All Attempts to Broadcast Our Presence to Nearby Stars Should Be Forbidden

Here you can find a list of when there might be a response to known prior contact attempts within a century, assuming immediate light-speed response, and whether there are known terrestrial planets around the stars. This is incredibly dangerous and reveals the presence of intelligence on Earth to anything that might be listening, and should be immediately stopped (see Stephen Hawking's take on this here.) Granted, astronomers' definition of habitable - "terrestrial planet orbiting in liquid water temperature zone" - leaves a lot to be desired.

Until now. Measurements of terrestrial planets can now show if there is an atmosphere and it contains hydrogen, oxygen, and N2, making at least some water quite likely (Konatham et al 2020.)

We can update the list of stars where we've already broadcast contact attempts, with these new stricter criteria. There are two planets with atmospheres and likely water that we have deliberately broadcast to: Teegarden's Star, a red dwarf (with two planets with likely water), with a response possible by 2036; and GJ273b (Luyten's Star), with a super Earth with likely water, responding at earliest 2043.

Two facts to modify our enthusiasm:

• Both are red dwarfs, which have a habit of flaring. However, Luyten's Star is quiet by these standards.
• Also, aliens looking at our solar system using the same definition would keep both Mars and Venus on this stricter habitable list. Both do have atmospheres and some water.

Proxima Centauri is the closest star but in this more-strict list of habitable planets, but we haven't deliberately targeted it. It's worth pointing out that even if there were a twin Earth there, we still wouldn't be able to hear them (the C-index - a rule of thumb, assuming that strength of a civilization's emissions and ability to detect increase in concert.)

(Encouraging to amateurs: Teegarden's Star was discovered by a group of non-professional astronomers poring over data online, without access to telescopes.)

Konatham S, Martin-Torres J, Zorzano M. Atmospheric composition of exoplanets based on the thermal escape of gases and implications for habitability. Published:09 September 2020https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0148

New Approaches on What the Fermi Paradox Means for the Future of Humanity

I was lucky to attend a video lecture by James Miller, economist at Smith College, facilitated by Joshua Fox. Thanks for having this event! I contacted James to let him know I would be posting this and to let him proofread my recapitulation of his argument so as to avoid mis-paraphrasing him; my thanks to him for taking the time to correct me on several points. Of course any errors are mine.

Much of this is familiar terrain for those of us who spend our time considering X-risk and the Fermi paradox. Miller's thesis is that we are at a critically important point in human history, a window where we think that in the near future we can start colonizing the galaxy (the year 2614 at earliest, by this calculation) but at the same time where we are smart enough to destroy ourselves. Since it is not obvious that the galaxy has already been colonized by other civilizations, there may be a Great Filter stopping this from happening. Miller uses the analogy of a person about to climb a mountain, believing that everyone else who has attempted it has died in the process.

Several challenges were discussed by attendees. (If you attended the lecture and want to claim credit for your question, please comment below, thanks.)

1. It's too early to say there are no civilizations; it may not be so easy to detect them or rule them out. We're still discovering metazoans in Manhattan so it seems a little early to rule out von Neumann probes on low gravity bodies in the solar system. We've barely begun to catalog the fauna of our own ocean floors. We could not detect a twin Earth emitting the same radio energy (the C-index), even if it was orbiting Alpha Centauri. Miller points out that even if there were only a few civilizations in the Milky Way preceding us, "the galaxy is older than it is big", and these earlier civilizations could have colonized it already.
   
   
2. He made the point that the things which prove advantageous in the midst of evolving on a single planet might have no such advantages in terms of galactic colonization. Very true; I would argue that we are much more likely to find alien artifacts, than the aliens themselves, as all of us meat-creatures might be stuck on our planets while our machines colonize the galaxy. To that end, (my point) it's entirely plausible that the Solar System could be littered with space probes and we haven't found any yet, or did, and just didn't know what we were looking at.
   
   
3. I would therefore extend Miller's analogy like this. Only in the process of climbing the mountain, does our climber develop wilderness skills and begin to see things that resemble his own boot tracks, etc. and finally as he approaches the summit realizes that lots of people have climbed it, come down the other side, and their descendants have built large villages which due to his previous ignorance he has not been able to locate. (Or, maybe just some of their livestock, trained birds-of-prey, etc. have made it.)
   
   
4. Active attempts to bring ourselves to the attention of aliens have occurred (METI) and been roundly criticized. Miller notes that the risk of extinction from aliens over the next few centuries is lower than eg bio-terrorism or an intelligence singularity. True; but we still may be making life more difficult for our descendants. Related to this, he proposes an ingenious experiment that for a month we should shout our heads off electromagnetically, and see if there is any strange activity. While I agree it's unlikely we'll get invaded next week, I still think the risk:benefit does not work out and there are just too many unknowns, and we may be screwing our distant descendants. Miller suggested that enforcing a moratorium on METI-like activities is probably impossible.
   
   
5. He argues that technological singularities of the paperclip maximizer variety are unlikely to be a major contributor to the Great Filter, because we would be able to see the boundary of it as it expanded (unless it was doing so at light speed.) My concern with this is that, while an AGI might be much smarter than its creators, it is still not omniscient, and the impact of its actions could in principle still outstrip its ability to predict that impact. This is the story behind the rise of human intelligence and the sixth great extinction that we're living through, but has happened in pulses of endogenous extinctions throughout Earth's history (the rise of superpredators every fifty million years or so, the Oxygen Catastrophe). The lesson of evolution here on Earth is that the smarter things are, the faster their behavioral plasticity "catches up with them" in exactly these sorts of disasters, so to suppose that alien paperclip maximizers are immune to this problem is to argue that a qualitative change in ecological dynamics has occurred.
   
   
6. There were two (possibly unappreciated) related questions asked: one about civilization perhaps being bad for sustaining civilization (witness declining birth rates in the developed world) and another that intelligences might prefer virtual reality - involution - to expanding into space. Miller points out the passive version of the "baseball bat" problem: you can live in heaven, but if a bad guy comes and bashes your server with a club and you as you sleep in your VR pod, that's the end of it. (Related: dynamic complex systems like minds, in principle, tend to drift toward delusion and suffer inherent cyclic crises.) It's a thesis for someone in psychology or a related field to note whether there is causation or just correlation between the increasingly encompassing virtual reality-like entertainments available in the developing world, and declining birth rates.
   
   
7. One questioner asked about the distinction between intelligence and civilization - humans have had a "civilization" only since agriculture. This was a really original line of thought. Therefore, there could be many alien intelligences, but few or no civilizations. One solution for humans avoiding the Great Filter would be to abandon civilization and go back to hunting-gathering - not directly suggested, but this is the only implication of such an argument I could think of. The extreme number of assumptions built in to discussion of alien civilizations should always be pointed out - civilization is something that collections of human nervous systems do, and it is not clear it is a necessary consequence of intelligence. (As a physician I ask: do we assume the aliens will have similar EKG waveforms and liver enzymes as us? No, because that's ridiculous. So we do we assume that the even more complex activity of another organ, that we don't even share with other animals on this planet, is automatically going to be meaningfully similar?)

There's also a psychological point to be made about "big picture" arguments (the singularity, the Fermi paradox, the simulation argument, etc.) They have a tendency to converge on either prophetic religion-like conclusions (e.g. the singularity as the rapture for nerds) or Lovecraft (the estivation hypothesis, which was mentioned in a question and made me think about this.) When we talk about these things, there are many many unknowns. In such discussions, I think there is a tendency for the resulting arguments to resemble the internal contours of the human mind, more than any future events in the actual external world; hence their regression to religion-like conclusions. This does not mean such an argument must be incorrect, but it should make us suspicious when a big-picture argument hews too close to our "ontological test pattern. "

Consider in contrast cosmologists' models of the distant future of the universe, which concern physical objects which we can now observe and characterize, using rigorous mathematical rules. These models often seem boring, meaningless, difficult to understand, and unsatisfying. This is exactly how we should expect most models will seem of things outside our own and our ancestors' experiences, or beyond the scale of time and space to which we are accustomed and which we are built to perceive; the further outside their experience, the moreso. This occurred to me when we were discussing the estivation hypothesis, though overall Miller's arguments do not set off many alarm bells for this quick-and-very-dirty heuristic.

Attempts at Interstellar Communication: Receipts and Responses Within Your Lifetime

tl;dr Lots of scientists are on record saying that broadcasting messages to nearby stars is dangerous. If you take other low-probability high-consequence existential risks seriously, you should consider joining the effort (resources here.) Compared to some of the problems the X-risk community is used to thinking about, it would be relatively easy to stop active SETI (METI) and protect the future of life on Earth.

A very philosophically-minded Native American in the pre-Columbian era, sitting on the beach at night, might have thought: there might be a beach just like this one, far across these waters. And if we set up large bonfires, we can let them know we're here! What a joy it would be to meet and exchange culture and technology! We know how the exchange actually played out; if it had come a few centuries earlier, it would have been the Norse landing in New England and Virginia, and likely would have been even worse. In any event, if our pre-contact philosopher would've known exactly how friendly those people across the water would be, he would've abandoned his plan.

This was the result of contact between two groups of the same species that had been briefly (in biological terms) separated. Based on simple evolutionary psychology, contact between two completely unrelated species would likely be much, much worse. But in contrast, revealing the strangely and hypocritically self-flagellating psychology of certain people, you don't have to look far for arguments that contact between humans and aliens would necessarily be beneficial to us - because we humans are so dirty and sinful (except for the people pointing out how sinful we are of course), and any aliens technologically advanced enough to visit us[1] would necessarily be morally advanced as well (again inconsistently, morally advanced as evaluated by the sinful human making the argument.) There's no valid argument in favor of METI, and every reason to think it should be considered suicide for Earth's entire ecosystem, not just for humans. And yet it's been done repeatedly, sometimes for reasons as silly as art projects.

Consider the following list of stars that have been targeted for such contact attempts, and which are close enough that a response (or a visit, if they can travel at light speed) could be received in the medically optimistic lifetime of someone born recently.

Star	Sun-like?	Planets?	Earliest Response
Teegarden's Star	red dwarf	possible	2036
GJ83.1	red dwarf (flare)	no evidence	2040
GJ273b	red dwarf	YES, SUPER EARTH IN HABITABLE ZONE	2043
Gliese 581	red dwarf	YES, POSSIBLY IN HABITABLE ZONE	2050
Altair	white (A)	no evidence	2051
GJ526	red dwarf (flare star)	unlikely	2059
HIP 4872	red dwarf	no evidence	2069
Kappa Ceti	YES, but frequent flares	no evidence	2069
HD 245409	cool orange/hot red dwarf (K-M)	no evidence	2077
55Cancri****	YES	YES, POSSIBLY IN HABITABLE ZONE	2085
HD 10307	YES	unlikely (companion)	2085
47 UMa**	YES	possible	2093
Gl 777	YES	possible	2103

*Where there are asterisks, numbers of asterisks = # of contact attempts

This is by no means an exhaustive list of all messages, only those for which we can receive a response by 2110 - and only those which are publicly reported.

The argument against active SETI (or METI; Messaging ET Intelligence) is simple. Any aliens which receive the message and have the ability to travel to our solar system are very likely far advanced. Whether or not they intend to harm us - if they, it, etc. even has "intentions" - is immaterial, as any contact with them is overwhelmingly likely to be catastrophic for Earth's ecosystem as a whole, including the human race. Arguments that the aliens will be (or for some reason must be) "nice" are comically narrow-minded and provincial.

The best arguments in FAVOR of active SETI appear to be 1) if we remain silent, then we can infer other species are likely to have made the same decision and it's inconsistent to remain silent but keep listening. 2) Advanced species probably already know about us, and these efforts don't much increase the chances of being detected.

To #1, even assuming the self-indication assumption-reasoning here doesn't demand bizarre causality as Nozick argued with respect to Newcomb's Paradox, given the likely severe consequences of a visit from a species more advanced than our own, I think joining in with all the silent species and being part of the problem (i.e., leading to the Great Silence) is quite a good trade. Notice that in our own ecosystem, most animals are quiet, unless they can quickly escape by flight or into burrows, are hidden by darkness, or are surrounded by conspecifics. Those of us who assume that aliens must be friendly somehow always insist that natural selection stops applying to advanced species and across interstellar space.

To #2, if the best argument really is that "they already know we're here so we're not increasing our chances of detection by potentially destructive aliens THAT much", which is literally the argument made by Jacob Haqq-Misra, Chief Scientific officer of the Lone Signal project, then that tells you a lot about how well-thought -through the whole enterprise is. What's more, it's absolutely false. The C-index is a quick and dirty measure of our detectability - if there were a twin Earth, giving off the same amount of electromagnetic noise that we are, how close would we have to be to detect it? Currently, about 3 LY, meaning we wouldn't even be able to hear ourselves from the next closest star. A powerful directed message on the other hand would be much easier to detect from a longer distance - so these messages are in fact likely increasing the probability of our detection substantially, at least at the target stars. Otherwise why are they even sending them?


These projects are ongoing. The problem has been discussed at conferences with approaches including a moratorium backed by international law (so far only talk.) These things are slow. One approach may be to go directly to the telescopes sending the messages, as there are a limited number of such installations. In decreasing magnitude of offense with those messages, they are:

Eupatoria (Crimea, Ukraine) - 7 targets, 11 transmissions
Arecibo (Puerto Rico, USA) - 4 targets, 4 transmissions
EISCAT (Tromso, Norway) 1 target, 1 transmission (an art project!)
Jamesburg (Carmel, California, USA) 1 target, 1 transmission (crowdfunded!!)

In addition, Alexander Zaitsev is a Russian astronomer who is far and away the individual most responsible for driving METI efforts. Douglas Vakoch is a METI proponent here in the US.

Lots of scientists are on record saying that broadcasting messages to nearby stars is dangerous. If you take other low-probability high-consequence existential risks seriously, you should consider joining the effort (resources here.) Compared to some of the problems the X-risk community is used to thinking about, it would be relatively easy to stop METI and protect the future of life on Earth.

[1] I purposely avoid the word civilizations, because that is a term which describes an entity with certain characteristics that humans can collectively form. Whatever activities groups of aliens form, it will not appear like any "civilization" we would recognize. "School", "herd", "flock", "swarm" are all terms that are at least as likely be useful to human impressions to describe the collective entities that we see.