Science fiction is the place where people grapple with the idea of contact from an ETI (Extraterrestrial Intelligence). However, these discussions are moving from science fiction to more serious realms.
Academics continue to debate, one paper at the time, how to respond and what geopolitical fallout could result from possible contact with an ETI.
It doesn’t really matter whether or not you believe that humankind will ever contact an ETI. The discussion is very interesting. This discussion might be more interesting than the ETI.
A new paper entitled “A New Paper”Geopolitical Implications from a Successful SETI Program“‘ is the latest in a series of back-and-forth between professional thinkers. The paper’s three authors have been associated with Harvard Law School and Penn State ETI Center. Jason T. Wright, Penn State University is the lead author.
The journal accepted the paper as a contribution. Space PolicyIt is available for pre-press on arxiv.org.
This paper responds in part to an article from 2020 titled “The Impact of Climate Change on Human Health.”The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence – A Realpolitik ConsiderationThis paper was also published in Space Policy. It brings a new focus to the discussion on potential contact with an ETI.
John Traphagan, Kenneth Wisian, and John Traphagan are the authors. Wisian comes from the University of Texas’ Center for Space Research. Traphagan comes from the Department of Religious Studies and Program in Human Dimensions of Organizations. We will refer to their paper WT 2020.
WT 2020 was authored by two authors who pointed out that ETIs are dominated by the risk of Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence and Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.
What if ETI was technologically advanced and menacing. What if they are like conquistadors, or something? Stephen HawkingHe expressed this fear well in 2010, when he said that “Such advanced extraterrestrials might become nomadics, looking for conquering and colonizing whatever planets these could reach”.
These types of alien invasions are a big business for Hollywood. However, WT 2020’s authors focused on a risk that doesn’t get as much attention.
What is the risk?
“Specifically, the danger of detecting an extraterrestrial signal from passive SETI activities is usually considered to have negligible risk,” they write.
Is it really so dangerous to just detect a signal? Our realpolitik and us.
Realpolitik is a term that has been used in history many times. Merriam Webster defines realpolitik to be “Politics based more on practical and concrete factors than on ethical or theoretical objectives.”
In WT 2020, the authors use this definition of realpolitik from historian John Bew: “…the view of interstate relations where ‘the notion that the state could be regulated or controlled by law [is]Flawed’ and That ‘Power obey[s]Only greater power is possible.”
Realpolitik is the nitty-gritty politics that takes place between political parties, sometimes nations. Realpolitik is not the same as the oration that political leaders use during elections. In these situations, ideology and virtue-signaling are rampant and leaders resort to political theatre in order to win the support of the people and advance their causes.
Realpolitik concerns the mechanics and power of our world. World War 2 is a great example of realpolitik.
The British Prime Minister Churchill and the American President Roosevelt were friendly with Stalin and Russia. They called Stalin an allies, shook hands and smiled when they met him. They needed Stalin to continue fighting and weaken Hitler. The Americans even sent a steady supply of Stalin. Supply streamRussia to help their war effort.
It all looks good from the surface, as the famous clip from Yalta Conference demonstrates. We can see the three leaders making friendly at the 2:35 mark. Realpolitik was working behind the scenes to create a completely different web.
frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen>
Roosevelt and Churchill both needed Stalin to win war. Stalin was aware of that. Stalin promised democracy to Poland following the war, as he needed allies to defeat Germany. He changed his mind and occupied Poland, as well as other countries, after the war ended. Russia and the West were now open enemies. It’s all just realpolitik. Stalin You did it well.
But it was far back, and the world war. It is relevant for our modern age and potential contact with an ETI.
Because the human nature hasn’t changed.
It could be alarming for religious people if we passively detect an ETI signal. Their worldview could be gravely threatened. Religious extremist violence or significant upheaval may occur in certain religious countries.
However, it would eventually end and people would go back to their normal lives. While it would be revolutionary for scientists and the general population, most people would continue their daily lives. This is how the WT 2020 paper summarizes the thinking. How would countries and their leaders respond?
However, realpolitik will always prevail when countries are competing with one another. The potential benefits of monopolizing contact with ETI can be huge for the nation who has it.
The authors of WT 2020 write that “the history of international relations, viewed through the lense of the realpolitik tradition realist political thought suggests however, there is a tangible risk of conflict over monopoly access ETI communication channels,” they wrote.
This possibility should be considered when analysing the potential benefits and risks of contact with ETI.
Wisian, Traphagan believe that the greatest danger is in what we do to ourselves.
Any ETI could have a huge technological advantage over us. As long as it wasn’t malicious, this advantage opens up for nations. A government that controls communications with the ETI could have a technological advantage.
Imagine China, Russia or the USA seeking this technological advantage. Or North Korea, Iran, etc. The realpolitik lens is what the authors are trying to see. It could lead to conflict and other undesirable consequences.
WT 2020 states that planning for passive SETI success requires realpolitik considerations. There are several suggestions. They recommend that scientists involved in SETI establish supportive relationships with local law enforcement to strengthen the perimeters of their institutions and secure their personnel.
WT 2020 authors recommend that observational facilities such as radio telescopes use security measures similar those used by nuclear power plants.
This paper, which is a response to the WT 2020 paper as well as their realpolitik concerns, does not see security actions in this way. They disagree with the idea that any country could monopolize communications using an ETI.
“The existence of hardened facilities and locked-down information flows could itself be interpreted by outsiders as evidence that some world-altering activity was occurring within that community or facility…”
Wright et. al., “Geopolitical Impacts of a Successful SETI Program,” p. al. 2022.
“While we do not dispute that a realpolitik response is possible, we uncover concerns with W&T’s presentation of the realpolitik paradigm,” the authors write.
They say there are flaws in the WT 2020 analysis and that “… sufficient reason is not given to justify treating this potential scenario as action-guiding over other candidate geopolitical responses.”
A realpolitik response could be the most appropriate response. The new paper’s authors agree with that much but show that “… it is highly unlikely that a nation could successfully monopolize communication with ETI.”
A nation may think it can monopolize communications, which is a more real threat.
The authors also critique other aspects of WT 2020 realpolitik. If a western democracy detects a signal, can it monopolize it, for example? According to the authors, it is unlikely, as western science is internationally well-integrated.
Many countries and institutions are partners in our most powerful observatories, making monopolization doubtful. Openness is the foundation of scientific community, and not informational protectionionism.
WT 2020 also contains a sample contact scenario that the authors criticize. WT 2020 claims that even though contact may seem trivial to an ETI, it could contain valuable technical data that could prove useful to a monopolizing country. This is highly unlikely.
“It isn’t obvious how this could occur. They write that science is both cumulative and nonlinear. To gain useful insight, we need to first understand the context of the new information.”
A textbook on nuclear weapon design could be used by medieval scholars? Could they understand it and then act upon it? According to the authors, it is unlikely that advanced technological information from an extremely-advanced ETI will be used.
What technology advantage could we gain? There are enough nuclear weapons in the world to end civilization. We also have bioweapons. Is it possible that an ETI could unintentionally share information with a monopolizer in order to create a super-weapon. The authors claim that this is a drift into science fiction, leaving behind realpolitik.
The authors believe that openness is the best way to stop state actors thinking they might gain a monopoly. This is in contrast to stricter security measures and state policing. WT 2020 may actually cause exactly what the authors are trying to avoid: A realpolitik nightmare.
In their new paper, the authors explain this clearly: “Finally, it is important that implementing extensive security protections in the SETI and METI fields could itself cause the very problems W&T warns about.
“The existence of hardened facilities and locked-down information flows could itself be interpreted by outsiders as evidence that some world-altering activity was occurring within that community or facility, thus leading to exactly the kind of espionage and conflict that W&T are trying to avoid in the first place, even if nothing had actually been discovered.”
There is some agreement among the papers regarding the risk inherent in contact.
“W&T’s legitimate worry is that the mere perception of an information monopoly could be enough to generate dangerous conflict,” the authors of the new paper write.
History has shown that antagonistic countries can be paranoid and engage in sabre-rattling if they feel they are in danger. Because of all the unknowns surrounding potential contact with an ETI it would be more difficult to bear the fear and worry than for others. There would be flashpoints.
Another agreement concernes the safety of scientists who are in contact with ETI.
“But, even if there is good reason to not extend security protections to facilities per se, there are other reasons to enact security precautions meant to protect SETI practitioners themselves, especially if detection occurs,” write the authors.
These scientists could become targets for harassment or assault. There are many crazy people out there. pandemic It was a great experience., and a rising tide in anti-science thinking.
In their conclusion, the authors say that “… a realpolitik response to a contact scenario is worth considering, but we maintain that it is just one of the various candidate post-contact responses that merit consideration.”
They suggest that there are much better alternatives and involve responses “… that might generate cohesion or greater collaboration at the level of international relations.”
They claim that WT 2020’s paper is based on the idea that political leaders might misunderstand the possibility that ETI could be manipulated or contact with another state. The authors acknowledge that this fear is not unfounded and should be taken into consideration. However, the authors of this paper do not agree with WT 2020’s recommendations.
What should the world do if it contacts an ETI?
Instead of hardening security at SETI sites, the authors “… recommend transparency, data sharing, and education of policymakers.”
It’s possible to imagine it. Although it doesn’t make good science fiction, it could prevent us from collaborating with one another.
This article was originally published in Universe Today. Learn moreOriginal article.
