View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by CERN Document Server

Bull. Spec. Astrophys. Obs., 60, 2006

The SETI Paradox

Alexander Zaitsev Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, Vedensky Square 1, Fryazino, 141120 Russia

Abstract: Two opposing tendencies paradoxically coexist in terrestrial consciousness – the insistent quest for intelligent signals from other civilizations and the persistent aversion to any attempts to transmit such signals from Earth toward probable fellow intelligent beings. If typi- cal for our entire Universe, such manifestations of intelligence would make the search for other civilizations totally meaningless. Key words: SETI – interstellar messages – Great Silence

1. Introduction formulate various hypotheses, like, for ex- Searching the Internet for the word ample, Arthur C. Clarke, who said: “…it is combination “SETI Paradox” yields two almost evident that biological intelligence separate and interrelated groups of results – is a low form of intelligence. We are at the SETI and Fermi Paradox. Here, we focus early stage of the evolution of intelligence, on the “SETI Paradox” – on this incompre- but at the late stage of the evolution of life. hensible hope of finding extraterrestrial True intelligence is unlikely to be living.” intelligence while keeping almost abso- The planetary consciousness of the lutely silent. However, nothing but natural Earth may well be unique and so may be objects can be found in a Universe where the planetary consciousness of each extra- there are only “searchers” and no “send- terrestrial civilization. And all planetary ers”. consciousnesses in their global, mature Of the three components of the classi- manifestations – both internal and external cal triad “Universe, Life, Mind” that – may well be dismally monotonous, and Shklovskii (1962) introduced into scientific this very fact may explain the Great Si- and public use, we can now say nothing lence – because a passive/receive-only atti- definite about mind and its possible variety tude toward the Cosmos is perhaps every- or, on the contrary, sameness. We can only body’s, and not just our, feature – every- body tries to receive and nobody is willing Indeed, why should we transmit a to give… message to Others? It is more or less clear We suggest introducing – in addition why we should search for the messages of to such common terms as ETI = Extrater- Others. But why transmit? What for? In- restrial Intelligence and SETI = Search for deed, Shvartsman pointed out that this will ETI – a new term, METI = Messaging to give us no new knowledge. We must try to ETI, which we use to designate the funda- understand “…for the sake of what these mentally new type of human activities – transmissions are to be made…” – either transmission of messages to hypothetical by us or by ETIs… fellow intelligent beings. Some may argue that SETI is also a new type of activity. Of 2. Universality of consciousness? course, it is a new one, but not fundamen- How universal is consciousness? So tally new – mankind has always been look- far we have been lacking relevant experi- ing into the sky in the hope of finding mental data. Only a single measurement – something there. And as for transmitting to terrestrial realization of consciousness – is probable ETI and doing this purposefully – available. The aim of SETI is to try to find this type of activity is now only at its first out whether consciousness is universal or stages (Zaitsev, Chafer, Braastad, 2005) not. A full description of the Universe as and it is by no means clear whether it has discussed by Linde (2003) – any future at all… “Is it possible that consciousness, like Shvartsman writes in his already clas- space-time, has its own intrinsic degrees of sic paper, “Search for Extraterrestrial Civi- freedom and that neglecting these will lead lization – A Problem of Astrophysics or of to a description of the universe that is fun- the Entire Culture?” (1986): damentally incomplete?” – ”…we do not know for the sake of is so far impossible to achieve – we do what transmissions are to be made…” not know how to fit consciousness into the and description of the Universe – as something “…science is an activity aimed at ac- unique, or as a universal phenomenon. quiring new knowledge about the world. And it is not inconceivable that no one However, the interstellar messages are by in the entire Universe knows this – the no means meant to obtain new knowledge Universe is silent and even if there are by those who transmit them (message and other lone centers of consciousness some- reply are typically several thousand years where else (Grinspoon 2003), THEIR apart).” physicists should face the same problem – how to fit consciousness into the descrip- ter understand the true nature of being (as- tion of the Universe – as a singular or a suming, of course, that the Universe is in- universal phenomenon. In this sense, the habited), and, in the process, change the task of METI is to try to answer the ques- very nature of being, i.e., into a state where tion whether consciousness is universal – the existence of extraterrestrial life is con- and this answer is to be meant for OTH- firmed. ERS… Similarly, the Participatory Anthropic 3. The Drake equation with the Principle (PAP) formulated by John METI coefficient Wheeler in 1983 – “Observers are neces- The classic Drake equation is the sary to bring the Universe into being” – is product of seven parameters that estimate incomplete in the sense that the Universe the number of potentially detectable extra- that we now observe is a Silent Universe, a terrestrial civilizations in our Galaxy: Universe of observers, whereas true par- ticipation in the scene of the Universe can- N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L, not be limited to mere contemplation. One can speak about true “participa- where N = the number of potentially de- tion” when this “participation” becomes tectable civilizations in the Milky Way OBSERVABLE by a distant observer. Galaxy; R* = the rate of formation of stars

Wheeler’s Participatory Anthropic Princi- in the Galaxy; fp = the fraction of those ple should therefore be supplemented by stars with planetary systems; ne = the num- the following statement: ber of planets per solar system that are

“Senders are necessary to bring con- suitable for life; fl = the fraction of those sciousness into the Universe”. planets where life actually appears; fi = the So, the participation of senders would fraction of life sites where intelligence de- transform the observer’s consciousness of velops; fc = the fraction of communicative the Universe into a consciousness that rec- planets (those on which electromagnetic ognizes a Universe that is inhabited by at communications technology develops); L = least two, separate intelligences (e.g., two the “lifetime” over which such civilizations civilizations). In turn, this transformation transmit detectable signals into space. of the observer’s consciousness would it- This equation takes into account many self represent a contribution to existence. factors, but not all. Namely, it leaves out In other words, from an ontological per- the fraction of emitting “intelligent plan- spective, senders would help observers bet- ets,” i.e., planets that are, like our Earth, in the communicative phase of their exis- stellar message should be approved by the tence, and at the same time “bring” con- United Nations General Assembly. Some sciousness into the Universe by purpose- researches operate with concepts of fully transmitting intelligent signals to the “peaceful civilization” and “aggressive outside world. Estimation of this fraction is civilization” and suggest that we should by no means just a question of idle curios- reply only to signals coming from a peace- ity given the attitude of our planetary con- ful civilization – an attitude that would ul- sciousness toward such “bringing.” timately result in the total refusal to emit Here we are speaking about METI- any signal at all. The reason: a message phobia. It appeared immediately after the from a peaceful extraterrestrial civilization first interstellar radio message had been to which we are allowed to answer is im- sent from Arecibo on November 16, 1974. possible to distinguish from a message Nobel Laureate Martin Ryle then published from an aggressive, but self-coding civili- a protest where he warned: “…any crea- zation, to which we should not reply. And tures out there may be malevolent or hun- given that we will be hardly able to de- gry…” and called for an international ban velop an undoubted criterion to judge the to be imposed on any attempts to establish altruism of the extraterrestrial civilization Contact and transmit messages from the that would satisfy all those who fear the Earth to hypothetical ETIs. possible negative consequences of com- The International Academy of Astro- municating, it would also be impossible to nautics (IAA) then adopted a Declaration not only initiate, but even reply to interstel- (1989) calling for the restriction of such lar messages. Our civilization would be activities. Thus, paragraph 8 of this Decla- doomed to eternal silence. ration states: “No response to a signal or Unlike the English-language press, other evidence of extraterrestrial intelli- which has been discussing METI-phobia gence should be sent until appropriate in- continuously, articles on this subject ap- ternational consultations have taken place. pear rarely in the Russian media. One of The procedures for such consultations will the most recent international campaigns be the subject of a separate agreement, dec- involves a series of articles posted on the laration or arrangement.” site of the SETI League and the adoption Six years later, the SETI Permanent of the so-called “San Marino Scale” at the Study Group of the IAA presented a Draft conference “We and SETI” held in San Declaration (1995), which envisages that a Marino in 2005. This scale, like the Richter decision on whether or not to send an inter- scale for earthquakes, is meant to rank in- terstellar radio messages to ETI by the de- being located far apart, may interact only gree of risk. However, the Richter scale by transmitting and receiving electromag- assesses real earthquakes that have already netic signals. And moreover, to be de- happened, whereas the San Marino scale tected, we must emit targeted and guided assesses hypothetical, far-fetched conse- messages toward the chosen celestial body. quences. In this context, of particular inter- However, we must take METI-phobia est is the opinion of such fears and bans of extraterrestrial civilizations into account expressed by Paul Shuch, the SETI because of the current realities in Earth’s League's Executive Director: In 1998 he civilization. To this end, the Drake equa- gave the following answer to our Internet tion should supplemented by the METI- poll, which we conducted during the period coefficient fm (Zaitsev 2005): leading up to the Cosmic Call 1999 inter- * stellar radio transmission: “I am not an ad- N = R × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × fm × L, herent of such isolationist (read paranoid) philosophy”. where fm – the fraction of communicative Our understanding of this problem civilizations (METI-civilizations), i.e., stems from certain “double standards” (not civilizations with clearly nonparanoidal in the common, negative meaning of this planetary consciousness, which indeed word combination): People fear that Some- produce planned and targeted interstellar thing superpowerful and aggressive – such messages. As mentioned above, to be in a as the evil empires found in such modern, communicative phase and emit METI mes- mythological/science fiction tales as the sages is not the same thing. For example, “Star Wars” serials – are either already we, although being in a communicative aware of us, or will inevitably become phase, are not a communicative civiliza- aware of us. In this view, there is no es- tion: We do not practice such activities as cape from this fate. They will find us, first the purposeful and regular transmission of and foremost, by radio emission of dozens interstellar messages. of military radars of USA and Russia, We may try to estimate the METI- which are at the core of the national missile coefficient fm for the only known, terres- attack warning systems, which have been trial civilization. As we pointed out above, operating continuously 24 hours a day our civilization is indeed in the communi- since the early 1970s (Morozov 2005). We cative phase and it indeed conducts SETI must press forward Contact with all con- activities. However, our METI/SETI ratio ceivable civilizations like our own, which is less then one percent: these data follow from the review of Jill Tarter published in one-way – our addressees receive our mes- the recently released “SETI-2020” collec- sages, and we, in turn, detect those who tion of papers (Tarter 2003). It lists 100 have chosen us as their addressees. This is various SETI programs starting from the how the Universe at a certain stage of its first OZMA project to our time. The total development appears for observers as in- time of search is several years, whereas the habitable. Otherwise, centers of intelli- total transmission time is only 37 hours gence are doomed to remain lonely, unob- (Zaitsev 2006). This characterizes the atti- served civilizations. tude of researches. However, we must also And in conclusion, let us return to the take into account the METI-phobia inher- beginning and give the classic quotation ent to the planetary consciousness as a from the paper by Cocconi and Morrison whole. And therefore if we assess the fm (1959): “The probability of success is diffi- coefficient based on the only known civili- cult to estimate, but if we never search the zation (and we are hardly peculiar if we are chance of success is zero”. not alone), we find that it tends to zero and, The above argument is, of course, consequently, the same should be true for true. However, accidental detection as a the number of potentially detectable extra- result of routine astronomical observations terrestrial civilizations. Hence, the SETI is also possible. However, this may happen Paradox: “Searching is meaningless if no only if there exist extraterrestrial civiliza- one feels the need to transmit…” tions that actually send interstellar mes- In other words: “SETI makes sense sages. Therefore, in this context the above only in a Universe with such properties argument may be somewhat reformulated: that it develops Intelligence that realizes “The probability of success is difficult to the need not only to conduct searches, but estimate, but if nobody transmits the also to transmit intelligent signals to other chance of success is zero in principle”. hypothetical sites of self-consciousness”. And we can formulate the following It would become possible to establish thesis implied by the SETI Paradox: Contact if one of the distinguishing fea- “Solely that who is overcoming the Great tures of Intelligence in our Universe is the Silence deserves to hear the voice of the missionary need to carry to Aliens the Universe”. Good News that they are not alone in space. Given such enormous distances and, ----- consequently, long signal propagation I am grateful to Richard Braastad for time, communications should be mostly his valuable comments on the manuscript. References Cocconi G. and Morrison P., 1959. Searching for Interstellar Communications. Nature, 184, No 4690, 844, http://www.coseti.org/morris_0.htm Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterres- trial Intelligence, 1989, http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/protdet.htm Draft Declaration of Principles Concerning Sending Communications with Extraterres- trial Intelligence), 1995, http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/reply.htm Grinspoon D., 2003, “Lonely Planets”, ECCO, Harper Collins Publichers. Linde A, 2003. Inflation, Quantum Cosmology and the Anthropic Principle, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0211048. Morozov V. G., 2000. “The All-Seeng Eye of Russia”, Nezavisimoe Voennoe Obozrenie, No 13 (186), 14.04.2000 (in Russian), http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2000-04-14/4_sprn.html Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP), http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm Shklovskii, I. S., 1962. Vselennaia, Zhizn, Razum (Universe, Life, Mind). Moscow: Nauka (in Russian). Shvartsman V. F., 1986. Proceedings of Tallinn SETI Symposium, Moscow: Nauka (in Russian) Tarter J., 2003, “SETI 2020: A Roadmap for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence”, eds.: Ekers R. D., Billingham J., Cullers D. K., Schefer L. K., Zajdel T. T., SETI Press. Zaitsev A., Charles M. Chafer, and Richard Braastad, 2005. Making a Case for METI. Search Lites, v. 11, No 2, Spring 2005, p. 15, http://www.setileague.org/editor/meti.htm http://www.cplire.ru/html/ra&sr/irm/Making_a_Case_for_METI.html http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/SETI/koi/articles/DrakeEquation.htm Zaitsev A. L., 2005. The Drake Equation: Adding a METI Factor. SearchLites, vol. 11, No 2 – Spring 2005, 5, http://www.cplire.ru/html/ra&sr/irm/Drake_equation.html Zaitsev A. L., 2006. Messaging to Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610031