer of 1996: One at the Foundations ofInformation Science meeting in Vienna, Austria; theother at the Evolution, Complexity, Hierarchy andOrganization meeting in Amiens, France.

ReferencesChaisson, E.J., 1979, Cosmic Evolution: A Synthesis of Matterand Life, Zygon, 14, 23-39.

Chaisson, E.J., 1989, The Life Era, (W.W. Norton, New York).

Chaisson, E.J., 2000, Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexityin Nature, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).

Field, G.B. and Chaisson, E.J., 1985, The Invisible Universe,(Birkhauser, Boston).

Layzer, D., 1976, The Arrow of Time, Astrophysical J., 206,559-569.

Lewin, R., 1992, Complexity (Macmillan, New York).

Marijuan, P.C., 1996, From computers and quantum physics tocells, nervous systems and societies, BioSystems, 38, 87-96.

Matsuno, K., 1996, Internalist stance and the physics of informa-tion, BioSystems, 38, 111-118.

Prigogine, I., 1980, From Being to Becoming, (W.H. Freeman,San Francisco).

Schroedinger, E., 1944, What is Life? (Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge).

Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W., 1949, The Mathematical Theoryof Communication (Univ. of Illinois Press, Champaign-Urbana).

Reprinted from BioSystems: Journal of Biological and Informa-tion Processing Sciences, Vol. 46, Eric J. Chaisson, "The Cosmic Environment for the Growth of Complexity," 1998, with per-mission from Elsevier Science.

93

Steven J. DickU.S. Naval ObservatoryWashington, DC

ABSTRACT

Over the next thousand years the domain of human-ity will increasingly spread to the stars, a process thatwill alter our future in profound ways. At least threefactors will drive this expansion: 1) increased under-standing of cosmic evolution, changing our percep-tion of ourselves and our place in the universe; 2)contact with extraterrestrial intelligence, bringingknowledge, wisdom, and problems of culture contactnow unforeseen; and 3) interstellar travel, transport-ing humanity’s emissaries to at least the nearest stars.The consequences of these events are not predictablein detail, but may be studied by examining the les-sons of cosmic evolution; by using history to analyzethe reception of new worldviews and intellectual cul-ture contacts on Earth; and by anticipating the likeli-hood of success in interstellar travel and its effects.The prospect of Interstellar Humanity during thenext millennium is likely to have an effect on allbranches of terrestrial endeavor, whether religion,philosophy, science, or the arts. The stage of humandrama will be vastly expanded.

Introduction

Fifty years ago the British philosopher and sciencefiction writer Olaf Stapledon wrote his essay “Inter-planetary Man.” At the brink of the Space Age, Sta-pledon, best known for his Last and First Men (1930)and Star Maker (1937) epics, believed that humanitywould spread throughout the solar system over thenext few centuries, barring the destruction of civili-zation made possible by the new atomic age. He real-

ized that expansion of the human domain would bevery different depending on whether or not the plan-ets were inhabited; he concluded, in line with scien-tific thinking of his time, that this was very unlikely.

Humanity would therefore be left to colonize theplanets of our system, most likely unencumbered byproblems of extraterrestrial contact; the questionthat exercised Stapledon was humanity’s use of theplanets. Exploitation of physical resources, powerover a larger physical domain, and the satisfaction ofcuriosity would all be part of it, but Stapledonbelieved the solar system was destined for more thanmere extension of life as it existed on Earth. Manshould use other worlds not for the sole purpose ofincreasing luxury or power, but “should avail himselfof their resources in such ways as to advance theexpression of the spirit in the life of mankind. Heshould use them so as to afford to every human beingthe greatest possible opportunity for developing andexpressing his distinctively human capacity as aninstrument of the spirit, as a centre of sensitive andintelligent awareness of the objective universe, as acentre of love of all lovely things, and of creativeaction for the spirit.”1

But Stapledon had more in mind than simply awider scope for Homo sapiens. An avid reader sincehis undergraduate days of genetic pioneers GregorMendel, Francis Galton, and August Weismann, hebelieved that through eugenics specially adaptedhuman or quasi-human races should be developed.“Thus the goal for the solar system would seem to bethat it should become an interplanetary communityof very diverse worlds each inhabited by its appropri-ate race of intelligent beings, its characteristic‘humanity,’ and each contributing to the commonexperience its characteristic view of the universe.Through the pooling of this wealth of experience,

1.“Interplanetary Man,” in An Olaf Stapledon Reader, ed. RobertCrossley (Syracuse, N. Y., 1997), 218-241: 237-238.

Section V, Paper 3

Cosmic Humanity

94 Section V, Paper 3 • Cosmic Humanity

through this ‘commonwealth of worlds,’ new levels ofmental and spiritual development should becomepossible, levels at present quite inconceivable toman.”2 By “Interplanetary Humanity” Stapledonthus hoped for more than the mere spread of human-ity through the solar system; he hoped for a speciesphysically, mentally, and spiritually improved overterrestrial humanity, privileged with new insights.Such genetic improvement was a key concept of hislater fiction.

Such was the main message of Stapledon’s best-known essay. In a postscript, however, he noted thatintelligence in other planetary systems was also pos-sible, no matter how unlikely it was in our own sys-tem. Unaware of the developments in radioastronomy, begun with Karl Jansky in 1933 and beingdeveloped in 1948 by Grote Reber and a very few oth-ers, Stapledon conjectured that “communicationwith intelligent races in even the remotest planetarysystems may be effected by a highly developed tech-nique of telepathy.” Though he was (as far as weknow!) wrong about the technique, Stapledon wasvery much in the spirit of today’s tradition when hewrote, “If, by one means or another, man does suc-ceed in communicating with intelligent races inremote worlds, then the right aim will be to enterinto mutual understanding and appreciation withthem, for mutual enrichment and the further expres-sion of the spirit. One can imagine some sort of cos-mical community of worlds.”

With the benefit of 50 more years in understand-ing of our universe, we can see that not only will atleast parts of Stapledon’s vision of interplanetaryhumanity likely be realized over the next centuries,but that over the next millennium Homo sapiens willalmost certainly become interstellar humanity. Thiswill occur in three stages, each one filled with morepotential—and more danger—than its predecessor.At Level One we will have an increased awareness ofour place in the universe by an increased understand-ing of cosmic evolution. This increased awareness issimply a matter of the advance of many branches ofscience, and is well underway at the end of the 20thcentury. At Level Two we will have contact withextraterrestrial intelligence, most likely in the form ofremote radio contact rather than physical contact.We are now on the brink of determining whethersuch intelligence is rare or abundant in the universe;we have only begun to think about the consequences.

At Level Three, humanity will travel to the stars,physically spreading into the universe a genome con-structed over 3.8 billion years of evolution on Earth,and perhaps by that time also altered along Staple-donian lines.

In all stages of interstellar humanity, the questionsof cosmic purpose and human destiny will be para-mount. Our place in the scheme of cosmic evolution,the outcome of contact with extraterrestrials, andour ability to travel to the stars all bear strongly onthe issue of our place in the universe and the ultimatefate of our species. Increased cosmic awareness, theexchange of information with extraterrestrials, andeven the realization that intelligence is scarce as wephysically expand into the galaxy will alter our reli-gions, our philosophies, and the image of ourselves.Whether or not the “blind watchmaker” universe hasan underlying purpose in cosmic evolution, whetherour destiny is intertwined with alien sentient minds,and the nature of our long-term future are questionslikely to be answered in the next millennium. Allother questions pale in comparison.

Cosmic Evolution

At the end of the 20th century, more and more mem-bers of our species are increasingly aware of the newuniverse. At the beginning of the 20th century,respected scientists could still believe that our Sunwas located at the center of our galaxy, and that thisgalaxy—with a diameter of some 3600 light years—comprised the entire universe. Today we know thatthe universe extends some 12 to 15 billion light-years, is populated with bizarre objects like pulsars,quasars, and black holes, and is an Einsteinian space-time continuum that has no center. The HubbleSpace Telescope, peering into the very depths of thisuniverse, finds billions of galaxies similar and dissim-ilar to our own. The Earth seems an insignificantspeck in the vastness of space.

At the same time this new universe of immensespace is not static, but evolving, and presumably hasbeen evolving for as long as 15 billion years. Follow-ing in the wake of the Darwinian revolution, the ideaof cosmic evolution was already glimpsed at thebeginning of the 20th century, though the immensityof the time scale was not yet known. Percival Lowell’sThe Evolution of Worlds (1909) applied physical evo-lution to the solar system, while George Elery Hale’sThe Study of Stellar Evolution (1907) applied it to thestars. By 1929 Edwin Hubble gave an evolutionarydimension to the universe as a whole, by providing2. Ibid., 238.

Section V, Paper 3 • Cosmic Humanity 95

data on the recession rate of galaxies that showed theuniverse was expanding. Today the Big Bang cosmol-ogy is believed to provide the reason for that expan-sion, and the density of the universe appears to besuch that the expansion will continue forever.3

But cosmic evolution applies to more than thephysical universe. Harvard biochemist Lawrence J.Henderson not only grasped the essential idea of cos-mic biological evolution in The Fitness of the Environ-ment (1913), but also claimed a superior role for it:The properties of matter and the course of cosmic evo-lution are now seen to be intimately related to thestructure of the living being and to its activities; theybecome, therefore, far more important in biology thanhas been previously suspected. For the whole evolution-ary process, both cosmic and organic, is one, and thebiologist may now rightly regard the universe in its veryessence as biocentric. Volumes such as Harlow Shap-ley’s Of Stars and Men (1958), Eric Chaisson’s CosmicDawn (1981), and Carl Sagan’s Cosmos (1980) spreadthe idea that human destiny may be understood onlyin the context of cosmic evolution.4

Today, cosmic biological evolution is the centralassumption of NASA’s Origins program, the touch-stone for both astronomers and biologists, and thestarting point for numerous science fiction writers.The worldview of cosmic evolutionists from Hender-son to the present is epitomized by Nobel biochemistChristian de Duve, who in Vital Dust: Life as a CosmicImperative (1995) concluded that “the universe is notthe inert cosmos of the physicist, with a little lifeadded for good measure. The universe is life, with thenecessary infrastructure around it; it consists fore-most of trillions of biospheres generated and sus-tained by the rest of the universe.”5

This “biological universe,” as I have termed it else-where, is very different from a merely physical uni-verse filled with lifeless planets, stars, and galaxies.6

As the new universe and cosmic evolution pervadethe consciousness of Homo sapiens, they hold differ-ent meanings for different groups. Cosmic con-sciousness is expressed in many forms, some of themunpalatable to most scientists: belief in UFOs andextraterrestrial abduction, space-oriented religiouscults (such as Heaven’s Gate) whose members sacri-fice their lives to join the supposed aliens, and evermore elaborate (and often hostile) scenarios of sci-ence fiction. While this diversity should warn us thathuman reactions to the new universe will not bemonolithic, it should not prevent us from recogniz-ing undeniable underlying principles.

First, for all groups, the increased awareness of thenew universe should dash any remaining hopes foran anthropocentric universe. Even though the ideathat the universe was made for man survives in theform of the elegantly misnamed “anthropic princi-ple,” in fact that principle is (in Henderson’s terms) a“biocentric principle” that points to the abundanceof life in the universe in many forms, rather than inthe form of man. If life, mind, and intelligence arethe common outcomes of cosmic evolution, ratherthan simply planets, stars, and galaxies, then our reli-gions, philosophies, and other human endeavors ascurrently formulated are too parochial. They willneed to be significantly altered, expanded, or dis-carded in the coming millennium.

Secondly, quite apart from its nonanthropocentricconsequences, cosmic evolution provides humanity acosmic context in time. Our own planet is 4.5 billionyears old; as we look into space we can now see solarsystems only half a billion years old. Because of thefinite speed of light, the more distant we look, thefurther back we are looking into our past, stretchingback perhaps 15 billion years. But we are also lookinginto our future. Several generations of stars havealready been born, lived, and died, and by peeringinto space we see their fate, and our fate. We knowthat in 1.1 billion years our Sun will become too hotfor life on Earth, that in 7 billion years it will becomea full-fledged red giant engulfing the Earth, and that afew hundred million years later it will settle down tothe dead end of stellar evolution known as a whitedwarf. Though we are not accustomed to thinking insuch time scales, cosmic evolution defines the stageof the human drama and allows us to see the life ofour species in perspective.

3. Percival Lowell, The Evolution of Worlds (New York, 1909); G.E. Hale, The Study of Stellar Evolution (Chicago, 1907); 2; Hubble,The Realm of the Nebulae (New Haven, 1936). The latest ideas onthe ultimate fate of an eternally expanding universe are found inFred C. Adams and Gregory Laughlin, “The Future of the Uni-verse,” Sky and Telescope, 96 (August 1998), 32-39.

4. L. J. Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment (Cambridge,Mass., 1913), reprinted with an introduction by George Wald(Gloucester, Mass., 1979), p. 312; Harlow Shapley, Of Stars andMen (Boston, 1958); Eric Chaisson, Cosmic Dawn (Boston,1981), Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York, 1980).

5. Christian de Duve, Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative(1995), 292-293.

6. Steven J. Dick, The Biological Universe (Cambridge, 1996), Lifeon Other Worlds (Cambridge, 1998).


Finally, cosmic evolution teaches us that we are all“star stuff,” in Sagan’s colorful terminology. All ele-ments except hydrogen and helium, including thebiogenic elements and those found inside our bodies,were forged deep within the stars. Over the next mil-lennium, as new-generation space-based andground-based telescopes carry out the “archaeologyof the heavens,” they will uncover our past and ourfuture. Even as they confirm the immensity of theuniverse and its blindingly hostile nature comparedto our fragile biosphere, our human star stuff makeshumanity a part of the cosmos in the same way thatCopernicus made the Earth part of the cosmos 500years ago. With this knowledge we may begin to feelat home in the universe rather than estranged fromit. We will increasingly understand it, to some extentcontrol it, and perhaps have to share it, depending onwhether or not life is abundant. In this context, muchdepends on the prevalence, nature, and motives ofextraterrestrial intelligence.

Extraterrestrial Intelligence

Nothing could usher in a sustained interstellarhumanity more forcefully or more quickly than con-tact with extraterrestrial intelligence. While the firsthalf of the 20th century still held hope for interplane-tary intelligence, even Stapledon realized—and weare now virtually certain—that if extraterrestrialintelligence exists, it will be found only among theplanets of other stars. (Unless such intelligence or itsartifacts find their way to our solar system.) The dis-coveries of possible Martian fossils, of Europanoceans, of the ancient origin of terrestrial life underadverse conditions, and of extremophile organismson Earth today, all point to life as a probable com-mon emergent property of the physical universe. Atthe same time the discovery of numerous planetarysystems populated by gas giants, presumably accom-panied by terrestrial planets, provides abundantpotential life sites. Although the frequency of theevolution of intelligence is still problematic, electro-magnetic SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelli-gence) programs, if they are to succeed at all, willcertainly succeed in the next thousand years. Alter-native modes of contact are logically possible:Bracewell probes or Tough microprobes, a break-through in UFO studies, and the discovery of alienartifacts in the course of space exploration are possi-bilities that cannot be ruled out.7

The consequences of the discovery of extraterres-trial intelligence in the next millennium depend

strongly on the contact scenario. But we need notsurrender because of this uncertainty; at least threeapproaches are possible in studying such contact.The first is the imagination, as exemplified in alienscience fiction literature, which lays out the possibili-ties. The effect of the physical presence of extraterres-trials on Earth in the mode of Arthur C. Clarke’sChildhood’s End (1953) is very different from the dis-covery of an alien artifact, as played out in Clarke’sRendezvous with Rama (1973) and its sequels. Bothare again very different from scenarios of radio con-tact, as examined in James Gunn’s The Listeners(1972) and Carl Sagan’s Contact (1985). And all thesescenarios are far removed from the vision of FredHoyle’s Black Cloud (1957), where the intelligence isnonhumanoid, or Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris (1961),where the alien intelligence remains mysterious andincomprehensible. Science fiction literature (somemore elegantly than others) provides a rich source ofthoughtful commentary on the consequences ofextraterrestrial contact. Though there is an overem-phasis on alien invaders in the mode of H. G. Wells’sWar of the Worlds (1898), we do not in fact knowwhich of the logical possibilities we will find in real-ity. In its more sublime creations, witnessed in MaryDoria Russell’s The Sparrow (1996), science fictionsheds light on religion and morality. The imagina-tions of science fiction writers demonstrate the pos-sibilities; science must discover the realities.

A second approach is grounded in the data ofhuman experience and history. We may demonstratethis by taking the case of radio contact. Contrary topopular wisdom, radio contact with extraterrestri-als—the object of SETI programs—will not be anal-ogous to the physical contact of cultures on Earth. Ashas often been pointed out, physical culture contactson Earth have most often been disastrous: witnessCortes and the Aztecs, or Pizarro and the Incas, orany number of other culture contacts. Rather, radiocontact is analogous to intellectual culture contactson Earth. Particularly apt is the analogy to the trans-mission of Greek knowledge to the Latin West via theArabs in the 12th and 13th centuries. The result wasthe Renaissance. Moreover, because contact amongextraterrestrial civilizations is fundamentally delayedby the finite speed of light in direct proportion to the

7. On Bracewell probes, see Ronald Bracewell, The Galactic Club(San Francisco, 1975), 69-83. On Tough microprobes see AllenTough, “Small Smart Interstellar Probes,” Journal of the BritishInterplanetary Society, 51 (May 1998), 167-174.


intervening distance, like the Greek and Europeancivilizations, communications must take place acrosstime. It is even possible the extraterrestrial civiliza-tion will be extinct by the time its signal reachesEarth, as the Greek civilization had reached its peaklong before its knowledge was transmitted to theLatin West.8

If the decoding of an extraterrestrial messageresults in a vast amount of knowledge, these analo-gies might break down. But a case can be made thatdeciphering a message could be a slow process, per-haps continuing over generations, and thus moreanalogous to the translation of Greek knowledge.While both positive and negative analogies may beusefully applied, the nature of the message is the all-important unknown factor. Because of the age of theuniverse, however, extraterrestrial civilizations arelikely to be much older than we are, perhaps, it hasbeen conjectured, holding the knowledge of the uni-verse in an Encyclopedia Galactica. By making contactwe may become part of a Galactic Club—Stapledon’scosmical community of worlds.

In a more general sense, we may use the trajectoryof worldviews as an analogy for extraterrestrial con-tact. The belief in “the biological universe”—one inwhich cosmic evolution commonly ends in life andintelligence—is a kind of worldview similar in statusto the Copernican worldview or the Darwinianworldview. Like them, the biological universe asworldview strongly affects humanity’s place in theuniverse. Like them, it is testable locally via space-craft and globally via SETI programs. And like them,it will go through certain stages of interpretation andexplorations of implications. The rich literature inthe history of science examining these revolutionsmay therefore be used cautiously to examine theimplications of the biological universe.9

The third mode of examining the effect of extra-terrestrial intelligence is social science. Albert Harri-son’s recent book, After Contact: The HumanResponse to Extraterrestrial Life (1997), has led the

way in showing how fields such as psychology, sociol-ogy, and anthropology can be used as an aid to think-ing about implications of contact. In particular headvocates a kind of systems approach, called LivingSystems Theory, in which what we know aboutorganisms, societies, and supranational systems onEarth can be used to discuss the outer space ana-logues of extraterrestrials, extraterrestrial civiliza-tions, and the Galactic Club. This is a promisingapproach to the study of implications, though Harri-son applies it only to aliens and civilizations, not tolow life-forms and Martian nanofossils. The latterentails a shift in worldview quite distinct from com-municative extraterrestrials, a difference that LivingSystems Theory may also illuminate.10

The exchange of ideas likely in the radio contactscenario is not the only possibility. Other contact sce-narios—physical contact, or contact by probes ormicroprobes with varying capabilities—have theirown analogues in history. No historical analogueswill be perfect, but they provide a starting point andlay out options, and the very discussion of why theyare not perfect will be illuminating.

Science fiction, terrestrial analogues in humanhistory, and Living Systems Theory are three funda-mentally different ways to gauge the impact of extra-terrestrial contact. All, it is true, make use of ourterrestrial experience. But it is difficult to transcendthat experience until contact is actually made. In anycase, a systematic study using these three approachespromises to shed considerable light on our futureover the next millennium. While the nature of theknowledge gained from extraterrestrial contactremains a wildcard, these approaches can neverthe-less give us an outline of possible impacts. Whateverthe impact, we may predict that the exchange ofinformation will shed light on the great problems ofphilosophy; if communication can be achieved, forexample, the problem of objective knowledge will beraised to a new level of sophistication as the commu-nicating intelligences share their knowledge. It ishard to imagine any event in the next millenniumthat could have greater consequences for human lifeand the future of our planet.

8. Steven J. Dick, “Consequences of Success in SETI: Lessons fromthe History of Science,” and Ivan Almar, “The Consequences of aDiscovery: Different Scenarios,” in Progress in the Search forExtraterrestrial Life, ed. G. Seth Shostak (San Francisco, 1995),pp. 521-532 and 499-505.

9. Steven J. Dick, “Consequences of Success,” (note 8); The Biolog-ical Universe, Cambridge, 1996; “From the Physical World to theBiological Universe,” in Bioastronomy: The Search for Extraterres-trial Life, eds. J. Heidmann and M. J. Klein (Berlin, 1991), 356-363.

10. Albert Harrison, After Contact: The Human Response toExtraterrestrial Life (1997). For other considerations of contactsee Paul Davies, Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of Dis-covery of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (New York, 1995).


Interstellar Travel

Although some believe that interstellar travel is phys-ically impossible because of distance and powerrequirements, history is not on the side of the pessi-mists. It is likely that their pessimism falls into thecategory of what Arthur C. Clarke has termed “fail-ure of imagination,” and that ways will be found tocross the ocean of space no less than the ingenuity ofour predecessors carried them across the oceans ofEarth. Indeed, the first full engineering study for aninterstellar starship was published under the auspicesof the British Interplanetary Society in 1978, 30 yearsafter Stapledon’s lecture. That vehicle was designedto travel to Barnard’s star, at six light-years one of theclosest stars to our Sun. A feel for even nearby inter-stellar distances may be glimpsed by realizing that ata cruising speed 12 percent the speed of light, such astarship would take 50 years. The propulsion systemwas based on nuclear fusion and required mining thehelium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter to propel the 450-ton payload. Even then this was a flyby mission; nofuel would remain for deceleration from 12 percentthe speed of light.11

Clearly interstellar travel will challenge humanity,and many practical problems await solution. Whenwe consider where human transportation technologywas a thousand years ago, it is probable that over thenext millennium propulsion systems such as thematter-antimatter drive, star sails, or those based onconcepts as yet unglimpsed will lead humanity to thestars. Indeed, given the distances and times involved,one technology is likely to leapfrog another, andearly-generation starships literally surpassed on theirway to the stars.

Whatever the case, interstellar travel will be thecapstone to interstellar humanity. Daunting as thetask seems, someday the hundreds of billions of starsin our own galaxy will have been explored, and thenearby galaxies will beckon. We may safely predict,however, that the era of intergalactic humanity willnot take place in the next millennium. At the speed oflight, it would take a half-million light-years to reachthe nearest galaxy. Unless, that is, one is transportedto distant regions of the universe via wormholesassociated with black holes. But this, too, is unlikelyin the next millennium. Humanity is likely to be pre-occupied over the next millennium with roving our

own galaxy, with its 100,000 light-year diameter.Even at the end of the next millennium, humanitywill still have limits.12

We may well wonder, if extraterrestrials are abun-dant and interstellar travel is common, why interstel-lar starships are not evident in the vicinity of Earth.This paradox, first posed by Enrico Fermi 50 yearsago, asserts that given the long time scale of the uni-verse, if extraterrestrials are abundant, they shouldhave colonized the galaxy within a few million yearsand arrived on Earth long ago. Since we do not seethem (barring arguments for the extraterrestrialhypothesis of UFOs), skeptics of the biological uni-verse assert they do not exist. This argument has ledSETI proponents to assert that interstellar travel isnot economical, not the most efficient mode of inter-stellar contact, or not an interest of most civiliza-tions. However, only one civilization is required togive force to the paradox. Conversely, only one needbe discovered by SETI programs or interstellar travelto find the solution to the Fermi Paradox.

Quite aside from any merits of the Fermi Paradox,human interstellar travel over the next millenniumwill likely proceed. History shows that exploration isan essential part of the human imperative, and whilefor economic and other reasons robot probes mayprecede human exploration, even the brief history ofinterplanetary exploration indicates that humanexploration will follow. The Pioneer 10 and 11 andVoyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, vestiges of interplanetaryhumanity, are our species’ first emissaries to the stars,complete with messages for any extraterrestrials whochance to intercept them. At .005 percent the speedof light, the Voyagers will take 80,000 years to reachthe distance of the nearest star, Alpha Centauri.

We should recognize that it is possible—thoughwe believe not probable, in light of what we nowknow about cosmic evolution—that Homo sapiens isthe only intelligent species in the galaxy. There is pre-cedent for this too in science fiction; perhaps its mostfamous story, Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series, iscarried out in a galaxy devoid of extraterrestrials butcolonized by man. One can hardly say that it is a lessinteresting universe; the preservation of knowledge isits centerpiece, and the Encyclopedia Galactica its

11. Project Daedalus—The Final Report on the BIS Starship Study,ed. A. R. Martin, Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Sup-plement (1978).

12. On interstellar travel see I. A. Crawford, “Interstellar Travel: AReview for Astronomers,” 31, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astro-nomical Society (1990), 377-400. On the wormhole concept andits history see Paul Halpern, Cosmic Wormholes: The Search forInterstellar Shortcuts (New York, 1992).


anchor. The Encyclopedia Galactica is also a frequenttheme of universes populated with extraterrestrials,now containing all the knowledge of the GalacticClub. In either case, the era of interstellar humanitywill not be “the end of history” or “the end of sci-ence” in the rather parochial view of Earthboundhumanity posited at the end of the second millen-nium.13

With interstellar travel the human genome willphysically be transported into space. Moreover, it islikely that the long distances required in interstellartravel will drive human intervention in that genome,so that humans, or their successor species, will beengineered to withstand the rigors of the trip. Even iftraditional ideas like suspended animation provepractical, genetic considerations are likely to play animportant role in maximizing efficiency and success.What effect an extraterrestrial genome might have onus it is too soon to say, but natural selection on dis-tant planets may have developed more efficient mod-els of intelligence than ours; at the pace of geneticintervention today, it is likely that over the next mil-lennium our species will wish to make use of aliengenetics, quite aside from its own. The principles ofhuman ethics and morality will continue to be tested.

Finally, even as interstellar travel proceeds, Asi-mov and others remind us that new sciences willarise and old ones will sprout new directions as yetunseen. “Psychohistory”—the statistical treatment ofhistorical trends to predict future outcomes—plays amajor role in the Foundation novels. The social sci-ences may come into their own in the next millen-nium, and brain sciences almost certainly will.Moreover, technologies such as robotic intelligenceand nanotechnology will be developed. These newsciences and technologies will feed into the future inways now intrinsically unforeseeable. But they willchange only the details, not the fact, of interstellarhumanity.

What are the consequences of interstellar travel? Aglimpse of the struggles that interstellar travelers willface may be seen in Finney and Jones’s InterstellarMigration and the Human Experience.14 Again, it isbased on analogy, with European exploration,

Polynesian expansion across the Pacific, and the still-born attempts of other societies at colonization. Forthose who succeed, we may predict only in the mostgeneral terms that interstellar humanity will behighly dependent on technology, still struggling withthe same problems of human nature that we facetoday, but will operate in a vastly expanded domainthat incorporates a full knowledge of cosmic evolu-tion and may involve interstellar politics in which theprincipals are extraterrestrial civilizations. Unlikeradio contact, physical contact with extraterrestrialintelligence forces us to consider the negative analo-gies of physical culture contact on Earth. If we cansurvive such contact, the deepest questions of thespecies, pondered since our earliest human ancestorslooked skyward and wondered about the stars, willbe answered. Stapledon’s fondest wish may be real-ized in interstellar humanity rather than interplane-tary man.

Cosmic Destiny

In the era of interstellar humanity, the fundamentalquestions of the species are likely to remain the sameas today. Foremost among them are the questions ofcosmic purpose and human destiny, issues that wereraised in the 20th century in the context of the newbiology and the new astronomy, which find theirintersection in the discipline variously termed bioas-tronomy, exobiology, and astrobiology—the study ofthe biological universe.

Almost at the same time Stapledon wrote his essayon “Interplanetary Man?” the French scientistLeComte du Nouy wrote a widely hailed volumeentitled Human Destiny (1947). There he concludedthat the simple protein molecule would have taken243 orders of magnitude more time than the age ofthe Earth to form by chance, that life itself couldtherefore not have arisen by chance, and that “theseconsequences inevitably lead to the idea of God.” Thesame theme pervaded the influential book Chanceand Necessity (1971) of the French biologist JacquesMonod when he wrote, after long thought on theconsequences of his own discoveries, “The universewas not pregnant with life, nor the biosphere withman. Our number came up in the Monte Carlogame.”15

It was this kind of universe that led to pessimisticideas of cosmic purpose and human destiny. Nobel

13. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (NewYork, 1992); John Horgan, The End of Science: Facing the Limits ofKnowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (Reading, Mass.,1996).

14. Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, ed. Ben R.Finney and Eric M. Jones (Berkeley, 1985).

15.LeComte du Nouy, Human Destiny (New York, 1947); JacquesMonod, Chance and Necessity (New York, 1971), 144-146.


physicist Steven Weinberg, for example, wrote, “It isalmost irresistible for humans to believe that we havesome special relation to the universe, that human lifeis not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chainof accidents reaching back to the first three minutes,but that we were somehow built in from the begin-ning…. It is very hard to believe that all this is just atiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It iseven harder to realize that this present universe hasevolved from an unspeakable unfamiliar early condi-tion, and faces a future extinction of endless cold orintolerable heat. The more the universe seems com-prehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”16

But this conclusion did not take into account thebiological universe, nor did it consider unexpecteddevelopments in the fields of chaos and complexity.In particular, Stuart Kauffman and others have pio-neered the idea of self-organization; in his book AtHome in the Universe Kauffman has detailed how lifecould have originated by the natural tendency ofmatter to self-organize. Under this scenario, Nobelbiochemist Christian de Duve could write, “I viewthis universe not as a cosmic joke, but as a meaning-ful entity—made in such a way to generate life andmind, bound to give birth to living beings able to dis-cern truth, apprehend beauty, feel love, yearn aftergoodness, define evil, experience mystery.”17 This isthe view championed by many cosmic evolution pio-neers, including Carl Sagan. The whole scenario ofcosmic biological evolution, not taken into accountby du Nouy, Monod, or Weinberg, potentially placeshuman life in a new context in terms of purpose anddestiny. It is just such questions that coincide withthe Stapledonian wish to use new worlds to advancethe human spirit; those are the questions of ultimateimportance to interstellar humanity.

Human destiny very much depends on the courseof cosmic evolution. With Stapledon, we may con-clude that it will be very different if the galaxy isinhabited, or if it is not. If it is, then we may join theGalactic Club, have access (and perhaps even add) tothe Encyclopedia Galactica. If it is not inhabited, thenit is our destiny to fill the galaxy with life; the Encyclo-pedia Galactica will be the history of the human race,or its genetic or robotic descendants. In the latter

case, interstellar migration and colonization are ourfuture; interstellar travel, rather than extraterrestrialintelligence, will predominate interstellar humanity.In that case, the Fermi Paradox will have proven itsforce, though the search for life will likely go on as animportant part of the exploration imperative.

Conclusion

Cosmic evolution, extraterrestrial intelligence, andinterstellar travel will shape interstellar humanity inthe next millennium. Those who take part directly inthese ventures will certainly be affected, but so alsowill much of humanity. Consciousness of cosmicevolution is increasing and will continue to increasebecause of a fundamental human desire to answerthe question that more than 130 years ago T. H. Hux-ley called “the question of questions for mankind—the problem which underlies all others and is moredeeply interesting than any other,” humanity’s placein nature.18 Huxley was speaking in the context ofDarwinian theory of evolution by natural selection;that question has now been extended to cosmic evo-lution, and therefore the problem of our place in theuniverse.

The search for extraterrestrial life is an essentialpart of that problem. Whereas Kepler, Galileo, New-ton, and their modern-day successors demonstratedthe role of physical law in the universe, the questionat stake in the extraterrestrial life debate is whetheran analogous “biological law” reigns throughout theuniverse, whether Darwinian natural selection is auniversal phenomenon rather than simply a terres-trial one, whether there are other biologies, histories,religions, and philosophies beyond the Earth. Inshort, at stake is whether Homo sapiens inhabits aphysical, or a biological, universe. The two yield fun-damentally different worldviews. During the nextmillennium, probably earlier rather than later, wewill likely discover which is true. The rest of the mil-lennium will be spent in exploring the implicationsof this profound truth.

Looking back from the year 3000—some 40 gen-erations hence—most of the historical and politicalissues that concern us now will have been forgotten.World War II will seem as distant as the Battle ofHastings does to us now. The geopolitical landscapewill have transformed into an astropolitical land-scape. Our science will seem quaint and embryonic.

16. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York, 1977),154.

17. Christian de Duve, Vital Dust (New York, 1995), xviii; StuartKauffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws ofSelf-Organization and Complexity (New York and Oxford, 1995).

18. T. H. Huxley, Man’s Place in Nature (1863; Ann Arbor, Mich.,1971 ed.), 71.


But the desire to know better our place in the uni-verse, to push the frontiers, to explore beyond onemore barrier, will remain.

A final cautionary note is in order. The questionmark in Stapledon’s title referred not only to theaccuracy of his prediction, but also to the survival ofcivilization in the new atomic age. Even in our age,we must still allow for the possibility that the hopesfor interplanetary and interstellar man will be dashedby the follies of adolescent humanity, and that athousand years from now some extraterrestrialarchaeological expedition will be picking throughthe remains of terrestrial man, whose follies exceededits promise and cut short its brief history. As with theatomic age, the age of genetic engineering and otherscientific advances yet unseen will each bring danger

as well as opportunity. Even though the destructionof Homo sapiens might constitute only a blip in thescheme of cosmic evolution (depending on the prev-alence of intelligence elsewhere), as individuals eachof us must do what he or she can to see that thisfuture does not prevail.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Professors Albert Harrison and AllenTough for their insightful comments.

Copyright © 2000 by Steven J. Dick. Published by the Founda-tion For the Future, with permission. Released to the Founda-tion For the Future to publish in all forms.

103

Ray P. NorrisCSIRO Australia Telescope National FacilityP.O. Box 76, Epping, NSW1710, AustraliaEmail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the factors that determine theprobable age of a civilisation that might be detectedin a SETI search. Simple stellar evolution consider-ations suggest an age of a few Gyr [gigayears or bil-lion years]. Supernovae and gamma-ray bursterscould in principle shorten the lifetime of a civilisa-tion, but the fact that life on Earth has survived for atleast four Gyr places a severe constraint on such fac-tors. If a civilisation is detected as a result of a SETIsearch, it is likely to be of order one Gyr moreadvanced than we are.

1. Introduction

When we conduct searches for extraterrestrial intelli-gence, we often make implicit assumptions about theage of the civilisation that we are trying to find. Forexample, our strategy for searching for a life-form ofa similar age to us is likely to be different from thatfor a civilisation billions of years more advanced thanwe are. Similarly, in the event of a confirmed detec-tion, the way in which we plan our response will alsodepend on how advanced that civilisation may be. Inthis paper, I estimate the likely age of the civilisationthat we are most likely to detect, should we be suc-cessful in our searches.

The two key factors that determine how old adetected civilisation is likely to be are (a) the lengthof time since intelligent life first appeared in our gal-axy and (b) the median lifetime of a civilisation. Thesecond of these is more problematic, since the devel-opment of a civilisation can be cut short by a wide

range of events, including disease, war, global mis-management, asteroids, supernovae, and gamma-raybursters. We should also acknowledge the possibleexistence of other hazards, of which we are not yetaware. For example, the devastating effect of gamma-ray bursters has been appreciated only in the last twoto three years, and there are probably other phenom-ena yet to be discovered. Events such as disease, war,and global mismanagement are almost impossible toquantify, and so in this paper I concentrate on thoseevents that we can quantify: asteroids, supernovae,and gamma-ray bursters. In the first section of thispaper, I consider what the maximum lifetime of aplanetary-bound civilisation might be.

Throughout this paper, I make a very conservativeassumption that an extraterrestrial civilisation (ET)resembles us in most significant respects (other thanage and evolution). In other words, ET lives on aplanet orbiting a solar-type star and has taken as longafter the formation of its star to evolve to “civilisa-tion” as we have, which is ~5 Gyr (gigayears or billionyears). I therefore estimate the longevity of ET bylooking at the hazards that confront the Earth.

2. The Natural Lifetime of a Civilisation

I assume that stars like our Sun have been formingsince the formation of the galaxy some ten Gyr ago.Observed changes in metallicity since then are notsufficient to alter this simple assumption signifi-cantly. Our Sun is now about five Gyr old and has anexpected total lifetime of ten Gyr.

For the first five Gyr of the life of the galaxy, therewould not have been enough time for a civilisation todevelop, and so ET did not exist. Between five andten Gyr, assuming a constant rate of star formation,the number of civilisations would increase linearlyuntil the present day. At around the present time,some of those first solar-type stars will be dying atthe same rate as others are forming; so, assumingtheir civilisations die at the same rate as they do, thenumber of civilisations is then level from now on.

Section V, Paper 4

How Old Is ET?

104 Section V, Paper 4 • How Old Is ET?

The median age of a civilisation is therefore themedian age of those civilisations that started betweenfive and 0 Gyr ago, which is 1.7 Gyr. Therefore, in theabsence of other factors, any civilisation that wedetect via SETI is likely to be 1.7 Gyr more advancedthan we are.

3. The Effect of Supernovae

A supernova results from the explosion of a high-mass star after its hydrogen and helium fuels are usedup, at the end of its lifetime. A supernova explodingwithin 50 light-years of the Earth would have a cata-strophic effect. The 1040 J of energy produced in thefirst few days would bathe the Earth in a totalamount of ionisation some 300 times greater thanthe annual amount of ionisation from cosmic rays.Surprisingly, little of this radiation would reachEarth. Instead, most of it would ionise atmosphericnitrogen, which reacts with oxygen to form nitrousoxide, which in turn reacts with ozone.3 The effectwould be to reduce the amount of ozone in theEarth’s atmosphere by about 95%, resulting in a levelof UV on the Earth’s surface some four orders ofmagnitude greater than normal, which would con-tinue for a period of two years. This would certainlyresult in almost 100% mortality of small organismsand most plants. The effect on mammals is not clear;some might survive. However, this two-year periodwould be followed by a longer (80 years) period ofbombardment by the cosmic rays from the super-nova, which have similar, although slightly reduced,effects. It is difficult to see how anything other thanan advanced civilisation could survive such anextended holocaust.

A supernova such as this goes off in our galaxyroughly every five years, and we expect one within 50light-years of the Earth roughly once every five mil-lion years. We expect one even closer (within tenlight-years) every 200 million years. All life would beexpected to be destroyed at this interval. Clearly thishas not happened, since we are still here, and I willreturn to possible reasons in a later section.

4. The Effect of Gamma-Ray Bursters

Gamma-ray bursters (GRB) are a recently discoveredphenomenon, in which some 1045 J of energy isreleased in a few seconds. The ones that have beenobserved on Earth appear to be distributed uni-formly across the observable universe. Their power issuch that we are able to detect GRB right up to theedge of the observable universe. The mechanism is

still not known, but is likely to involve the merging oftwo neutron stars, possibly resulting in the formationof a black hole.

A GRB is some five orders of magnitude moreenergetic than a supernova, and could occur even atthe galactic centre, 25,000 light-years away from us,and have a similar effect as a supernova within 50light-years. However, in this case there is an evenmore deadly effect, in that, should a GRB go off inthe galactic centre, the immediate blast of ionisingradiation would be followed by an intense blast ofcosmic rays lasting perhaps a few weeks.4 These cos-mic rays would initiate a shower of relativistic muonsin the Earth’s atmosphere, causing a radiation levelon the surface of the Earth some 100 times greaterthan the lethal dose for a human being. The muonsare so energetic that they would even penetratenuclear air-raid shelters to a depth of perhaps hun-dreds of metres.2

We expect such a GRB roughly once every 200million years, and it would almost certainly result inthe extinction of all life on Earth other than that deepin the ocean. Again, clearly this has not happened,since we are here.

5. Mass Extinctions on Earth

The geological and biological record shows a series ofmass extinctions of life on Earth. The most famous isthat at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) boundary,which was almost certainly caused by an asteroid hit-ting the Earth about 65 million years ago. The KTmass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs and pavedthe way for the emergence of mammals as the domi-nant species on Earth.

Less well known are a series of similar, and insome cases even more extreme, mass extinctionsevery few tens of millions of years, and many smallerextinctions, the last of which was only 11,000 yearsago. The cause of most of these is unknown. It islikely that a range of causes, including asteroids, dis-tant supernovae, and climatic changes, is responsiblefor them.

All these mass extinctions are on a much smallerscale than the catastrophic events we expect from anearby supernova or a gamma-ray burst in the galac-tic centre. In each of these cases, a number of species(sometimes as many as 50 percent) were extin-guished, but a sufficient range of diversity remainedfor the biota to recover in a relatively short time.

Section V, Paper 4 • How Old Is ET? 105

6. Why Are We Here?

I have identified two causes that should wipe outessentially all life on Earth roughly every 200 millionyears, and yet we are here. Two possible explanationsare: (1) The calculation of either the time scales orthe severity of the effects is erroneous, or (2) we havebeen very lucky!

In the first case, simply multiplying the time scaleby a factor of a few is insufficient. We have beenevolving for at least four Gyr, and so the intervalbetween catastrophes must be at least four Gyr for usto survive so far. Presumably the precise interval willvary randomly around this figure, so any survivingcivilisation can look forward to a lifetime of betweenzero and a few Gyr. In this case, if we detect ET, thenET will have a median age of perhaps one or two Gyr,which is similar to the 1.7 Gyr derived from simplestellar evolution arguments. Thus, in this case, thesupernovae and GRBs have not significantly changedthe median age of ET.

In the second case, we have already survived forsome 20 times the mean interval between catastro-phes, which is very lucky indeed. Whilst it is not pos-sible to quantify this without more detailedknowledge of the frequency distribution of superno-vae and GRBs, it is likely that the probability is so lowthat we are alone in the galaxy. Apart from providinga solution to the Fermi paradox,1 this implies that themedian lifetime of ET is meaningless, as we willnever detect ET!

7. Conclusion

Conventional models imply that supernovae andgamma-ray bursters will extinguish life on planets atintervals of about 200 million years. Since this hasnot happened on Earth, either these conventionalmodels are wrong, or else life on Earth is probablyunique in the galaxy. The first case predicts a medianage of ET as being of the order of one billion years.The second case predicts that we will never detect ET.Thus, if we do detect ET, the median age is of orderone billion years. Note that in this case the probabil-ity of ET’s being less than one million years olderthan we are is less than one part in a thousand.

Therefore, any successful SETI detection will havedetected a civilisation almost certainly at least a mil-lion years older than ours, and more probably oforder a billion years older.

References1. Annis, J., 1999, JBIS, 52, 19.

2. Leonard, P.J.T., and Bonnell, J.T., 1998, Sky & Telescope, 95, 28.

3. Rudermann, M.A., 1974, Science, 184, 1079.

4.Thorsett, S.E., ApJ, 444, L53.

106 Section V, Paper 4 • How Old Is ET?

107

Albert A. HarrisonUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, CA

ABSTRACT

If we are able to find one extraterrestrial civilization,we should be able to find many. By the year 3000either we will have abandoned the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, or we will have made progressnetworking with other civilizations in our galaxy.One alternative is that we will first detect a civiliza-tion that, like our own, has not yet confirmed theexistence of other distant civilizations. This successwill accelerate our search efforts and put us in touch,one by one, with many more extraterrestrial societ-ies. Under this alternative we would be foundingmembers of the Galactic Club, that is the largest net-work of communicating civilizations within our gal-axy. Another alternative is that our initial contactwill be with a civilization that is already affiliatedwith the Galactic Club, with the result that we our-selves are offered membership. Whether we helpbuild the first network of civilizations or are inductedinto a pre-existing network could have profoundimplications for humanity in the year 3000.

Introduction

Growing evidence that principles of physics, chemis-try, and biology hold for all times and all places hasincreased acceptance of the “many worlds” hypothe-sis.1,2 A combination of observation, experimenta-tion, and inference suggests that there are manyhospitable sites for life in the universe, that the pro-cesses that give rise to life are common rather thaninfrequent, and that there are convergent paths to theevolution of intelligence.3-5 Even as the improve-

ment of optical telescopes enabled the search for lifeon neighboring planets during the last decades of the19th century, the evolution of radio telescopes andinformation processing technology has encouragedus to seek evidence of life outside of our solar systemin the 20th century.1-5 If the rationale underlying themicrowave search is correct, there is a reasonable(50-50) chance of detecting ETI in the next twodecades.6

A belief that although intelligent life is abundant itis still only sparsely distributed, a conviction thatinterstellar travel is difficult if not impossible, anddevotion to a search strategy intended to detect tell-tale electromagnetic activity have all led radioastronomers to expect a “minimum detection sce-nario.”7 According to this orthodoxy, apart from her-alding the presence of another civilization in theuniverse, the first intercept is not likely to be veryinformative. Either there will be little or nothing todecipher (as in the case of intercepting a navigationbeacon), or, because of their advanced nature, we willnot be able to understand any information that issuperimposed on the carrier wave. If this provestrue, then for many years following first contact, allwe may know is that we are not alone in our galaxy.This state of relative ignorance could continue fordecades, but is unlikely to continue for centuries ormillennia.

SETI 3000

Certainly our thinking about contact is influenced byour own life expectancies. But how might our think-ing change if we could watch events unfold over thenext 50 generations? Undertaking this thoughtexperiment today, we might become more optimisticabout the chances of detection. As the years pass weshould see vast improvements in our search technol-ogy. In slightly over half of the span of one humanlife we have progressed from monitoring single radiofrequencies to monitoring billions of channels atonce.4,5 As we enter year 2000 we anticipate technol-

Section V, Paper 5

Networking with Our Galactic Neighbors

108 Section V, Paper 5 • Networking with Our Galactic Neighbors

ogies that will allow us to search for extraterrestriallasers, identify patterns of energy use that are sugges-tive of advanced civilizations, image extra-solar plan-ets, and explore other solar systems by means of tiny,inexpensive robot probes.

We could continue for many years without defini-tive results and still maintain vigorous search efforts.Despite the efficiency of microwave observation, thesky is very large and it will take time to explore itthoroughly. Beyond this, the idea of extraterrestrialcompanions is heavily if not indelibly ingrained inEarth’s cultures and religions and in the popularimagination. Strong beliefs of any type (includingthose favorable or unfavorable to extraterrestrial life)are notoriously difficult to change. People simplyignore or discount evidence that is inconsistent withtheir views while embracing evidence that they caninterpret as consonant. For a while, the search will berevitalized as we revise our thinking about ET and asnew communication and search strategies come online. Over the long run, however, scientists who areable to maintain a sense of objectivity will lose inter-est as generations of their predecessors fail to findconclusive evidence. For those of us alive today andperhaps our children and grandchildren, the searchwill continue, periodically refreshed by new theories,technologies, and hopes. Yet long before 3000, eitherwe will conclude that we were misled by centuries ofillusory progress in physics and biology, or we willdetermine that “we are not alone” in our galaxy. Contact, if it occurs at all, is likely to occur withinthe early years of the new millennium. If contactoccurs in the near future, then a thousand years fromnow we will have shifted attention from initial reac-tions to contact to its long-term effects on people,institutions, and societies. In a thousand years, theminimum detection scenario—if it unfolded at all—would be a chapter in history. The years that SETIscientists anticipate devoting to deciphering andinterpreting ET’s first message will be long past. If wehave found one civilization, we will have foundmany. Either by a long and circuitous path, or byevents that could occur almost overnight, we maybecome part of a vast interstellar network of civiliza-tions.

The Galactic Club

James Grier Miller’s Living Systems Theory appliescommon principles to analyze biosocial entities atseven hierarchical systems levels.8 In ascending orderthese are the cell, organ, individual, group, organiza-

tion, community, society, and supranational system.Each of these system levels is successively higher inthe sense that it encompasses systems at all lower lev-els (for example, an individual is composed of cellsand organs) and is characterized by distinctive emer-gent properties (for example, consciousness or per-sonality). On Earth, communities and societiesevolved slowly over time, and supranational systemshave appeared only recently. Supranational systemsconsist of networked societies that agree to acceptdecisions from an echelon that is higher than that ofany individual member state—for example, individ-ual nations submitting to the decisions of the UnitedNations or the European Union. Contemporary ter-restrial supranational systems tend to be piecemealand exert only fragmented control over their constit-uents. The higher echelon may influence only a lim-ited number of activities (for example, mutualdefense, international trade, and environmental pro-tection) and participation may require nothing morethan abiding by mutually agreed-upon rules. A tightalliance of all of the civilizations in our galaxy wouldconstitute a supranational system, but so would acluster of neighboring societies that agreed to reservecertain radio frequencies for interstellar communica-tion. Ronald Bracewell coined the term Galactic Club todescribe a vast but possibly sparse network of civili-zations.9 A Galactic Club would begin when twotechnologically advanced societies made contactwith one another. More members would be added aseach civilization continued to search. In some casesthe Club would acquire individual societies, and inother cases it would add clusters of societies that hadpreviously found one another. Some members, per-haps within the same solar system, might be able tovisit one another and engage in direct trade, butmost members would be bound together by radio orsome other efficient communication technology. If,as some theorists surmise, there are many civiliza-tions that are millions of years older than our own,6

we might expect that there are already one or moreincipient Galactic Clubs within the reach of ourradiotelescopes. The smallest originating GalacticClub would consist of two members and a matureGalactic Club could have an almost endless member-ship roster. Quite possibly, interstellar distanceswould limit size, and even a mature Galactic Clubmight influence only a part of any given galaxy. AGalactic Club might begin as a loose network ofcommunicating civilizations, develop common

Section V, Paper 5 • Networking with Our Galactic Neighbors 109

interests and cooperative themes, and eventuallyevolve into a powerful supranational system. As asupranational system, the Galactic Club would differfrom empires and similar arrangements where onemember dominates others. As a supranational sys-tem, the Galactic Club’s decisions would be made atan organizational level higher than that of any indi-vidual participating member state.

Drawing from Living Systems Theory8 and othersources we can make some educated guesses aboutthe characteristics of a Galactic Club.10,11 First, wemight expect a mature Galactic Club to be ofimmense size. For example, if, in a galaxy the size ofthe Milky Way, eligible societies were, on the whole, amere 30 light-years apart, there would be 300 millionpotential members.9 Second, we would expect thatthe Galactic Club would be very stable. Even a majordisaster, such as the death of a solar system, wouldleave most members untouched. Third, we wouldexpect a slow pace of political and social change.Generally, the larger the biological or social entity,the slower its tempo. Because a Galactic Club wouldbe one of the largest social systems imaginable, itsprocesses are likely to be the slowest of all, if for noother reason than because of the time required forinterstellar communication. Most likely, authoritywill be maintained by the control of information,that is, through releasing useful information tomembers in good standing and withholding infor-mation from civilizations that choose not to cooper-ate. If some members of the Galactic Club haveovercome difficulties of interstellar travel, then eco-nomic or military sanctions could be available.

The galaxy is old enough that there has beenplenty of time for a Galactic Club to form. Why havewe seen no evidence of its existence? There are manypossibilities here, including failure to conduct a thor-ough search and inability to recognize (or accept)signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. A Galactic Clubdoes not imply that one civilization (or collection ofcivilizations) will occupy the entire galaxy, either inperson or by means of clunky, self-replicating robotsthat would have seemed right at home in a 1950s-erascience fiction movie. Advanced civilizations may usecommunications systems that are currently beyondour imagination, or infiltrate the galaxy with nano-probes, perhaps no larger than a grain of sand, thatare not found easily. We should not be too quick to dismiss sociologicalexplanations of the lack of evidence. As I point out inAfter Contact: The Human Response to Extraterrestrial

Life, sociological explanations have been eliminatedcategorically on the basis that there should be excep-tions to any sociological rule.11 For instance,although there might be an almost overwhelmingtendency for maturing civilizations to shift from out-ward expansion to inner contemplation, there mustbe at least one civilization interested in colonizingthe galaxy. Or, even if 99 percent of the civilizationsthat arise find it too expensive to migrate to our solarsystem, at least one civilization should have theresources to do this.

These analyses rest on the shaky assumption thatsocieties are free agents. In fact, societies imposeobligations and constraints on one another. Societiesrun into opposition from other societies, from alli-ances and coalitions, and from supranational sys-tems. Despite enormous wealth and power, a societymight not be free to make itself evident within oursolar system, because other societies, alone or incombination, prevent this from happening. Forexample, among the approximately 180 nations onEarth, at least one would want to take over a small,rich society like Kuwait. In fact, Iraq tried this, butwas thwarted by a coalition of other nations. Analo-gously, it is not necessary for all extraterrestrial soci-eties to voluntarily refrain from entering our solarsystem. All that is required is a policy on the part of adominant coalition that exerts control over events inour part of the galactic neighborhood. Could oneparticularly powerful society subordinate all others?On Earth, societies that have attempted to do thissoon run afoul of internal flaws and concerted effortson the part of alliances and coalitions. Despite somedazzling successes, none has succeeded in imposingits will on our entire planet.

Charter Member or Inductee?

Understandably, current speculation centers on firstcontact. Where will they be located, and what willthey “be like”? How will we react as we learn abouttheir society, and, if our presence becomes known tothem, how will they react to us? It is difficult to lookbeyond first contact, but if and when it does occur itis likely to be only the first contact of many. At somepoint, Earth itself will become a part of an immenseinterstellar network. Would our entry into the Galac-tic Club be a slow and gradual process, or could itoccur very rapidly?

If we are charter members, our initial contact willbe with another isolated society. Even if we glean verylittle information about this society, the discovery


will have the salutary effect of accelerating the search.The promise of more information will be the drivingforce and will spawn an extensive mythology on ETI.No longer will investigators be forced to “pass thehat” to obtain minimal levels of funding, or fight toshare valuable telescope time. The first unequivocalproof of extraterrestrial life will trigger an infusion ofgovernment and corporate money, lead to the rapidgrowth of radio telescope farms, and accelerate thedevelopment of alternative search strategies.Expanded efforts will lead to other detections. Someof these may be enigmatic, but others will be infor-mative. Depending on distance, technology, longev-ity, and patience, some discoveries may lead to two-way communication. As a charter member we wouldgradually accumulate many contacts and would our-selves help found the Galactic Club. Alternatively, our first detection could be of a soci-ety that is already a member of the Galactic Club.From this first contact we may learn about othersocieties within the Club and Earth itself could beinvited to join. These two scenarios—charter mem-bership versus inductee—could have profoundly dif-ferent consequences for the management of theinitial contact and for our adaptation to the post-contact world.

First Contact

As a charter member of the Galactic Club we wouldfirst encounter another civilization that, like us, hadno prior experience dealing with off-world civiliza-tions. While each society may have given advancethought to finding another society, each would haveto look to its own indigenous theories and analoguesfor guidance—sources of information that may ormay not work well when applied to radically differentspecies and cultures. Neither society would be able todraw on past experience with interstellar affairs. It isin the case of contacting another isolate that theproblems we fear are likely to appear full blown: poorcommunication, terrible misunderstandings, or cas-cading gaffes that threaten to destroy the relationshipbefore it achieves stability.

If we are a potential inductee into a preestablishednetwork, contact could unfold in a very differentfashion. An affiliated civilization will have given sus-tained and in-depth thought to interstellar contact,and it will have evolved theories and developed ana-logues based on radically different species and cul-tures. It will be able to draw on the experiences notonly of itself but also on the experiences of other

members of the Galactic Club, experiences that couldnumber in the thousands or millions. If so, the“other” will be versed in managing interstellar con-tacts. Constructing communications that are easy tounderstand, deciphering messages from other spe-cies, managing first impressions, developing workingrelationships, guaranteeing mutual security, explor-ing the possibilities of trade and commerce—activi-ties that fall within terra incognita for us will beroutine for them. Under this scenario, many of theproblems that preoccupy us today could be bypassed,at least if we choose to participate and are willing tolook to another society for leadership.

Encountering a member of the Galactic Clubcould pose less of a threat to our security thanencountering a fellow isolate. Despite frighteningimages of alien invaders, my guess is that mostadvanced civilizations are peaceful rather than bellig-erent.12 Availability of almost limitless resourcescoupled with high technology will eliminate some ofthe traditional causes of war. Despite the struggle andviolence reported in our news media, evidence sug-gests that we ourselves are moving towards a worldwhere the large and powerful societies do not go towar with one another. John Mueller notes that manycountries exist side by side without going to war, thattraditionally antagonistic nations have become lessquarrelsome over the years, and that more and moreindustrialized countries have formally renouncedwar.13 Each generation, says Mueller, an increasingproportion of people reject war as morally repugnantand methodologically ineffective. John Keegan, theBritish military historian, draws a similar conclusionand suggests that after 5,000 years or so, warfare aswe know it is about to disappear.14 The rise of liberaldemocracies is another encouraging sign.15 Internalpolitics influence foreign affairs in such a way thatliberal democracies steer away from war.16 As theproportion of liberal democracies goes up, the risk ofwar decreases.16

Computer simulations allow political scientists tocontrol variables and explore many different “whatif ” scenarios. They enable us, for example, to com-pare the views of the “realists,” who believe that it isin the best interests of large and powerful societies totake what they can from their smaller, weaker neigh-bors, with the views of the “idealists,” who counterthat in the long run, a society’s interests are bestserved by refraining from aggression and enteringinto defensive pacts. Results of simulation studiesshow that states that do not initiate war but do enter


into defensive alliances survive longer than opportu-nistic, belligerent, self-serving states.17 These find-ings, which are based on abstract models of broadapplicability, free us from the idiosyncrasies of worldhistory. They suggest that if paranoid, berserk, orselfish societies last long enough to make contactwith other civilizations (probably they do not), theirforeign policies may put them out of business.

A recent analysis by Freeman Dyson also impliesthat interstellar warfare should be a rare occur-rence.18 Territoriality, he notes, was useful andharmless in the early days of humankind when popu-lations were small and space was ample. As Earth’spopulation grew, different groups of people beganbutting-up against one another, and this led to con-flict. As we move into space, which still has ampleroom for everybody, territoriality once againbecomes harmless. In a sense, we live in a narrowwindow of time where we are filling up our planetbut before we can tap the immense resources ofspace. It is during this interlude that we have becomeengrossed in playing dangerous zero-sum territorialgames.

This does not mean that we could never encountera troublesome or even dangerous extraterrestrialsociety. This does mean that SETI should be a “lowrisk” activity. Nonetheless, in comparison to formingan association with a fellow isolate, connecting withthe Galactic Club may be less of a security risk. Thisis because the affiliated society will have alreadyworked through the insecurities that we associatewith initial contact and will have already developedstable relationships with radically different societies.If the Galactic Club has evolved into a supranationalsystem it will operate within a preexisting frameworkof interstellar law and cooperation, a framework thatwe, too, might find congenial.

Post-Contact Humanity

What might we learn from our newfound acquain-tances? If communication is possible, will they beeager to share their scientific and cultural insights?Will they tell us about their social organization, theirpolitical forms, and the nuances of their culture?19

Here we might note that all living systems, biologicaland social, have reproductive subsystems intended toreplicate and perpetuate themselves.8, 10, 11 One waythat this could be accomplished on an interstellarscale is through disseminating information. Even asmany nations on Earth have powerful broadcastingstations to export elements of their culture and build

support among outsiders, alien civilizations maybroadcast information to herald their achievementsand perpetuate their views. And it will be these “gre-garious” or “talkative” societies, not the reclusive orsilent ones, that will be the easiest for us to find.However, before we attempt to drink too deeply fromthe wellsprings of interstellar wisdom, we shouldaddress five potential problems: gate keeping, infor-mation overload, culture lag, unanticipated conse-quences, and threat to human initiative.

Gate keeping refers to regulating the informationthat is released. For example, the sending societymight be quite selective about the information that ittransmits. Whereas this may be a benevolent act—for example, gearing their transmissions to their per-ceptions of our “readiness”—we have to be open tothe possibility that they are sending self-servinginformation that maintains their power or servescovert political ends. Or, our own society couldanoint “gate keepers” who decide whether or notinformation should be released to the public. This,too, could serve varied purposes. Information thatchallenges the political or religious status quo couldbe suppressed or given a particular type of “spin”while information that supports establishment viewsis released instantly. This may have happened as thecontents of the Dead Sea Scrolls were slowly revealedto the public.

If rapid communication is possible, the rate ofincoming information could far exceed our ability toprocess it. Confronted with excess information, indi-viduals, organizations, and societies respond in simi-lar ways: first, by “speeding up,” and then by shiftingto processing strategies that alleviate the pressure butreduce the quality of the processing. Strategies forcoping with information overload include acceptingdelays, selectively processing only some of the infor-mation, or becoming more tolerant of error.8 Thus,under pressure, we may overlook important ideaswhile acting on ideas that are relatively inconsequen-tial, ignore important warnings and qualifications,rush forward without following due procedures, andneglect insights that under less lavish conditionswould rivet our attention. That is, exactly when weshould be alert, thorough, and careful, we may beblasé, wasteful, and sloppy.

We might expect the highest potential for over-load if we first encounter a member of the GalacticClub, since this type of society would be positionedto forward information from many other societies,not just its own. It could offer us information about


societies that we could not begin to comprehend ifwe tried to communicate with them directly, but thatwe could understand given the interpretive servicesof an intermediary or “third-party” society. However,because a member of the Galactic Club will alreadybe versed in working with beginners, it may do a bet-ter job of making the information useful and under-standable, and releasing it at a pace we findmanageable.

Culture lag refers to the temporal gap between theintroduction of a new technology and its proper andcomfortable use by people. It can take decades for theevolution of laws, customs, and attitudes that sup-port rather than clash with new technology. The cur-rent rapid rate of technological change couldincrease many times over following a massive infu-sion of extraterrestrial knowledge. The Galactic Clubmay have accumulated the wisdom to reduce riskssuch as this.

All of us have heard stories about people who aregranted wishes but, because they were unable tothink things through or were inarticulate, ended upworse-off than before their wish was granted. Therewas, for the example, the English couple, describedin the short story “The Monkey’s Paw.” Their wish forextra money was promptly followed by the arrival oftheir son’s boss with the announcement of their son’saccidental death on the job and a small amount ofmonetary compensation. Likewise, when we makewishes for our society or for humanity as a whole wemust be sensitive to the possibility of unanticipatedconsequences: results, usually undesirable, that werenot foreseen before the change was adopted. Whowould have imagined (before the fact) that an influxof silver and gold from the New World would sparkrunaway inflation that would diminish Spain’spower?

If we make clumsy attempts to apply alien insightsor technology to solve one problem, we could createanother problem of equal or greater magnitude.Technologies that dramatically increase individuallife span could put the family under new forms ofstress, add to our population problems, and devas-tate retirement plans. Technologies that relieve socialand medical ills or ease our labors could put entirecategories of human service workers out of business.The introduction of new power sources could elimi-nate fortunes based on petroleum and coal holdings.Tracing the implications of a new idea is not easybecause some consequences may rest upon veryintricate chains of events or not appear until the dis-

tant future. The more alternatives we are offered, themore difficult it will be to trace their myriad implica-tions.

Then there is the threat to human curiosity andingenuity. Could the ready availability of new tech-nology transform into passive users those of us wholike to discover and invent new technologies? Couldwe lose our curiosity and our status as “exploringanimals”? Indeed, SETI-Australia astronomer RayNorris suggests that after detection, science, as weknow it, may cease to exist.6 Fortunately, our curios-ity appears to be hard-wired. Once humankind hasfound the answer to one question, it moves on toanother. Perhaps, as Norris suggests, if science ceasesto exist, we may rephrase our questions in terms oftheology. Let us hope that, as has happened so oftenin the past, greater knowledge will expand, not con-tract, our intellectual horizons.

Following contact, would humanity lose its dis-tinctiveness? Would our post-contact culture makeus almost indistinguishable from extraterrestrialsocieties? Certainly, as Seth Shostak points out, whenmore technologically advanced societies meet lesstechnologically advanced societies, it is the less tech-nologically advanced societies that are the most likelyto change.19 For those of us who prize diversity andtradition, a loss of identity is a high price to pay forpossible new insights.

Allen Tough paints a more optimistic picture. Henotes that terrestrial examples of culture contacthave involved physical contact rather than radio con-tact. If the aim of the dominant culture is expansion,the lesser society may be overwhelmed, but whencontact occurs without aggression, the lesser societymay prosper. “We might very well adopt portions ofthe alien culture,” states Tough, “without being over-whelmed by it.”20 Perhaps the fate of Japan afterCommodore Perry’s visit during the mid-1800sshould fuel optimism. The Japanese embraced West-ern technology, but at the same time gave it a Japa-nese flavor. This is evident when we compareJapanese and American management styles.

Contact with an affiliate of the Galactic Club maypose less of a threat than contact with an isolate. Thereason is that we might expect considerable diversitywithin the Galactic Club itself, simply because thenumber of member states and their dispersal overmany solar systems would work against a high levelof uniformity. Clearly, we would forever be changedand once entering the Galactic Club we would adoptmany of the ways of the “other.” But given the diffi-


culties of social organization over interstellar dis-tances, the Club may be less of a “melting pot” than a“mosaic” with individual member states retainingmuch of their identities.

Discussion

As we enter the new millennium, large elements ofboth the scientific and lay communities are sensitiveto the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere.Whereas it is sensible to be cautious as to whenunmistakable evidence of ETI will be acquired, somesearchers expect this discovery to occur in the nearfuture. From the perspective of our descendants athousand years hence, initial contact will be part ofhistory and their attention will be directed some-where else. At that time, any difficulties or disloca-tions that occurred during first contact will be longpast. Interacting with other civilizations will be nomore unusual than interacting with human spacesettlements that will be sprinkled throughout, if notbeyond, our solar system. One thousand years fromnow people will be quite different than they aretoday. Human interaction with ET could account foronly some of these differences.

Right now, we are alone in the universe. Ourguesses about extraterrestrial intelligence rest upon ablend of theories and analogues that are indigenousto our planet coupled with varying degrees of imagi-nation. My own guess is that as we anticipate firstcontact we must be more aware of the possibility thatwe will first meet an affiliate of the Galactic Clubrather than a fellow isolate. Right now we strugglewith the idea of coming to grips with one other civili-zation. We may have to come to grips with relating tomany societies simultaneously.

Among the galaxies that are well populated withtechnologically advanced civilizations, we mightexpect epochs or ages of social networking. The firstof these, the Age of Isolation, would be marked bycivilizations that live in ignorance of one another. Asthey develop and apply interstellar communicationtechnology, they would begin to find other isolates. Ifwe are living in this first epoch, then we shouldexpect to discover a civilization that, like ours, has noprevious experience with intelligent life elsewhere.During the second epoch, the Age of Contact, mostcivilizations will have discovered a small handful ofneighbors. There would still be some isolates, but byvirtue of such factors as proximity and luck, somesocieties may have formed networks with many oth-ers. In a sense, the Age of Contact would be charac-

terized by “subassemblies” for a future Galactic Club.If our search first succeeds during this second epoch,the odds shift in favor of encountering a civilizationthat has already undergone “first contact,” but thiscivilization would have had only a tiny taste of thediversity of life forms and cultures in the galaxy. Dur-ing the third epoch, the Age of Intragalactic Net-working, most pairs and subassemblies will havejoined together to create a network that is larger thanthe others and that may evolve in the direction of amutually beneficial supranational system. Even atthis late date, we could still make our first contactwith an isolate or a small cluster of societies, but theodds shift in favor of our first contact leading todirect induction into a large network of civilizations.Eventually there could be a fourth epoch, the Age ofIntergalactic Networking, when civilizations or clubsfrom different galaxies begin discovering oneanother.

Perhaps our galaxy has already entered the thirdepoch. This follows from a simple analysis of the timeinterval between the interest and ability to undertakea search and the first success. The civilizations thatwe expect to encounter are very old—according tosome calculations, 2.8 billion years older than ours.6

If these civilizations have the interest and technologi-cal means, many will have begun their searches hun-dreds of thousands, perhaps millions of years ago. Bynow, there may be many clusters of civilizations andsome of these clusters may have reached enormoussize. Of course we should be prepared for the difficul-ties of contacting an inexperienced civilization, butrather than assume that we will be stymied by anunprepared partner we should be open to the possi-bility that we might first encounter a member of theGalactic Club.

According to my analysis, rapid induction into theGalactic Club offers both greater promise and greaterchallenges. On the one hand, if it is privy to the accu-mulated wisdom of many societies, an affiliateshould have more ideas to share. Furthermore, dueto its experience in interstellar communication, itshould be better able to explain them. On the otherhand, this relative abundance of informationincreases the risk that we will be inundated withmore information than we can handle, increase thedistance between technology and its human users,and make it more difficult to predict all of the conse-quences of our choices. Yet, at the same time, despitethe greater potential of damage from the wholesaleavailability of new ideas, the Galactic Club may have


evolved safeguards based on past experiences of shar-ing information with newcomers.

References1. Steven Dick (1996). The Biological Universe: The Extraterres-trial Life Debate in the Twentieth Century. (New York: CambridgeUniversity Press).

2. Michael Crowe (1994). Modern Theories of the Universe: FromHerschel to Hubble. (New York: Dover).

3. Carl Sagan and Ioseff Shklovskii (1966). Intelligent Life in theUniverse. (San Francisco: Holden-Day).

4. Frank Drake and Dava Sobel (1992). Is Anyone Out There?:The Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. (New York:Delacorte Press).

5. Seth Shostak (1998). Sharing the Universe: Perspectives onExtraterrestrial Life. (Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books).

6. Ray Norris (1998). “Can Science Survive a SETI Detection?”Paper presented at the International Conference on SETI in the21st Century, UWS Macarthur, Sydney, Australia.

7. Stephen G. Doyle (1996). “Post Detection Global InstitutionalArrangements.” Paper presented at the 47th International Astro-nautical Congress, Beijing, China, October.

8. James Grier Miller (1978). Living Systems. (New York:McGraw-Hill).

9. Ronald Bracewell (1975). The Galactic Club: Intelligent Life inOuter Space. (San Francisco: San Francisco Books).

10. Albert A. Harrison (1993). “Thinking Intelligently AboutExtraterrestrial Intelligence: An Application of Living SystemsTheory,” Behavioral Science, 33, 189-217.

11. Albert A. Harrison (1997). After Contact: The HumanResponse to Extraterrestrial Life. (New York: Plenum).

12. Albert A. Harrison (in press). “The Relative Prevalence ofBenevolent and Malevolent Societies: Implications for SETI.”Acta Astronautica.

13. John Mueller (1988). Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolesce ofMajor War. (New York: Basic Books).

14. John Keegan (1994). A History of Warfare. (New York: VintageBooks).

15. Francis Fukuyama (1992). The End of History and the LastMan. (New York: Avon Books).

16. Bruce Russett (1993). Grasping the Democratic Peace. (Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

17. Thomas R. Cusack and Richard A. Stoll (1994). “CollectiveSecurity and State Survival in the Interstate System,” InternationalStudies Quarterly, 38 33-59.

18. Freeman Dyson (1997). Imagined Worlds. (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press).

19. Seth Shostak, (1998). “The Lifetime of Intelligent Civiliza-tions.” Paper presented at CONTACT XV (Santa Clara, CA:March 7).

20. Allen Tough (1991). Crucial Questions About the Future. (Lan-ham, MD: University Press of America), p. 100.

115

Allen Tough University of [email protected]

Throughout this volume we have seen that the likelybenefits of contact with extraterrestrial intelligenceare profound and wide-ranging. A simple conceptualframework for examining these benefits even servedas the agenda for the Hawaii seminar.

Some benefits can occur even before contact(Tough, 1998a). But the major benefits will occurafter genuine contact is confirmed, especially if somesort of dialogue occurs.

This fact underlines the importance of a key ques-tion: How can we achieve contact? How can we achievea dialogue of some sort with extraterrestrial intelli-gence? Until we answer these questions successfully,humankind will not receive the major benefits.

The scientific search for extraterrestrial intelli-gence (SETI) is expanding its array of search strate-gies. This is a highly appropriate change. The nextsection presents seven reasons why widening thearray is so appropriate.

Five of these strategies are especially promising.Because a highly advanced civilization can readilysend intelligent probes to monitor our society andtelecommunications, we should (1) pursue a varietyof means for searching the solar system and Earth forphysical evidence of an alien object or its effects; (2)invite contact through invitations to ETI, and (3)encourage contact by becoming sufficiently pre-pared. For evidence from many light-years away, themost promising strategies are (4) a search for astro-engineering projects and their by-products and (5)radio and optical SETI. The bulk of this paper isdevoted to these five promising strategies.

The SETI field is united by its common aim ofdetecting irrefutable scientific evidence of genuineextraterrestrial intelligence. The wisest policy forachieving this goal is to encourage and support all

five of the most promising strategies. The valuablebenefits for humankind will likely be many timesgreater than the entire cost of all five strategies.

Seven Reasons for Widening the Search

The scientific search for extraterrestrial intelligencehas reached an interesting stage. Having relied pri-marily on a single strategy for 40 years, the field isnow actively considering a wider array of promisingsearch strategies.

This is a highly appropriate change for at leastseven reasons.

First, the history of scientific discoveries teachesus the value of widening the array of research meth-ods. It is quite common for a breakthrough to resultfrom a new, fresh, unorthodox strategy or researchmethod.

Second, the SETI field is trying to detect some-thing that is totally unknown and presumably deeplyalien. We do not even know whether we are searchingfor biological intelligence based on flesh-and-bloodbrains, artificial machine intelligence, or someadvanced integration of the two. We have no idea ofthe origins, history, thought patterns, emotions, eth-ics, core values, purposes, technological capacities, orother major characteristics of extraterrestrial intelli-gence. It is likely that ETI will turn out to be surpris-ingly different from what we expect—deeply alien,puzzling, unlike anything we have ever encounteredbefore. It has, after all, likely advanced to a level ofknowledge and technology that is thousands or mil-lions of years beyond our current human level.Because we are facing such a profound unknown, anattitude of humility and scientific open-mindednessseems appropriate. The pursuit of a somewhatdiverse array of search strategies seems wiser thankeeping the methodology too narrow.

Third, we must remember the likelihood thatmore than one extraterrestrial civilization is availableto be detected. It is all too easy to think only aboutthe first detection, ignoring the likelihood of multiple

Section V, Paper 6

How to Achieve Contact:Five Promising Strategies

116 Section V, Paper 6 • How to Achieve Contact: Five Promising Strategies

detections over time. The early years of a new millen-nium provide a good opportunity to look ahead atthe likely pattern of detections over the next thou-sand years. If several civilizations have arisen in ourgalaxy, as most SETI scientists hypothesize, then wemay detect several forms of ETI during the next mil-lennium. For example, we may detect an artificialradio signal, an encyclopedic laser message, a largeprobe parked in the asteroid belt, and a tiny probenear the Earth’s surface.

Fourth, widening the assumptions and strategiesof the SETI field may reinvigorate the people, confer-ences, and writing in the field. Fresh ideas and boldconceptualization, some attention to long-termvisions, and a wider variety in conference papers canretain the field’s intellectual excitement and avoid afeeling of boredom, fatigue, and disappointment.

Fifth, science and technology have changedgreatly in the 40 years since the SETI field chose radiotelescopes as its key strategy. That was a logical choice40 years ago. Radio telescopes were just becomingpopular among astronomers, two eminent scientistswrote a paper urging their use for SETI, and a distin-guished engineer wrote a paper claiming that inter-stellar propulsion is impossibly slow and expensive.But our scientific and engineering knowledge todayis dramatically different from what it was 40 yearsago. Today’s decisions about appropriate strategiesshould be based on the science and technology thatwe can confidently anticipate today, not on their sta-tus in 1959. Today’s choices have to take into accountour recent advances in such fields as computers, arti-ficial intelligence, robotics, surveillance methods,molecular manufacturing (nanotechnology), pro-pulsion, space exploration, lasers, and fiber optics.

Sixth, although the SETI field is 40 years old, it hasnot yet produced any confirmed evidence of ETI.That fact points up the need to expand the array ofsearch strategies. Fortunately, several fairly new andhighly promising strategies are readily available.

Seventh, those of us in the SETI field should notlet the reputation of the UFO field frighten us intounduly restricting our own strategies. All of us in theSETI community worry about being confused withthe UFO field. We encounter this confusion in ourclassrooms, at the faculty club, at social gatherings, intelevision studios, in legislatures, and in donors’offices. But there is no need to let our fear and angerlure us into poor decisions about our own scientificstrategies. If our sober assessment concludes thatsmart probes could have readily reached our solar

system, for instance, then we should have the courageto search for them. To reduce confusion, we shouldfrequently point out that our scientific approach dif-fers from the UFO field in three key ways: (a) we aredeeply committed to skepticism, verification, peerreview, and the scientific method, (b) we build instrict safeguards against hoaxes, self-delusion, anderroneous data, and (c) we adopt protocols to avoidpremature and immodest claims.

All in all, a reasonably wide array of search strate-gies seems likelier to lead to success than reliance onjust one or two. The phenomenon we are trying todetect is so unknown, so old, so advanced, that wecannot be sure which of our strategies is most likelyto succeed. Faced with this situation, we should pro-ceed vigorously with all promising strategies in orderto enhance our chances of achieving contact.

Of the many strategies that have been proposedover the years, which are most likely to detect extra-terrestrial intelligence? This paper recommends fivestrategies as highly promising. It would be appropri-ate for the SETI field to enthusiastically support andvigorously pursue all five strategies.

What Are We Trying to Detect?

SETI is an acronym for the search for extraterrestrialintelligence. But what are the major characteristics ofthis phenomenon that we are trying to detect?

Although we know almost nothing about thecharacteristics of extraterrestrial intelligence, we doknow that it is likely very old and extraordinarilyadvanced. Our technology is very young, largelydeveloped in just the past century or two; any alientechnology that we detect will likely be thousands oreven millions of years beyond our adolescent tech-nology. Because our Sun is a relatively young star,civilizations that have arisen around other stars arelikely much older than ours.

The fact that we are trying to detect such anincredibly advanced technology or civilization is acommon theme in the SETI literature. For instance,Seth Shostak (1998, page 200) notes that the civiliza-tions we are likely to detect “will be societies withthousands or millions of years of technology undertheir communicator belts.” A public relations bro-chure from the SETI Institute (1999, page 14) notesthat “it is the general belief that any civilizations wedetect would probably be far more advanced thanour own, possibly hundreds of thousands or moreyears ahead of us.” Jill Tarter (1998) speculates about“tens of millions of years.” Ray Norris (1999) defends

Section V, Paper 6 • How to Achieve Contact: Five Promising Strategies 117

one billion years as the most likely age difference. Headds that the chance of ET being less than one mil-lion years ahead of us is extremely low: less than onechance in a thousand. Charles Lineweaver (1999)concludes that the age difference may be 5.2 billionyears, and may point up how “naive” and “silly” and“parochial” traditional SETI search assumptions are.Martyn Fogg (1987) calculates that a large number oftechnical civilizations arose in our galaxy about fourbillion years ago, and some arose much earlier (someof them even before our solar system was formed).Indeed, the results of his computer simulation indi-cate that our entire galaxy may have been colonizedfor the past five billion years.

To gain some perspective on what these largenumbers mean, it is useful to recall that our civiliza-tion is only about 10,000 years old, much less bysome definitions. Just 100,000 years ago our ances-tors were hunter-gatherers using stone tools and onlyrudimentary language.

If alien civilizations are 100,000 years ahead of us,then they are quite capable of sending intelligentprobes to explore other planetary systems. Eachprobe could be smarter and more knowledgeablethan any human being, yet could possibly be smallerthan a basketball or baseball (Tough, 1998b). Evenhumankind’s adolescent technology will likelybecome capable of launching interstellar probeswithin 200 years, much sooner if NASA’s currentplans pan out. So, any civilization 100,000 yearsbeyond us presumably developed an interstellarcapacity long ago.

Looking ahead to humanity’s ability to manufac-ture machines molecule by molecule, Robert Freitas(2000) emphasizes just how tiny a probe’s computermight be. He notes that a nanostructured storagedevice the size of a single human liver cell (smallerthan a neuron) could store an amount of informa-tion equivalent to the entire Library of Congress. Headds that a single nanocomputer CPU the size of ahuman cell could equal the computational output ofthe entire human brain but with much less wasteheat.

Regarding the energy required for interstellarnanoprobes, Forrest Bishop (1996) points out thatthis can be phrased in terms of the storage capacity ofa car battery. Quite a contrast to those who argue thatinterstellar travel would require far more than theworld’s total energy consumption!

Our current scientific literature on the future ofartificial intelligence, robotics, and nanotechnology

stretches our imagination about just how smart ourown machines will become during this century.Their capacity to sense, diagnose, calculate, think,choose, and communicate will likely exceed thevisions of most of today’s scientists and futurists.Hans Moravec’s chapter (1999) on universal robotshas sections on their inner lives, consciousness, joy,love, anger, pain, and pleasure. The fourth robot gen-eration, around the year 2040, will have such supe-rior reasoning powers that “they could replace us inevery essential task and, in principle, operate oursociety increasingly well without us. They would runthe companies and do the research as well as per-forming the productive work…. Meek humanswould inherit the earth, while rapidly evolvingmachines expanded into the rest of the universe”(page 125).

Ray Kurzweil (1999, page 257) anticipates that oursuper-smart machines will also be tiny: “…a compu-tational-based superintelligence of the late twenty-first century here on Earth will be microscopic insize.” Indeed, after several years of being scoffed atand denigrated by mainstream scientists, molecularnanotechnology has itself now become mainstreamin funding and acceptance.

Extraterrestrial intelligence, however, is not justone century ahead of our technology, but more likelya thousand centuries ahead. Such an intelligence mayhave created some means of exploration and com-munication that goes far beyond our current concep-tions of super-smart probes. This is particularlylikely after machine intelligence takes over its ownevolution, designing artificial intelligence that ismore and more advanced. Each machine may be soknowledgeable and intelligent (and wise, ethical, andaltruistic?) that it far surpasses any human individualor organization. These super-smart machines maysomehow be integrated with biological beings, orthey may not. But for convenience in this paper I willsimply use the word “probe” to cover all of these pos-sibilities for advanced intelligence.

Our galaxy and universe may be filled withdiverse forms of intelligence with extraordinarycapacities. Incredibly diverse even in their wide-spread origins, various streams of intelligence mayhave evolved into new forms far beyond what humanscientists envisage. For instance, they may be activelymonitoring and studying fledgling civilizations (suchas ours), even providing useful information at someappropriate stage. And they may be busily interactingwith intelligence near their own level of development


in order to exchange information, discuss societaland galactic goals, help one another to evolve inappropriate directions, build up a galactic storehouseof scientific and philosophical knowledge, and coop-erate on other grand science and engineeringprojects. Their harmonious cooperation and Ency-clopedia Galactica may have already evolved evenbeyond the Life Era described by Eric Chaisson(1987) and the biological universe described bySteven Dick (1996).

Intelligence may eventually become so advancedand widespread that it will prove more powerful thanthe big impersonal forces of the universe. “The lawsof physics are not repealed by intelligence, but theyeffectively evaporate in its presence…. [Even] thefate of the Universe is a decision yet to be made, onewhich we will intelligently consider when the time isright” (Kurzweil, 1999, page 260).

Such possibilities point up just how inspiring,awesome, and transcendent our SETI enterprisereally is. After all, we are trying to tap into a wisdom,understanding, and knowledge held by a deeply alienintelligence that is 100,000 years beyond us. In theSETI field we often get wrapped up in technicaldetails, internal politics, strategic maneuvering,funding, equipment, the “Rare Earth” ideology ver-sus the abundant intelligence ideology, the ultracon-servative traditionalists versus the bold, innovativeexplorers. But SETI is a much deeper quest than this.Ultimately, today’s SETI efforts may be a major steptoward a scientific and spiritual dialogue with someancient intelligence about such topics as cosmology,philosophy, theology, music, art, and the purpose oflife.

Interstellar Probes

As we reflect on the likely capacities of civilizationsmuch older than ours, it certainly seems possible thatsome of them have sent intelligent probes to otherstars in order to monitor or dialogue with any civili-zations that have arisen. Just as we send probes toexplore our cosmic neighbourhood, other civiliza-tions will do the same. It would be hard to believethat all 100,000-year-old civilizations lack the moti-vation and capacity to monitor other planets andsocieties in some detail, especially since nanotech-nology may enable probes to be self-replicating asthey spread through the galaxy. Self-replicatingprobes could spread far and wide by pausing occa-sionally to manufacture additional probes. Scientistsand engineers now discuss the possibility of faster-

than-light communications and travel more seri-ously than in previous years, but for a patient, self-repairing machine, even one-tenth the speed of lightis sufficient.

If a few civilizations in our galaxy began sendingintelligent probes to monitor various planetary sys-tems thousands of years ago, then an intelligent alienprobe could well have reached our solar system bynow. Regardless of our emotional reactions to the sit-uation, it is quite possible that at least one extrater-restrial probe is currently monitoring our civilizationand our telecommunications. It makes good sense,therefore, to try to detect such an object.

Three strategies seem especially promising fordoing so. Each of them will be discussed below indetail. Strategy #1: search the solar system and Earthfor physical evidence of an alien object or its effects.

Second and third strategies become possible if ahighly intelligent probe is successfully monitoringour telecommunications. Instead of simply detectingit, we can invite it to make contact or we can encour-age contact by becoming ready for it. Strategy #2:issue invitations asking ETI to have a dialogue withhumankind. Strategy #3: become sufficiently pre-pared for contact, thus encouraging ETI to respond.Both of these strategies could lead to a particularlyexciting wealth of knowledge from a rapid back-and-forth scientific dialogue with ETI, unhampered bythe language difficulties and slow response time ofradio or optical SETI. Because they rely on insightsinto likely ETI behaviour and goals, and because theyencourage dialogue, these two strategies are prima-rily social science strategies, rather than primarilywithin the methodology of the physical sciences.

If an extraterrestrial probe or some other form ofETI has reached Earth and is still active, three situa-tions are logically possible: (a) It will not interactwith us (at least not within the next few decades) nomatter what we do. This situation could resultbecause it is simply not interested, because its pri-mary purpose is to observe the natural developmentof our civilization untainted by contact, or because itwill intervene only if some extraordinary catastropheis imminent for humankind. For this situation, Strat-egy #1 is best. (b) Its decision about when to interactwith us can be influenced by a friendly and thought-ful invitation, either from some informal group ofscientists committed to contact with ETI or fromsome official organization. For this situation, Strat-egy #2 is best. (c) Extraterrestrial intelligence willinteract with us when we become sufficiently pre-


pared, thus ensuring a positive and harmoniousexperience, or when we reach some other threshold.For this situation, Strategy #3 is best.

In almost any scenario we can imagine, it alsomakes good sense for us to try to detect advancedastroengineering projects, extraordinary energy use,by-products, or other distant evidence of a highlyadvanced technology far from the solar system. Thisis Strategy #4. Unless all advanced civilizations arehighly motivated to keep their existence and locationsecret, there is a good chance that we will succeed indetecting at least one of them.

Some civilizations may choose to broadcast toother civilizations, to their own space settlements, orto their own spacecraft by radio waves or laser pulses.Consequently it makes good sense to try to detectsuch beacons and messages and signals, whetherintended for us or whether inadvertent “leakage.”Strategy #5, then, is to use radio and optical tele-scopes to search for artificial signals from many light-years away. This strategy is well established, highlyregarded, well supported in the literature, and rela-tively well funded.

Now let us move on to discuss each of the fivepromising strategies in turn.

Search for an Alien Object

Strategy #1: Search the solar system and Earth forphysical evidence of an alien object or its effects.

This broad strategy could be pursued in severaldifferent ways. Although readers may disagree onwhich of these are especially promising and whichare valueless, it is useful to begin with a survey of thetotal range of possibilities. For additional discussionsof possibilities, see the chapter on alien technologyby Gregory Benford (1999) and the section ondetecting a probe by Richard Burke-Ward (2000).

A search for physical evidence could focus on thesolar system or on Earth. And it could focus on phe-nomena that are normally studied by mainstreamscience or on stranger anomalous phenomena. Thesetwo distinctions enable us to cluster the varioussearch approaches into four categories.

(a) Within the solar system, search for unassailableevidence of an alien object. This object might be aprobe or spacecraft, for instance, or its discardedparts. Such a search might focus on the Moon, theasteroid belt, or the Lagrange equilibrium points(Freitas and Valdes, 1980). Alternatively, the alienobject might be a building, a monument, or someother artificial structure. Indeed, an alien intelligence

may have deliberately left an artifact for us to dis-cover at some special landmark in the solar system,such as the highest point on Mars or the deepest can-yon on Venus, or in some carefully chosen spot thatwe will explore someday because of our scientificcuriosity or our appreciation of beauty. Or equip-ment might have been stored below the surface ofsome body (perhaps in natural cracks or passages) toprotect it from damage by cosmic radiation andmicrometeorites.

Baugher (1985, p. 155) has even suggested that analien probe might, on one of the geologically deadmoons in the solar system, “construct a vault filledwith information and artifacts…. The vault couldcontain a description of the civilization that sent theprobe, as well as a set of instructions for the initiationof contact.”

Another approach is to search for heat, exhaustgases, or other effluents and by-products that mightbe emitted by a probe or spacecraft. Looking forinfrared anomalies in the asteroid belt is often sug-gested as one example, or trying to detect communi-cations from the probe back to its home base, orusing the KLT mathematical transform (Maccone,1994) to detect the electromagnetic signature of arapidly decelerating alien spacecraft. Where onelooks and precisely what one looks for will be influ-enced by one’s estimate of the object’s location, pro-pulsion system, and communications.

Another possibility is to search for evidence ofmining, in case probes have mined the materials nec-essary to construct additional probes. The idea ofself-replicating probes has been widely discussed inthe SETI literature over the years.

Yet another possibility is “the return of a biologi-cal specimen [such as] a hair or flake of skin from ahumanoid” (Shapiro, 1999, page 248). This situationwould require a test to rule out the possibility thatthe so-called aliens actually developed long ago fromhumans, but sequestered themselves out of sight toavoid conflict or for some other reason. “A tissuesample would reveal whether the ‘extraterrestrials’are DNA-based and as related to us as are, say, theNeanderthals, or whether they truly have an alienbiochemistry and a separate origin” (Shapiro, 1999,page 248).

These various searches throughout the solar sys-tem could be conducted by some combination ofastronomers, military intelligence agencies, astro-nauts, and space probes.


(b) Search the planet Earth for physical evidence ofan alien object. It might be in orbit, on land, or in anocean. It might have arrived recently or millions ofyears ago. It might be a super-intelligent probe that isactively monitoring us, or simply a discarded partfrom an ancient probe. Various sciences, and ofcourse various intelligence and security agencies,may already be monitoring much of the Earth,including the oceans and space. Perhaps we shouldalso ask mountain climbers, hikers, explorers, pale-ontologists, and deep-sea divers to be on the lookoutfor a small alien probe or other alien artifacts.

(c) Use rigorous scientific methodology to studyapparently anomalous phenomena within the solarsystem. Three sorts of phenomena have been sug-gested as possibilities: (i) Look for convincing pat-terns of extraterrestrial intelligence in rapidlymoving objects moving across or near the lunar sur-face, or other lunar transient phenomena. Do theyoccur more frequently in an area that is beingexplored by one of our probes, for example, asArkhipov (1994) suggests? (ii) Look for long-delayedradio echoes in case ETI is signalling its presence bydeliberately sending back to us a radio program orother signal that we transmitted much earlier.Reports of LDEs received decades ago have beenstudied, but contemporary examples would be farmore convincing. (iii) Look for traces of artificialobjects among the space debris and meteorites thatfall to Earth, and even in old layers of sediment fromlong ago (Arkhipov, 1998a). Perhaps alien probes orspacecraft occasionally fall to Earth when they havean accident or are abandoned. Other alien debrismay leak into the interstellar medium and eventuallyfind its way to Earth.

(d) Develop and implement rigorous new researchdesigns to study any anomalous phenomena thatcould be signs of ETI presence on Earth. One exam-ple would be to use foolproof laboratory proceduresto test whether any “physical traces” or “implants”ostensibly associated with aliens or unidentified fly-ing objects provide unmistakable evidence of extra-terrestrial origin.

Another example would be to set up sophisticatedscanning equipment at promising locations in orderto discover whether it is possible to record solid datashowing the physical presence of alien probes orspacecraft. For instance, one person or another hassuggested radar, lidar, magnetometer, spectrum ana-lyzer, seismometer, Geiger counter, optical spec-

trometer, ion/ozone detector, gravimeter, geophone,all-sky camera, video camera, and infrared camera,along with equipment to measure weather, sound,and electromagnetic changes.

Some of these projects have also tried to attractalien craft by using searchlights, flashlights, laserbeams, infrared, radio, sounds, Morse code, orfocused mental concentration. In a sense these areinvitations to ETI, which is our next topic.

Invitations to ETI

Strategy #2: Issue invitations asking ETI to have adialogue with humankind.

When our society launches intelligent interstellarprobes 100 or 200 years from now, what will theylook for? Extraterrestrial intelligence (and its culture,society, and knowledge base) will presumably behigh on the agenda. Consequently, we will buildprobes capable of monitoring any alien communica-tions near the target star and then learning alien lan-guages. It is reasonably likely that an alien probe sentto explore Earth will have a similar mission andcapacity.

Because the alien intelligence we are trying todetect has technology far beyond ours, it could wellbe monitoring our telecommunications in somedetail. We do not know exactly how it does this, ofcourse, but the idea seems not too farfetched whenwe consider that our own national security agenciesalready monitor fax and email messages around theworld. Much of this electronic traffic can be inter-cepted as it travels between the ground and a satellite,or between two microwave relay towers. Just imaginewhat the National Security Agency’s technology willbe able to do 100,000 years from now!

Once we realize that ETI is likely monitoring ourtelecommunications, a totally different strategy forcontact comes to mind. Instead of detecting ETI, wecan shift our focus to inviting contact. We can issue awarm welcome to ETI, along with an invitation toestablish a dialogue with humankind.

The previous section mentioned some elementaryways of inviting contact: trying to attract alien craftby using searchlights, flashlights, laser beams, infra-red, radio, sounds, Morse code, or focused mentalconcentration. Alternatively, we could issue an invi-tation to ETI through floodlit billboards in remoteareas, through a flurry of email or fax messages, orthrough international news broadcasts.

An even better place for invitations to ETI is theWorld Wide Web, since ETI can readily find these


invitations during its routine monitoring. Presum-ably an intelligence that is 100,000 years beyond ourswill have little difficulty learning our languages andsurfing the Web as competently as we do. If it uses themajor search engines to find web pages on extrater-restrial intelligence, alien intelligence, alien probe, orinvitation to ETI, for instance, it will find any invita-tions that exist on the Web. A more extensive ratio-nale for a web-based inv itat ion, a long withdescriptions of six informal messages to ETI on theWeb, is presented by Tough (1999).

Is ETI more likely to respond to an invitation froma bureaucratic, formal organization or from a highlycommitted informal group? There is no way to knowthe answer to this question without experimenting.There is a human parallel: some environmentalistsand some peace activists prefer to work throughinformal networks or frontline grassroots groups,others prefer larger and more formal nongovern-mental organizations, and still others prefer to workthrough the United Nations organizations.

Consequently, the most effective strategy is forhumankind to issue a variety of invitations to ETIfrom a range of groups and organizations. Over thenext few years, several official international organiza-tions might issue their own invitations to ETI, forinstance, as may several other groups. UNESCO, theUN General Assembly or its Committee on thePeaceful Uses of Outer Space, and the SETI Commit-tee of the International Academy of Astronautics areexcellent examples of official international organiza-tions whose invitation could carry a lot of weight,while the Planetary Society is an example of a citizen-based group. Unfortunately, none of these organiza-tions has demonstrated any interest in issuing aninvitation to ETI.

Fortunately, an informal group of 66 scientistsand artists, most of whom are already active in theSETI field or the annual CONTACT conference, haveissued a warm welcome to ETI and an invitation toengage in dialogue with humankind (Tough, 2000).Their hope is that their ongoing interest in ETI, theirvision of a worldwide scientific and educational dia-logue between ETI and humankind, and theirthoughtful preparations for contact will elicit a posi-tive response from ETI. Perhaps they can be useful toany extraterrestrial intelligence whose mission is todeeply understand human culture, establish contact,help and educate humanity, or link us to some galac-tic network.

This project is primarily a social science projectthat focuses on relationship and dialogue rather thanphysical detection, and could actually succeed andflourish without ever establishing the physical loca-tion of ETI. By contrast, the first, fourth, and fifthstrategies rely primarily on the telescopes and spacemissions of the physical sciences and aim to pinpointthe exact location of ETI. At the same time, it isworth noting that the Invitation to ETI projectdepends on an extraordinary physical infrastructure(the World Wide Web) that became sufficiently wide-spread for such a project only around 1995 or 1996.(The project was launched in 1996.) The projectitself is small-scale and reasonably inexpensive, but itrelies on the technological sophistication of the larg-est and most expensive computer network in humanhistory.

The Invitation to ETI project has received about30 responses so far, but most seemed to be delu-sional, juvenile, or a prank. No respondent contin-ued to communicate for very long after I (ascoordinator of the project) gently asked for evidenceof authenticity that would convince the group of 66scientists. If any respondent succeeds in passing ourinitial screening, then an independent team (skep-tics, scientists, magicians, computer hackers) willrequest and assess further evidence. Details are pro-vided in section 8.3 of Tough (1998b).

Unfortunately, formal international organizationsare not likely to issue an invitation to ETI in the nearfuture. All the more reason, then, for a committedgroup of 66 leaders and researchers in extraterrestrialintelligence to maintain its invitation on the Web. Itis a fresh low-cost strategy. Its payoff for humankindcould be an extraordinary wealth of informationthrough a lively scientific and educational dialoguewith a 100,000-year-old intelligence.

Readiness for Contact

Strategy #3: Become sufficiently prepared for con-tact, thus encouraging ETI to respond.

If a very smart probe is monitoring our civiliza-tion, it may be reluctant to establish overt contactbefore we are clearly ready for such a disruptive andtransformative experience. In order to encouragecontact, then, we should do all that we can to preparefor it. Our preparation will also be useful if any of theother strategies succeeds, of course, but here we arelooking at preparation as a specific strategy used toencourage contact.


Little work is currently being done to implementthis strategy. But two relevant invitational meetingswere held in July 1999. First, 23 people met in Denverto examine potential scenarios immediately aftercontact, in a workshop sponsored by the Interna-tional Space Sciences Organization (1999). Then analmost completely different group of 16 SETI scien-tists met just before the Bioastronomy conference inHawaii to examine potential long-term scenarios, ina workshop sponsored by the Foundation For theFuture. This volume includes the major ideas fromthe Hawaii gathering. At both meetings, of course, anunderlying theme was the preparations that shouldbe implemented today.

What sorts of preparation and readiness might ahighly competent probe want? Perhaps a specificplan for beneficial contact—a plan to be imple-mented by one of the groups issuing an invitation,for instance. Perhaps a suitable welcoming and nego-tiating committee prepared to interact flexibly andrapidly with an alien intelligence; again, this could beone of the groups issuing an invitation. Perhaps a setof thoughtful questions that humans hope ETI willanswer, as part of our initial contribution to a dia-logue (Tough, forthcoming). Perhaps official UnitedNations arrangements for a warm and secure wel-come from all of humankind. Perhaps achievingsome sort of threshold, such as discovering the probe(Strategy #1), attempting to communicate with it ina friendly and appropriate manner (Strategy #2),developing a worldwide web of computers, creatingsome form of super-intelligence, launching our owninterstellar probe, or detecting a different civilizationmany light-years away (Strategy #4 or #5). The con-cept of a threshold or test is common in mass mediaand science fiction, including movies such as 2001and the recent Mission to Mars.

Although not easy, most of these forms of readi-ness could be accomplished within the next fewyears. Because their potential benefits far outweightheir costs, they should be vigorously pursued.

Unfortunately, it is possible that ETI may insist ona much more difficult threshold. ETI may hide andremain silent until humankind stops waging warsand despoiling its natural environment. All of usshould work on behalf of peace and the environ-ment, of course, even though success is unlikely forseveral decades. But we can also hope that the thresh-old required for contact is simply readiness.

Astroengineering

Strategy #4: Try to detect astroengineering projects,extraordinary energy use, byproducts, or other dis-tant evidence of a technological civilization.

Astronomers may be able to detect signs of majorengineering projects or space colonization by civili-zations whose technology has advanced far beyondours. Highly advanced technology may well give offsome evidence of its existence, and advanced civiliza-tions may feel no need to conceal such evidencebecause of the vast distances to other civilizations.

A review article by Guillermo Lemarchand (1994)notes that “other civilizations at a more advancedstage of technology may have turned their entireplanetary system into an immense Dyson spherearound their sun to capture every photon of solarenergy. Even more advanced life forms may control awhole galaxy of star systems or groups of galaxiesusing technologies almost beyond our current com-prehension” (page 12). Our astronomers may be ableto detect telltale evidence of such astroengineeringprojects.

Interested in far-future developments in comput-ers, neuroscience, and engineering, Robert Bradbury(1999) looks ahead to the day when “continuedprogress in these areas leads to a convergence whichresults in megascale superintelligent thoughtmachines. These machines, referred to as MatrioshkaBrains, consume the entire power output of stars,consume all of the useful construction material of asolar system, have thought capacities limited by thephysics of the universe, and are essentially immor-tal.” To detect extraterrestrial intelligence, “we shouldstart with the laws on which our particular universeoperates and the limits they impose on us. Projec-tions should be made to determine the rate at whichintelligent civilizations, such as ours, approach thelimits imposed by these laws. Using these time hori-zons, laws and limits, we may be better able to con-struct an image of what alien intelligence may be likeand how we ourselves may evolve.” Bradbury urgesastronomers to move beyond their usual assumptionthat the universe is dead; if several civilizations haveadvanced to limits allowed by the physics alreadyknown to us, their characteristics may explain someobservations that currently perplex astronomers. Helists several common mysterious or anomalousastronomical observations that could be signs ofgigantic super-intelligent computers, engineered gal-axies, stellar mining, or other super-advanced tech-nology. His examples include missing mass,


gravitational microlensing observations, missingstars in galactic halos, low surface brightness anddwarf galaxies, an excess of far-infrared light detectedin the COBE mission, the age discrepancy betweenthe universe and globular clusters, the anisotropicdistribution around the galaxy of low temperatureobjects in the IRAS survey data, the arrangement ofobservable galaxies as “walls,” variations in the cos-mic microwave background radiation, and the varia-tion in the brightness of Type Ia supernovas,depending on their age.

Annis (1999) examined 31 spiral galaxies and 106elliptical galaxies for evidence of Kardashev type III(highly advanced) civilization. None of these galaxiesshowed signs of modification, but he suggests a fur-ther careful search.

Tilgner and Heinrichsen (1998) have described aprogram for searching for astroengineering prod-ucts, particularly Dyson spheres.

If a distant civilization used beamed propulsionbetween stars, we might be able to detect the beam(Clements, 1999).

In a paper on potential new strategies, AlexeyArkhipov (1998b) suggested a search for broadbandleakage of natural radio emissions of numerous arti-ficial magnetospheres that protect inhabited orbitalconstructions from star wind, because the interac-tion of solar wind with planetary magnetospheresgenerates powerful emissions at low frequencies.

Distant Artificial Signals

Strategy #5: Use radio and optical telescopes tosearch for artificial signals from many light-yearsaway.

It is quite possible that some other civilization isbroadcasting a beacon or message in our direction byradio or pulsed lasers. Radio and optical telescopescan be used to search for these artificial signals, andalso to detect any inadvertent leakage from commu-nications or radar.

This broad strategy can be pursued in three dis-tinct ways, generally called radio SETI, active SETI,and optical SETI. Let’s examine each of these three inturn.

The traditional strategy for 40 years, radio SETI isstill going strong. Its radio telescope icon is still themost common symbol for the entire SETI field, andit receives far more funding than any other strategy.Several major search projects are still in operation,although others have been shut down for variousreasons. Richly informative websites are maintained

by the SETI League, the Planetary Society, SETI Cen-tre Australia, and the SETI Institute (www.set-ileague.org; seti.planetary.org; seti.uws.edu.au;www.seti.org).

To search for artificial radio signals, variousapproaches have been implemented: single beam andmultibeam searches; all sky surveys; targetedsearches; piggybacking onto the research targets ofother astronomers; distributing data for analysis todesktop computers around the world. Radio searchesmay expand soon with telescope arrays covering onehectare or even one square kilometer. SETI AustraliaCentre has suggested searching for holographicimages, and some people have discussed a search forextraterrestrial art or symphonies.

Most radio searches focus on stars that could havehabitable planets. It is also possible to search forradio signals from relay stations, knowledge deposi-tories, artificial intelligence, probes, or other smartmachines located far from any planetary system onwhich life could have readily arisen. Seth Shostakcloses his recent book with such a scenario, which“suggests that SETI scientists consider aiming theirradio telescopes at some unconventional targets….When we swing our radio telescopes towards theheavens, we are looking for intelligence, after all, notbiology” (Shostak, 1998, page 201).

Some people advocate sending a welcoming mes-sage to extraterrestrial intelligence in hopes that itwill trigger a radio reply from ETI. This approach isoften called active SETI or ASETI. If the message iscarefully crafted amidst widespread discussion, suchan effort could be useful as part of a comprehensiveapproach to radio SETI. An international committeedid discuss this approach in 1998, but little action hasensued.

A few uncoordinated ASETI efforts have arisen inrecent years. In 1997, the European Space Agencycollected more than 100,000 messages and signatureson the Internet, loaded them onto a CD-ROM, andsent it to the surface of Titan (Saturn’s largest moon).One news report noted that the messages rangedfrom whimsical invitations for aliens to come to din-ner to appeals for galactic peace. An unrelated Amer-ican commercial venture called Encounter 2001 usedradio for its active SETI in 1999. The last page of theirmessage, which was broadcast from a Ukrainianantenna, invited anyone who reads it to reply andsend information about themselves. And a Braziliangroup of amateur astronomers prepared to launchExtracom, an effort that they claim is “the first pri-


vate extraterrestrial communication initiative.” Theirinitial email announcement proclaimed that “it istime to join the great galactic community. It is timeto speak freely from Earth to the whole universe”(Marx, 1999).

Optical SETI tries to detect pulsed lasers, infraredmessages, or other artificial optical signals frommany light-years away. Stuart Kingsley has describedand promoted the idea of optical SETI for severalyears, and maintains a richly informative website atwww.coseti.org. Also, Bioastronomy News (1999)devoted one issue to optical SETI. It presented thehistory and rationale, a list of theoretical and obser-vational projects since 1961, and details on threemajor searches that began in 1998. And Paul Horo-witz (2000) surveyed, explained, and even illustratedthe optical SETI strategies.

Other Possible Strategies

In addition to the five particularly promising strate-gies, several other possibilities have been suggestedby various scientists.

For example, perhaps a highly advanced technol-ogy can use polarized neutrinos, quantum entangle-ment, gamma rays, tachyons, gravitational waves, orsome other particle or technique to communicateacross vast distances.

Perhaps some alien intelligence embedded mes-sages in the human genome or genetic code millionsof years ago. Or in microbes designed to survive in anextreme environment, such as the deep hot zone ofEarth. Or in the DNA of organic material thatreaches our atmosphere from space.

Perhaps signs of alien meddling in our societycould be detected if we looked far enough beyond themundane forms of intervention that we mightreadily expect.

If we let our imaginations roam even further, wecould consider looking for people whose minds arecontrolled by ETI or who are actually artificial lifeforms manufactured by ETI. For instance, we couldstudy schizophrenics who believe they are ET: maybesome of them are not as deluded as we assume.

Summary and Reflections

Any extraterrestrial intelligence that we detect islikely to be far ahead of us in knowledge and technol-ogy—perhaps 100,000 years, a million years, or evena billion. For ETI, sending a very smart probe tomonitor us could well be as easy as producing a bot-tle of champagne is for us. If ETI exists in our galaxy,

there is a reasonably good chance that its probe hasalready reached Earth.

This means that we should vigorously pursue andsupport these three promising strategies for detect-ing near-Earth ETI: (1) search the solar system andEarth for physical evidence of an alien object or itseffects; (2) issue invitations asking ETI to have a dia-logue with humankind; and (3) become sufficientlyprepared for contact, thus encouraging ETI torespond.

We should also pursue two promising strategiesfor detecting signs of intelligence that is many light-years away: (4) search for astroengineering projects,extraordinary energy use, by-products, or other dis-tant evidence of a technological civilization, and (5)use radio and optical telescopes to search for remoteartificial signals.

Because each of these five strategies could suc-ceed in certain circumstances in which other strate-gies fail, humanity would be wise to vigorouslypursue all five. The valuable benefits to us and tofuture generations could far outweigh the entire costof all five strategies.

These five promising strategies provide a roadmapto the future of SETI—a glimpse of the field’s likelydiversity within a decade or two. And by the year3000, all five strategies may turn out to be successful.

The SETI field is united by its common aim ofdetecting irrefutable scientific evidence of genuineextraterrestrial intelligence. The wisest policy forachieving this noble goal is to encourage and supportall five of the most promising strategies, while simul-taneously continuing to assess the potential value ofother strategies as well.

Acknowledgements

In addition to the specific references listed below, mythinking for this paper has been generally aided bythe valuable ideas of Stuart Atkinson, the late ChrisBoyce, David Brin, Richard Burke-Ward, PaulDavies, Eric W. Davis, Steven Dick, Robert Freitas Jr.,Albert Harrison, Colm Kelleher, Larry Klaes, JonLomberg, Michael Michaud, Catherine Rand, ScotStride, Douglas Vakoch, and Walt Williams. Thankstoo to Jon Lomberg and Stuart Atkinson for suggest-ing the “landmarks” idea in Strategy #1a.

Over the years, I have been grateful for my father’sinterest in my work, for his ideas, and for his enthusi-astic support of my intellectual ventures. This paperis lovingly dedicated to Dr. David L. Tough (1907-1999).


ReferencesJames Annis, “Placing a limit on star-fed Kardashev type III civil-isations.” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 52, 33-36(1999).

Alexey V. Arkhipov, “‘Invasion Effect’ on the Moon,” Selenology(American Lunar Society), 13 (1), 9-11 (1994).

A. V. Arkhipov, “Earth-Moon system as a collector of alien arte-facts,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 51, 181-184(1998a).

A. V. Arkhipov, “New approaches to problem of search for extra-terrestrial intelligence,” Radiofizika & Radioastronomia, 3 (1), 5-11 (1998b).

Joseph F. Baugher, On civilized stars: The search for intelligent lifein outer space. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1985.

Gregory Benford, “Alien technology.” In Ben Bova and ByronPreiss (editors), Are we alone in the cosmos: The search for aliencontact in the new millennium. New York: ibooks, 1999.

Bioastronomy News, 11 (1), 1999.

Forrest Bishop, “The Starseed/Launcher.” 1996. http://www.speakeasy.org/~forrestb/starseed_launcher.html.

Robert Bradbury, “Matrioshka Brains,” 1999. http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/Matri-oshkaBrains.html (May 2, 2000).

Richard Burke-Ward, “Possible existence of extra-terrestrialtechnology in the solar system.” Journal of the British Interplane-tary Society, 53, 2-12 (2000).

Eric Chaisson, The life era: Cosmic evolution and conscious evolu-tion. New York: Atlantic, 1987.

Robert Clements, informal communication, September 1999.

Steven J. Dick, The biological universe: The twentieth-centuryextraterrestrial life debate and the limits of science. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Martyn J. Fogg, “Temporal aspects of the interaction among thefirst galactic civilizations: The Interdict Hypothesis,” Icarus, 69,370-384 (1987).

Robert A. Freitas Jr., “Nanomedicine FAQ [#19].” http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/NanoMedFAQ.html.April 2000.

Robert A. Freitas Jr. and Francisco Valdes, “A search for naturalor artificial objects located at the Earth-Moon libration points.”Icarus, 42 (June 1980), pages 442-447.

Paul Horowitz, “Flash! Optical SETI joins the search,” The Plane-tary Report, XX (2) (March-April 2000), pages 8-15.

International Space Sciences Organization, “Contact PlanningII abstract/summary” (1999). http://www.isso.org/res/contact.htm. A full report is being pre-pared for public distribution.

Ray Kurzweil, The age of spiritual machines: When computersexceed human intelligence. New York: Viking, 1999.

Guillermo Lemarchand, “Detectability of extraterrestrial tech-nological activities,” SETIQuest, 1 (1), 3-13 (1994).

Charles H. Lineweaver, “Why did we evolve so late?” In Guill-ermo Lemarchand and Karen Meech (editors), Bioastronomy

’99—A New Era in Bioastronomy, Proceedings of a Conference heldon the Kohala Coast, Hawaii, 2-6 August, 1999, ASP ConferenceSeries 213 (2000).

Claudio Maccone, “Mathematical algorithm to detect alienspacecraft approaching the Earth.” Paper IAA-94-IAA.4.1.656presented at the 45th congress of the International AstronauticalFederation, Jerusalem, 1994.

E. B. Marx (“spokesman for Grupo Independente de RadioAstronomos”), widely disseminated email messages April 1 andApril 9, 1999.

Hans Moravec, Robot: Mere machine to transcendent mind. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Ray P. Norris, “How old is ET?” Presented at the 50th Interna-tional Astronautical Congress, Amsterdam, October 1999. Repro-duced in this volume. An electronic version is athttp://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rnorris/papers/n163.htm.

SETI Institute, Perspectives. Mountain View, California: SETIInstitute, 1999.

Robert Shapiro, Planetary dreams: The quest to discover lifebeyond Earth. New York: Wiley, 1999.

Seth Shostak, Sharing the universe: Perspectives on extraterrestriallife. Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 1998.

Jill Tarter, “SETI and the religions of the universe.” Presented atthe Templeton symposium on Many worlds: The new universe andits implications for theology, Nassau, Bahamas, November 1998.

C. N. Tilgner and I. Heinrichsen, “A program to search for Dysonspheres with the Infrared Space Observatory.” Acta Astronautica,42, no. 10-12 (May-June, 1998), pages 607-612.

Allen Tough, “Positive consequences of SETI before detection.”Acta Astronautica, 42, 745-748, (1998a).

Allen Tough, “Small smart interstellar probes,” Journal of the Brit-ish Interplanetary Society, 51, 167-174 (1998b). An earlier versionis at http://members.aol.com/WelcomeETI/8.html.

Allen Tough, “Fresh SETI strategies,” Journal of the British Inter-planetary Society, 52, 286-289 (1999). An earlier version is athttp://members.aol.com/AllenTough/mel.html.

Allen Tough, “Invitation to ETI,” a set of linked web pages,revised February 2000. The home page provides an overview athttp://members.aol.com/WelcomeETI, the list of members is athttp://members.aol.com/WelcomeETI/5.html, extensive back-ground is provided at http://members.aol.com/WelcomeETI/4.html, and the invitation itself is at http://members.aol.com/WelcomeETI/hello.html.

Allen Tough, “What people hope to learn from other civiliza-tions.” Acta Astronautica, forthcoming. A more complete set ofquestions for ETI, developed from the same survey of 224 peoplein 12 countries, is provided at http://members.aol.com/Wel-comeETI/hello.html.

Copyright © 1999 by Allen Tough. All rights reserved. Publishedby the Foundation For the Future, with permission.

127

By Reed D. RinerNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff, AZ

Editor’s Note: Will it be easy, difficult, or impossiblefor humans and an advanced alien intelligence tounderstand each other? The potential difficulty ofsuch communication was a prevalent theme duringthe Hawaii seminar.

Fortunately, a dissenting view has been presentedby Dr. Reed Riner. He tackled this question carefullyback in 1985 in this unpublished paper presented atthe third annual CONTACT conference. His conclu-sion is that sustained and mutually beneficial contactbetween alien cultures is quite possible.

Professor Jim Funaro, the founder of CONTACT,has graciously permitted us to include this revisedversion of the paper in the present volume. Currentinformation about CONTACT can be found at http://www.cabrillo.cc.ca.us/contact.

The role-playing at CONTACT usually involves ahuman team and a flesh-and-blood alien team, butthe March 2000 meeting experimented with a freshparadigm. The alien team consisted of highlyadvanced artificial intelligence (a super-smart com-puter embedded in an alien probe that had reachedEarth). It had monitored our telecommunications,including the World Wide Web, and learned our lan-guages. The two teams were in different rooms andcommunicated only by text. My assessment is thatthe two teams overcame their inevitable communica-tions difficulties quite rapidly, and conducted a sim-ple but successful dialogue during the 50-minutesimulation. After experiencing this dialogue as theleader of the human team, I became quite optimisticabout our chances of successful communication withan alien intelligence.

—Allen Tough

Introduction

In this discussion I attempt to demonstrate that sus-tained and mutually beneficial contact between alienintelligences and cultures is possible.(1) First I willappraise the logistics of this third CONTACT confer-ence. Then I will offer four other ethnographicexamples in which this kind of contact has happenedand argue through examples that because contactbetween cultural aliens has happened before, it canhappen generally. Briefly I will suggest how this eth-nographic line of inquiry may be extended. Then Iwill draw some generalizations from the examples,and argue for the legitimacy and productivity of con-sidering culture as if it is a formal system, which itmay well be. In this context I will propose a more for-mal argument of the contact thesis, and suggest withfour examples how this line of inquiry may beextended.

The Continuity of CONTACT

The title and theme for this paper were suggested byJim Funaro this past year (1984/5) in a series of tele-phone conversations. For a few grim months and forseveral kinds of reasons it appeared that we mightnot have a CONTACT III…or IV or V or VI. But weare here, and that is why I want to begin by celebrat-ing the continuity of our CONTACT.

1. In preparing this paper for publication after 15 years since itsoriginal conference presentation, I have pruned and moderatedthe rhetoric that was intended to amuse as well as to stimulate anaudience composed mostly of friends and acquaintances, and Ihave updated many of the citations. My remedial expansions andclarifications in the body are set off in italics and footnotes. Manyof the examples are now dated, and the developments and refine-ments during the interim merit incorporation, along with thekeener insights and criticisms into the argument.

I have retained from the original version the thread of celebra-tion of CONTACT, and I still believe that it will be possible to findcommon denominators for meaningful communication withextraterrestrial aliens, and languages, media to convey meaning inthe event that we meet—or create—sentient aliens.

Section V, Paper 7

The Contact Hypothesis:On the Impossibility of Sustained and Mutually Beneficial Contact between Aliens, and Two Proofs to the Contrary

128 Section V, Paper 7 • The Contact Hypothesis

Sometime in 1981/2 Funaro began work on aproject, the success of which seemed highly improba-ble. He intended to summon, to lure, and otherwiseentice, representatives from three mutually alien cul-tures—some science-fiction writers, some graphicand performing artists, and some anthropologists—out of their traditional territories. He proposed ask-ing them not just to meet each other, but to collabo-rate, deliberately and enthusiastically, in a mutuallybeneficial process of sustained contact.

Considered analytically, this enterprise requiredorganizing on at least seven different levels. The par-ticipants, coming from different cultural contexts,would have to:

1. Be funded, transported, housed, fed, etc.

2. Be supported with local arrangements, publicity,etc.

3. Get to know and trust one another as individuals.

4. Learn each others’ languages and frames of refer-ence, and discover common currencies of reci-procity and exchange.

5. Discover what resources—and needs—each indi-vidual and group had to contribute to the enter-prise.

6. Invent some processes for interaction, some rolesand role-relationships.

7. Invent a vision of beneficial common purpose.

It is always best to start this kind of project bybuilding a small system that works (Weick, 1969:105-108). Seven levels of organization is not a particularlysmall system; it approaches the complexity of invent-ing and engineering a whole culture (Jay, 1971;Weick, 1969:6). I’m sure skeptics laughed when Fun-aro first sat down at the typewriter, and hasten tonote that he now uses a MAC to manage thisextended exercise in problem-solving behavior.

Some of the parts of this manifold task were easierthan others. He had, initially at least, a host of eagerminions to whom component parts of the larger taskcould be delegated. He carefully selected the agentsfor contact who were already motivated to commu-nicate with one another—writers who thought andwrote anthropologically, and anthropologists andother social scientists who were as interested in alter-native and hypothetical cultures as they were inactual ones. Artists to mediate between them. Funarohad a sketch of structure, one that created a true“field” by combining the complementary processes

of critical observation, the symposia, and subjectiveparticipation, the simulation activity, the first Bate-son Project. And he had a generally defined objective,inspired by conversations with Gregory Bateson;their common objective was not quite so general as“to boldly go where no minds had gone before,” butmore specifically to explore and define the limits ofour concept of “the alien” and the possibilities thatwould follow from contact with the aliens throughthe process called play.(2) Never, of course, has therebeen any question that structured information,ideas, art, and knowledge would emerge as the cur-rency of this exchange.

These resources notwithstanding, forging a sus-tained and mutually beneficial contact among suchaliens was unlikely. It is generally thought that anymeaningful communication with alien intelligencesis impossible. There are serious arguments against it:

• What is the likelihood that any alien intelligencesexist?(3)

• What is the likelihood that we will ever encounterthem?

• What is the compound probability that they and wewill be motivated to communicate with each other?

• What is the likelihood that we will be able to commu-nicate with each other?

• What is the likelihood that any kind of sustained andmutually beneficial relationship could result fromsuch communication?

The answer to these questions is the product oftheir five likelihoods, and that is a very small numberindeed. It would seem to be a probability that bor-ders more nearly on impossibility, or fantasy, than onlikelihood.

The fact that we are here, that we can celebrate thecontinuity of our CONTACT, is one empirical dem-onstration that sustained and mutually beneficialcontact between aliens can be achieved. Our CON-TACT provides us with an immediate and concrete, ifmicro, example of sustained and mutually beneficialcontact between aliens. We are participant-observersembedded in a field that is our own continuing cre-

2. Critical, often peer-refereed, dialogue about the “other” sur-faced in anthropology in 1985, well-exemplified by Jacob Pan-dian’s Anthropology and the Western Tradition (1985).

3. I wrote in ignorance of the Drake Equation; see http://www.seti-inst.edu .

Section V, Paper 7 • The Contact Hypothesis 129

ation, and a pretty fancy piece of applied anthropol-ogy it is, Mr. Funaro.

Ethnographic Examples

But one case, especially under the limited andfavored circumstances that support CONTACT,should not be, by itself, generalized to a proof.

The most voluminous argument against aliencontact is not one of slim odds for their—theAliens’—existence and the possibility of our contact-ing them, of imperialistic CONTACT. I think we canaccept the reckonings of contemporary cosmologiststhat the probability for this is 1 (one). Rather, thereigning argument against sustained and beneficialcontact proceeds from the apparent fact that mostinstances of culture contact in OUR historic experi-ence have resulted in the emasculating subordinationof one party by the other or the destruction of one ormutually by both parties. The popular image of aliencontact situations is: “They destroy, enslave, colonial-ize us, perhaps inadvertently, or we would do thatunto them, however inadvertently, or we bothdestroy each other…inevitably because of an inabil-ity to communicate.”

It is pertinent to note that simultaneous with this,our CONTACT-III (1985) conference members ofthe European Federation of Intercultural Learningand the World Futures Studies Federation are con-vened in Rome (26 Sep–1 Oct, 1985; the CONTACTvenue was subsequently reset to the now-traditional 1st

weekend in March) to discuss: “Common Values forHumankind: Is Cultural Diversity Compatible withPeace?” (WFSF Newsletter, 1985:3-5). The gloomysupposition about contacts with cultural aliens isacceptable if one’s examples are drawn only from thedomain of conventionally recorded history. But thatsample is deceptive because it is drawn from a singlecategory—the realm of imperial states; it is that per-nicious “sample of one” again.

Conventionally recorded history, our own sampleof one, is the product of nation-states and empires,those hierarchically organized sociocultural systemsin which “history” has been written by the elite,about the elite and for the elite—that favored 10% ofthe population at the top of the power pyramid, andconsuming 90% of the product. A broader, morelegitimate sample should include the cultures fromoutside of history: the bands, tribes, and chiefdomswho collectively represent well over 98% of the sumtotal of human experience, whose history is oral,mythological, and archaeological, and whose organi-

zation is other than rigidly hierarchical. This broaderexample provides numerous examples of nonde-structive, sustained, and mutually beneficial multi-cultural contacts. The Pomo trade feasts in centralCalifornia, the Iroquois and Creek Confederaciesaround the Great Lakes, the Taos Pueblo trade fairsthat preceded white contact, and the pre-contacttrade networks that connected the Pacific Coast andthe Greater Southwest all illustrate sustained andbeneficial contacts. The Bantu-pygmy symbiosisprovides an example from outside the Americas(Turnbull, 1963). But three of the most conspicuousexamples, examples that illustrate mutually benefi-cial contact at three successive level of socioculturalintegration, are potlatching on the Northwest Coastof North America, the Kula Ring in the MelanesianPacific, and the symbiotic relationship among theKohistanis, Pathans, and Gujars in the PakastaniState of Swat. I will describe each briefly.

Potlatching was a system of reciprocal feasting andgift-giving among some 31 or more different chief-doms representing seven language families and threedifferent linguistic phyla, distributed along the 1500miles of the Northwest Coast from the panhandle ofAlaska down into Oregon (Spencer & Jennings,1977:116-118). The reciprocity of feasting amelio-rated the negative effects of local scarcities and sur-pluses. The gift-giving had longer-range effects,temporally and geographically, allocating both mate-rial and non-material commodities—tools, theproducts and formulas of the plastic and performedarts, and elements of ideology. These kinds of alloca-tions were effective both within and among the par-ticipating cultures. The combination of feasting andgift-giving had the further effect of keeping settle-ment and land use patterns in a continuingnon-depleting relationship with the ecology (Vayda,1961; Piddock, 1965; Suttles, 1960).

In Melanesia, diametrically across the Pacific fromthe Northwest Coast of North America, the KulaRing of inter-island trade facilitated sustained andmutually beneficial culture contacts among 16island-based cultures—and perhaps as many as ahalf-dozen more peripheral participants. The Ringspanned an area roughly 200 miles in diameter, andincluded 16 routes, the longest of which was 130miles. These were traversed by large expeditions inoutrigger canoes connecting the cultures in “trade,magic, ceremonial exchange, overseas travel andpleasure seeking” (Malinowski, 1922; Hoebel,1972:349, also Hunter and Whitten, 1976: 248—


250). We can infer that this system providedextended benefits comparable to those of potlatch-ing.

The case in the mountainous Pakistani Northwestfrontier state of Swat provides a different kind ofexample. Here 30,000 Dardic-speaking, village-livingKohistanis, organized into loosely connected patri-lineages, subsist by irrigated terrace agriculture andtranshumant herding. They share the territory with450,000 Pashto-speaking Pathans who are organizedinto a complex multi-caste society on an intensiveagricultural base—and with an uncertain number ofGujri-speaking Gujars, four patrilineal clan/tribes ofnomadic herdsmen. The whole system is character-ized by the stable co-residence of the three ethnic/lin-guistic groups. Each group exploits different butinterdigitated ecological niches and is linked to eachof the other groups in symbiotic economic relations(Barth, 1956).

Examples of sustained and mutually beneficialculture contact seem to proliferate outside the states,outside those systems that are organized in terms ofasymmetrical and exploitive power and economicrelationships. This pyramidic organization in theexamples known to us is justified and legitimized bydualistic and patristic background assumptions thatposit an equally asymmetrical relationship betweenhumans, nature, and some ultimate reality—likeHeaven or Utopia. Also note that organized warfarewith uniforms, ranks, codified tactics, and strategies,and the motivation to conquest seem to be unique tothe state category of sociocultural systems. Thisstrongly suggests that exploitive, destructive relationsbetween cultures is a phenomenon derivative fromsome kinds of cultural organization and not fromothers, and previous samples have looked only at thestate kind.

We also observe that, while the examples of con-structive contact cluster outside the state category,they are not ubiquitous there; this seems to implythat however beneficial and desirable they may be,there is a certain kind of improbability about them.The improbability of these kinds of events supportsrather than challenges my argument. The contactprocess can express a quest for a higher level of orga-nization and for intelligence. Intelligence and organi-zation are expressions of a single process: thesystematic removal of randomness, of equivocality,and of ambiguity, and overall the reduction ofentropy (Weick, 1969:29; Hofstadter, 1979:629-32).This process is encoded, made manifest in structures

and organizations (Bohannan, 1973). From this itfollows that the more improbable the structure andorganization of an event, the more intelligence liesbehind it. The converse is equally true.

The ethnographic examples differ in an importantrespect f rom the CONTACT example : theyevolved—slowly, arbitrarily, pretty much by trial anderror. CONTACT, by contrast, was preconceived anddeliberate, planned. Our CONTACT more nearlyapproximates the suddenness with which extrater-restrial contact is apt to occur—suddenly if notintentionally.

Regardless, it would be instructive and immedi-ately useful, to proceed with an exercise in controlledcomparison over the seven levels of organization thatwe can see in our own CONTACT situation to dis-cover exactly what more specific significant featuresthese—and similar—cases hold in common. I willdefer that to another time because I have demon-strated that there is a sufficient number of well-docu-mented cases to support the thesis that mutuallybeneficial contacts have been devised and sustainedamong mutually alien human groups—across thebroadest differences in ways of thinking that weknow.

Generalizations

Now I want to draw some generalizations from thepreceding as a way of moving into the formal proof.People who have thought about how intelligencecould evolve propose a kind of creature that may belegitimately, if sparsely, described as “creatures whohave a carbon-based biology, are bigger than Irishsetters and smaller than grizzly bears, have headscentralizing the primary sensory and data processingfunctions at one end, and excretory sphincters, ortheir equivalents, at the other” (de Camp, 1939;Clement, 1974). These assumptions are reasonableand sufficiently general to apply in specifying ourcategory of “alien.” Further, this kind of alien will bemotivated by a hierarchy of basic needs akin to thatdescribed by Maslow (1970, 1971), a system that medi-ates between whatever “biology” characterizes thealien, and the information system that directs itsbehavior.

We may also generally say of these creatures thatthey are:

1. Surviving, communicating creatures who are intent on extending their abilities to control and predict their physical surroundings.


2. Creatures who have evolved matched sets of sen-sors—effectors for dealing with their physical sit-uation.

3. Creatures who possess the ability (and the moti-vation) to tackle hard problems—ones that areinteresting, rich, and non-trivial in the mathe-matical sense of the word; in other words, theycan learn.

(Minsky, 1985:128.)

No one knows where the fuzzy grey line betweennon-intelligent and intelligent behavior lies; in fact,to suggest that a sharp borderline exists is probablyerroneous. The essential abilities for intelligence arecertainly:

• To respond to situations very flexibly

• To take advantage of fortuitous circumstances

• To make sense out of ambiguous or contradictorymessages

• To recognize the relative importance of differentelements of a situation

• To find similarities between situations despite dif-ferences that may separate them

• To draw distinctions between situations despitesimilarities that may link them

• To synthesize new concepts by taking old conceptsapart and putting them together in new ways

• To come up with ideas that are novel

(Hofstadter, 1979:26.)

Now, having specified and restricted the categoryof what constitutes a plausible, sentient, and general-ized “alien” I must collaterally make more explicitwhat I will mean by “culture” in the more formalproof.

Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiment in artifacts;

(and that) the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values;

(and that) culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of future action.

(Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952:181)

Or, as Kluckhohn said elsewhere, “all those histor-ically created designs for living, explicit and implicit,rational, irrational, and nonrational which existed atany given time as potential guides for action.” (Kroe-ber and Kelly, 1945)

Culture is patterns and ideas—organized infor-mation as shared among members of a population. Aculture, more precisely a cultural tradition is, there-fore, a kind of pool of information elements,encoded as signs and symbols. These elements areinvented or borrowed, organized and used, more orless self-consciously, by one or more species. Theyare the technology that enables intelligence, just asgenes and chromosomes are the technology thatenables life. The increasing number of chimps, goril-las, and orangutans, three different species of higherprimate, acquiring some proficiency in AmericanSign Language demonstrates that cultural elementscan be transmitted across species boundaries.

This description of culture also includes the ideathat culture is a system of doubly encoded informa-tion. It is encoded once in the mind of the culturebearer and once again in observable, sometimes rela-tively permanent, utterances, actions, and artifacts(Bohannan, 1973), or as artifacts, phenomofacts,and mentifacts (Kealiinohomoku, 1975:19,21,26),or as genes, memes, and ideons (Brown and Green-hood, 1985). Only when this second coding occursdo parts of the information system become manifest,shared, part of culture, and accessible to study. Cul-ture is an information-based, intra-, inter-, and extra-somatic, intentional system, the use of which is thestrategy of adaptation employed by, potentially, a mul-titude of species. (Humans are born without cultureand have to learn it; if they fail to learn it by pubertythey seem to loose the ability to learn culture and do notachieve human developmental potential.)

Formal Proof of the Contact Thesis

The preceding generalizations about “alien” and“culture” provide us with the minimum requisitesfor intelligence and with solid ground for examiningcultures as systems akin to artificial intelligence. This


more formal proof of the contact hypothesis mustnow bring these two together. It must show first thatthere are universals of intelligence that can provide acommon ground for communication between alienintelligences. Then it must show or persuade thatthese universals of intelligence will result in universalpatterns of culture that can provide a commonground for sustained and mutually beneficial contactbetween alien cultures. Finally the formal proofshould identify the kinds of patterns these are likelyto be.

Part One, a formal argument for the possibility of“Communication with Alien Intelligence,” has beenpresented by one of the founding deans of artificialintelligence research, Marvin Minsky (1985). Let merecapitulate.

From a Principle of Economy, Minsky argues thatevery intelligence must develop symbol systems(4).These systems would represent things, causes, andgoals, and be used to formulate and remember theprocedures developed for achieving such goals. Hecontends that only a symbol system can enable acreature to solve the wide range of new, differentkinds of problems with a speed sufficient to be recog-nized as intelligence. In fact, Minsky seems to equatethe development and use of a symbol system withintelligence; we cannot determine from the remain-der of his discussion whether he is talking about uni-versals of intelligence or universals of symbolsystems. Minsky’s position, we infer, is that such adistinction is irrelevant, that no alternative is possi-ble.

Minsky proceeds to offer us three sets of capacitiesrequisite to intelligence. These sets of capabilitiesaddress respectively the creation, the representationand transmission, and the content of knowledge.With respect to the creation of knowledge, Minskyargues that seven abilities are requisite to the effectivemanipulation of symbols in learning quickly how tosolve hard problems. This set includes the abilities to:

Bre a k h a rd p ro b l e m s i n to s i m p l e r o n e s(sub-goals)

1. Make descriptions based on parts and relations

2. Explain and understand how things change

3. Accumulate experience about similar problems

4. Efficiently allocate scarce resources

5. Organize work before filling in the details (toplan)

6. Provide for the problem-solver’s own welfare (topossess self-awareness)

Minsky’s second set of requisite capacities con-cerns, more particularly, the representation andtransmission of knowledge. He argues for the inevi-tability of:

1. Object symbols—representing objects, ideas, pro-cesses and events

2. Difference symbols—representing differencesbetween, and change in, objects

3. Cause symbols

4. Clause structures—for simplifying and embed-ding complicated structures

Minsky then argues for a Principle of Sparseness,which entails universals with respect to the contentof intelligence. “Every intelligence,” he says, “willeventually encounter certain very special ideasbecause these particular ideas are very much simplerthan other ideas with similar uses.” He finds exam-ples of these ideas in arithmetic, causal reasoning,economics, utility, linear approximation, probability,and the simplest program-like processes. The Peri-odic Table of chemical elements and the Mainstreamdistribution of stellar types provide additional exam-ples. These are ideas, information structures, thathave no easily accessible alternatives. They stand outas “islands of efficiency” in the open sea of all possi-ble lines of thought. The implication of this Principleof Sparseness is that systems of intelligence cannotproliferate in an unlimited number of directions andconfigurations, but rather that all of them mustexhibit a common central tendency toward the mostefficient structures that connect those “islands of[cognitive] efficiency.”

Minsky’s conclusions dovetail with an extensivebody of anthropological literature that, takentogether, demonstrates the essential processual unityof the phenomena we variously observe and label as“pre-articulate semantic deep-structure” (Chafe,1970); “mind/intelligence”(Bateson, p.c. Apr 1977 inRiner, 1984); “problem-solving/ organizing behav-

4. Symbol—any representation of an element of thought, fromwritten character to elaborate choreography, to which meaningor other significance is attributed by the users, the characteristicthat Hockett designates as “arbitrariness of patterning” in hisidentification of the ten distinctive features of language (1960),whereas sign designates a simpler, more mechanical, physical andinvariant connection between the sign and what it signifies, assmoke is a singular and direct product of fire. The naturallyoccurring languages of humans are symbol systems that incorpo-rate elements of simpler sign systems.


ior,” “language” including symbol systems generally,and “culture” (Brown and Greenhood, 1985; Bohan-nan, 1973; Frelich, 1975; Gardner, 1985; Fox, 1979;Jung, 1916; Kearney, 1984; Miller, 1978; Powers,1973; and Weick, 1969).

In other words, these differently labeled phenom-ena are expressions in differing media of a few com-mon processes—a system of a few rules and all theirconsequences. We can expect principles of organiza-tion that apply at one level and in one medium toapply at all consequent levels and in all media—ineach case limited and molded by the particular con-text and medium of expression.

Common processes, it follows, will result in com-mon, at least isomorphic, products and patterns ofexpression. My thesis in this more formalized argu-ment is that the common processes, these universalsof all kinds of symbol systems and small sets of rules,provide the foundation for both communication andsustained and mutually beneficial contacts amongaliens. Now it remains to illustrate what some of thekinds of processes and patterns are that we canexpect to find as universals in alien—terrestrial andextraterrestrial—cultures. Four come immediately tomind(5); these are:

1. Small sets of rules

2. Recursive systems and fractals

3. Decision trees and expert systems

4. Popping levels to generate meta-rules

Let me explain each of these processes and pointto one or two examples of its cultural manifestations.

Every Principle of Economy will argue that fewerresources are expended in following a smaller set ofrules than in following a larger one. This conserva-tion of resources does not, however, limit the pro-ductivity of a set of rules. The ten definitions andpostulates, including the rule for congruence, aresufficient to establish each of the Euclidean andnon-Euclidean geometries, each of which is poten-tially unlimited in its expansion. Fewer rather thanmore rules actually increase the flexibility of theirapplication.

A cultural example of this is provided by the caseof human kinship systems, elegantly in the case of theaboriginal Australian Arunta’s marriage rule that ego

shall marry his mother’s mother’s brother’s daugh-ter’s daughter—a rule that can be abbreviated: EGO= mo-mo-br-da-da. The context for this rule is cre-ated by the simple system of paired, complementary,and asymmetrical distinctions of age, sex, anddescent (vs. affiliation), the distinctions that are uni-versal in kinship categories. There are only six effec-tive pairs(6), a very deceptively simple set of rules. Inthis context the easily learned rule results, in theideal, in the generational and reciprocal exchange ofmates between each pair of most distantly relateddescent groups in a system of eight groups. It takeseight colors and a three-dimensional, seven-genera-tional event space to portray the proper and expectedorganization of Arunta society. (Service 1978:20-26).

The extent and complexity of effort that goes intodescribing this system illustrates another distinctivefeature of small sets of rules: their asymmetry. Whilea small set of rules can generate a very complex sys-tem, seldom if ever can a very complex system bedescribed in a small set of rules. The Arunta case doesnot belie this asymmetry; the rule was in fact elicitednot by analysis of observed cases, but by an ethnogra-pher who asked an insider to the cultural system.

John Horton Conway’s remarkable cellularautomaton simulation “game,” LIFE, illustrates someother significant features of small sets of rules (Gard-ner, 1970a,b,c; 1971a,b,c,d). There are only six rulesin this small set:

1. LIFE is played in a tessellated field—usually a reg-ularly tessellated, two-dimensional field like a sheet of graph paper

2. The player fills an arbitrary configuration ofcells—and applies the next three rules repeti-tively: a) SURVIVAL—every cell with two or threeneighbors survives and is copied into the nextgeneration. b) DEATH—every cell with one or no neighborsdies of isolation, and every cell with four or moreneighbors dies of overcrowding; their cells areemptied in the next generation. c) BIRTH—every empty cell with exactly threeneighbors is a birth cell; these are filled in the nextgeneration.

5. These four were current “hot topics” in 1985; in 2000 I wouldfocus on the modeling of systems’ dynamics and simulations,including how these incorporate the examples here.

6. The pairs are WIfe-HUsband, MOther-DAughter/SOn, FAther-DAughter/SOn, and SIster-BRother; all extended kin can be spec-ified by concatenations of these six role labels, entailing modifica-tions on the six fundamental relationships they describe.


3. Rules 2b and 2c are applied “simultaneously.”

LIFE illustrates the variety of small sets of rulesthat constitute recursive systems—systems in whichone set of rules is applied repeatedly to its ownsequentially generated and transformed products.The rules in the game of LIFE are deceptively simple,but the products are curiously complex. Every popu-lation entered into this process exhibits a tendencytoward, and/or complete conservation of, spatialsymmetry. While most configurations disintegrateand disappear within a few generations, some smallpercentage of them arrive at stable, usually regularlyoscillating, end states (ethnographically illustratedby gumsa and gumlao (Leach, 1954)). A yet smallernumber of initial configurations continue in unlim-ited evolution, and a very small number of these gen-erate offspring who go on to live autonomous lives oftheir own. This last small number of configurationsare unusually intelligent, we are forced to say, and nodoubt closely related to Minsky’s “isolated islands of(cognitive) efficiency.”

The products of LIFE, like those of so manyrecursive processes, are temporally asymmetrical:one cannot predict the configuration of any futuregeneration (except by working it out, which is notprediction); neither can one reconstruct the configu-ration of the preceding generation, even if you do tryto work it out. Each population’s future is unpredict-able, and its past is unreconstructable…so long asyou are working from outside the system.

The products of LIFE present yet another curios-ity: many of them appear to be fractals. Fractals arestructures or patterns of information that areself-symmetrical. That is, a small piece of a fractalstructure mirrors the shape of a larger piece, likeholographic images in popular understanding, andthe whole structure exists in a fractional or decimaldimensionality somewhere between 1 and 2, 2 and 3,and, we suppose, on beyond that. Fractals are thekinds of structures that one sees in Brown-and-Greenhoodian movement and thermonuclear turbu-lence, in the distribution of metals in the Earth, andin the bonds and bends of macro-molecules, in thecontours of islands and lakes, mountains and valleys,and clouds, in the distribution of species in an eco-system such as the great Okefenokee Swamp, hears inthe music of Bach and again sees, increasingly, incomputer-generated art (Mandlebrot, 1977; Peter-son, 1984a,b; Raloff, 1982; Science News, 1983, 1980;Thomsen, 1982,1980; Weisenburd, 1985).

The preceding are all examples of fractalsexpressed in natural material structures where thebasic forms of materials—circle, spiral, meander andhelix, branching patterns, and polygons (especiallythe hexagon)—predominate (Nova, 1985). We canexpect systems of intelligence and culture to con-verge on these essentials and to produce fractalsder ivative of these and, subsequently, manyless-probable structures. The music of Bach andcomputer-generated art provide two examples fromknown cultural systems. I have found the implicitstructures and historical changes of design in Navajorugs, ritual, sand paintings, and myth consistent inthis respect (Riner, 1986). Surely these principles areubiquitous in systems built by sentients.

And why is the ideal structure of Arunta kinshippatterning never observed in fact? Because the facts,and the chances, of a material, entropic medium ofexpression intervene. As Mandlebrodt, the discovererof fractals says, “[They are] randomness combinedwith self-interaction to a strong degree” (Peterson,1984a). Wherever the pattern of an ideal and propersystem rubs up against the constraints of smart,entropic, material reality we can expect to find a frac-tal (Weisenburd, 1985:279; Freilich, 1975:208-209). Iwonder how many other fractal patterns may awaitdiscovery in dusty ethnographies?

The next formal system phenomenon that we canexpect to find expressed in all cultural systems isdecision trees(7). These can result in elaborate expertsystems for tasks as diverse as diagnosing illness in apatient, to parsing the structures of a language, clas-sifying a botanical sample, prospecting for petro-leum, or modeling the economic behavior oftraditional Navajos in the contemporary market(Waldrop, 1985; Thompson and Thompson, 1985;Wood, p.c.). But all decision trees begin in someone’sperception of difference, a drawing of a simple, usu-ally binary, distinction within/among its fields ofperceptions such as: light–dark, loud–soft, harsh–smooth, etc.…again and again and again in anexpanding fractal field of the simple…usually 3-ele-ment, jointed branch, Y-kind of structure, aimed atreduction of ambiguity.

7. This item of rhetoric, the one that drew the biggest laugh in theconference paper, I have preserved. Folklore in the academy saysthat big ideas come back every generation, every 20 to 25 years.That may be a fundamental insight into the Great Scheme ofThings (GST). This one, GST—General Systems Theory—seemsto be doing so as I revise.


As an example of a decision tree well documentedin cultures, I offer Figure 1 that depicts the universalsof human worldview (Kearney, 1984:65-89). In eachinstance of branching, I have identified the generalnature of the distinction drawn there. For a numberof reasons (e.g., making sense of spatio-temporalcontext, and intangibles such as relationships andcausality; Kearney, 1984:89-107) it appears thathuman distinction-drawing goes off simultaneouslyin at least four or six more dimensions than the twothat I can depict in Figure 1.

Examples of many more specific decision trees,some approaching the multidimensional complexityof semantic networks, characterize a tradition ofanthropological research that spans work from theVoegelins’ Hopi Domains (Voegelin and Voegelin,1957) through the ethnoscience/ethnosemanticschool of Frake, 1962; Werner and Schoepfle, 1987;Spradley, 1980, 1979, and into the present.

Finally we come to popping. This is moving one’sfocus of attention up one level of abstraction to thenext in order to write or discover a meta-rule, ordown one level in detail to specify procedures. Pop-ping happens all the time in cultural systems, somuch so that Marvin Harris has emphasized it in hiscentral and strongest argument for “Why a PerfectKnowledge of All the Rules One Must Know to ActLike a Native Cannot Lead to the Knowledge of HowNatives Act” (Harris, 1974). Harris’ thesis, however,confounds how any human in any culture can always

rationalize; that is, how one can always cite, invent,infer, or abduct a culturally acceptable rule foralmost any behavior, no matter how deviant. Thispoint is well made in Mary Douglas’ essay “Jokes”(Douglas, 1975).

Popping to a meta-level is not anything more orless than the inverse or complement of embedding.And embedding, Minsky’s “clause structures,” isanother variety of recursion (Hofstadter, 1979:127-135). If our alien intelligence or culture does notexhibit this particular feature, embedding—andpopping, then it probably isn’t intelligent.

Let me try for some kind of closure. Most people argue—shallowly, I believe—that

sustained and mutually beneficial contact with aliensis improbable, probably impossible, and “more ’nlikely” undesirable anyhow. I have accepted the opin-ion of cosmologists that the existence and likelihoodof an encounter with aliens is probable—and proba-bly equal to 1, equal to certainty.

I have presented ethnographic evidence, the casesof our own persistent CONTACT, also of potlatch-ing, the Kula Ring and tri-ethnic symbiosis amongsociocultural systems in Swat, that sustained andmutually beneficial multicultural contacts amongcommunities of Homo sapiens have occurred, andthat they have bridged some of the greatest differ-ences in ways of thinking that we are able to docu-ment among human communities.


I’ve gone on to argue for a more formal substanti-ation of the contact hypothesis:

First, that culture (and by extension, or inclusion,language), the indigenous problem-solving/organiz-ing behaviors, and formulations of mind/ intelli-gence, may be legitimately and productivelyrepresented and investigated as if culture is a formalsystem, another specie of artificial intelligence.

Second, that artificial intelligence research pro-vides convincing argument that these kinds of sys-tems do have common properties—universals ofprocess and universals of content.

Third, that these universals are manifest in smallsets of rules, including recursive systems generatingfractals, decision trees and expert systems, and pop-ping up to new levels to write meta-rules, and downto subordinate levels to write specifications, amongtheir resultant products.

Throughout I have assumed that these kinds ofuniversals, these information-preserving transfor-mations, are the necessary and sufficient foundationupon which sustained and mutually beneficial con-tact with aliens can be established.

To the extent that I have persuaded readers to thisposition, then: Viva CONTACT!

References Cited Barth, Fredrik, 1956, “Ecological Relations of Ethnic Groups inSwat, North Pakistan.” American Anthropologist , Vol.58:1079-89.

Bateson, Gregory, 1977, personal communication, Apr.; seeRiner, 1984.

Bohannan, Paul, 1973, “Rethinking Culture: A Project for Cur-rent Anthropolog ists .” Current Anthropolog y, Vol .14(4):357-372; Oct.

Brown, James Cooke and William Greenhood, 1985, “Paternity,Jokes, and Song: A Possible Evolutionary Scenario for the Originof Mind.” Cultural Futures Research, Vol. VIII (2); Winter.Revised edition: Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 14(3):255-309, 1991.

Chafe, Wallace, 1970, Meaning and the Structure of Language.Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Clement, Hal, 1974, “The Creation of Imaginary Beings,”pp:259-277 in R. Bretnor, ed. Science Fiction, Today and Tomor-row. New York; Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.

de Camp, L. Sprague, 1939, “Design for Life.” Astounding ScienceFiction, Vol.22 (3):103-115.

Douglas, Mary, 1975, “Jokes,” pp. 90-114 in Mary Douglas, Ed.Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Fox, Robin, 1979, “The Evolution of Mind: An AnthropologicalApproach.” Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol.35(2):138-156.

Frake, Charles O., 1962, “The Ethnographic Study of CognitiveSystems,” pp:72-85 in Anthropology and Human Behavior, eds. T.Gladwin and W. C. Sturtevant. Washington, DC: AnthropologicalSociety of Washington.

Freilich, Morris, 1975, “Myth, Method, and Madness.” CurrentAnthropology, Vol. 16(2):207-226; Jun.

Gardner, Howard, 1985, The Mind’s New Science: A history ofthe cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Howard, 1983, Frames of Mind: The theory of multipleintelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, Martin, 1970a-d, “Mathematical Games.” ScientificAmerican, Vol. 223(10), Oct.; 1970b (11), Nov.; 1970c (12), Dec.;1971a-d, 1971a Vol. 224 (1), Jan.; 1971b (2), Feb.; 1971c (3), Mar.;1971d (4), Apr.

Harris, Marvin, 1974, “Why a Perfect Knowledge of All the RulesOne Must Know to Act Like a Native Cannot Lead to the Knowl-edge of How Natives Act.” Journal of Anthropological Research,Vol. 30(4):242-251, Winter.

Hockett, Charles F., 1960, “The Origin of Speech.” ScientificAmerican, September 1960.

Hoebel, E. Adamson, 1972, Anthropology: The Study of Man.Fourth Ed. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hofstadter, Douglas R., 1979, Godel, Escher, Bach: An EternalGolden Braid. New York; Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.

Hunter, David E. and Phillip Whitten, 1976, The Study ofAnthropology. New York; Harper & Row, Publishers.

Jay, Anthony, 1971, The Corporation Man: Who he is, what hedoes, why his ancient tribal impulses dominate the life in themodern corporation. New York: Random House.

Jung, Carl Gustav, 1916, “Septem Sermones ad Mortem (SevenSermons To The Dead),” in Memories, Dreams andReflections(1981 by C. G. Jung, recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffe). Rev. Ed.Appendix V, pp378-390. New York: Vintage Books.

Keali’inohomoku and Joann Marie Wheeler, 1975, Theory andMethods for an Anthropological Study of Dance. Doctoral Dis-sertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University,Bloomington, IN.

Kearney, Michael, 1984, World View. Novato, CA: Chandler &Sharp Publishers, Inc.

Kluckhohn, Clyde and W. H. Kelly, 1945, “The Concept of Cul-ture” in Ralph Linton, Ed. The Science of Man in the World ofCrisis. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kroeber, Alfred and Clyde Kluckhohn, 1952, Culture: A Criticalreview of concepts and definitions. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 47.

Leach, Edmund, 1954, Political Systems of Highland Burma: Astudy of Kachin social structure. Boston: Beacon Press.

Malinowski, B., 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific: AnAccount of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoesof Melanesian New Guinea. London; Routledge & sons, Ltd.; NewYork: E.P.Dutton & Co.

Mandlebrot, Benoit B., 1977, Fractals: Form, Chance, andDimension. San Francisco; W. H. Freeman and Company.

Maslow, Abraham H., 1971, The Further Reaches of HumanNature. New York: The Viking Press.


Maslow, Abraham H., 1970 (1954), Motivation and Personality.Second Edition. New York; Harper and Row, Publishers.

Mil ler, James Gr ier, 1978, Liv ing Systems. New York;McGram-Hill Book Company.

Minsky, Marvin, 1985, “Communication with Alien Intelli-gence.” BYTE, Vol. 10(4):127-138; Apr.

NOVA PBS, 1985, “The Shape of Things.” First broadcast 02/19/85.

Petersen, Ivar, 1984a, “Ants in Labyrinths and other FractalExcursions.” Science News, Vol. 125(3):42-43; 21, Jan 84.

Petersen, Ivar, 1984b, “Super Problems for Supercomputers.”Science News, Vol. 126(13):200-203; 29 Sep 84.

Piddock, Stuart, 1965, “The Potlatch System of the SouthernKwakiutl: A New Perspective,” Southwestern Journal of Anthro-pological Research, Vol. 21:244-64.

Powers, William T., 1973, Behavior: The Control of Perception.Chicago; Aldine Publishing Company.

Raloff, Janet, 1982, “Computing for Art’s Sake.” Science News,Vol. 122(21):328-331; 20 Nov 82.

Riner, Reed D., 1986, “Re-reclassifying the Navajo ChantwayMyths.” First Annual Navajo Studies Conference, 20-22 Feb,Albuquerque, NM.

Science News, 1983, “Fractals for modeling ecosystems.” ScienceNews, Vol. 123(24):389; 11 Jun 83.

Science News, 1980, “Fractal Proteins.” Science News, Vol.180(18):281; 1 Nov 80.

Service, Elman R., 1978, Profiles in Ethnology, Third Edition.New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Spencer, Robert F. and Jesse D. Jennings et al., 1977, The NativeAmericans, Second Ed. New York; Harper & Row, Publishers.

Spradley, 1980, Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rine-hart & Winston.

Spradley, 1979, The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Suttles, Wayne, 1960, “Variation in Habitat and Culture on theNorthwest Coast.” Proceedings of the 34th International Con-gress of Americanists (1960); (Horn-Vienna, Austria: Verlag Fer-dinand Berger, 1962).

Thompson, Beverly A. and William A. Thompson, 1985, “InsideExpert Systems.” BYTE, Vol. 10(4):315-330; Apr.

Thomsen, Deitrick E., 1982, “A Place in the Sun for Fractals.” Sci-ence News, Vol. 121(2):28,30; 9 Jan 82.

Thomsen, Deitrick E., 1980, “Making Music—Fractally.” ScienceNews, Vol. 117(2):187.190; 22 Mar 80.

Turnbull, Colin M., 1963, “The Lesssons of the Pygmies.” Scien-tific American, Vol. 28(1); Jan 1963.

Vayda, Andrew P., 1961, “Economic Systems in Ecological Per-spective: The Case of the Northwest Coast,” in “A Re-examinationof Northwest Coast Economic Systems.” Transactions of the NewYork Academy of Sciences, Ser. II, Vol. 23(7):618-624; May.

Voegelin, Charles F. and Florence M. Voegelin, 1957, HopiDomains: A Lexical Approach to the Problem of Selection. Inter-national Journal of American Linguistics, Memoir 14, Vol. 23(2),Pt. II.

Waldrop, M. Mitchell, 1985, Complexity: The emerging scienceat the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Weick, Karl E., 1969, The Social Psychology of Organizing. Read-ing, MA; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Weisenburd, 1985, “Fractals, Fractures and Faults.” ScienceNews, Vol. 127(18):279; 4 May 85.

Werner, Oswald, G. Mark Schoepfle et al., 1987, SystematicFieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

World Futures Studies Federation Newsletter, 1985, (2):3-5, Sum-mer.

139

Ben FinneyUniversity of HawaiiHonolulu, HI

ABSTRACT

E. O. Wilson’s recent plea for employing consilienceto achieve knowledge unification focuses on linkingthe biological and social sciences/humanities, yetadmits to only minimal progress. If and when SETIsucceeds in making contact with extraterrestrial civ-ilizations, a comparative study of these could providea means for overcoming current barriers to linkingthe natural and cultural realms, and thereby promotethe unity of knowledge. Keywords: consilience, unityof knowledge, SETI, extraterrestrial civilization.

Forty years ago, the physicist-turned-novelist C. P.Snow published The Two Cultures and the ScientificRevolution,1 in which he complained how intellectuallife was increasingly being split between two cultures,that of the natural sciences and that of the literarydisciplines. One of the main criticisms of Snow’swork was not that he exaggerated the intellectualfragmentation of his day, but that he oversimplified itby focusing on literature to stand for all the humani-ties, and, above all, by ignoring the social sciences.2

Recently the distinguished biologist Edward O. Wil-son has revisited the gulf between academic culturesin Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge,3 a book inwhich he makes an earnest plea for a return to theEnlightenment ideal of the unity of knowledge bybuilding bridges across the divide between the natu-ral sciences on the one hand, and the social sciencesand humanities on other hand.

Consilience, the means Wilson chooses for work-ing toward unity, is an obscure term coined in 1840by William Whewell, a Victorian polymath who hasalso been credited with introducing, or at least popu-larizing, such better-known neologisms as physicistand scientist.4 Wilson describes consilience as “liter-

ally a ‘jumping-together’ of knowledge by the linkingof facts and fact-based theory across disciplines tocreate a common groundwork of explanation.” Healso quotes Whewell’s more formal explanation:“The Consilience of Inductions takes place when anInduction, obtained from one class of facts, coincideswith an Induction, obtained from another class offacts. This Consilience is a test of the truth of the the-ory in which it occurs.”5 As a “modest example” ofconsilience, Wilson offers his own work from the1950s, in which he collaborated with a chemist and amathematician to establish the chemical means bywhich ants communicate alarm signals.

To test the hypothesis that ants transmit the sig-nals chemically rather than by sight or sound, Wilsonfirst dissected freshly killed worker ants to obtainorgans that might contain chemical releasers, nowknown as pheromones. He then presented thecrushed organ tissue to groups of worker ants, andlearned that two particular glands were active in thesense that the worker ants were galvanized intoaction by pheromones apparently released from thetissue. Wilson then recruited a chemist to analyze theextremely small organic samples that presumablycontained the pheromones.

Using gas chromatography and mass spectrome-try, the chemist identified the active substances as amedley of compounds. He then obtained samples ofidentical compounds that had been synthesized inthe laboratory to guarantee their purity, and thesewere presented in minute quantities to the ants. Thatthe same responses were obtained as in the firstexperiments confirmed that the compounds identi-fied were the alarm pheromones. The next step wasto involve a mathematician to construct physicalmodels of the diffusion of the pheromone molecules,and then to use both the models and experiments tomeasure the rate of spread of the molecules and thesensitivity of the ants to them in order to establishwith some certainty that workers release evaporatedpheromones in order to communicate.6 To Wilson,

Section V, Paper 8

SETI, Consilience, and the Unity of Knowledge

140 Section V, Paper 8 • SETI, Consilience, and the Unity of Knowledge

reductionism is the cutting edge of science, involving“the breaking apart of nature into its natural consti-uents” and then the folding of “the laws and princi-ples of each level of organization into those at moregeneral, hence more fundamental, levels.”7 In isolat-ing the pheromone compounds, and then tracinghow these are diffused to transmit alarms, he and hiscolleagues were able to reduce the communicativebehavior of ants to the molecular level, bringing itinto the realm of physics and its laws.

Wilson considers that a high degree of consiliencehas been achieved only in the natural sciences, nota-bly in physics, chemistry, and some branches of biol-ogy, and he points out that among these fields suchhybrid domains of research as chemical physics,physical chemistry, molecular genetics, and chemicalecology are becoming commonplace. Although helaments that consilience has yet to link the naturalsciences with the social sciences and humanities, henonetheless views the boundary between them “notas a territorial line but as a broad and mostly unex-plored terrain awaiting cooperative entry from bothsides.”8 Given his previous work in advocating thenew discipline of sociobiology, as well as the study ofgene-culture coevolution,9 it is not surprising that hebelieves that biology is best situated for bridging thegap between academic cultures:

We know that virtually all of human behavior istransmitted by culture. We also know that biologyhas an important effect on the origin of culture andits transmission. The question remaining is howbiology and culture interact, and in particular howthey interact across all societies to create the com-monalties of human nature. What, in the final analy-sis, joins the deep, mostly genetic history of thespecies as a whole to the more recent cultural histo-ries of its far-flung societies? That, in my opinion, isthe nub of the relationship between the two cultures.It can be stated as a problem to be solved, the centralproblem of the social sciences and the humanities,and simultaneously one of the great remaining prob-lems of the natural sciences.

In Wilson’s view, since culture is created by thecommunal mind, and each mind in turn is the prod-uct of the genetically structured human brain, genesand culture are inseverably linked. Nonetheless, headmits that the exact ways genes and culture interactelude us. For instance, take the incest taboo prohibit-ing mating with close kin. Wilson highlights it as oneof the best-documented instances of gene-cultureinteraction, but also as an example of how we do not

yet fully understand that interaction. As anthropolo-gists have long pointed out, this prohibition is ahuman universal that appears to have a natural basis,though one not necessarily mediated by a consciousrealization that close-kin matings are more likely toresult in unhealthy children. In careful studies thattook advantage of natural experiments performed indifferent cultures in which unrelated boys and girlswere regularly reared together from infancy, anthro-pologists have demonstrated that when these chil-dren mature they have no sexual interest in oneanother, resist being forced into marriage, and if soforced, have high adultery and divorce rates. Yet thephysical basis for this aversion has yet to be discov-ered. Also, there remains to be answered the questionof why, if there is a natural basis for avoiding close-kin mating, is there any need for explicit incesttaboos. Furthermore, it is apparent that these taboosare culturally molded rules that vary widely fromgroup to group in terms of the categories of kinincluded, and may even be reversed in some highlystratified cultures, such as those of ancient Hawaiiand Egypt, in which elites were encouraged to matewith close kin, ideally full siblings.10

Not only is human gene-culture interaction prov-ing to be difficult to unravel, but many humanistsand social scientists object to what they call “reduc-tionist” attempts to “biologize” human phenom-ena.1 1 As adherents of Descartes’ mind-bodydualism, they regard culture as the superorganicproduct of the mind and not at all reducible to biol-ogy. In addition, some biologists charge that in therush to link culture and biology, theorists err inregarding increasing complexity as inevitable, and inattempting to analyze cultural change in terms ofDarwinian evolution.12 Furthermore, attempts tofind a biological basis for human behavior are alsoresisted on the grounds that such research leads tothe labeling of certain races or classes as geneticallyinferior.13

At first glance, SETI (the Search for Extraterres-trial Intelligence) might not seem to have anything todo with employing consilience in the quest forknowledge unification. (Historians of science willalso note that Whewell was a vigorous opponent ofthe “plurality of worlds” hypothesis.14) However,even though its technical roots are in physics andastronomy, and natural scientists have led its devel-opment, I argue that SETI has the potential for play-ing a major role in transcending intellectualboundaries.

Section V, Paper 8 • SETI, Consilience, and the Unity of Knowledge 141

Consider the primary question that SETI seeks toanswer: Are there extraterrestrial civilizations? This isan old concern. Hypotheses about other populatedworlds can be traced at least as far back as the Dem-ocritus, Lucretius, and other early thinkers.15 Now,with radio SETI well underway, planet discoveriesbecoming almost routine, and new initiatives fordetecting microbial life beyond Earth in the works,the scenario of cosmic evolution—from the Big Bangthrough the formation of galaxies, stars, and planetsto the rise of life, complex life, and intelligence—hasbecome what historian Steven Dick calls the “cosmo-logical worldview” of our age.16 That we can modelsuch a grand evolutionary sequence, and also testparts of it, would have delighted the luminaries of theEnlightenment, for cosmic evolution links physical,biological, and cultural knowledge on a truly cosmicscale.

Whereas four decades ago Snow despaired that hecould find no place where the two cultures meet, adecade ago I did not hesitate to claim that SETI is onefield initiated and led by natural scientists thatreadily invites participation by specialists from thesocial sciences and humanities.17 Since then a num-ber of anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists,historians, philosophers, theologians, and othersfrom across the cultural divide have participated inthe SETI endeavor.18 To be sure, they have primarilyworked on such activities as examining the premisesbehind search strategies, considering methods forinterpreting any messages received, developing pro-cedures for breaking the news of contact, and formu-lating a reply, and have not been directly involved indesigning search instruments and algorithms, andthen actually conducting the search. Nevertheless,whatever the division of labor, this participation inSETI of specialists from disciplines scattered acrossthe two intellectual cultures could be setting the stagefor a grand experiment in consilience.

At the beginning of his book, Wilson notes thatalthough astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biol-ogy are primarily historical disciplines linked by con-silience to the rest of the natural sciences, humanhistory stands apart as a branch of learning in its ownright. “But,” Wilson then rhetorically adds, “if tenthousand humanoid histories could be traced on tenthousand Earthlike planets, and from a comparativestudy of these histories empirical tests and principlesevolved, historiography—the explanation of histori-cal trends—would already be a natural science.”19

Although Wilson did not develop this idea, as an

anthropologist sometimes involved with SETI I can-not resist exploring it further. Let us assume that dur-ing the 21st century, contact is made with a numberof extraterrestrial civilizations occupying star sys-tems arrayed around our own, and that through con-certed efforts lasting many generations, if notcenturies, meaningful communication is eventuallyestablished with at least some of these civilizations.This would not require that extraterrestrials behumanoid in the literal sense of the word, but onlythat there be sufficient convergence in intelligence,technology, and epistemology so that sharing ofknowledge would be possible. We would then be in aposition to learn about other biologies, societies, andcultures, as well as the ways extraterrestrials do sci-ence.

Such an endeavor would surely involve a widearray of specialists from a variety of disciplines,including new ones developed especially to meet thechallenge of learning about extraterrestrials, as dis-tinct from detecting them. Yet no matter how inter-disciplinary this effort might be, it would have to gobeyond the descriptive level if anything like the con-silience Wilson calls for is to be achieved. To be sure,detailed descriptions of each civilization, natural/cultural histories if you will, would be valuable addi-tions to any Encyclopedia Galactica, but without fur-ther analysis the real opportunity would be lost.

A science of civilizations is required, one thatwould compare and contrast a wide variety of inde-pendent cases in order to suggest hypotheses, whichthen could be multiply tested in order to investigatehow diverse societies and cultures developed fromtheir respective biological bases and how these inturn are linked to fundamental physical laws andprinciples. That might seem like a tall order for a spe-cies that is making such slow progress in unifyingknowledge on its home planet. Yet one main reasonfor this may be simply that we are seriously handi-capped by having only one case to study of the originof life and then the development of complexity, intel-ligence, culture, consciousness, and all that. How farwould the study of stellar evolution have proceeded ifwe could have investigated only our own star? Or thestudy of the planetary formation if Earth was theonly planet we knew? We need extraterrestrial civili-zations to introduce us to an array of possibilities andvariations beyond our experience, and also to shockus out of such parochialisms as regarding ourselves asthe summit and final goal of evolution, or resistingthe exploration of links between human culture and


its biological roots. But would such a brave newmetadiscipline be able to analyze dispassionately civ-ilizations that might be repugnant to basic humanvalues and experience?

Consider, for example, the possibility of encoun-tering post-biological civilizations. Those who lookforward to the day when humans will be replaced byimmortal electronic machines would, of course, bedelighted to learn from any civilizations composed ofsuch creations—if they indeed exist. In contrast,most humanists, and—judging from Wilson’s lastsentence in Consilience wherein he warns against sur-rendering our genetic nature to “machine-aided rati-ocination”—many biologists as well, would probablybe repelled by machine ETs.20 Just as anthropologistshad to overcome ethnocentrism and adopt a stanceof cultural relativism in order to study the myriad ofhuman cultures and societies here on Earth, so maythose who would dare to compare and contrast allnature of extraterrestrials have to be prepared to rec-ognize and suspend their own biocentrism.

What about the shock of discovering extraterres-trials so far in advance of us that they seem godlike intheir powers and intellect? When in the 1970s theNobel laureates Wald, Ryle, and Lederberg warnedthat radio contact with advanced civilizations woulddevastate the human spirit, what they really seem tohave had in mind was that learning all the secrets ofnature from mature extraterrestrials would ruin thegame for scientists.21

Such a view leaves out exobiologists, as well asadventurous anthropologists, political scientists, andother social scientists who would probably delight inhaving advanced civilizations to study, and perhapsalso to assess as models, good and bad, for chartingour own future development. Furthermore, thosephysical scientists willing to swallow their pride andundertake comparative science studies would be in aposition to answer such fundamental questions aswhether there is only one way of doing science ormany. It could also turn out, as Konstantin Tsiolk-ovsky once optimistically suggested, that even ifolder extraterrestrials considered us young andchildlike, they would nonetheless welcome us asnewcomers who might bring to the community ofadvanced but jaded civilizations new solutions to theproblems of existence.22

What if total consilience, which Wilson character-izes as the linking of all knowledge on the basis that“nature is organized by simple universal laws of phys-ics to which all other laws and principles can eventu-

ally be reduced,” proves to be an unattainable dream?He himself readily admits that consilience is a tran-scendental worldview rather than a science, and thatit is probably an oversimplification and one day mayeven be proven to be wrong.23 Perhaps, as manysocial scientists and humanists suspect, there are lim-its to the reductionism that has been so central toprogress in the physical sciences. Although Wilsoncalls for multiple forays from both sides into theuncharted territory between the two cultures, herejects entry by one of the main methodological con-tributions of social science, that of the holisticapproach to sociocultural phenomena.24 Yet at leastone natural scientist also interested in unifyingknowledge, Eric Chaisson, has pointed out that pro-posed research on cosmic evolution embodies aholistic approach that refreshingly contrasts with themyopic tendencies of reductionist science.25

Finally, what if all SETI efforts, from current radioand optical searches to future interstellar probes andpiloted reconnaissance missions, fail to turn up anysigns of advanced extraterrestrial life in our sector ofthe galaxy? However sobering such a discovery wouldbe for cosmic evolutionists, those interested inhuman space expansion would certainly take theapparent absence of extraterrestrials in our galacticneighborhood as a green light for humanity’s spread-ing throughout that region. Let us further imaginethat through learning how to settle on and aroundvarious planets and smaller bodies of our solar sys-tem, and the development of powerful space drivesand multigenerational spaceships, humans wouldeventually be able to migrate to nearby star systemsand found viable communities there. Then frus-trated would-be students of independently evolvedextraterrestrials would have the opportunity to studyhow our descendants evolve culturally and biologi-cally as they scatter through space.

Such an endeavor might not have all the cosmo-logical glamour and consilient potential of a disci-p l ine devoted to ana lyz ing autochthonouscivilizations. But it would have the advantage ofmethodological control, for each new outpost wouldspring from the common biocultural base of terres-trial humanity. Moreover, it would also provide goodpractice for if and when extraterrestrials living else-where in the galaxy are eventually contacted.26

Section V, Paper 8 • SETI, Consilience, and the Unity of Knowledge 143

References1. Snow, C. P. 1959. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolu-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2. Fallers, L. 1961. “C. P. Snow and the Third Culture.” Bulletin ofthe Atomic Scientists 17:306-310.

3. Wilson, E. O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. NewYork: Random House.

4. Whewell, W. 1840. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences.London: Parker. Simpson, J. A. and Weiner, E. S. C. 1993. TheOxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, vol.11:746, vol. 14:652.

5. Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, p. 8.

6. Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, pp. 69-70.

7. Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, pp. 64-65.


9. Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cam-bridge: Bellnap Press of Harvard University Press. Lumsden, C. J.and Wilson, E. O. 1981. Genes, Mind, and Culture. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

10. Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, p. 173-180.

11. Sahlins, M. 1976. The Uses and Abuse of Biology. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press. Betzig, L. L. 1997. Human Nature:A Critical Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.

12. Gould, S. J. 1997. Full House: The Spread of Excellence fromPlato to Darwin. New York: Three Rivers Press, pp. 167-175, 219-220.

13. Herrnstein, R. J. and Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelli-gence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.Jacoby, R. and Glauberman, N. 1995. The Bell Curve Debate. NewYork: Times Book.

14. Crowe, M. J. 1986. The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750-1900.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 265-299.

15. Dick, S. J. 1982. Plurality of Worlds. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 6-13.

16. Dick, S. J. 1998. Life on Other Worlds. Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 261-273.

17. Finney, B. 1992. “SETI and the Two Terrestrial Cultures.” ActaAstronautica 26:263-265.

18. Billingham, J., et al. 1999. Social Implications of Detecting anExtraterrestrial Civilization. Mountain View, California: SETIInstitute.



21. Finney, B. 1990. “The Impact of Contact.” Acta Astronautica21:117-121.

22. Lytkin, V., Finney, B., and Alepko, L. 1995. “Tsiolkovsky, Rus-sian Cosmism, and Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” Journal of theRoyal Astronomical Society 36:369-376.


24. Wallerstein, I. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of theGulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

25. Chaisson, E. J. 1997. “NASA’s New Science Vision.” Science275:735.

26. Finney, B. and Jones, E. 1985. Interstellar Migration and theHuman Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Courtesy of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. Published by the Foundation For the Future with per-mission from the author.

145

Steven J. DickU.S. Naval ObservatoryWashington, D.C.

ABSTRACT

Among the four operating principles of the NASAAstrobiology Roadmap, Principle 3 recognizes broadsocietal interest for the implications of astrobiology.Although several meetings have been convened inthe past decade to discuss the implications of extra-terrestrial intelligence, none has addressed thebroader implications of astrobiology as now definedat NASA. Here we survey these societal questions,and argue that they deserve further serious study, inaccordance with the National Aeronautics and SpaceAct of 1958. Astrobiology, already an interdiscipli-nary field in terms of the physical and biological sci-ences, should now embrace the humanities and thesocial and behavioral sciences in order to explore itscultural implications. Such study is part of the gen-eral need for better dialogue between science andsociety.

Justification for Study of Cultural Questions

Astrobiology, as defined within the NASA Astrobiol-ogy Roadmap (NASA, 1999), seeks to answer threefundamental questions: 1) How does life begin andevolve? 2) Does life exist elsewhere in the universe?and 3) What is life’s future on Earth and beyond?Because the answers to these questions bear on fun-damental human concerns, I argue here that NASA’sAstrobiology Program, as well as exobiologists andbioastronomers in general, should address the cul-tural impact of their work. In doing so, they shouldencourage input from specialists in the humanitiesand the social and behavioral sciences.

It is important at the outset to define what wemean by “culture.” For anthropologists, culture is“the total way of life of a discrete society—its reli-gion, myths, art, technology, sports, and all the othersystematic knowledge transmitted across genera-tions.” Put another way, “culture is a product; is his-torical; includes ideas, patterns, and values; isselective; is learned; is based upon symbols; and is anabstraction from behavior and the products ofbehavior” (Wilson, 1998, p. 130). According to Har-vard biologist E. O. Wilson, each society creates cul-ture, and is created by it. Our inquiry, then, is todetermine the potential impact of astrobiology onthis symbolic communal and evolving worldviewthat each society creates—a tall order indeed, butone that multidisciplinary study may systematicallytackle in increments.

The study of the cultural impact of astrobiology isjustified from many points of view. Primarily, it is aninteresting and important problem that adds anotherdimension to astrobiology. It is well to rememberthat cosmic evolution does not end with astronomyor biology, but with culture; the evolution of humanculture, and possibly cultures beyond the Earth, isnot only part of cosmic evolution, but arguably themost interesting part. Such study is also entirely inkeeping with the National Aeronautics and Space Actof 1958, in which one of the eight objectives of theU.S. space program is “the establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gainedfrom, the opportunities for, and the problemsinvolved in the utilization of aeronautical and spaceactivities for peaceful and scientific purposes” (Logs-don, 1995). Though the Space Act has been amendedmany times, this objective has remained unchanged.It has also remained largely unfulfilled, aside from aNASA-sponsored Brookings Institution study (U. S.Congress, 1961), a NASA-sponsored study at BostonUniversity (Berenzden, 1973), and a series of NASAworkshops in 1991–1992 (Billingham et al., 1999).There is interest, however, both among the public

Section V, Paper 9

Cultural Aspects of Astrobiology

146 Section V, Paper 9 • Cultural Aspects of Astrobiology

and at the highest levels of government, as evidencedby the Vice President’s Space Science Symposiumconvened in December 1996 in the wake of the Marsrock, especially to discuss the cultural implications ofthat discovery (Lawler, 1996a, 1996b; Macilwain,1996). We are thus faced with a golden opportunity.With the inauguration of NASA’s Astrobiology Pro-gram, the time has come to focus on this objectiveonce again.

One of the exciting aspects of astrobiology, andone of the features that distinguish it from the earlierexobiology program in NASA, is that the Astrobiol-ogy Roadmap recognizes the cultural dimensions ofits work from the beginning. One of the groups at theRoadmap meeting formulated a “Question 7” in

addition to the scientific questions: “How will astro-biology affect and interact with human societies andcultures?” The third of the four operating principlesof the Roadmap “integral to the entire AstrobiologyProgram” states that “Astrobiology recognizes abroad societal interest in our subject, especially inareas such as the search for extraterrestrial life andthe potential to engineer new life forms adapted tolive on other worlds.” This principle, as distinct fromPrinciple 4 on education and public outreach, waspresumably formulated with a view toward action,no less than the Roadmap’s scientific aspects. In thispaper we make a first reconnaissance of the scope ofthe cultural aspects of astrobiology as defined above,and issue a call for action.

Table I: Astrobiology Roadmap Questions and Their Cultural Implications

QUESTIONS IMPLICATIONS

Roadmap Scientific/Representative Cultural

Philosophical Ethical Theological General/Societal

Q.1 Origin and Evolution of Life(Goals 1-4)

POLICY

Our Place in the History of Life Schopf (1999)

Nature of Life Davies (1998)

A Cosmic Imperative? deDuve (1995)

Chance and Necessity Monod (1971)

Q.2 Life in the Universe(Goals 5-8)

A. Primitive

B. Intelligent

Contact Davies (1995) Ruse (1985)Billingham et al

(1999)Harrison (1997)

EpistemologyRescher (1985)Minsky (1985)

Relation to GodMcMullin (2000)

Coyne (2000)

Q.3 Future of Life on Earth and Beyond (Goals 9-10)

Planetary ProtectionRandolph, Race &

McKay (1997)

Environmental Change & Ecosystems

Artificial Life/Bioengineering

Terraforming McKay (1990)

Space Exploration McCurdy (1997)

Space Colonization

Section V, Paper 9 • Cultural Aspects of Astrobiology 147

Astrobiology’s Three Fundamental Questions and Their Implications

Although a good deal of thought has been given tothe cultural impact of a successful SETI (Search forExtraterrestrial Intelligence) program, the impact ofastrobiology, as encapsulated in its three fundamen-tal questions, is much broader. In addition to intelli-gent life, we are interested in the quite differentimplications of microbial life and life that may becomplex, but not intelligent. Moreover, astrobiologyhas a large historical dimension in that we are alsointerested in life’s past, and it has a forward-lookingdimension because we want to explore life’s future—on Earth and beyond. These questions give astrobiol-ogy a breadth that exobiology never had, with corre-spondingly broader implications.

If we take each of the three questions in turn, andask what the implications will be for society, we endup with an enormous two-dimensional matrix. Herewe concentrate on only a small part of the matrix, thephilosophical, ethical, and theological implications(Table I), which are also identified in the Table witheach of the Astrobiology Roadmap Goals. Theseparts of the matrix, in my opinion, are particularlyimportant because they form our worldview, andthus affect all other parts of society. Several aspects ofthis matrix merit emphasis: 1) The listing of repre-sentative studies indicates that some thought hasbeen given to these issues; the point is that the entireproblem has not been approached systematically.The study of the cultural implications of astrobiol-ogy is at a stage where exobiology was 40 years ago,with sporadic individual interest but little dialogueand thus little progress in the sense of systematicstudy. 2) We must recognize a third dimension to thematrix: different societies will be affected differentlybecause they each have different cultures. Thus, thetheological effects of contact with extraterrestrialintelligence would be very different for Chinese reli-gions as contrasted with the Christianity embracedby much of the Western world. 3) An important fea-ture of the matrix is the policy dimension: the studyof cultural implications is not purely academic, but isundertaken with the idea of informing policy. For anational policy strategy, the matrix would be consid-erably smaller, but for global policy we can see thecomplexity involved. Thus we envision a very largethree-dimensional matrix as the structure for ourstudy, of which we address only a very small part inthis paper.

Origin and Evolution of Life

Astrobiology’s emphasis on the origin and evolutionof life (Roadmap Goals 1-4) recalls the statement ofT. H. Huxley in the context of Darwinism: “Thequestion of questions for mankind—the problemwhich underlies all others, and is more deeply inter-esting than any other, is the ascertainment of theplace which Man occupies in nature and of his rela-tions to the universe of things” (Huxley, 1863).Surely one of the overarching results of origin andevolution of life studies will be a better understand-ing of our temporal place in the history of life onEarth. Surely, the discovery of the ancient origins oflife some 3.8 billion years ago has already had aneffect on human culture, as has the demonstrationthat bacteria ruled the Earth for the vast majority ofthat period. The relatively recent rise of the genusHomo, much less Homo sapiens, surely has lessons forour worldview. Exactly what they are should be thesubject of further research.

Aside from illuminating our place in nature, ori-gin of life studies force us to ask further questionssuch as “What is life?” “Is there a cosmic imperativefor life imbedded in the laws of Nature?” and “Whatis the role of chance and necessity in the origin andevolution of life?” Research on molecular biology hasalready produced considerable discussion on the lat-ter (Monod, 1971), but the answer to this questionand others will depend on which of the three or fourtheories of origin of life, or what combination ofthem, proves to be true (Davies, in press). Life arisingfrom panspermia will have quite different implica-tions than if it arose on Earth, whether in Darwin’swarm pond, in hydrothermal vents, or in the hotdeep biosphere (Gold, 1999). Scientists have beenasking these questions for years; it is time to engagethe broader scholarly world as well.

Life in the Universe

The question of life in the universe (Roadmap Goals5-8) brings another set of concerns. In any discussionof the cultural implications of life in the universe, weimmediately need to distinguish primitive fromintelligent life. Given the history of life on Earth—ruled by bacteria for more than two billion years—we perhaps need to consider that the universe is fullof bacteria. Anyone who thinks this has no implica-tions for society should recall the reaction three yearsago to the claim of Martian fossils. The media werefull of speculations about their meaning; the VicePresident specifically convened a seminar of experts


to discuss the societal implications, and funding wasprovided in no small part leading to the Origins andAstrobiology programs we have today. Undoubtedlypart of the excitement had to do with the implica-tions for the abundance of extraterrestrial intelli-gence, but the existence of extraterrestrial bacteria,possibly with their own biochemistries, would haveits own set of implications. The cultural impact ofprimitive life, however, has received no serious study.

The impact of intelligent life, by contrast, has beenthe subject of much speculation, and some seriousstudy. Different approaches to the long-term prob-lems of contact have been explored by Almar (1995),Billingham et al. (1999), Dick (1995), Harrison(1997), and Tough (1991), among others. The short-term reaction in the event of contact has been dis-cussed in considerable detail (Tarter and Michaud,1990), and policy issues regarding a response to anextraterrestrial communication are under consider-ation (Michaud, 1998). The problem of objectiveknowledge, or “extraterrestrial epistemology,” hasbeen broached by Rescher (1985) and Minsky(1985), while Ruse (1985) and Randolph, Race, andMcKay (1997) have outlined ethical considerations.Theological issues are coming more to the fore, andare discussed in Dick (1996, 1998, in press), Crowe(1986), Coyne (in press), McMullin (in press), andPeters (1994), among others. From this small sample,one can glimpse the scope of the problem of the cul-tural implications of extraterrestrial intelligence.Social scientists have only begun to think about howthese problems might be addressed (Harrison, Bill-ingham, Dick, et al., 1998).

One of the conclusions of the studies thus far isthat the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence willbe very much scenario-dependent. Any serious studyof the impact of extraterrestrial intelligence must cat-egorize the types of contact; a very general categori-zation of scenarios as terrestrial or extraterrestrial,and direct or remote is given in Table II, togetherwith examples from science fiction. Although terres-trial modes of contact are not currently in favoramong most scientists, they are logical possibilitiesand the subject of both science (Bracewell, 1975;Tough, 1998) and science fiction. (There is also aconsiderable popular following in the case of UFOsand alien abductions). Direct extraterrestrial contactis also currently considered unlikely, but again thesubject of much science fiction. Indirect contact byradio, optical, or other electromagnetic means is cur-rently the favored scenario, and the one to which

most attention has been given in terms of implica-tions. But clearly each of the four types of contactwould have its own set of implications for each of theelements in the cultural matrix. Even a brief consid-eration of the cultural implications of SETI demon-strates that the subject is complex, involving matricesembedded within matrices, but that these complexi-ties may be approached systematically in discreteparts.

* More than one mode of contact takes place

Future of Life on Earth and Beyond

The future of life on Earth and beyond, the subject ofRoadmap Goals 9 and 10, has implications bestknown today in terms of planetary protection andthe problems of contamination and back contamina-tion. These indeed are important and have beengiven prominent attention because the problems areimmediate, and the potential implications cata-strophic. The ethical questions, however, have onlybegun to be explored (Randolph, Race, and McKay,1997). Moreover, astrobiology’s third question raisesmany other cultural issues. Moving beyond theplanet may mean producing artificial life for bioengi-neering ecosystems, in its grandest vision known asterraforming. Probably in the lifetimes of our chil-dren, certainly in the 21st century, the issue of ter-raforming Mars will become real; it behooves us tobegin to consider the philosophical, ethical, andbroader cultural implications now. Similarly Goal 9’semphasis on the interplay of environmental changeand ecosystems raises broad questions that societyhas already had to tackle. As McKay (1990, in press)points out, we may soon be faced with extending theprinciples of environmental ethics to Mars.

Table II: Modes of Contact with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (and Some Representative Science Fiction Scenarios)

TERRESTRIAL EXTRATERRESTRIAL

DIRECT

Wells, War of the Worlds

Clarke, Rendevous with Rama*

Clarke, Childhood’s End

Bradbury, Martian Chronicles

ET: The Extraterrestrial Alien (and it’s sequels)

INDIRECT

Clarke, 2001: A Space Odyssey*

Gunn, The Listeners

McCollum, Lifeprobe

Hoyle, The Black Cloud

Sagan, Contact*


Movement off of planet Earth (Finney and Jones,1984) also raises the entire spectrum of issues associ-ated with space exploration, in terms of manned orunmanned, the problems and opportunities of spacecolonization, and societal spending priorities. Per-haps more than the other two questions, Question 3raises the issue of where our species wants to go in itscultural evolution, and emphasizes that to a largeextent human cultural evolution is in our own hands.I stress again that cultural evolution must be viewedas part of cosmic evolution; indeed it is indisputablethat the pace of cultural evolution now rapidly out-paces biological evolution (though genetic engineer-ing may change that in the future). An understandingof human cultural evolution is essential to under-standing ourselves and our future, and it will beessential for mutual understanding in the event ofextraterrestrial contact. Viewed as a part of cosmicevolution, cultural evolution fits squarely in the con-text of astrobiology and the famous “L” (lifetime ofcommunicative civilizations) parameter of the DrakeEquation. Indeed, many have pointed out that thenumber of communicative civilizations in our galaxy(N) approximates L; since L depends in large part onthe success or failure of cultural evolution, an under-standing of human cultural evolution is one of thefew ways we have at present to study L and betterdetermine N. The humanities and social sciences arein a position to make significant contributions to thisstudy.

Approaches and Goals

Social scientists must ask how we can systematicallyapproach these difficult questions, these questions ofthe “benefits, opportunities, and problems” of astro-biology, in the spirit of the National Aeronautics andSpace Act of 1958 and in the interest of encouragingdialogue between science and society. Of course wecannot predict the short- or long-term implicationsof astrobiology. But is there any systematic way for atleast discussing them? Given the fact that differentscenarios imply different implications, let me suggestthree approaches that might guide us in our thinkingabout implications.

First, we must make use of the humanities, for thehumanities study the elements that drive culturalevolution. History may be seen as a vast set of socialexperiments, conducted under many conditions.Surely, the record of these experiments must be usedin any assessment of the effect of astrobiology onhuman cultural evolution. As a start, we should ask

what effect space exploration has had on human cul-tural evolution in the last 40 years (McCurdy, 1997).Next, we might ask how humans have reacted to par-ticular ideas or events. The historical record of publicreaction to past false alarms of extraterrestrial life,whether the canals of Mars, reaction to the OrsonWelles broadcast of War of the Worlds in 1938, reac-tion to UFOs, the discovery of pulsars, and the nowwell-known history of extraterrestrial life debate(Crowe, 1986; Dick, 1982, 1996, 1998; Guthke,1990), are among the events that should prove rele-vant. The idea of “life beyond Earth,” whether termedexobiology, astrobiology, or bioastronomy, has exer-cised a peculiarly strong lure in American culture, aphenomenon that should itself be studied.

More generally the humanities provide us withanalogues of possible futures. An analogue is nomore than a model, a concept very successfully usedin the natural sciences, less so in the humanities andsocial sciences. Astrobiologists do not hesitate to use,with caution, Antarctica and Lake Vostok as ana-logues to conditions on Mars and Europa, respec-tively. In the case of SETI, to take a well-knownexample of analogical reasoning, one hears a gooddeal about physical culture contacts on Earth. Butmost scientists in the SETI field think direct physicalculture contacts are unlikely, though contact with analien probe in the vicinity of Earth must be consid-ered a logical possibility (Bracewell, 1975; Tough,1998). In the typical radio SETI scenario, a simple“dial tone” would provide evidence of a technologi-cal civilization, while decoding a message would ini-tiate intellectual contact. For the latter, a much betteranalogue in Earth history is the transmission ofknowledge from the ancient Greeks to the Latin Westvia the Arabs in the 12th and 13th centuries (Dick,1995), an event that led to the European Renaissance.

More generally still, I have argued elsewhere thatthe idea of a universe with abundant life constitutes aworldview, analogous to the Copernican and Dar-winian worldviews. If one accepts the claim that thebiological universe is very different from the physicaluniverse, we can study what effect changing world-views have had on society (Dick, 1995). Worldviewstraverse various stages, from motivation to evidenceto opposition and confirmation or rejection, andthere are very rich studies in the history of scienceelaborating the short- and long-term implications ofworldviews like Copernicanism or Darwinism. Sothe humanities offer a number of approaches to thecultural implications of astrobiology.


Secondly, aside from history and the humanities,one should use the tools of the social and behavioralsciences, which admittedly are not as robust as thenatural sciences, but which should play a role in themultidisciplinary science that is astrobiology. If, as E.O. Wilson and others have argued, there is such athing as gene-culture co-evolution, it offers a startingpoint for studying cultural evolution based on thenatural sciences. If, as Dawkins (1976) has argued,the “meme” is the unit of cultural evolution equiva-lent to the gene in biology, human cultural evolutionincluding movement off of planet Earth may be stud-ied using this increasingly developed concept (Black-more, 1999). Alternatively, Albert Harrison’s recentbook, After Contact: The Human Response to Extra-terrestrial Life has led the way in showing how fieldssuch as psychology, sociology, and anthropology canbe used as an aid to thinking about implications ofcontact, an approach that may be generalized toastrobiology. In particular he advocates a kind of sys-tems approach, called Living Systems Theory, inwhich what we know about organisms, societies, andsupranational systems on Earth can be used to dis-cuss the outer space analogues of aliens, alien civili-zations, and the galactic club. Yet another approachenvisions an “alien anthropologist,” who could applythe tools of anthropology to the Earth from an alienperspective.

Third, in addition to the humanities and socialsciences, human imagination, so colorfully renderedin science fiction literature, is a rich resource forstudying the implications of astrobiology. Authorssuch as Arthur C. Clarke have given considerablethought to the consequences of contact in fictionalform. Childhood’s End, Rendezvous with Rama, and2001: A Space Odyssey all provide engaging explora-tions of different contact scenarios. Carl Sagan’s Con-tact asks probing questions about the relation ofscience and religion. At the other extreme of extrater-restrial morality, we have the genre of H. G. Wells’War of the Worlds, Aliens, Independence Day, andStarship Troopers. Perhaps more realistically, Stanis-law Lem’s Solaris is a haunting story of contact withintelligence beyond our understanding. On the issueof extraterrestrial contamination, Michael Crichton’sThe Andromeda Strain is a thought-provoking exer-cise. Other science fiction authors have exploredextraterrestrial environmental ethics, terraforming,and the problems of space colonization. Althoughone can argue about which scenarios are more likely,

there is an enormous database of thought in the bestscience fiction that should not be ignored.

Undoubtedly a group of interdisciplinary special-ists would produce a more robust list of approachesto the cultural implications of astrobiology’s threequestions. Some may consider such study premature,since we do not yet know whether or not life existsbeyond Earth, or when we will terraform planets orcolonize outer space. But I think it fair to say the sci-entific consensus is that extraterrestrial life is likely,and that problems like terraforming and coloniza-tion will face us as real problems in the 21st century.As the anthropologist Ashley Montague said 25 yearsago at the NASA-sponsored Symposium at BostonUniversity, it is important that we think about thecultural impact of exobiology well in advance of thediscovery of extraterrestrial life. With the increasingattention now given to astrobiology, that sentimentmay be reiterated, and extended to all of astrobiol-ogy’s broader implications.

Conclusions

In closing, I would argue that it is prudent and essen-tial for the Astrobiology Program to support researchon the implications of its work. The public supportsNASA’s Astrobiology Program with its tax dollars; itis interested in the implications of this research,which deserves nothing less than systematic study byexperts from many fields. The need for study of theimplications of science has been explicitly recog-nized, for example, in the Human Genome Project,which devotes 3-5% of its budget to ethical, legal,and social issues. While the genomic issues areadmittedly more pressing, it may surely be arguedthat a small percentage of astrobiology fundingshould be allocated to studying cultural implications,in accordance with the National Aeronautics andSpace Act of 1958.

The study of the cultural aspects of astrobiology,however, need not confine its hopes to the success ofsimilar studies such as the Human Genome Project.As Finney argues in this volume, astrobiology is stra-tegically placed at the boundaries between disci-plines—whether of the natural sciences, the socialsciences, or the humanities—and so is in a uniqueposition to cultivate the unity of knowledge in thedeep sense that E. O. Wilson has elaborated in hisrecent book Consilience (Wilson, 1998). Even if life isnot discovered beyond the Earth, a fundamental rolein bringing about the unity of knowledge would be astunning success for astrobiology in the 21st century


and the third millennium. Exobiology has alreadybrought together the physical and biological sciencesin unprecedented cooperation. I urge NASA and theastrobiology/bioastronomy communities to broadentheir interdisciplinary scope yet again, this time tothe humanities and social sciences, and to take up thebroader challenges sure to come as astrobiologymoves forward with its scientific goals.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks members of the “Question 7”Group at the Astrobiology Roadmap meeting atNASA Ames in 1998, and particularly Lynn Harper,Kathleen Connell, and Ken Rose for active discus-sions on the subject since that time.

REFERENCES

Almar, I. 1995, “The Consequences of a Discovery: Different Sce-narios,” in G. Seth Shostak, ed., Progress in the Search for Extrater-restrial Life, 499-505.

Berenzden, R. 1973, Life Beyond Earth and the Mind of Man(NASA: Washington, D.C.).

Billingham, J. et al. 1999, Social Implications of the Detection of anExtraterrestrial Civilization (SETI Press; Mountain View, Ca).

Blackmore, S. 1999, The Meme Machine (Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford).

Bracewell, R. 1975, The Galactic Club (San Francisco), 69-83.

Coyne, G. 2000, “The Evolution of Intelligent Life on Earth andPossibly Elsewhere: Reflections from a Religious Tradition,” inSteven J. Dick, ed., Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterres-trial Life and its Theological Implications (Templeton Press).

Crowe, M. 1986, The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900: TheIdea of a Plurality of Worlds from Kant to Lowell (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge).

Davies, P. 1995, Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of theDiscovery of Extraterrestrial Life (Basic Books, New York).

Davies, P. 1998, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life(The Penguin Press, London).

Davies, P. 2000, “Biological Determinism, Information Theoryand the Origin of Life” in Steven J. Dick, ed., Many Worlds: TheNew Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and Its Theological Implications(Templeton Press, Philadelphia).

Dawkins, R. 1976, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press,Oxford).

De Duve, C. 1995, Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative (BasicBooks, New York).

Dick, Steven J. 1982. Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extra-terrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge).

Dick, S. J. 1995, “Consequences of Success in SETI: Lessons fromthe History of Science,” in G. Seth Shostak, ed., Progress in theSearch for Extraterrestrial Life (Astronomical Society of thePacific, San Francisco), 521-532.

Dick, S. J. 1996, The Biological Universe: The Twentieth CenturyExtraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge).

Dick, S. J. 1998, Life on Other Worlds: The Twentieth CenturyExtraterrestrial Life Debate (Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge).

Dick, S. J. 2000, “Cosmotheology”, in Steven J. Dick, ed., ManyWorlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and Its TheologicalImplications (Templeton Press, Philadelphia).

Finney, B. and E. M. Jones, 1984, Interstellar Migration and theHuman Experience (University of California Press, Berkeley).

Finney, B. This volume.

Gold, T. 1999, The Hot Deep Biosphere (Springer Verlag, NewYork).

Guthke, K. 1990, The Last Frontier: Imagining Other Worlds fromthe Copernican Revolution to Modern Science Fiction (CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca, N.Y.).

Harrison, A. 1997, After Contact: The Human Response to Extra-terrestrial Life (Plenum, New York).

Harrison, A., J. Billingham, S. J. Dick et al. 1998, “The Role ofSocial Science in SETI.” Paper prepared for the SETI Committeeof the International Academy of Astronautics, Melbourne, pub-lished in this volume.

Huxley, T. H. 1863, Man’s Place in Nature (London), 71.

Lawler, A. 1996a, “Building a Bridge Between the Big Bang andBiology,” Science, 274 (8 November, 1996), 912.

Lawler, A. 1996b, “Origins Researchers Win Gore’s Ear, NotPocketbook,” Science, 274 (20 December, 1996), 2003.

Logsdon, J. et al. 1995, Exploring the Unknown: Selected Docu-ments in the History of the U. S. Civil Space Program, vol. I, “Orga-nizing for Exploration,” (NASA: Washington, DC).

Macilwain, C. 1996, “Goldin Wants More NASA Biologists asGore is Briefed on Space Plans,” Nature, 384 (19/26 December,1996), 601.

McCurdy, H. 1997, Space and the American Imagination (Smith-sonian Institution Press, Washington).

McKay, C. 1990, “Does Mars Have Rights? An Approach to theEnvironmental Ethics of Planetary Engineering,” in Moral Exper-tise, ed. D. MacNiven, (Routledge: New York), 184-197.

McKay, C. 2000, “Astrobiology: The Search for Life Beyond theEarth,” in Steven J. Dick, ed., Many Worlds: The New Universe,Extraterrestrial Life and Its Theological Implications (TempletonPress, Philadelphia).

McMullin, E. 2000, “Life and Intelligence Far from Earth: Formu-lating Theological Issues,” in Steven J. Dick, ed., Many Worlds:The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life and Its Theological Implica-tions (Templeton Press, Philadelphia).

Michaud, M. A. G. 1998, “Policy Issues in Communicating withETI,” Space Policy, 14, 173-178.

Minksy, M. 1985, “Why Intelligent Aliens Will Be Intelligible,” inEdward Regis, Jr. ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelli-gence (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 117-128.

Monod, J. 1971, Chance and Necessity (New York).

NASA, 1999, “Astrobiology Roadmap” (Ames Research Center,Moffet Field, CA).


Peters, T. 1994, “Exo-Theology: Speculations on Extra-TerrestrialLife,” Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences Bulletin, vol.14, no. 3, 1-9.

Randolph, R.; M. Race; and C. McKay, 1997, “Reconsidering theTheological and Ethical Implications of Extraterrestrial Life,”Center for Theology and Natural Sciences Bulletin, vol. 17, no. 3, 1-8, Berkeley.

Rescher, N. 1985, “Extraterrestrial Science,” in Edward Regis, Jr.ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence (CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge), 83-116.

Ruse, M., 1985, “Is Rape Wrong on Andromeda?” in EdwardRegis, Jr. ed., Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), 43-78.

Schopf, J. W. 1999, The Cradle of Life (Princeton University Press,Princeton).

Tarter, J. C. and M. A. G. Michaud, eds., 1990. “SETI Post-Detec-tion Protocol,” Acta Astronautica, 21 (February, 1990), 69-154.

Tough, A. 1991, Crucial Questions About the Future (Lanham,MD).

Tough, A. 1998, “Small Smart Interstellar Probes,” Journal of theBritish Interplanetary Society, 51 (May, 1998), 167-174.

U.S. Congress, 1961. Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peace-ful Space Activities for Human Affairs, a Report of the Committeeon Science and Astronautics, U. S. House of Representatives, 87thCongress, First Session, prepared for NASA by the BrookingsInstitution (Washington: Government Printing Office).

Wilson, E. O. 1998, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Knopf,New York).

Courtesy of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series. Published by the Foundation For the Future with per-mission from the author.

153

Guillermo A. LemarchandInstituto Argentino de Radioastronomía (CONICET) & Centro de Estudios Avanzados (Universidad de Buenos Aires)C.C. 8–Sucursal 251425–Buenos Aires, ArgentinaE-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

The purpose of the Seminar on the Cultural Impactof Extraterrestrial Contact, sponsored by the Foun-dation For the Future, was the study of the long-termimpact—for our terrestrial civilization—of a dia-logue between humankind and a highly advancedextraterrestrial society. According to the organizers,humanity’s interaction with other galactic civiliza-tions will likely have a greater positive impact thanalmost any other event in the Third Millennium.Over the last 40 years, several speculations about thecharacteristics, contents, and social impact of thediscovery of an extraterrestrial message were madeby scientists and scholars all over the world.

Based on a hypothetical distribution of advancedtechnological civilizations in the galaxy, Sebastianvon Hoerner (1961) estimated that the civilizationswe will find will probably be much older than we are,and they will be more advanced. He considered thatour chance of learning from them might be the mostimportant incentive for our search. According tothese ideas and due to the large interstellar distances,the extraterrestrial contacting signals would alreadycontain high-information messages (including anintroduction to a language). There might be somespeaking and listening , but mutual exchange ofknowledge would be rather limited because of thelong time scale involved.

Shklovskii and Sagan (1966) and Sagan (1973,1980) took all these original ideas and extended theminto the concept of Encyclopedia Galactica. Theyimagined that a hypothetical network of civilizationsin the galaxy compiled all the accumulated knowl-edge from each independent evolutionary history

and put it at the disposal of the emerging technologi-cal societies. After the detection of an extraterrestrialmessage, they foresaw big technological gains, hints,and leads of extraordinary value. They speculatedabout all sorts of scientific and technological results,ranging from a valid picture of the past and future ofthe universe through theories of fundamental parti-cles to whole new biologies. They also made conjec-tures that we might learn from the views of distantand venerable thinkers of the deepest values of con-scious beings and their societies. Finally, the mostspeculative and seductive argument to pursue in thesearch for extraterrestrial signals is that we canobtain information that may help us to solve ourpolitical, social, or environmental global crises andthereby pass through our technological adolescence.

These dreams dominated the scientific and popu-lar literature over the last 40 years, including most ofthe presentations made in this workshop. Very littlediscussion took place around the basic hypothesesbehind these ideas.

The purpose of this essay is twofold: The first pur-pose is the introduction of restrictions to some of theoriginal hypotheses about the technological charac-teristics and intentions of the extraterrestrial civiliza-tions. The second is the construction of differentcommunication scenarios, based on the inclusion ofethical and artistic universal principles.

To do that, we will analyze the proposed charac-teristics of the extraterrestrial supercivilizations thatwould have the hypothetical capability to send inter-stellar messages with high-information content. Wewill present a series of arguments to reject the con-cept of advanced civilizations transmitting omnidi-rectional signals in a full-time mode. In this way, wewill place a limit on the detectability of these high-information messages. Then we will comment on thelife expectancy of our contemporary terrestrial civili-zation, with special emphasis on the consequencesgenerated during the last 50 years of the nuclear era.The present state of the planet Earth and the long

Section V, Paper 10

Speculations on the First Contact: Encyclopedia Galactica or the Music of the Spheres?

154 Section V, Paper 10 • Speculations on the First Contact

violent human history create an urgent need for adeep and strong ethical, societal mutation. Other-wise, our species will become extinct.

All technological civilizations that already havepassed through their technological adolescence, andhave avoided their self-destruction (by misuse ofadvanced technologies or by environmental degrada-tion of their home planet), must have developed eth-ical rules to extend their societal life expectancy. Indoing so, they must have learned how to respect thenatural evolutionary times of other beings in the uni-verse. To build this scenario, we will introduce theconcept of Lex Galactica, based in Kantian ethicalprinciples, as hypothetical guidelines for advancedcivilizations in how to contact emerging societies. Ifthe advanced galactic civilizations are unable tocheck the level of technical and ethical evolution ofthe possible recipients of their signals, they will beunable to send high-information-content messagesdue to the Lex Galactica. Using these alternativeboundary conditions, we will discuss different con-tact scenarios and their possible message characteris-tics. We will consider the possibility that the firstmessage from an advanced technological societywould include some extraterrestrial artistic manifes-tation.

Hypothetical Characteristics of Advanced Extraterrestrial Civilizations

In order to provide a frame of reference aroundwhich we can develop different contact scenarios,according to the technological and cultural levels ofdevelopment of extraterrestrial civilizations, we willmake a short review of the scientific literature on thistopic. In 1964, the soviet scientist N. S. Kardashevestablished a general criterion regarding the types ofactivities of extraterrestrial civilizations that can bedetected at our present level of development. Themost general parameters of these activities are appar-ently ultrapowerful energy sources, harnessing ofenormous solid masses, and transmission of largequantities of information of different kinds throughspace. According to Kardashev, the first twoparameters are prerequisite for any activity of asupercivilization. He suggested the following classifi-cation of energetically extravagant civilizations:

TYPE 1: a level “near” the contemporary terrestrialcivilization with an energy capability equivalent tothe solar insulation on Earth (between 1016 and 1017

Watts).

TYPE 2: a civilization capable of using and channel-ing the entire radiation output of its parent star. Theenergy utilization would then be comparable to theluminosity of our Sun, about 4 x 1026 Watts.

TYPE 3: a civilization with access to power com-parable to the luminosity of the entire Milky WayGalaxy, 4 x 1037 Watts.

Kardashev also examined the possibilities in cos-mic communication, which attend the investment ofmost of the available power into communication. AType 2 civilization could transmit the contents of100,000 average-sized books across the galaxy in atotal transmitting time of 100 seconds. The transmis-sion of the same information to a target ten millionlight-years distant—a typical intergalactic dis-tance—would take a transmission time of a fewweeks. A Type 3 civilization could transmit the sameinformation over a distance of ten billion light-years,approximately the radius of the observable universe,with a transmission time of three seconds.

Sagan (1973) considered that Kardashev’s classi-fication should be completed using decimal numbersto indicate a difference of one order of magnitude inenergy consumption. For example, a civilizationType 1.7 expends 1023 Watts, while a civilization Type2.3 expends 1029 Watts. Sagan also suggested that, inorder to be more accurate, a letter could indicate thesocietal information level (degree of their accumu-lated knowledge). According to Sagan, a Class A civi-lization will have 106 bits of information; a Class B,107 bits; a Class C, 108 bits; and so on. Under thisclassification, our terrestrial civilization is Type 0.7 H.According to Sagan (1973), the level of the first extra-terrestrial civilization that could make contact withus would be between 1.5 J and 1.8 K. A galactic super-civilization would be Type 3 Q, while a hypotheticalcivilization with the capacity to control a federationof galaxies would be Type 4 Z.

Dyson (1959, 1966) used the same hypothesis ofinfinite exponential expansion of technologicalprogress and energy consumption. Instead of receiv-ing large amounts of information by interstellar mes-sages, he proposed to detect evidences of astro-engineering technological activities. He proposed asearch for huge artificial biospheres created around acentral star by an intelligent species as part of itstechnological growth and expansion within a plane-tary system. This giant structure would most likelybe formed by a swarm of artificial habitats and mini-planets capable of intercepting essentially all theradiant energy from the parent star. This would be

Section V, Paper 10 • Speculations on the First Contact 155

one of the typical limits to a Kardashev Type 2 civili-zation.

Figure 1: In 1959, Freeman Dyson suggested that very advancedcivilizations, bound only by the presently known laws of physics,may surround their parent star with spherical shells made fromdismantled planets. A representation of this idea applied to oursolar system, using the mass of Jupiter to form a sphere at oneastronomical unit from the Sun is shown in the figure. FromLemarchand (1994) ©SETIQuest.

According to Dyson, the mass of a planet like Jupi-ter could be used to construct an immense shell,which could surround the central star and have aradius of one astronomical unit. This kind ofobject—known as a Dyson Sphere(1)—would be avery powerful source of infrared radiation. Dysonpredicted the peak of the radiation at 10 µm. Severalsearches for this kind of objects were carried outunsuccessfully during the past 30 years.

Another characteristic feature analyzed by vonHoerner (1961), Kardashev (1964), Sagan (1973,1980), and others is that communication amonggalactic civilizations would be one-way only. This isdue to the large propagation time of electromagneticsignals across interstellar (civilizations Type 1 or 2)or intergalactic (civilizations Type 3) distances.Under these conditions, with signal propagationtimes greatly exceeding the characteristic evolution-ary lifetime of the transmitting civilization, exchange

of questions and answers among galactic partnerswill be practically impossible. For Kardashev andSagan, the transmission should carry the maximumamount of information—each side transmitting itsentire knowledge at once. This is the historical reasonwhy most people believe that the detection of anextraterrestrial intelligence signal will automaticallyimply the existence of a huge message with all sorts ofpractical knowledge for our society to consume.

Sagan (1974) put it in these words: “The mostlikely reason for us to use radio if alternative, moreefficient means exist is this: the more advanced civili-zations are looking for the dumb, emerging technicalsocieties and seeking to give them information thatmay help them make their L(2) a large number.”

But can we really believe that any of these hypo-thetical Type 2 or 3 civilizations are really transmit-t ing a l l the ir knowledge in a fu l l - t ime andomnidirectional mode using electromagnetic meansto certain unknown emerging societies…employingenergies equivalent to the total outputs of a star or agalaxy…giving the recipient civilizations veryadvanced knowledge without any information abouttheir evolutionary and ethical stages…knowing thatthis hypothetical “practical information” could putin danger the very existence of the recipients whenthe new knowledge is used without adequate ethicalcontrols?

In the following sections, I will try to show that ifany of these advanced galactic societies really exist,they would never send any high-information mes-sage without knowing the societal evolutionary stageof the recipients. Before going to that particularpoint, let me say why these hypothetical Type 2 orType 3 civilizations may not exist, or—if they doexist—would have a very different profile to the onedescribed by Kardashev and others.

The arguments against the existence of Type 2 andType 3 civilizations are the following:

1. Transmitting Strategy Arguments: Far-reaching,omnidirectional beacons are extremely energy con-suming. No good arguments have ever been put for-ward to explain why a Type 2 or 3 civilization shouldnot make use of the enormous economic advantageof using directional and intermittent emissionbeamed successively towards each target star.

1. The concept of this extraterrestrial construction was firstdescribed in 1937 in the science fiction novel Star Maker by OlafStapledon.

2. Here L indicates the lifetime of a civilization in years. Thisnumber is generally used as a factor of the Drake Equation.


2. Limits to Growth: Between the late 1950s and theearly 1970s, the developed societies of planet Earthexperienced an exponential growth in most of theirtechnoeconomical indicators (Maddison, 1991 and1995). In this societal environment, the scientificcommunity had a sense that there were no limits togrowth, and therefore, the contact scenarios pro-posed in the scientific literature(3) were developedusing these assumptions. In the early 1970s, due tothe publication of the first world models by Meadowsand Meadows (1972), Mesarovic and Pestel (1974),and several others (see review by Bruckman et al.,1982), all these images were shifted into the oppositedirection. Taking into account these new elements tounderstand the very long-term dynamics of societalsystems, Kardashev’s implicit assumption of expo-nential energy consumption growth is probablywrong. If we analyze the energy consumption percapita over the whole human history, we will findthat it follows a succession of logistic-type curveswith a saturation niche for each technology of energyproduction. From my personal point of view, a real-istic scenario of the very-long-term evolution of theenergy consumption of technological civilizationsmust consider these constraints. Those civilizationswith very long lifetimes—and interest in interstellarcommunication—will have reached a saturationniche of energy production and consumption thatwill be in harmony with their own environment andsocietal needs. Under these circumstances, a steadystate or a very low energy consumption growthshould be expected. For an advanced society, thesteady state niche would remain stable during peri-ods comparable with the society’s lifetime.

3. Delta t Estimator Argument: If whatever we aremeasuring can be observed only in the intervalbetween times tbegin and tend, if there is nothing spe-cial about tnow we expect tnow to be located randomlyin this interval. Gott (1993) showed how to estimatetfuture with a 95% confidence level as [(1/39) tpast <tfuture < 39 tpast]. This equation tells us that thelength of time something has been observable in thepast is a rough measure of its robustness not only

against the calamities of the past, but also againstwhatever calamities may affect its observability in thefuture. All that is required for this equation to work isthat in the end, our position as an observer turns outnot to have been special. Sagan and Shklovskii (1966)defined this effect as the Principle of Mediocrity.(4)

Using this Delta t argument, Gott established thatspace colonization is not an important factor in thesense that galactic colonists and their descendantsmust not dominate the numbers of intelligentobservers in the universe. In this context, civiliza-tions significantly larger than our own must be suffi-ciently rare that their individuals do not dominatethe total. Thus, we do not expect to see a Dysonsphere civilization within our galaxy, or a KardashevType 3 civilization within the current observable uni-verse’s horizon.

4. Experimental Facts: Recent full-sky surveys forultra-narrowband microwave signals at a preferredhydrogen frequency (e.g., ν = 1.42 GHz) would bedetectable out to 22 megaparsecs, within which thereare something like 1014 stars. Unfortunately, nosupercivilization was detected by any of the METAsky-surveys at Harvard and Buenos Aires (Horowitzand Sagan, 1993; Lemarchand et al., 1997). Theseexperiments ruled out the hypothesis of a civilizationType 2 or 3 transmitting omnidirectional, electro-magnetic messages in a full-time dedicated mode atν = 1.42 GHz, within a sphere of approximately 70million light-years. We can conclude that there areno such civilizations in the Milky Way; nor in M31,the nearest galaxy like our own; nor in M33 or M81or the Whirlpool Nebula or Centaurus A; nor theVirgo cluster of galaxies.

Is There Intelligent Life on Earth? Earthlings as Members of a Technological Adolescent Society

Carl Sagan (1973, 1980) called attention to the factthat our civilization—for the first time in its evolu-tionary history—has the technological capability todestroy itself. He metaphorically defined this partic-ular period as technological adolescence. Our civiliza-tion could collapse due to the failure to solve our

3. For example, Sagan (1974) used these words: “...However, an

expanding technology would seem to be characterized by increas-ing energy consumption. This is indeed a major aspect of the cur-rent environmental crisis. The expanding technology of acivilization much in advance of ourselves would be able to chan-nel enormous amounts of energy into interstellar communica-tion.”

4. The Principle of Mediocrity is an extension of the CopernicanPrinciple, where it is established that the Earth does not occupy aprivileged position in the universe. Darwin established, in termsof the natural selection mechanism, that we are not privilegedabove other species. Our position around an ordinary star in anordinary galaxy in an ordinary supercluster continues to look lessand less special.


mutual aggressions (e.g., human maldevelopment,arms race, population explosion, starvation, globalwarning, ozone depletion, etc.). If most of the galac-tic civilizations fail in their pass through this evolu-tionary path, the possibility of making contactamong them would be negligible. Herein, we willdevelop a brief description of one of the most dan-gerous planetary challenges: the military arms race.

Lewis F. Richardson (1881-1953), British meteo-rologist and founder of mathematical sociology, con-ducted an interesting study about the temporaldistribution of deaths caused by interhuman violentevents (from individual murders to world wars). Theresults of the study were published posthumously inStatistics of Deadly Quarrels (1960). Using data from1820 to 1945, he found that the historical statisticscould be explained by a simple mathematical powerlaw. The extrapolation of this distribution shows thatif humankind does not make a deep change in itssocial behavior to eliminate violence, humankindwill disappear in less than a thousand years. Unfortu-nately, the evolution of technologies of mass destruc-tion (nuclear and biological arms) has dropped thecurve to a shorter horizon of 100 years or so. Figure 2shows an account of these findings.

Figure 2: Richardson’s diagram of the distribution of deathscaused by interhuman violent events (from individual murders toworld wars). The data may be explained by a mathematical powerlaw. The extrapolation indicates that if we do not change oursocial behavior, we will disappear as a civilization in the nextthousand years. Due to the spreading of nuclear and biologicalmass destruction arms, this temporal horizon was shortened toonly 100 years. The time scale goes from 30 seconds to 100,000years, while the number of deaths rises from 1 to 1010. Cohen(1995) estimated Earth’s maximum Human Carrying Capacitybetween 3 x 109 and 4 x 1010 inhabitants. A very interesting result,found by Gott (1993), shows that the extraterrestrial civilizationpopulations would have the same size as the terrestrial one.

From an evolutionary point of view, if our societydoes not start generating a strong and deep mutationin its social and environmental attitudes, its life

expectancy is something between 30 and a thousandyears. This is a very short time to exchange informa-tion and wisdom across interstellar distances by elec-tromagnetic means.

Is there intelligent life on Earth? A short look tohuman history shows that the largest organizedhuman efforts so far have always been self-destruc-tive. The worst example was the nuclear arms racethat took place during the Cold War. Figure 3 showsthe evolution of the destructive power of nucleararsenals in the United States and the former USSR/Russia after World War II. The destructive power isexpressed in millions of TNT tons or megatons(MT). During the 1970s, we reached the absurd andirresponsible value of 25,000 MT. For comparison,all of the shells, missiles, and bombs (including theatomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) used inWorld War II had only 3 MT. An estimate was devel-oped of how much destructive power would beneeded for a second-strike capability, or MutualAssured Destruction (MAD), which means that eachcountry, after having been fully attacked by theenemy, could strike back and successfully destroy theenemy. The level of 400 MT was the size of retaliatoryforce estimated to achieve MAD’s level required fordeterrence (Levi, 1983).

Figure 3: Evolution of the destructive power of nuclear arsenals inthe United States and the former USSR/Russia after World War II,expressed in millions of TNT tons (megatons). From Lemarch-and, based on data published over several years by The Bulletin ofAtomic Scientists and SIPRI Yearbook.

Using the data of the total nuclear destructive power provided inFigure 3 and the evolution of the population on planet Earth dur-ing the period 1954-1997, we built a new indicator: the destructivepower per each living person. Figure 4 shows the nuclear destruc-tive power in tons of dynamite for every individual human.


Figure 4: Nuclear destructive power per capita on planet Earth.The indicator is expressed in tons of dynamite per individual liv-ing person. It shows a decrease from almost 7,000 kg of dynamiteper capita in 1969 to 2,000 kg in 1997. From Lemarchand, basedon data published over several years in The Bulletin of Atomic Sci-entists, SIPRI Yearbook, and Maddison (1995).

Table I shows the geographical distribution ofmilitary expenditures, expressed in 1995 constantdollars, as a good measure of human aggression—although we usually call it “defense.” World militaryexpenditure is still declining, but the rate of decline isslowing down. Estimates of world totals indicate thatthe rate of decline was less than 1% in real terms in1997, compared to an average annual reduction of2.5% during 1993–1997. Military expenditures in1997 corresponded on average to 2.6% of the world’sgross national product and $125 per capita.

The waste of human, technological, and economicresources in military activities is not the only evi-dence against intelligent life on Earth. A few othershocking examples are the following: more than onebillion persons live in absolute poverty (three timesthe European Community’s population); more than100 million have no shelter; 950 million are chroni-cally malnourished; more than 900 million areunable to read or write; a third of the whole planet’spopulation does not have access to safe water (twobillion people); more than 800 million are starvingevery day; 150 million children under age five havemalnutrition; the 20% of the world’s population thatlive in the most-developed countries control 90% ofthe total world’s gross national product. As a conse-quence of irresponsible human activities, we havealso generated environmental degradation, green-house effect, ozone depletion, etc.

Table I: Military expenditure by region. The figures are in billionU.S. dollars at constant 1995 exchange rates. From SIPRI Yearbook1998, p. 214.

According to the conclusion of seven world mod-els (Bruckman et al., 1982), there is no known physi-cal or technical reason why basic needs cannot besupplied for all the world’s people into the foresee-able future. These needs are not being met nowbecause of social and political structures, values,norms, and worldviews—not because of absolutephysical scarcities. Continuing “business as usual”policies through the next few decades will not lead toa desirable future—or even to meeting basic humanneeds. It will result in an increasing gap between therich and the poor, problems with resource availabil-ity, environmental destruction, and worsening eco-nomic conditions for most people.

Finally, the vital arena to understand in order towork on almost any global problem is that of values;goals; and individual, social, and political will: whypeople are what they are and make the decisions theymake, and especially, how such things can bechanged.

I do not think we should be very proud in com-municating these truths about planet Earth to ourgalactic fellows. Obviously, we have many things tobe solved on our home planet before dreaming ofbecoming a member of any hypothetical GalacticClub. On the other hand, it is utopian to think thatthe extraterrestrials would tell us their recipes onhow we should solve these and other main “local”problems. Our species is responsible for them and itis our duty to solve them. We must not look into thesky for answers to the problems we have here in frontof our eyes.

From Kantian Ethics to Lex Galactica

If most of the galactic societies have a similardestructive evolutionary trajectory, the number ofcommunicative civilizations will be very small. If themetaphor of technological adolescence is correct, wemay consider that we are living in a very particularmoment of our civilization’s history when we may


start our self-destruction. In order to avoid it, ourspecies must make a deep transformation of humanindividual behavior in three main aspects,(5) whichare Intra-individual or Somatic, Interindividual orSocial, and Exosocial or Habital.(6)

In order to improve the lifetime of a technologicalcivilization, it is impossible to have superior scienceand technology, and inferior morals. This combina-tion is dynamically unstable and we can guaranteeself-destruction within the lifetimes of advancedsocieties (105 to 106 years?). At some point, in orderto avoid their self-destruction, all intelligent speciesin the universe must produce this ethical break-through among the members of their societies inorder to achieve harmony in their planetary environ-ment. Otherwise, the probability of global extinctionwould be very high and consequently their societallife expectancy would be very short. What kind ofethical principles should guide this transformationor social mutation? We consider that Kantian ethicsprovides some good elements to start the discussion.

Kant’s outstanding contribution to moral philos-ophy was to develop with great complexity the thesisthat moral judgments are expressions of practical, asdistinct from theoretical, reason. For Kant, practicalreason or the rational will does not derive its princi-ples of actions by examples from the senses or fromtheoretical reason; it somehow finds its principleswithin its own rational nature. Kant argued that will-ing is truly autonomous if, but only if, the principlesthat we will are capable of being made universal laws.Such principles give rise to categorical imperatives,(7)

or duties binding unconditionally, as distinct fromhypothetical imperatives, or commands of reasonbinding in certain conditions that we desire for cer-tain ends. Kant seemed to hold that universalizabilityis both necessary and sufficient for moral rightness.Kant arrived at the ideal of “the kingdom of ends inthemselves” or of people respecting each other’s uni-versalizing wills. This has been an enormously influ-ential idea, and its most distinguished recentexponent has been John Rawls (1980).

The exploration and development of ideas relatedto ethical principles regarding cultures beyond theEarth is in its childhood. Only Fasan (1970),Lupisella and Logsdon (1997), Narveson (1985), andRuse (1985) have presented some speculations inthese directions.

My thesis is that all the civilizations should evolveethically at the same time they evolve technologically.When these civilizations reach their technologicaladolescent stage, they must perform the societalmutation or become extinct. After learning how toreach a synergetic harmony among the individualmembers, their groups and their habitat, they wouldextend this praxis to the rest of living beings, includ-ing their hypothetical galactic neighbors. Their ownevolutionary history will teach them the Kantianprinciple of respecting each other’s universalizingwills. Being aware that each planetary evolutionarypath is unique, these advanced civilizations will havea noninterference policy with the evolutionary pro-cess of underdeveloped societies. This galactic quar-antine hypothesis—based in Kantian ethics—isdefined here as Lex Galactica.

Some useful ideas in the direction of the evolutionof societal ethical stages—applied to the study of sev-eral terrestrial cultures—were developed originallyby Piaget (1971) and extended by Kohlberg (1973).In his pioneer works, Kohlberg established a corre-spondence between Piaget’s cognitive evolutionarystages and his moral judgment stages. According tohis view, the final ethical evolutionary stage is basedon “universal principles.” Besides the formal criti-cism that these ideas received by other scholars (Car-racedo, 1989), I consider that these are good startingapproaches for the exploration of our speculationsabout the concept of Lex Galactica.

If the Lex Galactica principle is used, we mightexpect that very limited amounts of practical infor-mation would be available for emerging societies toconsume. Obviously, we can expect great exchange ofinformation between advanced civilizations at thesame level of development. Those civilizations withlarge lifetimes can establish dialogues with interstel-lar partners and evaluate which kind of informationcan be shared with each civilization.

Earthlings’ electromagnetic transmissions haverevealed their existence to the universe only within asphere of approximately 70 light-years around theSun.(8) Distant advanced societies will be unable torecognize that some primitive intelligent life isaround our Sun, and consequently they will be

5. For a complete description of these aspects see C.A. Mallmann,“On Human Development, Life Stages and Needs Systems” in F.Mayor (Ed.), Human Development in Its Social Context ,UNESCO, Paris, 1986.

6. Here we use the word “Habital” in reference to the concept ofHabitat.

7. In its most famous formulation, a categorial imperative statesthat “the maxim implied by a proposed action must be such thatone can will that it become a universal law of nature.”


unable to “calibrate” our technological and ethicalevolutionary level to start sending their “knowledge”to us. As shown in the previous section, access totechnologies thousands of years more advanced thanour present ones could cause our self-destruction ifthose technologies become available to terrorists orother deranged leaders. These advanced civilizationswould not want to place potentially destructiveknowledge at the disposal of any “ethically underde-veloped” society. Such knowledge could be a threatto the emerging society’s survival. Any civilizationneeds time to work out adequate moral restraints onits own behavior.

Message Contents: Encyclopedia Galactica or the Music of the Spheres?

Based on the arguments presented in the previoussection, if there is something resembling Sagan’s con-cept of Encyclopedia Galactica, it would probably beencrypted in such a way as to allow detection only bythe ethically more advanced civilizations, those civi-lizations that already know how to be responsiblewith the power of knowledge and high technology.To avoid detection by the emerging societies, theywill probably use exotic technologies, based in subtle,unknown—to us—laws of nature (Lemarchand,1992, 1994, and 1997). In any case, these advancedcivilizations will be totally “transparent” for us.

A different possibility is the case in whichadvanced civilizations might try to contact emergingcivilizations by sending only beacon signals: a typicalartificial signal, very easy to recognize among thegalactic cacophony, but without any message or con-tent. This signal will attract our attention and will letus introduce ourselves to this unknown galactic part-ner. In this way, the extraterrestrials will have achance to calibrate our technological and ethicaldevelopment. In a second run, they could send prac-tical knowledge according to our needs, using theKantian ethical principles or Lex Galactica.

We can also include, in the last group, thosenearby advanced civilizations that are within asphere of 70 light-years and have already detected usby our military and planetary radar signals, TV carri-ers, etc. They will probably have devices with the sen-

sitivity needed to decode our weakest signals andobtain more information about us. Again, theirtransmissions will be designed specifically for ourneeds.

Finally, these advanced societies could use a dif-ferent approach to call our attention. Instead ofsending hundreds of Terabits of scientific and techni-cal knowledge, they could send us some manifesta-tions of their artistic production.(9) For example,some piece of their “Music of the Spheres” or someimages of their pictorial arts. Would it be possible forus to get a correct interpretation of these art cre-ations? (Lewis, 1972; von Hoerner, 1974; The NewYork Times, 1989; Lemarchand and Lomberg, 1996;Vakoch, 1999). An attempt to send not only a beaconsignal, but also a “compact” of art productions couldbe an interesting solution to the limitations imposedby Lex Galactica. Of course this should also be donein a delicate way in order not to generate a deep cul-tural shock to the recipient society by sending themcomplete art galleries. A few manifestations will beenough to initiate “conversations.”

It has been shown that there are several patterns inart and nature that can be considered as universal asmathematics for their employment in interstellarcommunication attempts (von Hoerner, 1974;Lemarchand and Lomberg, 1996). Our species has amuch longer tradition in dealing with the arts thanwith science and technology. Manifestation ofhuman symbolic thinking started with our first artis-tic expressions. It could be natural to think that itwould be much easier to “contemplate” an extrater-restrial piece of art than to “interpret” the correctapplication of an extravagant technology.

For example, the technologically and symbolicallysuperior Homo sapiens began to populate Europesome 40,000 years ago. According to anthropologists,the reason for our species’ success was the develop-ment of language, not simply the intuitive level ofunderstanding and rudimentary communicationcharacteristic of Neanderthals, but symbolic, syntac-tic language. This innovative characteristic is funda-mental to our ability to think; it is more or lesssynonymous with symbolic thought, and the intelli-gent property is simply impossible in its absence.

8. Considering the description earlier about the way we waste ourhuman, economic, and technological resources in military pro-grams, probably none of the hypothetical technological civiliza-tions within this 70 light-years sphere will be interested incontacting us.

9. A special Round Table to discuss this particular topic betweenartists and scientists was organized by G.A. Lemarchand and J.G.Roederer during the First Iberoamerican School on Astrobiology:Origins from the Big Bang to the Civilizations, Instituto de Estu-dios Avanzados (IDEA), Caracas, Venezuela, November 28–December 7, 1999.


Read (1954) considered that art, or more preciselythe aesthetic experience, is an essential factor inhuman development, and, indeed, a factor on whichHomo sapiens has depended for the development ofhis highest cognitive faculties. The “creative explo-sion” responsible for modern humans is perhapsmost dramatically witnessed in the Upper Paleolithicart. The oldest known painted image was found inDecember 1994 in the Ardèche Valley of southeastFrance (Chauvet et al., 1996). These staggeringimages proved to be doubly remarkable, for not onlyhave radiocarbon tests established them to be over36,000 years old—nearly twice as old as those foundat Lascaux—but they also are powerful, sophisticatedworks of art rather than crude sketches.(10)

Art and science are creative activities. In the act ofcreation, a sentient being brings together two facetsof reality and, by discovering a likeness betweenthem, suddenly makes them one. This act is the samein Bach, Einstein, or Leonardo da Vinci. The specta-tor who is moved by the finished work of art or thescientific theory relives the same discovery; hisappreciation is also a re-creation.(11) The work of artor of science is universal because we have the possi-bility to re-creation it. We are moved by the sym-phony, we follow the theorem because we discoveragain and seize the likeness that the creator firstseized. The act of creation is therefore original but itdoes not stop with its originator. The act of apprecia-tion reenacts the act of creation, and we are (each ofus) actors; we are interpreters of it.

An extraterrestrial symphony, an abstract image,or a new aesthetic manifestation will help us toexpand our symbolic capacities to new, unexpectedfrontiers.

Figure 5: Detail from “Panel with the Horses,” slide n. 12, of theGrotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc cave pictures and one of the oldestknown paintings on planet Earth. Used by permission and elabo-rated with the support of the French Ministry of Culture andCommunication, Régional Direction for Cultural Affairs–RhÔne-Alpes, Régional Department of Archaeology.

Humans’ art age is at least one order of magnitudeolder than the invention of mathematics and morethan two orders of magnitude older than the inven-tion of radio waves technologies. If we place the valueof 36,000 years as the first known manifestation ofhuman symbolic thought(12) in Upper Paleolithicart, we can use the Principle of Mediocrity or theDelta t argument to estimate with a 95 percent confi-dence level that our species’ interest in the arts willlast between 923 and 1,404,000 years into the future.Obviously, the pleasure that each artistic manifesta-tion generates is highly dependent on our individualcultural values. Extraterrestrial art would be com-pletely different from any other artistic experiencewe have had before. In one way or another, each sin-gle artistic creation is always unique. The essentialissue is that in the process of contemplating any artmanifestation, we are participating in some kind ofrecreating activity. We always are rediscovering a new

10. The first age estimate was only 32,400 years, but recent recali-bration of the Carbon 14 method determined this new age of36,000 years. (E. Bard, La DataciÓn por Carbono 14 se Renueva,Mundo Científico, No. 206, pp. 37-41, November 1999).

11. This view, that science is as integral to the culture as the arts,was the theme of Jacob Bronowski’s address to the British Associ-ation for the Advancement of Science in 1955, “The EducatedMan in 1984,” and of Sir Charles P. Snow’s eloquent Rede Lecture,The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge Uni-versity Press, New York, 1959. Recent versions of the same state-ments were published—among others—by A. C. Crombie,“Experimental Science and the Rational Artist in Early ModernEurope,” Daedalus, Vol. 115 (3), p.49-74, 1986; A. I. Miller,Insights of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art,Copernicus, New York, 1996; and A. I. Tauber (Ed.), The ElusiveSynthesis: Aesthetics and Science, Kluwer Acad. Pub. Dordrecht,1996.

12. We are using factual data only. Probably symbolic thoughtstarted much earlier. Recently, Dr. Ivan Turk, a paleontologist atthe Slovenian Academy of Sciences in Ljubljana, found an ancientbone flute segment at a Neanderthal campsite. It is the first fluteever associated with Neanderthals and its age was estimated at43,000 to 82,000 years. The confirmation of this discovery couldshow that a second terrestrial species (Neanderthal) developedmusic much earlier than Homo sapiens developed painting. Themost amazing thing is that four holes of the flute match our mod-ern diatonic musical scale.


pattern, a subtle new order, or a new hidden sym-metrical-asymmetrical organization.

Conclusions

According to the scenarios explored in this essay, weconsider that there are good theoretical and empiri-cal reasons to think that the original hypothesis of auniverse populated by supercivilizations makingomnidirectional transmissions is incorrect. Thoseoriginal scenarios imposed the view that the discov-ery of an extraterrestrial signal will be strongly asso-ciated to the existence of a message with all sorts ofadvanced scientific, technological, and sociologicalrecipes. In this view, all the advanced galactic (andextragalactic) societies would be irresponsiblyspreading all their accumulated knowledge across theuniverse, knowing nothing about the technologicaland ethical characteristics of the possible recipients.

The existence of very advanced technological civi-lizations is highly conditioned by very large societallifetimes. The analyses of the history of our incipienttechnological human society shows that we are fac-ing the dangerous technological adolescent era, whenour civilization could become extinct in the follow-ing 30 to a thousand years. Probably most of thetechnological civilizations have to pass through asimilar adolescent era. In any case, the only possibilityto avoid self-destruction is a deep and strong societalmutation, based in some sort of Kantian ethics. Thelong-term application of these ethical principles tothe societal dynamics will generate some kind of LexGalactica. The implementation of these ethicalguidelines would prohibit placing potentiallydestructive knowledge at the disposal of any ethicallyunderdeveloped society. This knowledge could be athreat to the survival of the recipient civilization.

From these assumptions, we can derive the fol-lowing observational predictions:

• No omnidirectional electromagnetic transmissionswith high-information content will be observed.

• Only beacon, low-information signals should besent, in an intermittent and target mode, to thosestars that have planets suitable for life. For detect-ing terrestrial-type planets, extraterrestrials canuse advanced space interferometry techniques(Beichman et al., 1999). We should expect this typeof signals from all the stars at distances over [35 +(tf-2000)/2] light-years, where tf is the observingdate in years and tf ≥ 2000.

• An alternative transmission strategy could be theaddition of some extraterrestrial artistic creations

to the beacon signals. Extraterrestrial art contem-plation would help us to expand our perceptivehorizons.

• Those nearby advanced societies that have alreadyreceived our initial radio transmissions, with thetechnical capability to detect and decode our weak-est signals, will have some idea about our techno-logical and moral level of development. Thesecivilizations may be transmitting to us high-infor-mation messages or those chapters from theirEncyclopedia Galactica that our civilization is in aposition to understand—but only those stars atdistances Rt <[35 + [(tf-2000)/2] + τ] light-years,where Rt is the distance at the observing date tf andτ is the time that the extraterrestrial society needsto analyze and evaluate our technological and ethi-cal stage.

• We may also be able to detect some radiation leak-age from nearby civilizations, but this will proba-bly be with very low-information content. Thesame thing would happen with any serendipitousdetection of evidences of technological extraterres-trial activities (Dyson, 1959; Lemarchand, 1994and 1997).Indeed, our position relative to the SETI outcome

is very much like that of an adolescent setting out onlife’s journey: the possibilities are infinite, the futureis wide open, and we have grand plans, but much ofthe shape of that future hangs not only on what wedo, but also on what the “others” are doing. Today wehave no answer to the question: Are we alone in theuniverse? Until we have that answer, we must dowhat most adolescents do very poorly: we must wait.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My participation in this workshop was possiblethanks to the economic support of the FoundationFor the Future and The Planetary Society. I wouldlike to express my most sincere gratitude to ProfessorAllen Tough, Robert Citron, and Donna Hines fortheir help and advice; moreover, to all the workshopparticipants for generating very interesting brain-storming and discussions during the meeting.Finally, my thanks to Jon Lomberg for a careful read-ing of the manuscript and for making very deepobservations and useful suggestions.


REFERENCES

Beichman, C. A., Woolf, N. J., and Lindensmith, C. A., TPF: Ter-restrial Planet Finder, JPL Publication 99-3, Pasadena, (1999).Also available at http//tpf.jpl.nasa.gov/.

Bruckman, G., Meadows, D. H., and Richardson, J.M. (eds.),Groping in the Dark: The First Decade in Global Modeling, JohnWiley and Sons, Chichester, (1982).

Carracedo, J. R., “La Psicología Moral de Piaget a Kohlberg,” in V.Camps (ed.), Historia de la Ética, Vol. 3, pp. 481-532, EditorialCrítica, Barcelona, (1989).

Chauvet, J. M., Deschamps, E. B., and Hillaire, C., Dawn of Art:The Chauvet Cave, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, (1996).

Cohen, J. E., “Population Growth and Earth’s Human CarryingCapacity,” Science, Vol.269, pp. 341-346, (1995).

Dyson, F. J., “Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radi-ation,” Science, vol.131, pp.1667-1668, (1959).

Dyson, F. J., “The Search for Extraterrestrial Technology,” in Per-spectives in Modern Physics (Essays in Honor of Hans Bethe), R. E.Marshak (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, (1966).

Fasan, E., Relations with Alien Intelligences, Berlin Verlag, Berlin,(1970).

Gott III, J. R., “Implications of the Copernican Principle for OurFuture Prospects,” Nature, Vol. 363, pp. 315-319, (1993).

Hoerner, S. von, “The Search for Signals from Other Civiliza-tions,” Science, Vol.134, pp. 1839-1843, (1961).

Hoerner, S. von, “Universal Music?” Psychology of Music, Vol.2,No.2, pp.18-28, (1974).

Horowitz, P. and Sagan, C., “Five Years of Project META: An All-Sky Survey Narrow-Band Radio Search for Extraterrestrial Sig-nals,” Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 415, pp. 218-235, (1993).

Kardashev, N. S., “Transmission of Information by Extraterres-trial Civilizations,” Soviet Astronomy, Vol.8, No.2, pp. 217-220,(1964).

Kohlberg, L., “The Claim to Moral Adequacy of the Highest Stageof Moral Judgment,” Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 70, pp.630-645,(1973)

Lemarchand, G. A., El Llamado de las Estrellas, Lugar Científico,Buenos Aires, (1992).

Lemarchand, G. A., “Detectability of Extraterrestrial Technologi-cal Activities,” SETIQuest, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 3-13, (1994). Alsoavailable at http://www.coseti.org/lemarch1.htm.

Lemarchand, G. A., “Possible Scenarios for the Detectability ofExtraterrestrial Intelligence Evidences,” in Round Table ForumSETI and Society in the 48th International Astronautical Con-gress: “Developing Business from Space,” 6-10 October 1997,Turin, Italy, preprint IAA-97-IAA.7.1.02, (1997).

Lemarchand, G. A., “Is There Intelligent Life out There?” Scien-tific American Presents: Exploring Intelligence, Vol.9, No.4, pp.96-104, (1998).

Lemarchand, G. A. and Lomberg, J., “Are There any UniversalPrinciples in Science and Aesthetics that Could Help Us to Set theUnknown Parameters for Interstellar Communication?” In 5thInternational Conference on Bioastronomy: Astronomical and Bio-chemical Origins and the Search for Life in the Universe, Interna-tional Astronomical Union Colloquium 161, poster p. 4-12,Capri, Italy, July 1-5, (1996).

Lemarchand, G. A., Colomb, F. R., Hurrell, E. and Olalde, J. C.,“Southern Hemisphere SETI Survey: Five Years of Project METAII,” in C. B. Cosmovici, S. Bowyer, and D. Werthimer (eds.),Astronomical and Biochemical Origins and the Search for Life in theUniverse, Proceed. of the IAU Colloquium 161, Editrice Compos-itori, Bologna, Italy, (1997).

Levi, B.G., “The Nuclear Arsenals of the US and USSR,” PhysicsToday, March 1983; reprinted in Hafemeister (Ed.), Physics andthe Nuclear Arms today: Readings from Physics Today, pp. 79-85,American Institute of Physics, New York, (1991).

Lupisella, M. and Logsdon, J., “Do We Need a CosmocentricEthic?” 48th International Astronautical Congress, Turin, Italy;October 6-10, preprint IAA-97-IAA.9.2.09, (1997).

Maddison, A., Dynamic Forces in Capitalist Development: A LongRun Comparative View, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (1991).

Maddison, A., Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992, OECD,Paris, (1995).

Meadows, D. L. and Meadows D. H., The Limits to Growth, PanBooks Ltd., London, (1972).

Mesarovic, M. and Pestel, E., Mankind and the Turning Point: TheSecond Report to the Club of Rome, Dutton, New York, (1974).

Naverson, J., “Martians and Morals: How to Treat an Alien,”reprinted in E. Regis (ed.), Extraterrestrials: Science and AlienIntelligence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1985).

Piaget, J., El Criterio Moral en el Niño, Fontanella, Barcelona(1971).

Rawls, J., “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory,” The Journalof Philosophy, Vol.77, pp. 515-572, (1980).

Read, H., “Art and the Evolution of Consciousness,” The Journalof Aesthetics & Art Criticism, Vol. 13 (2), pp. 143-155, (1954).

Richardson, L. F., The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels, BoxwoodPress, Pittsburgh, (1960).

Ruse, M., “Is Rape Wrong in Andromeda?” reprinted in E. Regis(ed.), Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, (1985)

Sagan, C. E., The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspec-tive, Doubleday, New York, (1973).

Sagan, C. E., “An introduction to the Problem of InterstellarCommunication,” in C. Ponnamperuma and A.G.W. Cameron(eds.), Interstellar Communication: Scientific Perspectives, Hough-ton Mifflin Co., Boston, (1974).

Sagan, C. E., Cosmos, Random House, New York, (1980).

Shklovskii, I. S. and Sagan, C. E., Intelligent Life in the Universe,Holden-Day, Inc.; San Francisco, (1966).

Thomas, L., “Notes of a Biology-Watcher: CETI,” New EnglandJournal of Medicine, Vol. 286, pp.306-308, (1972), also reprintedin his book The Lives of a Cell, Bantam Books, New York, (1974).

The New York Times, Editorial: Bach to Bach, p. A24, Wednesday,August 16, (1989).

Vakoch, D., “The Aesthetics of Composing Interstellar Messages,”50th International Astronautical Congress, 4-8 October 1999,Amsterdam, The Netherlands, preprint IAA-99-IAA.8.2.03,(1999).

165

Douglas A. VakochSETI InstituteMountain View, CA

The United Nations required years to come to a deci-sion that the Society of Jesus reached in ten days. InNew York, diplomats debated long and hard, withmany recesses and tablings of the issue, whether andwhy resources should be expended in an attempt tocontact the world that would become known as Rakhatwhen there were so many pressing needs on Earth. InRome, the questions were not whether or why but howsoon the mission could be attempted and whom tosend…

The Jesuit scientists went to learn, not to proselytize.They went so that they might come to know and loveGod’s other children. They went for the reason Jesuitshave always gone to the farthest frontiers of humanexploration. They went ad majorem Dei gloriam: forthe greater glory of God.

— from the prologue of the novel The Sparrow1

Why Theology?

When one first considers using theology to advancethe scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence(SETI), this seems like an improbable partnershipindeed. SETI scientists pride themselves in their reli-ance on empirical evidence gathered throughadvanced technologies to answer the question, “Arewe alone?” In contrast, theology is often seen as beingfounded upon personal faith or subjective beliefs,which are not readily subjected to verification by acommunity of objective scientists. How then doestheology have any relevance to scientific concernswith the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence? Itwould seem that there are at least four benefits to be

gained by a study of theological perspectives onextraterrestrials.

First, a better understanding of the range of possi-ble extraterrestrial intelligence—whether biologicalor artificial—may influence the search strategiesemployed by SETI scientists. For example, if we cometo the conclusion that other species are likely to benaturally inclined to avoid strife and discord, andinstead to show altruistic concern for others, then wehave some basis for searching for freely beamed sig-nals, intentionally directed our way. In contrast, if weexpect extraterrestrial civilizations to be guided bymore selfish motivations, then they might be willingto engage in interstellar communication only if theirspecies has something to gain from it—such as infor-mation transmitted by us as part of an interstellarbarter. Given that we cannot know for sure about thenature of extraterrestrial intelligence before makingcontact, these often implicit assumptions aboutextraterrestrials may have a significant impact on theamount of resources we allocate to various searchstrategies, e.g., to active vs. passive searches. Even ifwe do not think of our underlying assumptionsabout extraterrestrials in specifically religious terms,nevertheless theological reflections may help makeour implicit assumptions more explicit, which is animportant process in the evolution of any scientificenterprise.2

A second motive for examining theological per-spectives is to help anticipate the consequences offuture contact. As I have noted previously, “in theevent of a detection of a signal from ETI [extraterres-trial intelligence], there would probably be a signifi-cant religious response. If there is discussion of thesecomplex issues prior to signal detection, the SETIcommunity will be better prepared to deal with themin the event that a SETI experiment is successful.”3

1.Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow (New York: Villard Books,1996), p. 3.

2.Douglas A. Vakoch and Hans H. Strupp, “The Evolution ofPsychotherapy Training: Reflections on Manual-Based Learningand Future Alternatives,” Journal of Clinical Psychology (in press).

Section V, Paper 11

Roman Catholic Views of Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Anticipating the Future by Examining the Past

166 Section V, Paper 11 • Roman Catholic Views of Extraterrestrial Intelligence:

Empirical research has shown that religious individ-uals are less likely to believe that extraterrestrial lifeexists than are less religious people. When presentedwith a hypothetical scenario about the detection ofan information-rich signal from extraterrestrials, themore religious American undergraduates in thestudy—as compared to their less religious counter-parts—were more likely to assume that the senders ofthe message had hostile intentions. In addition, thesemore religious Americans were more resistant tosending a reply message.4 In short, religious andnonreligious individuals may respond quite differ-ently to news that we have detected extraterrestrialintelligence, with these differences possibly affectingpublic policy decisions that will be made after signaldetection. This is particularly true in perhaps themost likely scenario, in which we know little aboutthe beings sending the message, if for no other reasonthan that it would probably be difficult to decodetheir message and thus learn about them.5

Moreover, we may benefit from “thought experi-ments” about the nature of extraterrestrials, becausesuch exercises may allow us to expand beyond ourhabitual assumptions about ways that intelligentbeings will encounter the world and one another. Inthe process, we can expect to gain a better perspectiveon ourselves: “If we can understand that our way ofencountering the universe and our views of spiritual-ity only begin to express the range of ways that intel-ligent beings deal with Ultimate Reality, we areguaranteed to gain something very powerful: a morehumble, more realistic, and yet paradoxically morecomplete and more extensive understanding of ourown place in the universe.”6 This may hold true evenif we never actually make contact with life beyondEarth, but “encounter” other forms of life only inhypothetical scenarios of our own construction.

Finally, in the process of attempting to imaginealien forms of intelligence that evolved indepen-dently on other worlds, we may be better prepared toanticipate and effectively deal with new forms ofEarth-based intelligence—whether natural, artificial,or genetically modified. These new life-forms couldevolve either naturally or through intentional design,both on Earth and beyond our home world. Theo-logical speculations may be particularly fruitful forhelping to imagine forms of intelligence having theirorigins on Earth, but evolving under very different,perhaps hostile conditions in extraterrestrial envi-ronments.

The Age of Space

At the beginning of the Space Age, the possibility oflife beyond Earth increasingly became a topic forserious discussion among scientists. But scientistsdid not have a monopoly on the subject. Starting inthe 1950s, theological speculations about extraterres-trials were seen in response to increased space explo-ration. For example, Father T. J. Zubek began his“Theological Questions on Space Creatures” by cit-ing recent accomplishments of space exploration.7

Another author noted that the theological implica-tions of extraterrestrial life were being considered“with a heightened interest in this beginning of theAge of Space.”8 Writing in 1962 on conjectures aboutthe existence and nature of extraterrestrials, theExecutive Secretary of the American Rocket Societymaintained that the “liveliest speculation” came fromRoman Catholic theologians.9

Though theologians have continued this conver-sation through the present day, most of the issuescentral to contemporary discussions were identifieddecades ago. Thus, it is the beginning of the modernconcern with the theological implications of extra-terrestrials, and not more recent developments, thatwill be the central focus of this paper. To illustrate thevariety of views that can be held within a single reli-gious denomination, I will focus on perspectivesmaintained by Catholic clergy and others writing inCatholic publications between 1955 and 1965. Inaddition, I will briefly note more recent Catholic

3.Douglas A. Vakoch, “Communicating Scientifically FormulatedSpiritual Principles in Interstellar Messages,” Paper IAA-99-IAA.9.1.10 presented at the SETI I: Science and Technology Ses-sion of the 50th International Astronautical Congress, Amster-dam, The Netherlands, October 1999.

4.Douglas A. Vakoch and Yuh-shiow Lee, “Reactions to Receiptof a Message from Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Cross-CulturalEmpirical Study,” Acta Astronautica (in press).

5.Douglas A. Vakoch, “Signs of Life beyond Earth: A SemioticAnalysis of Interstellar Messages,” Leonardo 31 (1998): 313-319.

6.Douglas A. Vakoch, “Framing Spiritual Principles for Interstel-lar Communication: Celestial Waves,” Science & Spirit 10(November/December 1999): 21.

7. T. J. Zubek, “Theological Questions on Space Creatures,”American Ecclesiastical Review 145 (December 1961): 393.

8. John P. Kleinz, “The Theology of Outer Space,” Columbia 40(October 1960): 28.

9. James Harford, “Rational Beings in Other Worlds,” Jubilee: AMagazine of the Church and Her People 10 (May 1962): 19.

Section V, Paper 11 • Roman Catholic Views of Extraterrestrial Intelligence: 167

views about extraterrestrials, and I will suggest waysthat we might draw upon these past theologicalreflections as we prepare for the possible future suc-cess of SETI.

To preview my more detailed discussion, the dom-inant position of this group was that belief in extra-terrestrial beings is consistent with both science andChristian theology. Most of those who took a posi-tion on whether such life is probable argued that it is.Moreover, it was generally agreed that if extraterres-trials exist, such beings would be made in the imageof God with the purpose of glorifying their creator.There was less consensus about the extent to whichsuch beings would be successful in this task. But inspite of differences of opinion about the nature of therelationship between extraterrestrials and God, therewas most often a common framework for such spec-ulations.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

While scientists were interested in a wide range ofextraterrestrial life, theologians had much narrowerconcerns. Zubek—a priest whose views will be notedrepeatedly in this paper—was interested “only increatures similar to us, composed of spirit and body.”Another priest whose name will reappear often in thefollowing pages, Father Daniel C. Raible, shared thisview, saying he was concerned neither with “subhu-man life,” because it has no eternal destiny, nor withangels, because they are not material beings. Theposition that Raible stated explicitly, that he wouldfocus on beings with both a material and a spiritualnature, was also accepted by others, often implic-itly.10

A recurring view in writings of the time was thatthere is nothing in the Catholic faith to dismiss thepossibility of extraterrestrial beings.11 According toone priest, “Revelation, the common teaching of the

Fathers, tradition, the solemn pronouncements ofthe Popes—none of these say there cannot be lifeother than on earth.”12 One anonymous author,writing in America: A Catholic Review of the Week,compared the silence of the Bible on extraterrestriallife to its silence on the indigenous people of theWestern Hemisphere.13

Some went further and maintained that the exist-ence of extraterrestrials is not only consistent withCatholic theology, but there are good reasons tothink that such beings actually exist.14 The mostcommon argument was that extraterrestrials wouldadd to the glory of God. In the words of one Catholictheologian, “The supreme world aim is the glorifica-tion of God through rational beings…. Should weassume there to be nothing but deserts in all these[other] worlds?”15

Two ways were identified that extraterrestrialsmight glorify God. First, simply by existing theywould unconsciously give glory to God. Second, asrational beings they would also have the duty to glo-rify God consciously.16 Some held that extraterrestri-als might even glorify God better than humans do.17

Father L. C. McHugh, whose views will be elaboratedthroughout this paper, used the glory of God to sug-gest that extraterrestrials may be common. He con-ceived of the glory of God not as the adoration ofGod, but as a gift of God to God’s own creation.“After all, God made this gigantic material fabric forHis glory,” wrote McHugh, “not for His glory as abenefit to be gained by Himself, but as one to bespread abroad, especially among beings capable ofknowing and loving Him.”18 This argument for theexistence of extraterrestrials was not universallymaintained, however. One Jesuit suggested that evenif humans were the only rational beings in the entireuniverse, God would still be sufficiently glorified.19

10.Zubek, p. 394; Daniel C. Raible, “Rational Life in OuterSpace?” America: A Catholic Review of the Week 103 (13 August1960): 352 (article condensed in Daniel C. Raible, “Men fromOther Planets?” Catholic Digest 25 (December 1960): 104-108 andsummarized in George Dugan, “Priest Suggests Rational BeingsCould Well Exist in Outer Space,” New York Times (7 August1960): 14.

11.A. Carr, “Take Me to Your Leader,” Homiletic and PastoralReview 65 (December 1964): 256; J. D. Conway, “The QuestionBox,” Catholic Messenger 82 (6 August 1964): 10; Harford, p. 18;John J. Lynch, “Christians on Other Planets?” Friar 19 (January1963: 29; L. C. McHugh, “Life in Outer Space?” Sign: A NationalCatholic Monthly Magazine 41 (December 1961): 28; “Space The-ology,” Time 66 (19 September 1955): 81; Zubek, p. 393-394.

12.Kleinz, p. 36.

13.“Messages from Space,” America: A Catholic Review of the Week111 (12 December 1964): 770.

14.Carr, p. 255; Conway, p. 10; Angelo Perego, “Rational Lifebeyond the Earth?” Theology Digest 7 (Fall 1959): 178 (summaryof Angelo Perego, “Origine degli esseri razionali estraterreni,”Divus Thomas (Piacenza) 61 (1958): 3-24).

15.“Space Theology,” p. 81.

16.Zubek, p. 395.

17.Carr, p. 255; Conway, p. 10.

18.McHugh, “Life,” p. 29.

19. Perego, “Rational,” p. 177.


Others used the glory of God as an explanation forwhy extraterrestrials would not exist. One priestmaintained that one would not “be able to under-stand the logic of the divine plan of man’s salvation”if extraterrestrials were able to glorify God. Fromthis, he argued they simply would not exist: “It is fan-tastic to suppose that God would place such men onother planets. Remember that the world was createdby God for God’s glory. What glory would Godderive from men deprived of supernatural gifts?”20

While the Catholic journalist Joseph A. Breig didnot use the term glory, he did ask whether there areextraterrestrials capable of adoring God consciously.He contended that there is no need to assume theexistence of extraterrestrials, because humanity pro-vides a sufficient locus for the meeting of spirit andthe entire created order.21

Lonely Planet

Another of Breig’s arguments for the uniqueness ofhumans concerned their status as images of God. Itwas inconceivable to him that God would populatethe universe with images of God other than thosedescended from Adam; Breig argued that humanitywas an image of God by virtue of both spiritual andphysical aspects.22 One priest believed that extrater-restrials would resemble humans insofar as they bothhave spiritual and material natures, “but in theirbodily formation they could be as different from usas an elephant is from a gnat.”23 When McHughexplained how extraterrestrials could be images ofGod, he did not even mention their physical nature.Rather, he said that humans are made in God’s image“radically through the possession of mind and will,accidentally through the doing of virtuous deeds.”24

Unlike Breig, McHugh thought this image could bereplicated many times. Another priest noted thateven this spiritual component of extraterrestrialscould differ from that of humans.25

Breig’s denial of the possibility of extraterrestrialsrelied upon more than his opposition to multipleincarnations. He felt there was no room in the uni-

verse for nonhuman forms of intelligence. In hiswords:

To me, there is a divine rightness to this concept ofthe singular unity of mankind, of the cosmos, and of theCreator, which cannot be present in any theory thatthere may be one or more races of thinking beings com-posed of matter and spirit.

McHugh saw this desire for uniqueness as a rem-nant of the belief that the Earth is at the center of theuniverse. It is a prejudice, he said, to which peoplestill cling on the basis of a feeling of intellectual supe-riority. McHugh preferred to think that the “family ofAdam, or Homo terrenus, as I shall dub him, is not alonely wayfarer in a wilderness of glowing cindersand icy cosmic dust.” Zoologist and psychologistVincent G. Dethier, writing in Catholic World, wasmore explicit about the implications of being unique:

To be unique is to be lonely. It is a chilling thoughtthat in all the universe man and his biosphere are theonly living things. As long as all men believed in heavenman was not alone in the universe. Could it possibly bein this age of scientific materialism that man’s desper-ate search for extraterrestrial life stems from a fear ofbeing alone? That he is searching for a substitute forheaven?26

For one priest, the central point was not simplythat humans want to make contact with other equals.Instead, he said people have a need to worship supe-rior beings, and some try to meet this need throughpostulating extraterrestrials that are wiser and morepowerful than humans. Accordingly, they can hopefor either a delivery from their Earthly suffering or“complete annihilation through some tremendouseschatological conflict.”27 Others raised the possibil-ity of superior extraterrestrials who might adore Godbetter than humans do.28

While some individuals had either extreme posi-tive or extreme negative expectations of making con-tact with extraterrestrials,29 others were moreambivalent about encountering them. One writer


21.Joseph A. Breig, “Man Stands Alone,” America: A CatholicReview of the Week 104 (26 November 1960) : 294.

22.Breig, p. 294.

23.Raible, “Rational,” pp. 532-533.

24.L. C. McHugh, “Others out Yonder,” America: A CatholicReview of the Week 104 (26 November 1960): 296-297.

25.Zubek, p. 394.

26.Breig, p. 295; McHugh, “Others,” p. 295; Vincent G. Dethier,“Life on Other Planets,” Catholic World 198 (January 1964): 250.

27.J. Edgar Bruns, “Cosmolatry,” Catholic World 191 (August1960): 286.

28.Carr, p. 256; “Space Theology,” p. 81.

29.For a general discussion of extreme views of contact withextraterrestrial intelligence, see John Billingham, Roger Heyns,David Milne, Stephen Doyle, Michael Klein, John Heilbron,Michael Ashkenazi, Michael Michaud, Julie Lutz, and SethShostak, Social Implications of the Detection of an ExtraterrestrialCivilization (Mountain View, CA: SETI Press, 1999), pp. 48-52.


was uncomfortable with the prospect of meetingbeings who are biologically very different fromhumans. But simultaneously, he gained a sense ofhope that even if humans destroy the Earth in anuclear disaster, humankind “might continue in thelife of other planets.”30 Similarly, the author of anarticle in America regarded the idea of a plurality ofkinds of intelligent beings as both “engaging” and“intimidating.”31

Some writers gave theological reasons for thinkinghumans are or are not unique, but many turnedtoward science to determine whether extraterrestrialsactually exist. Often, the question of whether habit-able planets exist around other stars was taken as astarting point, with authors emphasizing that theprevailing opinion of astronomers was that suchplanets probably do exist.32 The legitimacy of suchclaims was not universally accepted at the time. Ananonymous writer in the Catholic magazine Sign saidthat such conclusions are unscientific, noting that a“scientist who makes such a claim is betraying thestandards of exactness claimed for his profession.”33

One Jesuit priest, however, thought a focus on plan-ets habitable by life as we can conceive of it was anunjustified restriction of God’s power. He reasonedthat if God is capable of endowing human bodieswith properties that will enable people to exist aftertheir Earthly lives, then certainly God could createbeings suitable for any planet.34

Risen, Fallen, Redeemed?

In addition to biological differences between humansand extraterrestrials, many said the two groupsmight have fundamentally different relationshipswith God. Some references were relatively unelabo-rated. One priest simply noted the possibility ofextraterrestrials being either “in the state of originalgrace” or “fallen into sin.”35 Another writer won-dered “whether they would be better or worse thanourselves.”36 While there was certainly no consensus

about the actual spiritual status of extraterrestrials,there was often a common, implicit frameworkwithin which to discuss these possibilities. Mostschemes postulated beings that originally existed ineither a natural state or a supernatural state. Of thelatter, it was thought some might remain in God’sgrace and some might fall from it. Further, the possi-bility of redemption was discussed for those who fell.Two priests noted that different races of extraterres-trials could well fit two different categories.37

Gifted Children

According to this categorization, extraterrestrialraces that were never endowed with supernaturalgifts would be in a state of pure nature. For three ofthe priests who raised this possibility, beings in thisstate were compared to human infants who diebefore baptism. Like such infants, these extraterres-trials would naturally know God in eternity.38 Thisdestiny would apply to extraterrestrials in a naturalstate, according to one of these priests, “if theyremained faithful to God.”39 While Zubek acknowl-edged the possibility of eternal bliss for these extra-terrestrials, he did not think it was inevitable. In hisview, “God would eternally reward such creatureswith natural happiness or punish them forever,according to whether they did or did not serve Himin their lives.”40

Within this basic framework of the different statesin which extraterrestrials could exist, Raible andZubek added the possibility of extraterrestrials beingendowed with gifts that others did not mention. Thequality of these preternatural gifts is most easily seenin Raible’s writing. He contended that beings with anintegral nature would be endowed with one or moregifts possessed by angels. Raible described some ofthe characteristics they might have:

For example, they might enjoy infused knowledge(they would literally be born with extensive knowledgeand would find the acquisition of further knowledgeeasy and enjoyable); they might be blessed with har-mony and concord in the working of their bodily andspiritual faculties; they might be spared the ultimatedissolution of death, passing to their reward at the end

30.Harford, pp. 19, 21.

31.“Messages,” p. 250.

32.Bruns, p. 284; Dethier, p. 249; Harford, pp. 17-18; McHugh,“Life,” p. 28; “Other Worlds, Other Beings?” Newsweek 60 (8October 1962): 113; Raible, “Rational,” p. 532.

33.“No Room for Christian Faith,” Sign: A National CatholicMonthly Magazine 36 (November 1956): 14.

34.Perego, “Rational,” p. 177.


36.“Messages,” p. 770.

37.Perego, “Rational,” p. 178; Zubek, p. 396.

38.“Missionaries to Space,” Newsweek 55 (15 February 1960): 90;Raible, “Rational,” p. 533; “The Theology of Saucers,” Time (18August 1952): 62.

39.Raible, “Rational,” p. 533.

40.Zubek, p. 396.


of their time of trial as peacefully as the sun sinks belowthe horizon at the end of the day. They might possess allthese preternatural gifts or only some of them in any ofvarious combinations that are limited only by theomnipotence and providence of God.41

The difference between pure nature and integralnature is less clear in Zubek’s distinction. Though hespecifically noted that beings in a natural state wouldhave no preternatural gifts, he did say that they mightreceive “a sort of natural help by God.”42 This help,he wrote, might be offered to extraterrestrials in astate of pure nature whose natural appetites conflictwith God’s will.

The third type of gift that many thought Godcould bestow upon extraterrestrials is of a supernatu-ral form. For Raible, beings in this state of superna-ture “would be elevated, either at the moment ofcreation or shortly thereafter, to a condition surpass-ing absolutely all the natural needs and power of anyexisting or possible creature.” The priests who main-tained that preternatural gifts were a possibility alsosaid that both preternatural and supernatural giftscould be given to the same beings, placing them in a“state of innocence.” 43

Paradise Lost?

Extraterrestrials in either a state of innocence or astate of supernature, some priests contended, wouldhave something in common with Adam and Eve: thefreedom either to pass or to fail a test, along with allof the consequences of that choice. Supernaturallyendowed extraterrestrials who passed their test, saidFather Domenico Grasso, would be immortals “farahead of us in science and related fields.”44

Grasso also considered another possibility: a racethat had fallen and not been redeemed. For thesebeings, Grasso stressed, “crime, war, and hate wouldrule…. Compared to the vast nonterrestrial hell, ourworld would appear to be a privileged globe….”45

Another priest compared them to fallen angels:“creatures with keen intellects, but with wills stronglyinclined to evil.”46 Also comparing them to fallenangels and calling them “a sort of devil incarnate,”

Zubek raised the possibility of their passing on theirstate to offspring who also might be denied redemp-tion. McHugh regarded unredeemed extraterrestrialsas theologically defensible on the grounds that itwould demonstrate God’s justice and holiness.Though Raible acknowledged the possibility of fallenbut unredeemed extraterrestrials, he thought itunlikely given the infinite mercy God has shown tohumanity.47

The last possibility that was considered—a racefallen but redeemed—raised questions about the sig-nificance of Jesus Christ for extraterrestrials. Grassosaid that only humans, descended from Adam, couldshare in redemption through Jesus Christ. Otherbeings, not tainted by Adam’s original sin, would beoutside the church.48 Though Zubek concurred thatextraterrestrials would not share in the sin of thehuman race, nevertheless he held that God couldhave saved such beings through Jesus Christ if God sowished.49 A professor of dogma at the University ofMunich said that Christ is the head of the universe,and thus would also be the head of extraterrestrials.This writer did note, however, that this does notautomatical ly mean that Christ is also theirredeemer.50 When asked in an interview about therelationship between extraterrestrials and “JesusChrist, the Incarnate Word,” McHugh replied thatextraterrestrials would be “under the universaldominion of Christ,” but McHugh said he wouldleave further conjectures to theologians specializingin the incarnation. So too did Father J. Edgar Brunsaffirm the universal dominion of Jesus Christ with-out taking a position about Christ’s status asredeemer.51

Grasso denied the redemptive power of theEarthly incarnation of Christ for extraterrestrials,but he kept open the possibility of their salvationthrough other means.52 Some believed that thiscould occur through other incarnations of any one ofthe persons of the Trinity.53 Breig found this notiontotally unacceptable. Most inconceivable to him, it

41.Raible, “Rational,” p. 533.

42.Zubek, pp. 396-397.

43.Raible, “Rational,” p. 534; Zubek, p. 397.

44.“Missionaries,” p. 90.


46.Bruns, p. 286.

47.Zubek, p. 398; McHugh, “Others,” p. 296; Raible, “Rational,”p. 534.


49.Zubek, p. 398.


51.McHugh, “Life,” p. 29; Bruns, p. 297.


53.McHugh, “Others,” p. 296; Raible, “Rational,” pp. 534; Zubek,p. 398.


seems, was the idea of more than one Mother of God,an idea that was no problem for McHugh.54 Raibleand Zubek thought God could redeem fallen racessimply by forgiving their sins with or without requir-ing them to ask for forgiveness. They also said Godcould require a partial satisfaction for their sins byone or more members of the race. Only if Godrequired an infinite satisfaction, they thought, wouldan incarnation be necessary. Raible added that if Godchose to re-elevate a race, God could decide to returnany or all of the gifts that were originally given.55

A number of people commented on the theologi-cal implications of extraterrestrials between 1955 and1965, but that number must not be overestimated.McHugh contended that “hard-headed Catholictheologians” had not considered the topic. Heclaimed that without more evidence that extraterres-trials actually exist, most theologians studying theincarnation “would regard such speculation asidle.”56 A spokesman for the Vatican called the issue“slightly premature” in 1955.57 While acknowledgingthat thinking about extraterrestrial beings is “in itsway fascinating,” another writer concluded that “it’sall too nebulous and far out to worry much about.”58

Although the Jesuit priest and paleontologist Teil-hard de Chardin said he did not want to discouragesuch hypotheses, he thought the probability of extra-terrestrials existing was so unlikely that it did notseem worth becoming engrossed in.59 Anotherwriter saw this lack of attention as a reluctance oftheologians to raise difficult questions.60

Toward the End of the Millennium

In the years following the decade that is the primaryfocus of this paper, there were additional voicesadded to theological discussions about extraterres-trial beings. For example, in 1969 Father Clifford J.Stevens provided a view of theology quite differentfrom those writing just a few years earlier. Hebelieved that extraterrestrials should be judged onthe basis of their own theologies, and not by terres-

trial standards. In fact, he believed that theology ashumans know it could expand markedly if contactwere established with extraterrestrial theologies.While he looked forward to an expansion of theologyas a result of contacting extraterrestrials, he alsoacknowledged that this could be dangerous. “Inhuman history,” Stevens wrote, “the discovery of anew race has always meant the exploitation of one bythe other, or at least an immediate state of hostilitybetween the two groups. No one can yet gauge theeffects of a cosmic hostility.” But after presenting thisscenario, he hoped that conflict with a race of non-humans might bring humans together.61

For most other Roman Catholic priests, however,the central concerns voiced at the start of the SpaceAge were reiterated. For example, Father TheodoreM. Hesburgh, President of the University of NotreDame, provided the foreword to an early NASAstudy on SETI. In it, he noted the compatibility ofbelief in God and the scientific quest for intelligentlife beyond Earth, concluding that “Finding othersthan ourselves would mean knowing Him better.”62

Similarly, Father Thomas F. O’Meara, a theologian atthe same university, summarized the range of possi-bilities that could characterize extraterrestrials in amanner reminiscent of the categories we saw earlier:“Distant creatures might be without grace and reve-lation, and they might be without evil, suffering, andsin.”63 Moreover, he cautioned against assuming thathuman experience is sufficient to allow us to imagineall possible relationships between extraterrestrialbeings and God: “The ways in which supernatural lifetouches sensate intellect and will, the modes of con-tact in revelation may be quite diverse, and it is a mis-take to think that our understanding…exhausts themodes by which divine power shares something of itsinfinite life.”64

As we move beyond those who published on theo-logical implications of extraterrestrials, and insteadexamine the views of priests who were contacted fortheir comments, we again see a similar range ofresponses to those already documented. Victoria

54.Breig, p. 294; McHugh, “Others,” p. 296.

55.Raible, “Rational,” p. 534; Zubek, p. 398.

56.McHugh, “Life,” p. 29.


58.Carr, p. 255.

59.Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, trans.Bernard Wall (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc.,1959), p. 286.

60.Kleinz, p. 28.

61.Clifford J. Stevens, Astrotheology: For the Cosmic Adventure(Techny, IL: Divine Word Publications, 1969), pp. 32-34.

62.Philip Morrison, John Billingham, and John Wolfe, TheSearch for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: SETI, NASA SP-419 (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977), p. vii.

63.Thomas F. O’Meara, “Christian Theology and ExtraterrestrialIntelligent Life,” Theological Studies 60 (1999): 23.

64.O’Meara, pp. 23-24.


Alexander conducted one such study, in which shesent a questionnaire to a thousand Roman Catholicpriests, Protestant pastors, and Jewish rabbisthroughout the United States.65 Although the title ofher report suggests that she queried clergy abouttheir attitudes about UFOs, in fact the questions wereasked in such a way that they also shed light on atti-tudes about extraterrestrial life that does not travel toEarth, and thus is relevant to SETI.

In a manner reminiscent of Hesburgh’s commentabout knowing God better through contact withextraterrestrials, one priest in Alexander’s studymaintained that, “The thought of more than one civ-ilization expands the greatness of the God I believein.” Other priests emphasized the range of possiblemoral states in which extraterrestrials could exist. Asone priest from Pennsylvania put it, “In the eventthey sinned, they would need redeeming…. If theydid not sin, there would be no need for redemptionand they would not suffer the effect of sin—death, adarkening of the intellect, pain, disease, etc.” Thisassessment was partially reiterated by a priest servinga small congregation in Wisconsin, who expressedthe view that it is “possible that life on another planetdid not fall as on earth and had no need of redemp-tion.”

Several priests considered the implications thatwould follow from other civilizations not being inneed of redemption. A priest from Illinois suggested,“Perhaps there is a race of intelligent beings out therewho have never fallen from grace and who have madevery great technological progress over many thou-sands of years.” Similarly, another priest concluded,“if you placed ‘Intelligent life on other planets’ andthese beings ‘obeyed’ Him then such beings would beinexplicably more intelligent than us and far morescientifically advanced.” One priest suggested thatextraterrestrials not in need of redemption would beso different from sinful humans that there might beproblems in understanding one another: “any formof communication with, association with, or evenminimal contact with [them] would be impossible inthis material existence; they being so vastly differ-ent—their very life would be unintelligible to us andus to them.”

Although a number of priests participated inAlexander’s study, some questioned its usefulness orappropriateness. A priest from Michigan respondedto the request to participate in the study by suggest-ing that other priorities are more important: “Tryraising funds to feed hungry and clothe naked!” Sim-ilarly, a priest from Florida offered the view that the“survey is a waste of money that could be given to thepoor and homeless here on this planet.” A colleaguefrom the same state replied simply by saying, “I thinkthe whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.” Apparently,some still agreed with the Vatican representative whosaid 40 years earlier that these issues are “slightly pre-mature.”66

Prophets of the Future

At a seminar on the cultural implications of contactwith extraterrestrial intelligence, sponsored by theFoundation For the Future in 1999, the value of boththeological and historical perspectives was reflectedin the choice of the participants, which includedboth a Buddhist priest and an historian of science.The purpose of the present paper has been to exam-ine religious attitudes about extraterrestrials in anhistorical context, in the hope of preparing for somefuture date when actual contact might occur.

But exactly how can a theological discussion fromseveral decades ago help us anticipate the future?One possibility is that such speculations may aid usin moving beyond the narrow constraints of ourhuman experience of the world. Whether we areattempting to envision the range of forms that extra-terrestrial intelligence may take, or whether we aretrying to anticipate the impact of advances in geneticengineering and artificial intelligence on Earth in thecoming centuries and millennia, we are constrainedby the limitations of our imagination. Theologicalspeculations may provide one way of expandingbeyond those preconceptions:

…we may gain insights from theology into the possi-ble nature of extraterrestrials that we might not con-sider if we focused only on human nature as studied byscience. For instance, an extraterrestrial might havecharacteristics that theologians attribute to angels, suchas immortality or innate knowledge. Because we aremortal and we acquire knowledge through learning, weare likely to overlook such possibilities on other worlds.And yet, such “gifts” as extremely long lives and agreater reliance on implanted or intrinsic knowledge65.Victoria Alexander, The Alexander UFO Religious Crisis Sur-

vey: The Impact of UFOs and Their Occupants on Religion, 1995,<ht t p : / /www.acces snv.com/nids /ar t i c l e s /a l exander /survey_religion.html>. 66.“Space Theology,” p. 81.


might well occur elsewhere, either naturally or throughartificial adaptations (e.g., through genetic engineeringor in the form of artificial intelligence). In short, onebenefit of theological reflections on extraterrestrials is tochallenge—and thus potentially expand—implicit sci-entific assumptions about the nature of extraterrestrialintelligence. In the case of Catholic theology, such con-cepts as the preternatural and the supernatural—whether taken literally or metaphorically—can help ussee beyond nature as depicted by science.67

If the scope of historical analyses is extended tocenturies, rather than restricted to merely a fewyears, then we may begin to see recurrent patterns inpeople’s views. For example, commonalities in waysof imagining the possible moral status of extraterres-trials, as seen in writings over the course of severalhundred years (rather than just a decade), may beless influenced by the vicissitudes of the specific cul-tural milieus in which these views are discussed. Andindeed, arguments for and against the existence ofextraterrestrials—and about their nature if they doexist—have been raised by religious individuals inthe past, sometimes in a framework consistent withthat found in the current study. Nevertheless, withinthese broader frameworks covering large expanses oftime, we should also continue to conduct more cir-cumscribed analyses, carefully documenting thedivergences from more typical views. Such is theattempt of the current study, which is focused on asingle decade during a critical time at the beginningof the Space Age, and limited to a single denomina-tion of one major world religion.

Given the global impact that detection of a signalfrom a distant civilization would have on Earth, it isimportant that future studies be expanded to examinethe responses we might expect from a range of culturesand religions. In one recent empirical study of univer-sity students’ attitudes about the implications of receiv-ing an information-r ich radio s ignal from anextraterrestrial intelligence, we concluded that “thoseAmericans who viewed message receipt as spirituallysignificant were both more open to life existing beyondearth, and less apprehensive about making contact.”68

No such pattern was found for a matched group of Chi-nese respondents. Additional studies are needed toidentify the factors responsible for this difference.

When attempting to prepare for the future, we arelimited in how adequately we can generalize from com-parable situations in the past or the present. Since thereare no instances of a confirmed detection of a signalfrom a distant extraterrestrial civilization, peopleengaged in discussions about the theological status ofextraterrestrials could easily see the question as still veryhypothetical. However, there have been situations inwhich—for at least a short time—people believed thatextraterrestrial intelligence had been detected by veryreputable scientists. If Lord Byron was correct, and “thebest of Prophets of the future is the Past,”69 then moredetailed studies of those “false alarms” could be veryenlightening.

One particularly promising historical incidentthat may help us anticipate the future detection of asignal from extraterrestrial intelligence is the MoonHoax of 1835.70 In that year, the New York Sunprinted a series of articles reporting the discovery oflife (including intelligent life) on the Moon by theeminent astronomer Sir John Herschel.71 This pro-vides a useful analogue for signal detection at inter-stellar distances, because in the early 19th century,the Moon was viewed as a very distant celestial bodywith which humans could have no physical contact.Several accounts have been written indicating thatfor a short time, there was widespread acceptance ofthe existence of extraterrestrial intelligence due to theMoon Hoax.

However, these accounts have focused on mediareports of the Moon Hoax, rather than on individualresponses. To remedy this limited view of the event,one might contact archivists and historical scholarshaving access to diaries and journals of individualswho made regular entries during the 1830s. Becausethe event can be clearly delimited to a few days, itwould be relatively easy to determine whether eachdiarist made reference to the news of an inhabitedMoon. Using standard methods for coding the con-tent of such diary entries, one could then character-ize the range of responses. For those diarists who aresufficiently well known by at least one historian (e.g.,by their biographers), a personality profile can be

67.Douglas A. Vakoch, “The Dialogic Model: RepresentingHuman Diversity in Messages to Extraterrestrials,” Acta Astronau-tica 42 (1998): 707.

68.Vakoch and Lee.

69.Diary entry dated January 28, 1821.

70.Douglas A. Vakoch, “Predicting Reactions to the Detection ofLife beyond Earth,” Paper presented at the Societal Implicationsof Astrobiology Workshop, NASA-Ames Research Center, Mof-fett Field, CA, USA, November 1999.

71.See “Celestial Discoveries,” New York Sun (25 August 1835): 2for the first installment.


obtained using standard psychological assessmentquestionnaires, with the historian completing thesurveys as he/she believes the diarist would haveresponded. This psychohistorical approach wouldallow an examination of such questions as: Weremore religious individuals more skeptical about thenews report?

The degree of interest that theologians have inspeculating about extraterrestrial intelligence maywell vary with changes in the perceived likelihood ofactually making contact. In the view of one RomanCatholic priest, theology must wait, with respect toextraterrestrial beings, for “actual discovery beforeattempting studies of any practical significance; buttheology, like the other sciences, must be preparedfor new horizons of thought—however unfamiliarthey may be.”72 In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the

reality of knowing about extraterrestrial beings wasremote enough to make in-depth analyses seem pre-mature. But simultaneously, the possibility of someday contacting life beyond Earth was real enough fora few people to begin discussing some of the theolog-ical implications of such a discovery. As searches forextraterrestrial intelligence continue to expand, wemight expect—and hope for—a comparable increasein attention to the theological questions that wouldcome to the fore if some day one of these searchessucceeds.

Copyright © 2000 by Douglas A. Vakoch. All rights reserved. Published by the Foundation For the Future, with permission. Correspondence may be addressed to Douglas A. Vakoch, SETI Institute, 2035 Landings Drive, CA 94043, USA. Email may be sent to <[email protected]>. 72.Stevens, p. 34.

175

Ragbir Bhathal

Ragbir Bhathal, an award-winning author and astro-physicist, is Foundation President and Chairman/Director of the Australia-Singapore Centre at theUniversity of Western Sydney, and a member of thefive-year multi-beam project at the Parkes RadioTelescope. He is also Foundation President of the OZSETI Society, a society devoted to the promotion ofthe scientific and social aspects of the search forextraterrestrial intelligence, and a member of theSETI Committee of the International Academy ofAeronautics and Astronautics. His observatory atUWS will be home for the dedicated Australian Opti-cal SETI (OZ OSETI) Project. In 1998, he chaired theinternational committee that organized the firstinternational conference to examine the scientificand social aspects of the search for extraterrestrialintelligence. Dr. Bhathal’s many publications includeProfiles, Australian Astronomers, John Tebbutt: Aus-tralian Astronomer, Under the Southern Cross, Astron-omy, Search for ET, Australian Scientists and Inventors,and numerous papers. In 1988 he was awarded theRoyal Society of New South Wales Medal for researchand services to science.

John Billingham

John Billingham received his medical education atOxford University and specialized in aviation physi-ology and medicine in the Royal Air Force beforejoining NASA’s Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center inHouston, Texas. There he headed the EnvironmentalPhysiology Branch and worked on the Mercury,Gemini, and Apollo programs. In 1965 he moved tothe NASA–Ames Research Center in Northern Cali-fornia to head the Biotechnology Division, then theExtraterrestrial Research Division, and later the LifeScience Division. After a sabbatical year at Stanford,Dr. Billingham returned to Ames to become Chief ofthe Office for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelli-gence (SETI). Upon retiring from NASA, he joinedthe SETI Institute as Senior Scientist to help with thenow privately funded SETI program, Project Phoe-nix. He was elected to the Board of Directors of theSETI Institute in 1995. A visionary scientist, hehelped design spacesuits for the astronauts and was aStanford University lecturer on Life in Space from1969 to 1995. With Dr. Bernard M. Oliver ofHewlett-Packard, he designed a system to DetectIntelligent Extraterrestrial Life, known as ProjectCyclops.

Participant Biographies

Section VI

176 Section VI • Participant Biographies

Eric J. Chaisson

Eric J. Chaisson is Director of the H. Dudley WrightCenter for Innovative Science Education at Tufts Uni-versity, where he is also Research Professor of Physicsand Astronomy, and Research Professor of Education.In addition, Dr. Chaisson is an Associate of the Har-vard College Observatory, and Co-director of theMIT Space Grant Consortium. Trained initially incondensed-matter (atomic) physics, Chaissonobtained his doctorate in astrophysics from HarvardUniversity in 1972. Before assuming his current posi-tion, he spent a decade as a member of Harvard’s Fac-ulty of Arts and Sciences. During his tenure atHarvard, Chaisson’s research concentrated largely onthe radio astronomical study of interstellar gas clouds.This work won him fellowships from the NationalAcademy of Sciences and the Sloan Foundation, aswell as Harvard’s Bok Prize for original contributionsto astrophysics and Harvard’s Smith Prize for literarymerit. He has also held research and teaching posi-tions at MIT and Wellesley College and, before join-ing Tufts, was for five years senior scientist anddirector of educational programs at the Space Tele-scope Science Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

Bob Citron

Bob Citron, Executive Director of the FoundationFor the Future, co-founded Kistler Aerospace Corpo-ration and served as President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer from 1993 to 1995. Among successful compa-nies he founded previously were SPACEHAB, Inc.,builder of three space laboratories that routinely flyaboard the Space Shuttle, and EARTHWATCH, aworldwide scientific and educational organization.Citron spent 20 years with the Smithsonian Institu-tion involved in many of NASA’s pioneering spaceprojects, including the Apollo lunar landing pro-gram, the Space Shuttle program, and the Interna-t ional Space Stat ion program. While at theSmithsonian, he helped establish and manage theglobal Satellite Tracking Network (STN) and wasresponsible for the design and construction of satel-lite tracking stations around the world. He was aprincipal investigator on NASA’s Apollo, Skylab, andLandsat programs from 1968 to 1974, and was thefounder and first director of the Smithsonian Institu-tion’s Center for Short-Lived Phenomena, a globalscience communications network. He has writtenand published extensively in scientific subjects.

Section VI • Participant Biographies 177

Kathleen Connell

Kathleen Connell is Director of Strategic Communi-cations in the Astrobiology Integration office atNASA–Ames, and the lead for the Societal Implica-tions of Astrobiology Workshop. She serves as PolicyDirector for the Aerospace States Association. Con-nell has had varied program and mission develop-ment responsibilities both at Ames and NASAheadquarters. Prior to joining NASA, Connellworked throughout the Americas with several non-government organizations, enabling economicdevelopment for emerging and impoverished popu-lations, including women of lesser developed coun-tr ies , farm workers , and immigrants to SanFrancisco’s inner city. She is currently an advisor tothe San Francisco Human Rights Commission, aswell as a Ph.D. candidate with the Fielding Institute.Connell is an employee of Indiana Business, Mod-ernization and Technology, Inc., the economic devel-opment unit of the State of Indiana, and a graduateof the University of California at Berkeley.

Paul Davies

Paul Davies is Visiting Professor at Imperial CollegeLondon and Honorary Professor at the University ofQueensland. He formerly was Professor of Mathe-matical Physics and Natural Philosophy at the Uni-vers i t y of Adela ide , and has he ld academicappointments at Cambridge and London universi-ties, and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Pro-fessor Davies has published over 100 research papersin cosmology, gravitation, and quantum field theory,with emphasis on black holes and the origin of theuniverse. His monograph Quantum Fields in CurvedSpace, co-authored with Nicholas Birrell, remains aseminal text in the field of quantum gravity. He isalso well known as an author, broadcaster, and publiclecturer. Among his 25+ books are God and the NewPhysics, The Cosmic Blueprint, The Mind of God,About Time, and Are We Alone? His latest book, TheFifth Miracle, is about the origin of life and the possi-bility of life on Mars. He was a longstanding contrib-utor to The Economist, and is a familiar columnist inThe Guardian. Dr. Davies has been honored withnumerous awards, including the Templeton Prize forprogress in religion, awarded to him in 1995 byPrince Philip at Buckingham Palace.


Steven J. Dick

Steven J. Dick is the Historian of Science at theUnited States Naval Observatory (USNO). He stud-ied astrophysics at Indiana University and received aPh.D. in the history and philosophy of science therein 1977. In 1979 Dr. Dick joined the scientific staff ofthe Naval Observatory as an astronomer, a positionhe held until being named Historian of Science in1989. In the early 1990s, Dick acted as historian ofthe National Aeronautics and Space Administration’sHigh Resolution Microwave Survey-Search forExtraterrestrial Intelligence program. He is a mem-ber of the SETI Committee of the InternationalAcademy of Astronautics and its Subcommittee onIssues of Policy Concerning Communication withExtraterrestrial Intelligence. Dick has written severalbooks, including Plurality of Worlds: The Origins ofthe Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus toKant; The Biological Universe: The Twentieth CenturyExtraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science;and Life on Other Worlds. Currently Dick is Presidentof the International Astronomical Union’s Commis-sion 41(History of Astronomy).

Ben Finney

Ben Finney earned a Ph.D. in anthropology at Har-vard University. Since then he has taught at the Uni-versity of California at Santa Barbara, AustralianNational University, French University of the Pacific,International Space University, and, currently, Uni-versity of Hawaii. His primary anthropological workhas been conducted in the Pacific Islands; he is par-ticularly noted for his pioneering experiments inPolynesian voyaging, which revolutionized viewsabout Polynesian migration and settlement. Sincethe late 1970s he has pioneered an anthropologicalapproach to human issues involved in exploring andeventually settling space, as well as in SETI. In themid-1980s he was awarded an NRC fellowship towork on issues of space settlement and SETI atNASA’s Ames Research Center. He founded and cur-rently chairs the Space and Society Department atthe summer sessions of the International Space Uni-versity, and periodically lectures in ISU’s Masters ofSpace Studies program. Dr. Finney is co-editor ofInterstellar Migration and the Human Experience.Among honors awarded to him are Russia’s Tsiolk-ovsky Medal, Britain’s Royal Institute of Navigation’sBronze Medal, the Medal of the French University ofthe Pacific, and the Regents Medal of the Universityof Hawaii.


Albert A. Harrison

Albert A. Harrison is Professor of Psychology at theUniversity of California at Davis. He earned B.A. andM.A. degrees in Psychology from the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, and a Ph.D. in Social Psy-chology from the University of Michigan. Harrison isa member of the SETI Committee of the Interna-tional Academy of Astronautics, a Director of thenonprofit organization Contact, a Regent of UnitedSocieties in Space, a member of the Science AdvisoryBoard for the National Institute of Discovery Science,and Deputy U.S. editor of Systems Research andBehavioral Science. He has also been active at Casefor Mars conferences. His current interests includethe psychological, social, and political determinantsof beliefs about the cosmos and the reality of extra-terrestrial life. Dr. Harrison’s books include HighExpectations: Human Spacefaring in the New Millen-nium; Living Aloft: Human Requirements for ExtendedSpaceflight (with M.M. Connors and F. R. Akins);From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in Isolation andConfinement (edited with Y. A. Clearwater and C.P.McKay); and After Contact: The Human Response toExtraterrestrial Life. His articles on humans in spaceand on the search for extraterrestrial intelligencehave appeared in numerous journals.

David Hines

David Glenn Hines has a B.A. in English Literatureand a B.F.A. and M.A. in Fine Arts, all from the Uni-versity of New Mexico. He makes his living as apainter of landscapes, mostly of the western MojaveDesert and Central Valley regions of California. He isrepresented by galleries in Los Angeles, California,and Santa Fe, New Mexico. His work has been fea-tured in numerous solo exhibitions and group exhi-bitions in California and the U.S. Southwest,including several major museum shows. In his paint-ings of the landscape at night, the land is almostoverwhelmed by the infinitude of the space above it,a space that melds with the land in an uncertain hori-zon. Isolated lights denoting human presence aremirrored by stars making manifest the vast desert ofthe cosmos and perhaps denoting life there as well.By contrast, his daytime landscapes are close, com-fortable, and familiar, with a plenitude of detail andrelative abundance of life. Light plays a key role in allof his paintings, revealing by both its presence and itsabsence the deep love and sense of mystery the Earthand our universe inspire in him. Hines is an avidreader of science books.



Guillermo A. Lemarchand received his Ph.D. in phys-ics from the University of Buenos Aires in 1991, andin 1998 received a Master’s in Science and Technol-ogy Management and Policy. His achievementsinclude being a researcher and lecturer at the Centerfor Advanced Studies; coordinator of the META IISETI Project at the Argentine Institute for Radioas-tronomy (CONICET); Visiting Fellow at the Centerfor Radiophysics and Space Research from CornellUniversity, working with Carl Sagan; co-director ofthe first Ibero-American School on Astrobiology,Universidad Simon Bolivar in Caracas, Venezuela;and editor of Bioastronomy News. He is a member ofthe International Academy of Astronautics (IAA)SETI Committee and of the Long-Term Dynamics ofSocietal Systems Study Group at the University ofBuenos Aires. In 1989 he received the first NationalAward for the Peaceful Uses of Science and Technol-ogy. Books co-authored or edited by Dr. Lemarchandinclude Inteligencia Extraterrestre; Scientists, Peaceand Disarmament; El Llamando de las Estrellas Cos-mos; The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence in theOptical Spectrum II; and Origins: From the Big Bangto the Civilizations, an Introduction to Astrobiology.

Claudio Maccone

Claudio Maccone earned degrees in physics andmathematics from the University of Turin. A Full-bright scholarship enabled him to research the the-ory of stochastic processes at the Department ofElectrical Engineering of the Polytechnic Institute(now Polytechnic University) of New York, and aCouncil of Europe Higher Education Scholarship,awarded by the British Council, led to Ph.D. studiesin London. Maccone joined Space Systems Group ofAeritalia (now Alenia Spazio) in Turin as a technicalexpert for the design of artificial satellites. Amongprojects he is involved in currently at Alenia are thedesign of a space mission like the Quasat satellite forradioastronomy, the Tethered Satellite flown by theU.S. Space Shuttle in 1992 and 1996, and the designof a Solar Sail to reach Mars while being pushed bysunlight. Elected Corresponding Member of theInternational Academy of Astronauts, he is currentlyserving as Secretary of the Interstellar Space Explora-tion Committee and as a Member of the SETI Com-mittee. Dr. Maccone has published two books,Telecommunications, KLT and Relativity and The Sunas a Gravitational Lens: Proposed Space Missions, andover 60 scientific and technical papers.


Jill Tarter

Jill Tarter earned a Bachelor of Engineering PhysicsDegree from Cornell University and a Master’sDegree and Ph.D. in Astronomy from the Universityof California at Berkeley, where her major field ofstudy was theoretical high energy astrophysics. In1984 she helped found NASA’s nonprofit SETI Insti-tute. She served as Project Scientist for the SETI HighResolution Microwave Survey (HRMS) until its ter-mination by Congress in 1993. Today she serves asthe Director for Project Phoenix, the SETI Institute’sprivately funded continuation of the Targeted Searchportion of HRMS. Among awards and recognition,Dr. Tarter received in 1989 the Lifetime AchievementAward for her contribution to the field of exobiology,and in particular to the search for extraterrestrialintelligence, from Women in Aerospace, a profes-sional association in Washington, DC. In 1997 theBoard of Directors of the SETI Institute appointedDr. Tarter to a new endowed position: the BernardM. Oliver Chair for SETI. Dr. Tarter has written andlectured extensively on SETI, Project Phoenix, andmore conventional astrophysical topics.

Keiko Tokunaga

Keiko Tokunaga is a Buddhist priest in Hawaii. At theSeminar on the Cultural Impact of ExtraterrestrialContact, she presented fresh and insightful ideas,emphasizing the need for each of us to prepare forcontact by enhancing our compassion, our opennessto new experiences, and our ability to deal with any-thing alien. Tokunaga, who studies with a Zen mas-ter, suggested that one aspect of Zen is trainingourselves to be more sensitive and to watch the kindsof signals we are sending, since the first impression isthe one that lasts and there will be long-rangeimpacts of whatever the first signal or contact is.Tokunaga asked what kind of signals we as a planetare sending out currently, making reference to mind-to-mind communication that occurs in the signalswe send in interactions with each other. In terms ofhumanity right here and now, she said, how are wegoing to send signals to each other and make our-selves more receptive to contact? Though most peo-ple will keep on doing whatever they are doing, sheput forth the hope that perhaps what we do could bedone with more compassion.


Allen Tough

Allen Tough focuses on three interrelated issues. (1)The very-long-term future of human civilization. Inaddition to writing and conferences, he serves on theFoundation For the Future’s Humanity 3000 Orga-nizing Committee and the Millennium Project’sPlanning Committee. (2) The scientific search forextraterrestrial intelligence. He is the founder andcoordinator of the Invitation to ETI, an innovativeSETI project at http://members.aol.com/Wel-comeETI. He presents papers at most SETI confer-ences and at the annual Contact conference, andserves on several international committees. (3)Humanity’s search for meaning and purpose on theindividual and societal levels. He weaves this themeinto much of his writing within his other two inter-ests. In his personal life, Dr. Tough particularlyenjoys reading, walking, music, wilderness, hiking,skating, conversations, the World Wide Web, and histwo grown children.

Douglas A. Vakoch

Douglas Vakoch, a Social Scientist with the SETIInstitute, conducts and promotes research on thecultural aspects of SETI. He has a B.A. in Compara-tive Religion from Carleton College, an M.A. in theHistory and Philosophy of Science from the Univer-sity of Notre Dame, and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychol-ogy from State University of New York at StonyBrook. Vakoch’s work in SETI began over 20 yearsago with his creation of interstellar messages forcommunicating with extraterrestrial intelligence. Healso conducts research on the history of the extrater-restrial life debate, policy issues related to SETI, andpossible psychological and religious responses todetecting a signal from extraterrestrial intelligence.Prior to joining the SETI Institute, he conductedresearch on the evolution of speech perception andtherapeutic communication at Vanderbilt University,funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.He is a member of the International Academy ofAstronautics SETI Committee, as well as IAA Sub-committees on Issues of Policy Concerning Commu-nications with Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Mediaand Education, and the Arts and Literature.

For additional information on the Foundation For theFuture and its program activities, please write or emailto the address below:

Foundation For the Future123 105th Avenue SEBellevue, Washington USA 98004

Tel: (425) 451-1333Email: [email protected]: www.futurefoundation.org

when seti succeeds: - citeseerx

Documents