The discussion is interesting, whether you think it’s more likely or even imaginable from a distance that humanity will one day touch an ETI. And that might tell us more about humanity than an ETI.
A new paper titled “Geopolitical Implications of a Successful SETI Program” is the latest back-and-forth circular among professional thinkers. Spring Hill College and Harvard Law School. The leader is Jason T. Wright of Penn State University. The paper has been accepted for publication through the journal Space Policy, and is lately available on the preprint site arXiv. org.
This article is a reaction to an earlier article published in 2020 titled “The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Consideration of Realpolitik. “Wisian is of the University of Texas Space Research Center, and Traphagan is of the Department of Religious Studies and the Human Dimensions of Organizations Program, also at the University of Texas. WT article 2020.
In WT 2020, the two authors noted that much of the thinking around middle-market corporations focuses on the dangers of extraterrestrial intelligence search (SETI) and extraterrestrial intelligence messaging (METI). What if the TSI were technologically complex and threatening?What if were they like conquerors or something?Stephen Hawking expressed this concern well in 2010 when he said, “Such complex extraterrestrial beings would perhaps be nomads, seeking to conquer and colonize any planet they can reach. “
These types of invading extraterrestrial beings bring millions of dollars to Hollywood, however, the authors of WT 2020 pointed to another threat, which does not receive as much attention. What is this threat?” Specifically, the threat of only detecting an extraterrestrial signal from passive SETI activity is considered negligible,” they write.
What is difficult about detecting a signal? We and our realpolitik.
If you are not familiar with the term realpolitik, history is full of examples. Merriam-Webster defines realpolitik as “a policy based on practical points and draped that theoretical or moral objectives. “In WT 2020, the authors use this definition of realpolitik by historian John Bew: “. . . the view of interstate relations where ‘the perception that the state can simply be regulated or controlled through law [is] wrong’ and that ‘power obeys only a greater power. ‘”
Realpolitik is a realistic and dirty policy between political groups and nations. Realpolitik is distinct from the prayer that political leaders use in elections and public situations, where leaders use political theater to influence the population and advance their causes. Realpolitik is about the mechanisms of force in our world.
An example of realpolitik comes from World War II. U. S. President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill played well with Stalin and Russia. They called Stalin an ally, shook his hand and smiled when they met him. They needed Stalin to keep fighting and weakening Hitler, and the Americans even sent a steady flow of materials to Russia to enable their war effort. Everything is fine on the surface, as shown in this prominent clip from the Yalta conference. At 2:35, we can see the 3 leaders having fun. .
But in the scenes, realpolitik has woven another web. Churchill and Roosevelt needed Stalin to win the war, and Stalin knew it. Stalin promised democratic elections for Poland after the war because he needed the Allies to help him defeat Germany. As soon as the war ended, occupied Poland and other countries, and Russia and the West became declared enemies. This is realpolitik, and Stalin practiced it well.
But that is a long time ago, and the world at war. Why is this applicable in our most modern era and potential contact with an ETI?
Because human nature has changed.
If we passively stumble upon an ETI sign, it can be problematic for other devout people. Their worldview can be seriously threatened and there can be significant turmoil in devout countries or even devout extremist violence. But that would disappear, it is thought, and other people would return to their lives. It would be revolutionary for scientists, but most people would go on with their lives. This is how the WT 2020 document summarizes the thinking. But how do nations and their political leaders react?
But as long as countries compete with each other, there will be a certain amount of realpolitik. And when it comes to playing with an ETI, monopolizing that contact has potential advantages for the country that monopolizes it. “The history of foreign relations observed through However, the realpolitik culture prism of realist political thought suggests that there is a measurable threat of shock about the perceived advantages of monopoly access to ETI communication channels,” the authors write in WT 2020. “This option will have to be taken into account when analyzing potential threats and gaining the benefits of contact with an TSI. “
For Wisian and Traphagan, the danger lies in what we can do to ourselves.
Any middle market would have enormous technological merit over us, and as long as the TSI was not malicious, that merit presents an opportunity for nations. If a government monopolizes communications with the ETI, it may only gain technological merit. Imagine China, Russia or the United States coveting this technological merit. Or North Korea, Iran, etc. It is the prism of realpolitik that the authors examine. This can lead to conflicts or other unintended consequences.
In WT 2020, the authors argue that realpolitik considerations deserve to be vital when making plans for a successful passive SETI. They make several recommendations. They recommend that scientists applying to SETI establish supportive relationships with local law enforcement, strengthen the perimeters and security of their institutions, and adorn personnel protection for scientists and their families. The authors of WT 2020 also recommend that services such as radio telescopes adopt protective measures. similar to those of nuclear power plants.
But the new document, which is a refutation of the WT 2020 document and its realpolitik concerns, does not take into account those useful security moves. They also disagree that any country will most likely be able to monopolize communications with an ETI.
“While we discuss whether a realpolitik reaction is possible, we note considerations about W’s presentation.
If a realpolitik response comes into play, let it be the maximum applicable response. The authors of the new paper agree with this, but show that “. . . it is highly unlikely that any country will be able to monopolize communication with ETI. “The realistic risk is that a country thinks it can monopolize communications.
The authors also criticize other facets of WT 2020’s realpolitik scenario. For example, if it is a Western democracy that detects a signal, can it simply monopolize it?It’s unlikely, according to the authors, because Western science is well incorporated internationally. Our maximum Hard observatories have several nations and establishments as partners, so monopolization is doubtful. The clinical network operates on openness, not informational protectionism.
The authors also criticize the example of a touch situation in WT 2020. WT 2020 argues that a touch that is insignificant for an TSI may involve valuable technical data that can be useful for a monopoly nation. It’s unlikely. ” Whether this can take place is not entirely obvious. First, the science is cumulative and non-linear: for a new concept to be useful, we will first have to have the right clinical context to perceive it,” they write. Could medieval scholars use a textbook on the design of nuclear weapons?If they can simply perceive it, can they simply act accordingly? Unlikely, according to the authors, and the same goes for the complex technological data of a very complex TSI.
In addition, what express technological advantages can be obtained?We already have enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization. Could an ETI inadvertently share of data that could allow the monopolist to build some kind of super weapon?According to the authors, this goes into the realm of science fiction and leaves realpolitik behind.
For the authors, the most productive way to prevent state actors from thinking they could get a monopoly is to be open rather than adopting state policing and security measures. In fact, the measures advocated at WT 2020 may precipitate exactly what they seek. To avoid: a nightmare of realpolitik.
In their new paper, the authors clearly “Finally, it is vital that the implementation of broad security protections in SETI and METI domain names can cause the same disruptions as W
There is some agreement in the newspapers about the dangers inherent in contact. “W valid concern
Another point of agreement considers the protection of scientists who are in contact with an TSI. However, while we have a clever explanation of why we avoid extensive facility safety protections according to SE, there are other explanations for why to adopt safety measures designed to protect SETI practitioners themselves. , especially when detected,” the authors write. These scientists may very well have targets of harassment and even aggression. There are a lot of other crazy people out there, as the COVID pandemic has shown us, and an emerging wave of anti-science. Thinking.
In their conclusion, the authors state that “. . . A reaction from Realpolitik to a touch situation is worth considering, however, we think it’s just one of several post-touch candidate reactions worth considering. “
They recommend that there be much larger and involved responses “. . . that can only generate team spirit or greater collaboration in foreign relations. “
They also say that the WT 2020 document is based on the premise that political leaders will misunderstand that the option to play with an ETI is being manipulated through some other state. Although this concern is not unfounded, according to the authors, and should be taken into account. account, the authors of this article do not agree with the recommendations given in WT 2020.
What do you recommend to globalists when we touch an ETI?
Instead of beefing up security at SETI sites, the authors “. . . transparency
knowledge sharing and schooling of decision-makers. »
Please indicate the appropriate maximum category to facilitate the processing of your request
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback to the editors.
Your opinion is for us. However, we do not guarantee individual responses due to the large volume of messages.