(.#C.001).- The dangers of first contact.

[Andrei Tchentchik]

(.#C.001).- The dangers of first contact.
The dangers of first contact.

David Brin, Ph.D
September 2002
www.davidbrin.com/ [e-mail]

A CONTRARY PERSPECTIVE ON ALTRUISM: THE DANGERS OF FIRST CONTACT.

1. Altruism in the natural world: Advantage and Satiation.
The title of this conference - Encoding Altruism - conveys certain hypotheses. The first of these is that altruism - an altruistic imperative to help others without expecting a reward - is likely to be a valuable attribute among advanced technological civilizations.
In addition, it implies that humanity should strive to display this attribute by communicating with extraterrestrial life forms that may be 1 to 8 years ahead of us in development.
Finally, the general theme of this series of workshops - how to craft and send a deliberate message from Earth to space - is based on the assumption that we can rule out any substantial probability that transmission will expose humanity and our world to a danger.
Are all these assumptions justified? Or do they reflect the inclinations and personal wishes of a small group, stemming from a particular culture and era? Given the potentially overwhelming implications of Contact, it may be wise to think about the full range of possible outcomes, not just those for which we aspire. For my part, I would be more confident in the inevitability of tr ’Alien’ altruism if this beneficial trait appeared more often in nature.
John Althingy, in his textbook,
c / f: Animal behavior: an evolutionary approach by John Althingy Hardcover: 560 pages Publisher: Sinauer Assoc; ISBN:
0878930116; 7th edition (August 2001)
Animal behavior:
An evolutionary approach shows that reciprocal altruism between related individuals occurs in many species; the real question concerns altruism between unrelated individuals and groups. It helps to divide generous behavior into two categories: "pragmatic cooperation" and "pure altruism"
Biologists view reproductive health as the centerpiece of the field of evolution. They study how this coin is spent in games like The Prisoner's Dilemma, which many animal species seem perfectly capable of playing. In simulations involving various types of rewards, you quickly get clear examples of cooperation and / or competition, based on a predefined payment matrix. Emerging strategies such as cheating, theft and honesty in building trust are also emerging. A basic concept of quid-pro-quo seems to manifest itself even among the "lower" animal species.
Unlike pragmatic cooperation, the purest form of altruism - in which individuals sacrifice benefits for the benefit of others with no hope of reward
-- does not seem to have anything to do with a cost / benefit game matrix. That is, until you include the "reward" for genetic reproductive success. Then we see that the largest and most prevalent forms of personal sacrifice
-- for example, a mother for her child - elegantly falling into place. An uncle who risks his life to save a nephew benefits by helping his nearby gene pool to thrive. Biologists have extensively documented a basic fact: altruistic generosity occurs less often, and with decreasing intensity, as individuals become closer and closer.
This may seem like a way to see something that we idealize as a noble quality. But should we ignore the scientific results? Especially the results that shine revealing the light on the very thing we want?
In addition, science recognizes important exceptions to this curve (relating generosity to genetic reward). We have all seen well publicized examples in which mothers of one species appeared to be urged to adopt and care for offspring offspring of another. Dolphins have pushed human castaways to boats or islands. And today, hearing that sea creatures are stranded on shore, modern people are often known to drop everything and hit the beach ... with the same eagerness and eagerness that their ancestors would have shown, hearing the same news.
Pause for a moment and consider this final example - humans running towards stranded whales. The strength and speed of this response have remained constant. Today, their goal is to gently rescue rare and precious creatures. For most of our past, people who heard the same news would have rushed to shore with a different purpose ... lunch.
The difference is clearly based on two transformations: education and satiety.
We now know more about cetaceans and can better identify with them. Above all, we no longer need their flesh to feed our hungry youth. Satiation seems to be a critical element in the emerging environmental movement, in the desire to include others in the protection of the law, and in the elevation of altruism above other ideals that our ancestors considered as primordial - like the tribes patriotism and glory of arms.
Satiety seems important, as does a strong cultural tendency to value altruism as an admired goal. There are also aspects of altruism about which an idealist may not want to know. It has long been known that groups, animals and humans will find - in certain circumstances - ways to ensure that generosity is a widely exposed trait, by openly or subtly reprimanding or disciplining those who behave selfishly. Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter carefully considered "selfless punishment". Simple and clearly realistic rules of the game make players "gang up" on defectors who play selfishly or do not meet minimum standards of cooperation or charity. This occurs even when the act of punishing the defector adds costs and no benefit to other players, and when any resulting altered behavior will help another team, later, not themselves.
c / f: Altruistic punishment in humans,
Ernst Fehr and Simon Gachter NATURE vo. 415, January
2002, p 137-140

We can all recognize the emotional dynamism that arises in certain circumstances when we are angry with discourteous or selfish public behavior. The drive to punish such behavior seems to have roots that go far beyond human nature.
Is it "true" altruism? Is it possible that we should divide this word and recognize that it represents a wide range of definitions and possible variants? Some of these variants may be fundamentally different in their effects during a contact situation.
They can also deserve quite different styles of representation in any interstellar message or art intended to convey our hopes and wishes to the stars.
Let us sum up to this point.
1) Nature indicates that pragmatic cooperation and altruism occur in a largely predictable manner, having to do with either:
quid-pro-quo reward or reproductive success.
2) It is interesting to note that the fall curve of altruism seems quite similar to the probability curve that two groups can infect each other with a disease. Both events occur in direct proportion to the degree of shared genetic heritage. The least
These two groups are related, the less they seem mutually generous or mutually infectious.
3) This decreasing curve does not bode well for the probability of an interplanetary altruism, even if it augurs well for our probability of surviving an interplanetary disease.
4) Even what we recognize as selfless behavior may have certain callous or game-based aspects that we should not ignore simply by aesthetic Puritanism.
5) Nevertheless, it is worth noting special anomalies, such as the sympathy of dolphins and humans for the strange and unrelated. These exceptions, and a few others, seem to jump straight out of the genetic kinship curve, with no apparent benefit. The driving force here seems to be abstract sympathy, unleashed by full bellies and brains that are capable of seeing the selfish interest in the long-term survival of an entire world.
Note: Clearly, while remaining painfully aware of facts 1-4, we must invest in the hope offered by # 5.
What can we then conclude from extraterrestrial altruism ?
Why, nothing, of course. We are exploring a new territory. Any conclusions we draw - either from nature or from our inner wishes - should be viewed as tentative, in a spirit of voluntary uncertainty.
Nevertheless, it is wise to keep nature in mind, as a de facto fundamental state for our discussions.
Note: Are biologists too cynical to see something that seems obvious to SETI researchers? Is this the reason why the SETI community (as opposed to the completely separate field of exobiology) appears largely made up of physical scientists? Maybe they know something we don't have. We might be wise to invite more of them to the tent.
What biologists seem to be telling us is that evolution no more predisposes living creatures to a truly altruistic altruism than to aesthetics. Certainly, these are properties that humans have recently cherished. We maybe, because that's what advanced creatures always and automatically do at this stage of their ascent. This idea - that sophistication and beneficence goes hand in hand - seems to be the assumption of many SETI optimists.
On the other hand, our penchant for altruism may rather be a bizarre result - an "emergent property" - of our origin as a species of already gregarious, exogamous and cooperative monkeys.
Bears are omnivorous, like us, and yet their constant male habit - the infanticide perpetrated seems to be deeply rooted. Meta-urchin moralists could later regard this hereditary tendency as an unsavory sin and try to cure it by preaching restraint. Or maybe they could rationalize and make sacred, write great literature to represent and justify beauty in their own way, just as we romanticize many of our most emotionally charged traits.
Note: Anyone who doubts that intolerant or even murderous habits can be romanticized should study the religious rites of the ancient Aztecs and Carthaginians.
If we are able to rationalize and even exalt brutally non-altruistic behavior, could advanced aliens also be capable of such feats of mental conjuring? Especially if their evolutionary history predisposes them?
Is our current attachment to "altruism" - in a strange twist - somewhat chauvinistic and human-centric? This ironic possibility is something to keep in mind.
Please do not misinterpret it. I wholeheartedly endorse altruism and try to live my life guided by this growing standard. I certainly do not intend to denigrate an enthusiasm for self-improvement. On the contrary, I have often demonstrated my own idealistic aspirations for "otherness". As a stage in our development, this admirable trend can save us all.
However, scientific honesty warns against extrapolating any trend into natural law. It is teleology - perceiving a plan, or cause and effect, where there can only be coincidence and chance.
And yet, even if it is largely absent from the natural world, this fact alone does not make pure altruism irrelevant. I just mentioned the emerging properties.
Complexity theory teaches that new forms of order appear as systems become more complex. It may not be by chance that the most complex society created by the most complex species on Earth has raised altruism from a rare phenomenon to an ideal - something to aim for in the present and in the future. years to come. Furthermore, in another ironic twist, it is entirely by these recent and higher standards that we are now projecting a higher level of selflessness on those whom we hope to find more advanced than ourselves.
2. The power of thought experimentation.
In a strange form of conservatism, SETI researchers have long endeavored to break all ties with the long tradition of science fiction, with its wide variety of reflections on first contact, ranging from high-end ‘’ Gedanken eksperiments to Drivel B-film ’’. You can understand that this reflex has a certain basis in self-preservation, at a time when ridicule can be used to undermine your grant proposal.
Above all, any talk about the "danger" of first contact tends to be dismissed as sensationalism, evoking sinister images of pop-eyed invaders with jaws dripping with formic acid. Barely the stuff of serious science in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.
Yet doesn't this dislike give Hollywood too much power over our thought processes? To draw premature conclusions, and to exclude a huge treasure trove of plausible scenarios, seems unreasonably unwise, especially when the asymmetry is so great between positive and negative consequences.
For this reason - in a spirit of cordial, annoying questioning - let me suggest playing the devil's advocate. I intend to suggest that it might be silly for us to carry messages from this planet until we know much more. Doing so will be like ignorant children, shouting "hello!" Deep in the middle of a dark and unknown jungle.
3. The fools rush ...
The interstellar space can contain only the wise and grandfather types predicted by Cornell.

- Based on the founders of SETI, Frank Drake and Carl Sagan. Elders can welcome us to their advanced and peaceful civilization. On the other hand, consider our own practical experience over the past 6000 years, when various human cultures collided here on Earth. In history, the "first contact" has rarely been mild and benign: at best, cultural values have been shaken, which has required painful readjustments and, at worst, often genocide.

In other words, altruism seems to have been as rare for first-contact intrahuman experiences as for animal species. Yes, that can change. We can still become a civilization that lives and works under codes such as the famous "Prime Directive". Even if it is not now in our nature, we can choose to change this nature, transforming ourselves into truly noble beings. It is our ambition and our hope for the future. However, it is wise to remember our context and our past.

With this story in mind, SETI pioneer Phil Morrison said, "I share the idea of caution before any response."

Elsewhere, I have discussed the "Great Silence" - also called the Fermi Paradox - the mystery of why the neighboring regions of our galaxy seem rather silent - more voiceless voices that many of us expected at the start of the 'SETI era. I readily admit that a half century without a clear signal does not prove anything of the absence. What this implies is either a certain degree of shortage or a reluctance on the part of foreigners to disseminate at the maximum levels attainable by very advanced technological cultures. This reluctance to broadcast at full power - a lack of "Giant Beacons" when predicted by Drake and. Al. - should be at least somewhat disturbing. Especially for those of us who feel the need to shout.

In the article on the Great Silence, I listed a wide range of possible explanations for this strange state of tranquility (in more detail that I have room here). All these reasons are not pessimistic. Some may be mild, raising the possibility that patience and persistence will ultimately bring success. On the other hand, there seem to be many plausible ways that our galaxy is dangerous. These begin with natural phenomena. Supernovas, comet swarms and giant molecular clouds are among some of the natural threats that "life worlds" like Earth must survive before they can spawn technological civilizations.

An explanation: we can be among the rare survivors to reach this phase.

There are also artificial ways that the universe could become hostile. For example, suppose that some previous species had unleashed an irresponsible wave of colonization across the galaxy, sweeping like a meadow fire, leaving in its wake over-exploited worlds and ravaged ecospheres. Malevolence is not required, only myopia and unsustainable appetite over several millennia (a trait which is completely compatible with the behavior of the species "Sapiens" currently known.) If an unfortunate interstellar ecological disaster occurs is produced, our Earth could be among the rare worlds to have escaped it. This, too, could explain why we don't hear anyone.

Again, let me emphasize, no single explanation has a great weight of evidence to be true.
All merit studies.
In this article, I want to focus on Contact himself - the day we learn that we are not alone. What dangers should we consider in the days and months that follow? What possibilities should we keep in mind when looking for neighbors among the stars?
4. Physical and biological contact.
The first question should be: will the first contact be made in person? Or will it be a simple exchange of greetings and information by radio? It is this latter scenario that most SETI specialists predict. But let's start by briefly considering the dangers that could arise if we meet extraterrestrial beings face to face.
To begin with, we can almost certainly eliminate the obvious conquest - direct by an interstellar empire. While many scientists believe that various forms of interstellar travel will one day be possible, almost all reject the idea of armadas filled with enslaving conquerors descending from the sky.
For one thing, why invade us now, when we can defend ourselves? Why not come over the billions of years that Earth was prime real estate, but lacked a technological civilization to defend it? "
The temporal coincidence implicit in most science fiction films makes them absurd on this basis alone.
Then there is the economy of interstellar travel. Even if star theft is plausible, it is likely to remain an expensive proposition. Bulk natural resources are not worth the shipping costs.
Information-based products such as inventions, cultural works and genetic codes are much more transportable. These products can be donated, exchanged or stolen. But even in the latter category, thieves will likely use us as subtle, hidden, illicit means, rather than brute force.
Of course, the invaders might not come to loot but to colonize. Even here, however, most physicists and science fiction writers agree that the perspective is far-fetched. "How do you maintain an invading army at the end of a supply line several light years away?" One might ask. Conquerors should live off the land, at least until they have altered the Earth's biosphere to meet their needs. Difficult enterprise when they are harassed by determined guerrillas. Despite its predominance in cheap film melodramas, the invasion may seem the least susceptible to the dangers of outer space.
But other, more plausible risks can result from physical contact. Suppose that only one alien vessel decelerates in our solar system, say on the foldable wings of a light large sail or behind a super efficient antimatter engine. Presumably we would send "welcomers" to say hello. Or their emissaries can come and meet us. Suppose further that they show no signs of arming and appear to be on a true mission of peace.
In this case, one of the most formidable possibilities of worrying would be the disease.
Until our recent AIDS epidemic, the concept of plague had become strange for modern Westerners. However, history shows that infection was a major element in the countless first contacts between human cultures. Often it has played a crucial role. Anthropologist Alfred W. Crosby points out that the European conquest of the Americas and Oceania was facilitated by Eurasian diseases such as measles and smallpox - sometimes introduced intentionally, but more often inadvertently and, ironically often, quite quickly after that both parties have shaken hands on the friendship treaties!
Some claim that extraterrestrial physiologies are too incompatible ... that extraterrestrial parasites are incapable of attacking human organisms and that our organisms would certainly fail against our guests. But there is wide disagreement about this among biologists.
Stanley Miller, one of the first experts on the origins of life, has a different opinion. Miller now believes that biological chemistry across the universe involves the same small set of amino acids and nucleic bases that terrestrial life forms use. These chemicals are the most stable, the best for forming the complex structures of enzymes and proteins.
On the other hand, starting from the terrestrial experience, it seems that the cross infection follows a curve not too different from that of interspecific altruism! The more genetically distant a given species, the less likely it is to transmit a lethal agent to us. Many of the more lethal agents (eg HIV, monkey B virus) appear to have started in other primates, albeit in a modified form. But as you advance along the genetic continuum, these events are fewer. Once you leave the mammals, you have parrot fever and various bird flu viruses, little or no amphibians, reptiles or fish. Insects, which make up most of the planet's eukaryotic biomass, serve as carriers for things like malaria, but they are more accessory vectors than hosts.
If you assume that the Extraterrestrial is very far from us genetically, the probability of infection seems quite low.
In other words, there is no clear consensus on the danger of "Space Bugs". Nevertheless, even rejecting scenarios such as the war of the worlds of H.G. Wells, we would be fools not to keep in mind human history, before a beautiful alien descends the ramp and offers his hand.
Suppose that our extraterrestrial hosts successfully pass quarantine. There are still reasons to be nervous. For example, how can we guarantee their safety? Would you risk letting extraterrestrial tourists walk unguarded on the city streets?
Human diversity is one of our treasures. Alas, it also means that our mad fringe would be a persistent danger for visitors to space. This can be difficult for customers to understand if they come from a homogeneous and uniform society.
Note: What about diversity among the extraterrestrials themselves? In both "SETI and Science Fiction" we tend to view each type as uniform characteristics, with little variation - a bad habit that is linked to the evils of racism, sexism and stereotyping others by class . It is indeed quite possible that the first copies of communicating Aliens, which we meet are atypical. In addition, they may have reasons not to let us know. How do you know if you are dealing with a board of elders who have a high tolerance and low level of fear, or, an "Alien teenager" ... or for that matter a standalone "PDA" buried in the software tracking for an advanced radio or optical telescope. Keep in mind our SETI program, which gives a "first chance" to seek signals to thousands of undressed amateurs. Another reason for caution.
In the past, several human societies found themselves plunged into calamitous wars against the European powers, precipitated by the actions of some local hot heads, acting against the wishes of wise and prudent local chiefs. It will also be a source of danger in any future contact situation. From this you can be sure.
5-Non-biological probes
Some scientists, like the late SETI researcher from Stanford University. Oliver has long argued that interstellar travel by living organisms is too uneconomical to be practical. Although, I don't agree, it doesn't matter much. Even if we eliminate this whole series of possibilities, it turns out that there are a lot of dangerous scenarios that do not involve direct physical contact between organic beings.
What about space probes? Under the direction of the British Planetary Society, NASA has already ordered preliminary studies of an investigative device that could be sent to "Alpha Centauri" in our lifetime, carrying sophisticated cybernetic systems who hope to be on the border of human intelligence.
If such research seems possible to us in the coming decades, an advanced civilization could surely come up with even better plans. Perhaps machine outlets capable of reproducing at each new point of arrival, using local materials to multiply, then accelerate many duplicates, without being bothered by the weight of the survival systems on board.
Simple propagation algorithms show that - based on reasonable assumptions for ship speed and reconstruction times - a single "self-reproducing" probe could create enough descendants to visit each star in the galaxy in less than five million years. A simple heartbeat in the life of our cosmos.
It is generally believed that such "Von Neumann self-replicating probes" would be programmed to be friendly, but this is only a guess, would such probes prove to be dangerous?
Gregory Benford, physicist and author of nebulous awards, points out that all "self-replicating" systems - such as living things - are controlled by internal information programs containing their design and plans for making new copies. The mutation is based on the mutation to drive variation and evolution, but the mutation also means that no species will remain eternally faithful to its original program, as will the emissaries surveyed sent by curious extraterrestrials.
If such a probe arrived in our solar system, under what condition would its programming be?
Some of Benford's fiction, along with that of Fred Saberhagen and others, portray the dreaded possibility of "deadly probes" - either deliberately or accidentally programmed to destructively enter new civilizations after they are detectable by their transmissions radio. Berserker machines "may seem garish, even sensational, and no one claims that they are particularly likely. However, they are by no means incompatible with natural law. Indeed, they are quite compatible with the state of silence observed.
They remind us to think how reckless it would be to scream in a jungle, before we have a clue what is going on.
6. Propagation as information.
We have only touched lightly on the range of results and possible disadvantages of direct physical contact between us and the aliens. But let's move on to something else, putting this category aside for the moment (it is very unpopular among SETI enthusiasts) and focusing instead on what most researchers see as the most likely event: communication of other worlds with only light waves, exchanging only information.
Only information? Surely no evil can come from either side of such an encounter! Well, in fact, we shouldn't be too cheerful about it. It is enough to look again at the history of the first contact between human cultures to see how much suffering sometimes comes not from conquest or illness, but from a civilization meeting the ideas of others.
What are some of the mistakes we could make, if we ever meet someone with something to say?
What happens if a government succeeds in snapping a TOP SECRET classification on discovery, sequestering contact knowledge for the benefit of certain groups or nations here on Earth. We cannot know for sure that this has not already happened! Just because an idea has been worked to death in bad dramas does not mean that it is completely impossible.
The NSA (National Security Agency) in the United States is just a group that already has a much more sophisticated listening device than all the SETI teams in the world put together. If SETI discovers a point source in part of the sky next week, can we know for certain that the NSA did not recover it first, perhaps several years ago?
A main argument against this paranoid scenario is that the intelligence community seems neutral - even slightly favorable - towards SETI, which implies that they are not worried about the discovery of secrets by these civilian astronomers.
However, it is worth considering what the consequences might be, if extraterrestrial life was discovered not by independent researchers, but by one of the Security Agencies, or by the Intelligence Service of a hostile power.
One could imagine how the information from the stars could be used unhappily, if access was restricted to a restricted group. At a minimum, this would deprive the rest of us of an amazing and wonderful experience that we, as taxpayers, have paid for. Obviously, thanks to the success of many popular science fiction "contact" movies, people of our civilization feel positively looking for another world life, and would not want to be pampered, or cut off from full participation in such an important event.
Many SETI researchers are concerned about this possibility, and a consensus has spread among them that information on extraterrestrial life is not "Property" of anyone - except perhaps for all of humanity. An unofficial but influential SETI protocol has been signed or initialed by most frontline workers in this area, accepting the general principles of accountability and openness.
The sequestration of information is an obvious danger to avoid. But now - in the spirit of the counter-current criticism - I want to turn around and warn against the reverse trend, the growing assumption that everything about '' First Contact '' should be automatically and unquestionably broadcast directly in the media spotlight.
This extreme, too, could cause serious problems.
Take, for example, how the press turns certain events into a "media circus": during the early stages of a discovery - while scientists are still trying to verify that it is a "contact", not a natural phenomenon - premature media attention could do a lot of harm. What if a mistake is made?
I remember the events surrounding the detection of the first pulsar, which was originally thought to be an interstellar beacon due to its unusually regular radio pulse. If there had been an Internet at the time, perhaps this false alarm could have aborted the entire SETI business!
How many false alarms can a program survive before it becomes a laughing stock? For this reason, we should expect some caution while the responsible researchers sort their data and quietly ask their colleagues around the world to verify it.
In addition, we must remember that researchers are people, with families and obligations. Their employers - for example, NASA - may have operational rules and internal procedures that scientists are expected to follow, before any public announcement. It would be unfair to shout "Cover-up!" Just because a little bureaucratic paperwork delays the big press conference by a few days.
This may mean that the first announcement will not be made by responsible and cautious scientists, but by someone on the periphery, perhaps a `` Lurker '' in the rumor loop, someone with an appetite for them. securities. Those who access the front pages may not be the most qualified or deserve to represent us during the critical stages of the first contact.

Lurker : A person who is hiding, especially a user of an electronic bulletin board or chat user, who does not participate.

-------------------
BOX
-------------------
TOXIC IDEAS :
Choose which statement is closest to your belief.
Many ideas are inherently dangerous or toxic. People are easily misled. An elite must protect or guide the gullible masses towards correct thinking. (Fragility Memic.)
Children can be brought up with openness and skepticism to assess concepts on their merits. Citizens can pick useful things even from bad images or ideologies, rejecting the rest by themselves. (Maturity Memic.)
If you believe in the second proposition, how do you explain the fact that almost all other human cultures stood on the first? Are they all wrong? Can you prove it?
---------------------------------------------
Go further. Say the contact has been verified, to the best of our scientists' ability.
Miraculously, no one fled prematurely or attempted to steal their thunder. They have verified, met their institutional requirements, and are now ready to publish the good news.
Would it be justified to delay the announcement for a little longer? Or to limit the amount of knowledge published? (Perhaps by excluding specific information on location and frequency.) Yes, I am about to question one of the fundamental principles of the "SETI Protocol". But listen to me.
Recall that it is only very recently that some cultures have started to refer to the notion of free exchange of ideas. Throughout history, almost all tribes or nations have instead turned to the more traditional notion - that some concepts are too dangerous (or precious) to be dropped among ordinary people. Were all these cultures entirely wrong to believe this? (See box.)
I believe they were! I hold to the central principle of my own culture that openness is good.
The best way to protect people from bad ideas is to allow them to experience the full range of human concepts, so that they can learn for themselves how to judge the good from the bad. Obviously, the SETI protocol is entirely based on this premise. Indeed, the Protocol is clearly a pledge that we have the issue of toxicity properly, and others do not.
Let me repeat that I agree with the worldview of maturity. My life revolves around that and I approved when some of us were deliberating on the SETI protocol, line by line. But then, honesty also forces me to admit that I can be wrong. The central assumption of my culture could be wrong.
Any other human culture may have been right instead, when they posited that ideas are inherently dangerous.
It is the height of arrogance not to at least think about this possibility, instead of simply assuming that a very recent set of principles that have come to adoption are automatically and obviously true.
In his famous book, THE SELFISH GENE, the Oxford scientist "Richard Dawkins" made this idea of toxic or infectious information surprisingly plausible. He coined a word, " meme ", to represent an idea that catches the eye of someone who hears it or reads it ... and intrigues that person enough to make them want to talk to someone about it else. It sounds like what happens every day, when people talk to other people about what interests them, from useful knowledge to noisy rumors.
It also looks a lot like the way we catch and transmit colds, passing from host to host with our sneezing!
"Dawkins" made the interesting case that "memes" behave very well like our "genes". In other words, successful information replicates (copies itself) either through coding mechanisms in the DNA of a cell or via connected words communicating an idea. "Dawkins" pointed out how eager we are sometimes to persuade others to share our opinions, and the tenacity with which some people fight for their beliefs.
This is not the place to get into the fascinating idea of "Dawkins" in detail. (However, you will notice that I have already "infected" you with the concept of "memes ". Among some of you this will take root, you will seek it out, and tell others. Ideas, if they are true or no.)
However, we are led to speculate on several rather terrifying and dangerous scenarios that could occur, the day after the news about First Contact was announced.
For example, what will contact news do with people?
Some suggest that this will inevitably lead to massive hysteria and alienation - even riots and suicide - as paranoia and xenophobia (fear of strangers) take hold. Which leads to a plot assuming the worst - has even appeared even in some high-quality speculation, such as "2001 Space Odyssey".
SETI researchers are of the opposite opinion, aptly conveyed in another film, "Contact", in which humanity is represented accepting news from space with commendable reflection, fear and humility, eager to put into perspective our little earthly struggles.
(In case the natives of my homeland - California - come into contact with them, the first question asked of all visitors would probably be: "Say, good evening, do you have a new kitchen?"
In truth, we will probably see all possible reactions. Panic and calm, mysticism and reason, hope and despair. Each combination will reflect the heart of a different human being or a different segment of the population. It may or may not be dangerous, but it certainly promises interesting moments soon after the announcement.
What if an ambiguous message from the stars seemed to confirm or validate the belief "even darling of certain groups on Earth?" For example, imagine that, at the back ...
• When transcribing messages, a star-crescent symbol appears several times on the interstellar letterhead of our correspondents, this is taken by some to mean that foreigners are Muslims?

• Or that some ETs manage to translate certain texts, similar to a myth from an obscure Christian sect?

• Or that beehive-like beings express an incomprehensible contempt for democracy?

If two-way communication takes decades, even centuries, it can be difficult to ask our new friends to clarify their meaning in time to make a difference in the resulting confusion.
It is serious. Once upon a time, wars were fought over different interpretations of a single line or word of Scripture. Or even a stain, like in the row on ‘’ Homo Ousias ’’.
We like to think that such smallness is behind us. But then we also thought that the epidemic was an obsolete word, for a brief innocent moment. We should be prepared for the inevitable probability that individuals and groups on Earth will seek whatever advantage they can derive from the first messages of the stars, regardless of the form of these messages.
How much more could these problems get if the aliens respond to a poorly considered message? Whether they do it inadvertently or deliberately maliciously, extraterrestrial communicators will have the power to use words and symbols in unnecessary ways.
History suggests caution.
This raises the inevitable question: "How do we decide who will speak for us?"
Will each nation, each sect and each religious group begin to formulate their own pleadings? Threats and dogmas towards the sky, almost when the contact is announced? Probably. One thing our alien friends are sure to learn about us is how unruly we are.
It is only the truth, after all.
But back to the subject of dangerous ideas. Is it possible that we can be infectious? Before rejecting the idea out of hand, let's consider that the apparent silence there could have a number of possible reasons. We who are so new to understanding the depth and potential of syntactic information flow – ‘’ Are we the best judges of what is possible, and even less dangerous for others? ’’

Would it be really painful to spend a little time advancing our knowledge in these areas, before shouting ecstatically and impulsively (or "sneeze") in all directions?
How about these marvels of technology that we hope to acquire once we begin to learn under the distant tutelage of our wise and beneficent predecessors?
Many of the problems that harass us have been addressed.
For example: energy crises, diseases and dangerous transport.
By sharing solutions discovered long ago by others. They might even find answers to biological and sociological dilemmas that today threaten our very survival.
For now, let's leave aside the interesting philosophical question of whether we had better win the place we deserve, instead of becoming dependent on technological crumbs, like beggars at a banquet. It is a serious matter, but I do not expect it to be heard properly here.
Suppose we start to receive a bunch of generous schemes for all kinds of wonders.
What if these are technologies we are not ready for ?
As a simple way to make antimatter, using common household materials and electrical wall power?
Ninety-nine point nine percent of the population can behave responsibly and refrain from blowing us up.
The remaining 0.1% would kill us all.
A SETI manager who takes great care to quarantine actual visitors may feel uncomfortable with the proposition that the data should also be verified. But is it possible to set up a buffer between the main SETI reception center and the rest of the world, so that time and geography allow us to pause and evaluate each part of the message before committing ourselves irrevocably ?
Many Westerners believe in the free competition of ideas - leaving the fittest to survive in open discussion. We tend - rightly so - to see any attempt to restrict this opening as a direct threat.
And yet, there can be quite conceivable ways to harm the information of the stars, as in the computer codes "virus" which infect a central computer or a microcomputer, swallow up memory space, and ruin the data.
So far, most of the hostile programs have proven to be rather primitive - nothing like the ravenous monsters and computer eaters described in some science fiction stories.
Predict computer viruses in the first place. And they are more sophisticated, all the time.
A software "invader" does not need to be intentional.
On Earth there are endless stories of programs destructively interfering with other programs.
What is the sophisticated code of an extraterrestrial culture, captured through our antennas and suddenly introduced into a system data processing for which it was not designed?
Any star message is likely to include error correction modules, designed to repair damage to the message during transit through interstellar space dust and plasma. Once the code is integrated into an active computer medium, these modules would "wake up" - a bit like a hibernating animal that has come out of sleep - and then begin to use the available computer resources to restore the integrity and function of the message.
As bizarre as this concept may seem at first, it is not science fiction.
Far from there. This is how the best world information and IT specialists say they will design a complex code intended to shine on the stars! (Consider how each of these dangers should be taken in the opposite direction, as we are preparing potential messages to convey our own coding assumptions which can have unexpected side effects when they enter the midst of a foreign information system. )
Under normal circumstances, an extraterrestrial message can be completely harmless. But, which is "normal" for Extraterrestrial software, there is no guarantee that such a program will not inadvertently take more from an unknown host system than anyone ever imagined. .
7. Give it all
Today, SETI scientists are much more concerned with the headlines:
("... SCHOLARS THINK AND PROGRAMS CAN EAT US !! ...) than prevent infection with self-replicating Alien software. And they're right. After all, no one believes that virus codes really represent a high risk for us or for our civilization. But the wrong type of advertising, even if badly cited, is a sure way to see your subsidy reduced. With this, much more imminent danger always looms nearby, it is not Surprisingly, talking about potential risks from the first contact rate is far from the researchers' priority list.
And yet, is it wise to get into this business just by assuming that there is no danger at all? This is called "successful planning," which has been widely used by the US space shuttle program.
Do I need to say more?
Note: Planning for success is actually the most reasonable thing to do in many cases, where there is not much asymmetry or irreversibility in the earnings matrix. However, the first contact with an unknown life form does not meet the criteria. The potential disadvantages of failure are immense and irreversible. To make successful planning oriented is truly irresponsible.
Consider the intermediate contact scenario - in which those we meet by radio are too far to meet physically, but close enough for two-way communication to be a practical possibility. (By this I mean that you could ask a question and hope that you or your grandson hear an answer.) Suppose furthermore that the scholars are right, and the first contact will be made with an older, completely benign civilization. indifferent to harm us. Furthermore, let's say they don't let go of dreadful plagues, whether physical or informal - whether they are genes or "memes" and that none of the ideas or technology that we receive exceeds our ability or wisdom to manage.
Suppose further that the competing powers on Earth do not conspire to withhold parts of the message for their own benefit, nor to compete with each other to influence our distant friends. Let's say that we manage to appoint an appropriate committee to speak for the Earth, at the same time, we take into account the mixture of other human voices which, inevitably, will rise up outside all official channels.
("It's often like that with impatient and brilliant young species," could say the Elders. "We will negotiate with your committee, and set up cosmic correspondents for the rest of you.")
Finally, suppose that the news that we are not alone affects us in all ways.
This brings us to reflect on our lives and get closer, more deeply in our understanding of ourselves and the universe. That we don't end up feeling intimidated or ashamed of having to be saved, instead of managing it ourselves.
This is the classic contact scenario, a bright prospect that many see as the most likely result of the verified discovery of the Aliens.
In fact, I agree. This is the most likely result ... one of the many reasons why I support SETI with enthusiasm.
But now, even after making each of these assumptions, can we finally relax? Are we ready to enjoy and celebrate the first contact safely?
We are not !
Because even in a civilized setting, life can be dangerous if you don't know the rules. (Don't believe me, try investing in Wall Street without experience!)
Note: The most effective scammers are the least rapacious people you will probably ever have the misfortune to meet. Kenneth Galbraith has already said that we suffer great financial hardship every 20 years because we let our guard down. We can allow setbacks of several years every 20 years. What we cannot afford is a millennial failure, simply because we have not debated something for some time before responding.
After all, what is the most common peaceful endeavor of human beings?
"Trade", of course. And what is likely to be the main commodity - perhaps the only commodity - of '' commerce '' on an interstellar scale?
Again, it will almost certainly be information.
No malicious and dangerous information we talked about earlier, but useful information - neat inventions and brilliant innovations and even - above all - art and literature. All that is new and original. What's new and fresh.
How most of you will respond, if the first one chose us to ask the Aliens is, "Send us your music and your art!" The Voyager spacecraft carries disk recordings of samples from Earth and graphical instructions for reading information. In the spirit of the United Nations, the people who planned this gesture simply did not think that the album should also have carried a price?
It's great to talk about altruism and the joys of free trade. But we are always remembering that this is a very recent concept in human affairs.
Quid pro quo is a more venerable theme.
Throughout human history, in most of our daily lives, and even among higher animals, the framework for civilized relationships is not "generous".
It is "to be fair".
And don't get me wrong, there is a difference!
As beautiful as they are, our Extraterrestrials will almost certainly engage in commerce. And their stock in trade will be information. We can look for the answers to our ultimate questions. When they tour, they can say, "Great. We have !!! "
I have answers. But surely you have something chosen to offer in exchange?
What can we offer? All we can have is ourselves - our art, our music, our books and our theater.
Forget about physical resources. The true wealth of humanity lies in our culture. This is what we have to trade. It is our treasure.
And it is also the very first choice that we are likely to transmit to the stars, "gigabytes", a few days after the first contact! Given the spirit of the times, and our ecstatic enthusiasm for contact, this is what seems natural to us as we ardently seek to "share with" (or impress) our new neighbors.
And this very admirable course to share - proving our selflessness in an orgy of transmission - could turn out to be the worst mistake of all time.
They can be nice. They can operate according to rules that we call fair. But no one expects to pay for a free gift! History may not speak of worse traitors to humanity than those who, with all the best of intentions, throw our very inheritance into heaven, asking nothing in return, thus impoverishing us all.
Let me reiterate this point.
Nature is above all tooth-and-claw.
In contrast, there are gleams of genuine altruism, exposed from time to time by dolphins, an occasional dog, as well as a large number of recent humans who want to be much better than they are. Our great opportunity.
The search for improvement shines at this end of the spectrum. I hope we will. But for the moment, there is no guarantee. There is almost no trend.
What is more firmly anchored in nature and human experience is something that is halfway across the spectrum - our concept of equity in mutual treatment on the basis of consideration.
Many animals seem to understand the basic concept of exchanging favors, "tit-for-tat", making a deal.
Unlike pure altruism, pragmatic cooperation rests on a much firmer ground, rooted in the nature observed, halfway between predation and total beneficence. In addition, one can easily imagine how to represent fair trade in a message. There is every chance that intelligent Aliens will understand this concept, even if they find altruism incomprehensible.
For this reason, let me humbly suggest that a fair and equitable approach based on prudent consideration should be our central theme as we take possible steps towards a '' Contact '', while remembering that we are new , small and weak in a vast Universe.
If the Aliens are truly altruistic, they will forgive us this precaution, this vestige of pragmatic personal interest. Noble beings will keep in mind our recent difficult experience. They will understand.
8. Already too late?
Is it already too late?
A long-standing truism maintains that the Earth has been extremely noisy in the radio spectrum, particularly since the end of the Second World War, with the advent of television broadcasting and continental missile detection radars. So noisy that any idea of reluctance or patient listening is already debatable.
If the Galaxy "Milky Way" is really a dangerous "jungle", the predators have already caught: "I Love Lucy" - then we might as well shout as loud as possible, in the hope of also meeting the best people over there.
This assumption - which has always stoked rationalization - has recently been challenged by experts such as Seth Shostak, who calculated that it would take a very large and carefully targeted antenna receiver to detect signs of technology in the spectrum from our solar system, from more than two light years to a dozen light years. The modulated parts probably stand out much less from the background than we thought. The only exception would be deliberate beam messages, which contain a lot of signal energy in a narrow beam area.
Until recently, the only well-known intentional "message" was launched by Arecibo, many years ago by one of the teams affiliated with Frank Drake, in the direction of the Great Andromeda Nebula (the Galaxy of Andromeda). With this target at a harmless distance - several hundred thousand light years - the act was more a symbol of faith in the SETI business (or a “cascade”, according to your point of view) than an attempt serious about attracting attention. Drake's group, despite their enthusiasm, had the maturity to refrain from doing something more, or to make a decision on it that belonged to all humanity.
This wise reluctance has been broken in recent years.
Russian astronomer "Alexander Zaitsev" claims to have broadcast a handful of interstellar messages, including pictorial and musical transmissions, from the "Evpatoria Radio Telescope" in Ukraine. Another group in Brazil claims to have sent a few narrow castes. We can certainly expect more unilateral spasms in the years to come, as radio equipment becomes cheaper and available to pseudo-scientists - with or without degrees - who lack the patience or the scientific courtesy to respect the wishes of others. .
History shows that people can rationalize anything when they offer their only hope of self-importance.
The consensus of all the main SETI research groups, however, the mission of the American lawyer Patricia Sterns is to follow the political directives drawn up by the SETI committee of the International Academy of Astronautics and the International Institute of Space Law. These protocols discourage intentional transmissions targeting extraterrestrials, unless they are preceded by extensive international discussion.
Falling into a completely separate category are efforts that do not try to unilaterally impose a point of view on the rest of humanity. Conferences like this one, which address the scientific and aesthetic aspects of interstellar communication, aim to explore things that we have always taken for granted, using the imagined view of strangers to gain new perspectives on common basic rules of the cosmos.
It is a valuable undertaking which falls under the general rubric which Albert Einstein called ‘’ gedanken experiment ’’, and can help broaden our thinking even in the absence of first contact. Indeed, this strongly overlaps with the venerable tradition of high-end science fiction, which contains a plethora of deeply linked scenarios.
Nor is it inappropriate or impatient to create examples of contact art while we wait. The best example of such art, which served to excite the human imagination without taking untoward risks, was the "business card" placed on board each Voyager spacecraft in the 1970s.
Note: Carl. Sagan, ed., Whispers of the Earth: Voyager's interstellar disc (New York: Random House, 1978).
These symbolic gestures have not appreciably increased our detectability section.
Furthermore, no one can deny that the salutary and inspiring value of the exercise of "traveling" far exceeded its modest cost.
Just anticipating can have benefits that pay wonderful dividends.
The conceptual foundations that are laid at conferences like this may one day prove invaluable, the Contact ’’ Contact ’’ should come - as it probably will - by complete surprise.
9. Play our posterity
This essay was, I admit, very fun to write. Despite many years spent professionally contemplating the concept of Extraterrestrial Life, in a myriad of variations, personally, I do not expect this "Contact" to happen in my life. When this is the case, I hope and predict that our grandchildren will be much wiser and better able to cope than you or me. Our first priority should not be to rush to this first Contact ’Contact’ ’, but to prepare our heirs.
A parallel could be the way we sometimes look at our calls, listening to messages instead of answering right away. What we almost never did (after the age of twelve) is just dialing random numbers on the phone, to anyone telling them our name and where we live.
We are certainly not going to walk around screaming in the darkest part of an unknown city.
Optimistic scholars may be right in saying that we have nothing to fear from this eventual encounter with the beings "Star Sages". Yet we cannot remember enough, to go back to our own story of human contact here on Earth, a litany of terrible warning tales.
There are generations of people who have suffered horribly because they were not ready for the challenges caused by new vices, new technologies, new diseases, new ideas, new opportunities and new people. And these ancestors were the lucky survivors! Many peoples and cultures - including all species of hominids other than ours - have left no descendants.
How ironic that this reminder should come from someone who is a devoted believer in the new!
Ironic, and yet in a way. Because I would prefer to bet on a horse I know - human improvisation and progress - than on the salvation of some very high hypothetical super-beings.
We have tried this path countless times before, and the lesson has always been that we should (mostly) rely on ourselves.
In this article, I have only touched on some of the dangers conceived by various dark thinkers and writers over the years. I could go on, but a full list is not necessary. What counts is the lesson, that of circumspection and prudence. The worst mistake of first contact, made throughout history by individuals on both sides of each new encounter, has been the annoying habit of making assumptions.
This has often proven fatal.
Hopefully it is a habit that we, or our grandchildren, manage to break. If so, we can pass a crucial test when it comes time to meet and greet the ‘’ Beings of the Stars ’’.
### ### ### ### ### ### ###
David Brin is a scientist and author whose novels, including
"The Earth, the postman and otherness" has been translated into more than 20 languages. His scientific articles cover a wide range of subjects from astronautics, astronomy and optics to alternative conflict resolution and selection for neotenia in human evolution. Brin's non-fiction book - The Transparent Society - addresses the issues of openness and freedom in the new wired age. Her classic paper on SETI appeared in the Royal Astronomical Society's Quarterly Journal, Fall 1983, v.24, pp283-309
George Dyson: "All the information we know is collective and distributed information. An advanced extraterrestrial intelligence could have as much interest in communicating with you, me or a radio astronomer as we would have had to do with a thousandth of a second of conversation with a single neuron from a rat. "
====================================
Submitted 09/30/02 -> [e-mail]
(Doug Vakoch [e-mail])
publish.seti.org/art_science/2003/
====================================

Text corrections on April 6, 2020 by Dr. Hanz W.
‘’Grand ’Great God of Roads’ ’
F I N.