Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity?

A Scenario Analysis
Seth D. Baum,
1
Jacob D. Haqq-Misra,
2
& Shawn D. Domagal-Golman
!
1. De"artment o# Geogra"h$, %enns$l&ania State 'ni&ersit$. (-mail) sbaum*"su.eu
2. De"artment o# Meteorolog$, %enns$l&ania State 'ni&ersit$
!. +,S, %lanetar$ Science Di&ision
Acta Astronautica, 2-11, ./011-121) 2112-2123
4his #ile &ersion) 22 ,"ril 2-11
Abstract
5hile humanit$ has not $et obser&e an$ e6traterrestrial intelligence 0(471, contact with (47
remains "ossible. 8ontact coul occur through a broa range o# scenarios that ha&e &ar$ing
consequences #or humanit$. Howe&er, man$ iscussions o# this question assume that contact
will #ollow a "articular scenario that eri&es #rom the ho"es an #ears o# the author. 7n this
"a"er, we anal$9e a broa range o# contact scenarios in terms o# whether contact with (47 woul
bene#it or harm humanit$. 4his t$"e o# broa anal$sis can hel" us "re"are #or actual contact with
(47 e&en i# the etails o# contact o not #ull$ resemble an$ s"eci#ic scenario.
Keywords: e6traterrestrials, contact, scenario anal$sis
1 !ntroduction
Humanit$ has not $et encountere or e&en etecte an$ #orm o# e6traterrestrial intelligence
0(471, but our e##orts to search #or (47 0S(471 an to sen messages to (47 0M(471 remain in
earl$ stages. ,t this time we cannot rule out the "ossibilit$ that one or more (47 e6ist in the
Mil:$ 5a$, nor can we ismiss the "ossibilit$ that we ma$ etect, communicate, or in other
wa$s ha&e contact with them in the #uture.
1
8ontact with (47 woul be one o# the most
im"ortant e&ents in the histor$ o# humanit$, so the "ossibilit$ o# contact merits our ongoing
attention, e&en i# we belie&e the "robabilit$ o# contact to be low.
, central concern regaring "ossible contact with (47 is whether the contact woul be
bene#icial, neutral, or harm#ul to humanit$. 4his concern will hel" us ecie, among other
1
4hroughout this "a"er we e#ine the term ;contact< broal$ to inclue an$ wa$ in which (47 has some im"act on
humanit$. 4his inclues human-(47 interactions that onl$ in&ol&e remote etection or communication without an$
"h$sical contact.
1
things, whether or not we shoul intentionall$ message (47 an what we shoul sa$ i# we o.
4he short answer is that we o not :now how contact woul "rocee because we ha&e no
:nowlege o# (47 in the gala6$. 7nee, we cannot :now #or sure until a#ter contact with (47
actuall$ occurs. +e&ertheless, we o ha&e some in#ormation that can hel" us at least ma:e
eucate guesses about the nature o# contact with (47. De&elo"ing an anal$9ing this
in#ormation ma$ hel" "re"are us #or contact an increase the "robabilit$ o# an outcome that we
consier #a&orable.
4here ha&e been man$ "re&ious anal$ses o# an commentaries on how contact with (47 woul
"rocee. 'n#ortunatel$, this "re&ious wor: tens to be quite narrow in the sense o# onl$
consiering one or a small number o# "ossible contact outcomes. 4here a""ears to be a tenenc$
to =um" to conclusions on a matter which remains highl$ uncertain an #or which a broa range
o# outcomes are within the realm o# "ossibilit$. Such narrow an hast$ thought ill "re"ares us
#or actual contact. 7nstea, gi&en the e6tremel$ broa range o# "ossible contact outcomes, we
woul be much better "re"are b$ ienti#$ing an thin:ing through a broa range o# "ossible
contact outcomes.
4his "a"er "resents a broa s$nthesis o# a&ailable in#ormation regaring the "ossible outcomes
o# contact with (47. >ur wor: is in the #orm o# a scenario anal$sis) we anal$9e man$ "ossible
(47 contact scenarios in terms o# whether an how the$ woul harm or bene#it humanit$. 7n the
"rocess, we raw u"on numerous "rior iscussions o# contact with (47 that co&er a broa range
o# "ossible outcomes, but ten to o so narrowl$. ,lthough contact with (47 has been iscusse
in the scienti#ic literature #or o&er #i#t$ $ears ?1@ an in science #iction at least since The War of
the Worlds b$ H. G. 5ells in 1/3/, there has been relati&el$ little e##ort to cumulati&el$ anal$9e
the "ossible outcomes com"are to the s$nthesis "resente here. 4o the best o# our :nowlege,
the onl$ "re&ious broa s$nthesis is in the e6cellent wor: o# Michau ?2@. 4he "resent "a"er has
some similarities to MichauAs wor: but also inclues se&eral new scenarios, a i##erent
organi9ational structure that e6"licitl$ organi9es scenarios in terms o# harms an bene#its to
humanit$, an new iscussion o# scenario anal$sis as a contribution to our unerstanings o# an
recommenations #or "ossible (47 encounters.
Scenario anal$sis o# (47 contact ser&es se&eral "ur"oses. Birst, contact scenario anal$sis is o#
strong intellectual interest to the S(47 an M(47 communit$ an others, gi&en the nuances an
challenges in&ol&e in imagining an (47 we ha&e ne&er obser&e. But this scenario anal$sis is
o# "ractical &alue as well. ,n ini&iual scenario is a narrati&e o# a "ossible outcome o#, in this
case, contact between humanit$ an (47. Such scenarios can hel" us train our mins to
recogni9e "atterns in actual outcomes. B$ ;training our mins< we mean sim"l$ that our mins
grow accustome to thin:ing about, ienti#$ing, an anal$9ing s"eci#ic scenarios an &ariations
o# them. 4he training "rocess is thus sim"l$ reaing an re#lecting on the scenarios an the
encounter "atterns #oun in them. 4he "atterns o# an actual encounter ma$ resemble the
2
anal$9e scenarios e&en i# the s"eci#ics i##er #rom the scenario etails. B$ training our mins in
this wa$, we buil our ca"acit$ to anal$9e an res"on to actual contact with (47. 4he scenario
anal$sis "resente here thus hols "ractical &alue in aition to the noteworth$ intellectual
insights that come #rom consiering how contact with (47 might "rocee. ,itionall$, b$
consiering a broa range o# "ossible contact scenarios, incluing some that might seem
unli:el$, we im"ro&e both the range o# "atterns our mins are traine #or an the breath o#
intellectual insight obtaine. 4his sort o# broa scenario anal$sis can thus be an es"eciall$
#ruit#ul "rocess.
5e organi9e (47 contact scenarios into three basic categories base on whether the
consequences woul be bene#icial, neutral, or harm#ul to us. ,lthough the "ossibilities surel$
#all along a s"ectrum along these lines, we belie&e these three bins re"resent a use#ul
categori9ation scheme. ,s e#ine here, bene#icial contact woul be esirable #or humanit$C
neutral contact woul cause ini##erence #or humanit$C an harm#ul contact woul be unesirable
#or humanit$. , relati&el$ large number o# the scenarios we consier #all within the harm#ul-to-
humanit$ categor$. 5e thus #urther i&ie these scenarios into two sections in which (47 are
either intentionall$ or unintentionall$ harm#ul. +ote that the large number o# harm#ul-to-
humanit$ scenarios oes not im"l$ that contact with (47 is li:el$ to harm humanit$.
Duantitati&e estimates o# the "robabilities o# s"eci#ic scenarios or categories o# scenarios are
be$on the sco"e o# this "a"er. Here we #ocus instea on the breath an #orm o# the "ossible
moes o# contact with (47. Be#ore e&elo"ing these scenarios, we "resent some bac:groun
in#ormation o# rele&ance to the iscussion that #ollows.
" #ele$ant bac%&round
Some bac:groun in#ormation is rele&ant to man$ o# the (47 contact scenarios iscusse in the
rest o# the "a"er an is thus worth consiering se"aratel$ an in a&ance o# the scenarios. 4his
bac:groun concerns wh$ we ha&e not $et etecte (47 0i.e. the Bermi "arao61, the challenge
o# interstellar communication, wh$ (47 are li:el$ to be more technologicall$ a&ance than
humanit$, what we can learn about the ethics hel b$ (47 #rom the stu$ o# ethics hel b$
humans, an the "ossibilit$ o# heterogeneit$ within an (47 "o"ulation.
"1 'he (ermi )aradox
So #ar, no e6traterrestrial ci&ili9ation has been unequi&ocall$ obser&e b$ humans. +earl$ E-
$ears o# listening #or (47 transmissions has #oun no arti#icial signals in s"ace ?!-2@, an the
search #or (47 arti#acts in the Solar S$stem has also "rouce null results ?E-F@. Howe&er, a
sim"le bac:-o#-the-en&elo"e calculation initiall$ "er#orme b$ "h$sicist (nrico Bermi suggests
that (47 shoul be wies"rea throughout the gala6$ ?/@. 7nee, an a&ance (47 ci&ili9ation
!
coul easil$ coloni9e the gala6$ to #orm a Galactic 8lub among intelligent societies, a conce"t
"o"ular in science #iction 0such as the ;'nite Beeration o# %lanets< o# Star Trek #ame1 that in
the non#iction literature ates bac: at least to Gonal Bracewell ?3@. 4his cons"icuous absence
o# e6traterrestrials is o#ten re#erre to as the Bermi "arao6 ?/@ or the Great Silence ?1-@ an
raises the question) i# (47 shoul be wies"rea, then where are they? , number o# resolutions
to the Bermi "arao6 ha&e been "ro"ose an e6"lore ?11-12@, an three "arao6 resolutions
are worth$ o# consieration in our iscussion.
>ne resolution to the Bermi "arao6 is that li#e, or at least intelligence, is rare an thus s"arsel$
istribute throughout the gala6$. 4his rarit$ coul be because #ew intelligent ci&ili9ations #orm
?1!@ or because intelligent ci&ili9ations ten to ha&e short li#etimes, "erha"s because the$ quic:l$
estro$ themsel&es ?12-1E@. 7# intelligence is rare, then it is quite unli:el$ that humanit$ woul
ha&e etecte (47. 7n the e6treme case, humanit$ is the onl$ intelligent ci&ili9ation in the gala6$
or e&en in the uni&erse. ,long the same lines, other intelligent ci&ili9ations ma$ be be$on the
"h$sical limits o# contact e&en i# the$ o e6ist ?1E-1F@. 4hese scenarios are o# limite &alue to
this "a"er because the$ im"l$ that contact with (47 is im"ossible.
, secon "ossible resolution to the Bermi "arao6 eri&es #rom the challenges o# e6"aning
ra"il$ throughout the gala6$. %erha"s ra"i e6"ansion is unsustainable at the galactic scale, =ust
as ra"i e6"ansion is o#ten unsustainable here on (arth. 4his suggests that the absence o#
e6traterrestrials might be e6"laine b$ the #act that e6"onential growth is an unsustainable
e&elo"ment "attern #or intelligent ci&ili9ations ?1/@, a res"onse to the Bermi "arao6 :nown as
the Sustainabilit$ Solution ?13@. ,ccoring to the Sustainabilit$ Solution, ra"il$ e6"aning
ci&ili9ations ma$ #ace ecological colla"se a#ter coloni9ing the gala6$, analogous to the #ate o#
(aster 7slan ?2-@. >n the other han, the gala6$ coul be teeming with (47 that e6"an too
slowl$ to ha&e reache (arth $et ?21@. 4hese slowl$ e6"aning (47 ci&ili9ations coul still be
etecte b$ us or sen us messages, an their nature as slow e6"aners has some im"lications #or
contact scenarios.
, thir res"onse to the Bermi "arao6 suggests that (47 are actuall$ alrea$ wies"rea
throughout the gala6$ but are somehow in&isible to us. 4he (47 coul be unintentionall$
in&isible, i# it =ust ha""ens to ta:e some #orm that is unetectable to or otherwise unetecte b$
humans. ,lternati&el$, the (47 coul be intentionall$ in&isible. 4he intentional #orm o# this
solution is sometimes :nown as the Hoo H$"othesis ?22@ because it im"lies that (47 are treating
(arth li:e a willi#e "reser&e to be obser&e but not #ull$ incor"orate into the Galactic 8lub.
4his iea has been "o"ulari9e through the Star Trek series as the ;"rime irecti&e< #or non-
inter#erence with a "rimiti&e culture. 4he Hoo H$"othesis thus im"lies that (47 coul ma:e
contact with humans at an$ time. %erha"s such stealth$ (47 will re&eal themsel&es once (arth
ci&ili9ation has reache certain milestones. 4he$ ma$ be waiting until we ha&e reache a
su##icient le&el o# so"histication as a societ$ such as the start o# a M(47 "rogram or the
2
isco&er$ o# light s"ee tra&el ?22-2!@, or the$ coul be a""l$ing a societal benchmar: such as
sustainable e&elo"ment or international unit$. 4he "ossibilit$ that the Hoo H$"othesis e6"lains
the Bermi "arao6 has se&eral im"ortant im"lications #or contact scenarios.
"" !nterstellar communication
(&en i# (47 e6ist in the nearb$ galactic &icinit$, this oes not necessaril$ im"l$ that
communication with them will be "ossible or straight#orwar. >ne ma=or challenge is selecting
the #requenc$ at which to broacast an listen ?22@. 4he electromagnetic s"ectrum consists o# a
continuum o# wa&elengths #or communication that inclues raio, microwa&e, in#rare, &isible,
ultra&iolet, an 6-ra$ bans. Searching this entire range is a monumental an nearl$ im"ossible
tas:, so we choose "articular wa&elengths that seem more "robable #or interstellar
communication. Bor e6am"le, the 21 cm h$"er#ine transition o# neutral h$rogen was the #irst
suggestion #or a communication wa&elength ?1@. 4he water hole at a wa&elength o# 1/ cm is
another "o"ular choice #or S(47 ?22@, an recent anal$sis has suggeste that we shi#t our #ocus
towar higher #requencies ?2E@. Howe&er, because there is an in#inite number o# wa&elengths #or
interstellar communication, we must ac:nowlege the "ossibilit$ that (47 ma$ be transmitting or
listening at wa&elength ranges that we ha&e not $et consiere. 4he "ossibilit$ also remains that
(47 o not use electromagnetic raiation #or communication but instea ha&e isco&ere some
other metho 0"ossibl$ something more e##icient or e##ecti&e1 #or e6changing in#ormation across
astronomical istances.
8ommunication &ia electromagnetic raiation is limite b$ the time require #or a signal to reach
its estination, i.e., the s"ee o# light. >n (arth, electromagnetic communication is nearl$
instantaneous because o# the short istances in&ol&e. Howe&er, galactic communication occurs
o&er astronomical istances so that e&en a message tra&eling at light s"ee will ta:e a long time
to reach its estination. Bor e6am"le, communication with (47 on a "lanet =ust E- light $ears
awa$Iwhich is relati&el$ close b$ galactic stanarsIwill still ta:e "lace on a timescale o# 1--
$ears. ,s Sagan ?1E@ notes, this ma:es communication with (47 an intergenerational "ro=ect)
e##ecti&e communication across astronomical istances will require un"receente coo"eration
that s"ans se&eral human li#etimes. 4his i##icult$ in communicating across such &ast istances
also might limit the abilit$ #or (47 to engage in interstellar war#are #or the sim"le reason that the
communications "roblem reners such war#are too logisticall$ i##icult to coorinate ?2.@C
"eace#ul enea&ors such as the #ormation o# a Galactic 8lub ma$ #ace similar logistical
challenges. Such "h$sical limits on interstellar communication b$ (47 are in turn limits as to
how (47 coul more generall$ come into contact with an a##ect humanit$.
,nother im"lication o# these long communication times across the gala6$ is that (47 might
become alerte to our "resence without us reali9ing it. 8ommunication with electromagnetic
wa&es on (arth has been use #or nearl$ one hunre $ears, uring which time our raio shows,
E
tele&ision "rograms, an mobile "hone con&ersations ha&e isotro"icall$ lea:e into s"ace. 7#
(47 search #or us =ust as we search #or them, i.e. b$ scanning the s:$ at raio an o"tical
wa&elengths #or an$ t$"e o# interstellar communication ?2@, then the$ might etect our leakage
signals. ,&ance (47 within 1-- light $ears coul recei&e our earliest raio transmissionsC
those less than E- light $ears awa$ coul watch our tele&ision shows ?2F@C an those less than 1-
light $ears awa$ coul recei&e our earliest intentional M(47 attem"ts ?2/@. 4hus, the raiation
that has been unintentionall$ lea:ing an intentionall$ transmitte #rom (arth ma$ ha&e alrea$
alerte an$ nearb$ (47 to our "resence an ma$ e&entuall$ alert more istant (47. >nce (47
become alerte to our "resence, it will ta:e at least as man$ $ears #or us to reali9e that the$ :now
we are here. During the inter&ening time, (47 can res"on to our "resence or "re"are #or contact
in wa$s that we woul ha&e no :nowlege o# or in#luence on.
(&en i# humanit$ can success#ull$ e6change signals with (47, there is no guarantee that the
in#ormation will be success#ull$ communicate. 7n orer #or in#ormation to be e6change, it is
also necessar$ that humans an (47 unerstan the contents o# each othersA messages. 7t will
li:el$ be i##icult at #irst to communicate an$thing sub=ecti&e about human e6"erience, emotions,
an e6"ressions, so mathematical con&ersation ma$ com"rise our #irst #ew e6changes with (47
?23@. 7t ma$ e&entuall$ be "ruent to e&elo" a #ramewor: #or M(47 so as to increase the
"robabilit$ o# success#ul communication an$time a transmission is sent #rom (arth ?!-@. %erha"s
such schemes will succee in e##ecti&el$ communicating with (47. Howe&er, our e6treme
ignorance about the nature o# an$ (47 means that we cannot rule out the "ossibilit$ that we will
#ail or at least se&erel$ struggle to e6change in#ormation with them.
"* 'he ad$anced nature of extraterrestrials
7# contact between humans an (47 is "ossible, then it is im"ortant to consier the ca"abilit$ o#
(47 to cause us bene#it or harm. 4his in#ormation is im"ortant across nearl$ the #ull breath o#
contact scenarios. ,lthough we cannot :now the le&el o# technological so"histication achie&e
b$ (47, we o ha&e a com"elling reason to belie&e that (47 woul be signi#icantl$ stronger than
us an there#ore highl$ ca"able o# causing our total estruction. 4his "oint has been raise
re"eatel$ throughout the literature ?1,2,12-1.,!1-!!@.
4he reason to belie&e that (47 woul be more a&ance is because humans an human
technolog$ are relati&el$ recent "henomena in the histor$ o# (arth. 5e ha&e onl$ ha raio
communication #or about a centur$, or =ust a #ew generations, which suggests that a&ance
technolog$ can e&elo" quic:l$ com"are to e&olutionar$ timescales. Bollowing this reasoning,
it is li:el$ that an$ e6tant (47 has been aroun much longer than us an woul ha&e e&elo"e
#ar greater technological abilities than we coul imagine #or oursel&es. (&en i# an (47 is
$ounger than us, the &er$ abilit$ to contact us woul li:el$ im"l$ "rogress be$on that which our
societ$ has obtaine. 5e ha&e not $et #igure out how to achie&e interstellar communication or
.
tra&elC a societ$ that has these ca"abilities is almost certainl$ more technologicall$ a&ance
than we are. 7# their communications are irecte towar a general auience an not onl$
intene #or humans or (arth, then the$ ma$ also be more a&ance in their abilit$ to
communicate across cultural barriers. 4his is reminiscent o# ,rthur 8. 8lar:eAs insight that ;an$
su##icientl$ a&ance technolog$ is inistinguishable #rom magic<. 7# (47 are inee more
a&ance, then an$ #orm o# contact will li:el$ "rocee accoring to the (47As esires, whate&er
those might be ?!2@. Bor e6am"le, we are almost guarantee to lose in a #ight between us an
them, an there is a strong li:elihoo that such a loss woul be so se&ere that we woul cease to
sur&i&e as a ci&ili9ation. >n the other han, i# (47 ecie to use their su"erior abilities to hel"
us, then the$ ma$ be able to hel" sol&e man$ o# our "roblems.
"+ Extraterrestrial ethics: Selfishness and uni$ersalism
,s note abo&e, i# (47 are signi#icantl$ more a&ance than humanit$, then the outcome o#
contact ma$ e"en "rimaril$ on (47 esires. Howe&er, this lea&es o"en s"eculation as to the
s"eci#ic esires o# (47 an raises the question o# what ethical #ramewor: the$ #ollow. Much can
be sai about (47 ethics. Here we #ocus on one :e$ as"ect) sel#ishness &s. uni&ersalism. 7n
rough terms, a sel#ish (47 is one that esires to ma6imi9e its own sel#-interest, whereas a
uni&ersalist (47 is one that esires to ma6imi9e the interests o# e&er$one, regarless o# which
ci&ili9ation the$ are "art o#. But this is a crue e6"lanation o# sel#ishness an uni&ersalismC
more "recision is neee #or our "ur"oses in this "a"er.
,s a starting "oint, it is hel"#ul to thin: o# (47 as tr$ing to ma6imi9e some sort o# &alue
#unction.
2
S"eci#icall$, the$ are tr$ing to ma6imi9e intrinsic &alue, which is something that is
&aluable #or its own sa:e. 7ntrinsic &alue contrasts with e6trinsic &alue, in "articular
instrumental &alue, which is &aluable because it causes aitional &alue. >ne can "lace intrinsic
&alue on man$ i##erent things, such as li#e, ecos$stems, ha""iness, :nowlege, or beaut$.
Human ethics is o#ten anthro"ocentric in the sense that it "laces intrinsic &alue onl$ on human
"henomena, such as human li#e, human ha""iness, or other human #actors. Such
anthro"ocentrism is sel#ish on a ci&ili9ational scale because it in&ol&es humans onl$ "lacing
intrinsic &alue on the interests o# their own ci&ili9ation. 7n contrast, a uni&ersalist ethical
#ramewor: woul "lace equal intrinsic &alue on certain "henomena regarless o# which
ci&ili9ations "ossesse these "henomena. Bor e6am"le, a uni&ersalist ci&ili9ation that "laces
intrinsic &alue on li#e will "lace equal intrinsic &alue on all li#e, regarless o# which ci&ili9ation
0or non-ci&ili9ation1 the li#e is "art o#. 7n this case, the ci&ili9ation will tr$ to ma6imi9e the total
amount o# li#e, regarless o# whose li#e it is ma6imi9ing. 7# instea it "laces intrinsic &alue on
some "henomenon other than li#e, then it will tr$ to ma6imi9e that "henomenon where&er it
occurs.
2
4he iscussion here is eri&e #rom the more etaile iscussion #oun in the wor: o# Baum ?!2@.
F
8on#licts between humans are o#ten, though not necessaril$ alwa$s, roote in sel#ishness. 4hese
con#licts inclue struggles #or "ower, lan, resources, "restige, an man$ other instruments o#
sel#-interest. (&en when human con#licts ha&e o&ertones o# being #or some higher "ur"ose, such
as #or libert$ or against o""ression, the basic esire #or the sur&i&al an #lourishing o# the sel#
o#ten remains a core moti&ation. Ji:ewise other con#licts we see throughout the sentient animal
:ingom a""ear to be moti&ate b$ the esire #or instruments o# sel#-interest such as sur&i&al,
#oo, or territor$ ?!E@. 5hile non-sentient s"ecies 0animal or otherwise1 ma$ also a""ear to act
in their own sel#-interest, it is ina""ro"riate to attribute intent to them because intent is
"resumabl$ a "ro"ert$ o# sentience.
7t is worth noting that the anal$sis in this "a"er is in a sense sel#ish in that it #ocuses on bene#its
an harms to humanity. 4hroughout the "a"er, we o not consier how contact with humanit$
coul bene#it or harm either the (47 or an$ other entities a##ecte, incluing other entities on
(arth an elsewhere in the gala6$. B$ #ocusing on bene#its an harms to humanit$, we o not
inten to a&ocate #or a sel#ish ethics. 7nstea, this #ocus is sim"l$ an e6"ositor$ tactic aime at
:ee"ing this article reasonabl$ concise. 7n our &iew, consieration o# im"acts o# contact to
nonhumans is im"ortant an woul be well worth consiering in #uture wor:.
", -ossible E'! hetero&eneity
4he scenario anal$sis "resente throughout this "a"er assumes that an$ gi&en encounter will
#ollow one general tra=ector$. 4he encounter might bene#it, be neutral to, or harm humanit$ #or a
certain reason, but the encounter woul onl$ ha&e one o# these outcomes an #ollow one general
tra=ector$ to reach this outcome. 4his #ollows #rom the iea o# a homogenous (47, i.e. an (47
with one e#ining attribute or combination o# attributes that ominates the encounter. 4he
attribute coul be the (47As strength, ethics, "olitics, or something else. 7# it is the case that the
(47 has one e#ining attribute or combination o# attributes, then it is reasonable to e6"ect one
general tra=ector$ #or the encounter. Howe&er, this requires a homogenous (47 "o"ulation.
7t is "ossible that an (47 woul ha&e a heterogeneous "o"ulation instea o# a homogenous one.
(&ience #or this can be #oun in the human "o"ulation, which #eatures a highl$ i&erse mi6 o#
technological abilities, ethical &iews, national ientities, an other attributes. Bor e6am"le, in the
e&ent o# an (47 encounter, humanit$ ma$ be #iercel$ i&ie on whether to res"on "eace#ull$
or with "rotecti&e aggression. (47 ma$ be similarl$ i&ie. ,t a minimum, humanit$As
i&ersit$ "ro&ies "roo# o# the "rinci"le that intelligent ci&ili9ations can be heterogeneous.
4he "ossibilit$ o# (47 heterogeneit$ suggests that an encounter might not #ollow one general
tra=ector$ but instea coul ha&e multi"le tra=ectories in series or "erha"s e&en in "arallel. Bor
e6am"le, an encounter coul ra"il$ change #orm i# a shi#t in "ower occurre within the (47
leaershi". >r, we might recei&e mi6e signals #rom the (47 i# it lac:s a single uni#ie
/
leaershi" structureC "erha"s se&eral (47 #actions or nations that originate #rom the same home
worl will ma:e contact with us, each in "ursuit o# i##erent ob=ecti&es. 4he "ossibilities o# (47
heterogeneit$ an multi"le tra=ectories are worth :ee"ing in min when consiering the s"eci#ic
encounter scenarios that coul occur.
Ha&ing consiere these "oints o# bac:groun in#ormation, we can now "rocee to s"eci#ic
scenarios o# contact between humanit$ an (47. ,n o&er&iew o# these scenarios is "ro&ie in
Big. 1.
(i& 1 >&er&iew o# the contact scenarios "resente in this "a"er.
* Beneficial to us
4he most o"timistic scenarios assume that contact with (47 woul somehow bene#it humanit$
0Bigure 1, le#t column1. 4hese scenarios are broal$ "o"ular) sur&e$ results ha&e shown that
man$ "eo"le across the worl antici"ate that contact with (47 will bene#it humanit$ in some wa$
3
?!.-!FC see also !/@. 4he nature o# this bene#it coul range #rom sim"le remote etection o#
intelligent li#e elsewhere to more e6tensi&e contact with coo"erati&e (47. 4here is also at least
one set o# scenarios in which we bene#it #rom contact with uncoo"erati&e (47. 5hile we cannot
:now whether an (47 woul be coo"erati&e, we "resent some reasons to sus"ect that the$ woul
be coo"erati&e b$ e&elo"ing in some length an argument base on the Sustainabilit$ Solution to
the Bermi "arao6.
*1 .ere detection
Mere etection o# (47 re#ers to scenarios in which the entiret$ o# contact is limite to the
isco&er$ that (47 e6ist. 7n other wors, we etect the "resence o# (47 an thus can con#irm
their e6istence but ha&e no #urther contact. 4his means no communication, irect contact, or an$
other "ossible contact moe. Here we argue that mere etection woul "ro&ie a nontri&ial
bene#it to humanit$.
7# (47 o e6ist within the gala6$, then con#irmation o# their "resence woul ha&e "ro#oun
im"lications #or human science, "hiloso"h$, religion, an societ$. 4his "oint has been note
re"eatel$ throughout the literature ?1E,!!,!3-21@. 7nee, ongoing S(47 acti&ities are base to
a large egree on the "remise that humanit$ wants to learn about (47. >ne reason #or this is that
the isco&er$ o# (47 woul answer the ee" an longstaning "hiloso"hical question o# whether
we are alone in the uni&erse. 4his in turn relates to the question o# our role in the uni&erse as
intelligent beings. Humanit$ has a strong interest in obtaining answers to these ma=or questions
an thus woul bene#it tremenousl$ #rom the mere etection o# (47.
Some "eo"le might consier mere etection to be harm#ul to humanit$. 4hese "eo"le inclue
those with religious "ers"ecti&es an other worl&iews that e"en on the iea o# humanit$ 0an
(arth-li#e more generall$1 "la$ing a unique an "ri&ilege role in the uni&erse 0e.g., ?22-2!@1.
4he etection o# (47 coul challenge these worl&iews an there#ore be "ercei&e as harm#ul b$
those who hol such belie#s. Howe&er, this "erce"tion o# harm e"ens on a "hiloso"hical
mista:e. 4he e6istence o# (47 in the uni&erse is ine"enent o# whether or not the$ ha&e been
etecte b$ humanit$. 7t is the e6istence o# (47 that challenges such worl&iews an not the act
o# etection. 7# (47 o in #act e6ist, then the harm has alrea$ been one in the sense that such
worl&iews are alrea$ in&ali. Detection sim"l$ alerts us to this in&aliit$. 4his alert itsel#
might be classi#ie as a bene#it or harm, because o# its a##ects on the wellbeing o# those whose
worl&iews are challenge with the isco&er$ o# (47, but this is seemingl$ a lesser matter than
the broaer bene#its o# mere etection.
More troubling is the "ossibilit$ that etection coul initiate or e6acerbate con#licts in our
societ$. 4he con#lict coul be o&er how to inter"ret or re"l$ to such a isco&er$. 4here are
alrea$ isagreements o&er how to message to (47, whether or not we shoul, an who shoul
1-
s"ea: #or humanit$C such isagreements woul become much #iercer i# (47 were etecte.
Meanwhile, the grou"s whose worl&iews woul be challenge coul res"on in harm#ul wa$s i#
the$ #eel threatene, nulli#ie, or otherwise worsene b$ the isco&er$ or the intent to re"l$.
5hile we ho"e that etection woul uni#$ humanit$ towars "ositi&e outcomes, the o""osite
result remains entirel$ "ossible.
5hile mere etection o# (47 woul be bene#icial #or the insight it o##ers, these bene#its coul be
limite. 4hat is, mere etection woul lea&e much o# humanit$As situation intact. %erha"s mere
etection woul be on "ar with the 8o"ernican re&olution in that it woul change human thought
but not raicall$ alter our geo"olitics ?22@. So while mere etection ma$ o##er net bene#its, these
bene#its are li:el$ not &er$ large, es"eciall$ relati&e to the bene#its an harms #oun in man$
other contact scenarios.
Gegarless o# their magnitue, the im"acts o# mere etection ser&e as a baseline set o# im"acts
#or almost all other contact scenarios. 4his is because nearl$ all other contact scenarios in&ol&e
etection along with other #orms o# contact. 4he e6ce"tions here are contact scenarios that o
not in&ol&e etection, which inclue scenarios in which (47 mani"ulate our worl 0in goo wa$s
or ba1 while hiing an scenarios in which (47 estro$ us without our ha&ing the o""ortunit$ to
notice the (47. 4hese scenarios are iscusse #urther below.
(&en i# we recei&e no more than a sim"le greeting or "assi&e arti#act #rom a istant (47
ci&ili9ation, it will at least tell us that li#e has e&elo"e more than once in the gala6$ an that
human-li:e technolog$ to broacast across s"ace has been in&ente elsewhere. ,&ance (47
ma$ ha&e little to no interest in a societ$ as "rimiti&e as (arth, but i# the$ o ac:nowlege our
"resence an initiate communication, then e&en this :nowlege will bene#it humanit$.
*" Coo)erati$e extraterrestrials
7# contact with (47 in&ol&es more than mere etection, then it is "ossible #or humanit$ to recei&e
aitional bene#its b$ coo"erating with the (47. 4he nature o# these bene#its e"ens on the
egree o# (47 coo"eration I that is, it is unli:el$ that uncoo"erati&e (47 woul bene#it humanit$.
4his is because (47 are li:el$ to be much more a&ance than humanit$ an woul there#ore be
ca"able o# ictating the terms o# contact. 4hus coo"erati&e (47 woul ha&e the abilit$ to bring
bene#its to humanit$, =ust as uncoo"erati&e (47 woul li:el$ harm humanit$.
,n initial scenario o# coo"erati&e (47 in&ol&es #rienl$ an in#ormati&e communication between
our res"ecti&e ci&ili9ations. ,ssuming (47 are su##icientl$ intereste in humanit$ 0which is not
guarantee, gi&en that the$ woul li:el$ be much more a&ance1, the$ ma$ choose to maintain
communication at length to iscuss mathematics, "h$sics, an chemistr$ ?23@ an to learn more
about (arth li#e. 7t is reasonable to assume that the general "rinci"les o# "h$sics an chemistr$
11
a""l$ e&er$where in the gala6$, e&en i# mathematical escri"tions o# these "h$sical "henomenon
i##er among intelligent ci&ili9ations. 4his t$"e o# ialog with (47 ma$ require that we #irst
e&elo" a common mathematical language using "h$sical obser&ables that are :nown b$ both
ci&ili9ations 0such as "ro"erties o# neutral h$rogen1. 7n a more remar:able an unli:el$ case,
we ma$ learn that (47 occu"$ some region o# s"ace where i##erent or un:nown "h$sical
"rinci"les a""l$, which woul certainl$ be a unique isco&er$ #or humanit$. 4hus through such
a con&ersation we ma$ come to acquire a ee"er unerstaning o# mathematics or science, an
we ma$ also isco&er s"eci#ics about the (47 home worl or (47 biolog$. ,s with mere
etection, such contact woul ha&e consierable intellectual bene#its, though here the bene#its
woul be larger I "otentiall$ much larger.
De"ening on the nature o# in#ormation share through communication with (47, there coul
also be more in the wa$ o# "ractical, non-intellectual bene#its. ,n a&ance (47 ma$ be ca"able
o# sol&ing a great man$ o# humanit$As "roblems, such as worl hunger, "o&ert$, or isease.
Bene&olent (47 ma$ e&en esign their #irst message to contain in#ormation on how to a&oi
technological catastro"he in orer to hel" less e&elo"e ci&ili9ations succee ?2E@. Brom
humanit$As "ers"ecti&e, this is the best-case scenario #or (47 contact. Howe&er, while we
sus"ect that the basic "rinci"les o# "h$sics an chemistr$ a""l$ across the uni&erse, it is
somewhat less li:el$ that (47 :nowlege woul be use#ul in aressing social issues on (arth.
4he use#ulness o# (47 :nowlege, combine with the willingness o# (47 to em"lo$ it on our
behal#, "la$s an im"ortant role in the bene#its that a coo"erati&e (47 woul bring to humanit$.
5e o not :now i# (47 woul be coo"erati&e, but we ha&e se&eral reasons to sus"ect that the$
woul be. +oncoo"eration can be a ris:$ an harm#ul strateg$, an noncoo"erati&e ci&ili9ations
ma$ ten to ha&e shorter li#etimes as their noncoo"eration e&entuall$ leas to their emise. Bor
this reason, a long-li&e ci&ili9ation that e6"lores the gala6$ ma$ ha&e transcene an$
aggressi&e "atterns out o# the nee to maintain long-term sur&i&al ?!.,2.@. 7t is also "ossible that
intelligent ci&ili9ations ma$ ine&itabl$ e&elo" coo"erati&e tenencies as "art o# their
e&olutionar$ "rocess ?22,2F@. Howe&er, there are also reasons to sus"ect that e&olution woul
"rocee along i##erent, less esirable tra=ectories ?2/@.
,nother reason to sus"ect that (47 woul be coo"erati&e #ollows #rom the Sustainabilit$
Solution to the Bermi "arao6. , corollar$ o# the Sustainabilit$ Solution is that e6tant (47
ci&ili9ations in the gala6$ ma$ be less "rone to &iolence an estruction in the e&ent o# contact.
4his corollar$ #ollows #rom the tenencies o# sustainable human "o"ulations.
>n (arth, sustainable human "o"ulations ten to be more "rotecti&e o# their ecos$stems. 4his
"rotecti&eness can be #or either o# two reasons. Birst, humans can "rotect ecos$stems #or their
own bene#it. 4his "rotection is :nown as conser&ationism an in&ol&es humans "lacing intrinsic
&alue on themsel&es. Secon, humans can "rotect ecos$stems #or the ecos$stemsA bene#it. 4his
12
"rotection is :nown as "reser&ationism an in&ol&es humans "lacing intrinsic &alue on the
ecos$stems. 0See ?23@ #or a similar a""roach to en&ironmental ethics in the conte6t o#
terra#orming Mars.1 7n either case, human "o"ulations that #ollow a sustainable moe o#
e&elo"ment are less li:el$ to e6"an #or lac: o# resources, although the$ ma$ choose to e6"lore
out o# sheer curiosit$. (47 "o"ulations ma$ be similar in this regar ?E-@. 4hus, i# e6"onential
growth is in #act unsustainable on the galactic scale as Haqq-Misra an Baum ?13@ suggest, then
we are much more li:el$ to encounter a long-li&e (47 ci&ili9ation that #ollows a sustainable
e&elo"ment "attern. Such a ci&ili9ation ma$ ha&e no nee to consume (arth s$stems 0or
humans1 because the$ will ha&e alrea$ #oun a wa$ to e##ecti&el$ manage their resources o&er
long timescales. 4here#ore, the "ossible unsustainabilit$ o# long-term ra"i e6"ansion ecreases
the "robabilit$ that (47 will estro$ us. Howe&er, there is a scenario in which sustainable (47
woul estro$ us I s"eci#icall$ i# the (47 is e6"aning at the ma6imum rate "ossible gi&en its
sustainabilit$ constraints. 4his ;ma6imall$ e6"ansi&e< scenario is one o# the ;harm#ul to
humanit$< scenarios iscusse below.
** /ncoo)erati$e extraterrestrials
Gi&en that (47 are li:el$ much more a&ance than human ci&ili9ation, contact with
uncoo"erati&e (47 seems li:el$ be harm#ul to humanit$. Harm #rom uncoo"erati&e (47 is
iscusse in etail in Section E. Howe&er, there are certain scenarios in which contact with
uncoo"erati&e (47 woul bene#it humanit$. 4hese are scenarios in which (47 attem"ts to harm
us but #ails. %erha"s the (47, no matter how strong or "ower#ul, =ust ha""en to be &ulnerable to
something humanit$ has. 4his is illustrate in the conclusion to The War of the Worlds, where
the in&aing Martians are renere hel"less b$ in#ection b$ (arth microbes. >r "erha"s
humanit$ somehow goes against the os an e#eats the (47. 4his latter scenario is wies"rea
throughout science #iction, incluing in ma=or Holl$woo #ilms such as Independence Day
0133.1. 7n these scenarios, humanit$ bene#its not onl$ #rom the ma=or moral &ictor$ o# ha&ing
e#eate a aunting ri&al but also #rom the o""ortunit$ to re&erse engineer (47 technolog$. ,
#inal scenario in&ol&es a secon (47 learning o# our situation an coming to our rescue, again
lea&ing us better o## than we were to begin with. Scenarios such as these might ma:e #or qualit$
entertainment, but the$ also a""ear rather unli:el$. Still, such contact scenarios are "ossible an
thus worth incluing in this anal$sis.
+ 0eutral to us

,nother set o# scenarios in&ol&es contact with (47 that are neutral towar us 0Bigure 1, center
column1. +eutral here means that humanit$ is ini##erent to contact with (47) we are =ust as
well-o## with it as we are without it. 4here are two #unamental wa$s in which (47 coul be
neutral. 4he most straight#orwar wa$ is that (47 ha&e no im"act on us at all. Here it is
1!
im"ortant to recogni9e that (47 woul ha&e a "ro#oun im"act on humanit$ i# we sim"l$ become
aware o# its "resence I that is, through mere etection, as iscusse abo&e. 7nee, the isco&er$
o# (47 coul well be the most "ro#oun an im"ortant isco&er$ that humanit$ has e&er mae.
4hus, #or (47 to ha&e 9ero im"act on us, the$ must go unetecte. 7n other wors, (47 will ha&e
no im"act on us onl$ i# the$ remain in&isible to us.
4he other wa$ in which (47 coul be neutral is i# the$ ha&e an im"act on humanit$, but the
cumulati&e e##ect o# that im"act is neutral. 7n this case, humanit$ becomes aware o# the "resence
o# (47. ,s iscusse abo&e, etecting (47 is generall$ consiere bene#icial #or humanit$.
4here#ore, i# we etect (47 an are neutral towar them, then there will ha&e to be some harm in
orer to o##set the bene#it o# contact. 7t is unli:el$ that this harm woul "recisel$ o##set the
bene#it o# etecting (47 0an an$ other bene#its that might come with contact1, so here we
consier scenarios in which the o##set is o# a""ro6imatel$ the same magnitue, which results in a
net im"act that is roughl$ neutral.
+1 !n$isible to us
4here are se&eral scenarios in which (47 coul be in&isible to us in the sense that we o not
etect the "resence o# an$ (47. ,ll o# these scenarios assume that (47 o in #act e6ist, but we o
not etect their "resence, "erha"s because we are "h$sicall$ unable to o so. ,s #ar as humanit$
is concerne, in&isible e6traterrestrials coul be no i##erent than non-e6istent e6traterrestrials i#
the$ both ha&e no im"act on us. 4his scenario woul be com"letel$ neutral to us. Howe&er, it is
not necessaril$ the case that an in&isible (47 woul ha&e no im"act on us.
>ne in&isibilit$ scenario in&ol&es (47 that intentionall$ hie #rom us. 4his corres"ons to the
Hoo H$"othesis o# the Bermi "arao6. (47 coul ha&e the ca"abilit$ o# hiing #rom us gi&en the
li:elihoo o# their su"erior technolog$, an there are man$ wa$s that (47 coul remain
unetecte b$ us i# it chooses to o so. 4he sim"lest a""roach woul be to hie among the
asterois an obser&e us at a istance ?E1-E2@. 7n this case, such (47 will cease to be in&isible to
us when we ha&e searche enough o# the asteroi belt to etect signs o# their "resence, such as
mining on asterois ?EE-EF@, e6cess in#rare raiation #rom s"acecra#t ?F,E/@, or intelligent
con&ersational s"ace "robes ?E3@. , more so"histicate a""roach woul eliminate all outgoing
electromagnetic signals b$ to hie an$ signatures o# its "resence, an (47 with e&en greater
technological "rowess coul engineer a &irtual "lanetarium surrouning (arth so that we are
#orce to obser&e an em"t$ uni&erse ?.-@.
De"ening on the #orm o# the intentional hiing, the scenario nee not be strictl$ neutral.
Dearor## ?2!@ argues that hien (47 ma$ actuall$ be bene#icial because the$ :now we are here
an "resumabl$ chec: u" on us #rom time to time. %erha"s the$ o ha&e our best interests in
min an will initiate #rienl$ contact when we begin a long-term M(47 "rogram ?2!@ or when
12
we start con&ersing with an intelligent s"ace "robe ?E3@. 4his scenario ma$ e&en ha&e some
im"lications #or human beha&ior that are somewhat "arallel to scenarios in which humanit$ is
actuall$ the mani#estation o# a com"uter simulation ?.1@. , sustainable (47 ma$ be hiing #rom
us to see i# we can turn into a sustainable societ$ on our own be#ore we gain the abilit$ to tra&el
between stars. Such a societ$ woul be tem"oraril$ neutral to us, but "otentiall$ harm#ul or
bene#icial to us in the long term.
,nother "ossibilit$ is that (47 woul unintentionall$ esca"e our notice ?!2@. (&en i# the$ too:
no e6traorinar$ measures to remain conceale, (47 that "ass b$ (arth ma$ raw as much
attention #rom humans as a "assing-b$ scuba i&er woul alert a sea anemone b$ ta:ing a
"hotogra"h. 4his coul be because (47 ta:e a i##erent "h$sical #orm than (arth li#e I a #orm
that we are unable to recogni9e I or because their technolog$ is unobtrusi&e enough that we #ail
to ta:e notice. ,lthough it is common to assume that e6traterrestrial li#e will most li:el$ be
carbon-base an require liqui water, there are a number o# suggestions #or more e6otic
con#igurations o# li#e. 4hese inclue alternati&e biochemistries base on alcohol sol&ents or
silicon ?.2-.!@, a shaow bios"here that in&isibl$ coe6ists with the li#e we :now ?!!,.2@, "ure
energ$ beings that lac: a "h$sical #orm, an e&en resience between multi"le uni&erses ?.E-..@.
7n the same wa$, we ma$ #ail to notice (47 messages that are transmitte at a i##erent
wa&elength range than we t$"icall$ listen to. 7n such a scenario, (47 are acti&el$ attem"ting to
communicate with us, but we miss the message because our search e##orts are less than
com"rehensi&e. (47 ma$ be intereste in obser&ing the (arth s$stem #or scienti#ic "ur"oses or
ma$ sim"l$ be galactic tourists "assing through the Solar S$stem. But as long as the$ re#rain
#rom signi#icantl$ inter#ering with humans or our en&ironment, these (47 "ro&ie no threat or
bene#it to our e6istence.
7t is also "lausible that nearb$ (47 sim"l$ ha&e no esire to communicate with us. +on-
e6"ansi&e (47 that "ursue a sustainable e&elo"ment "attern ma$ also #in all the contentment
an meaning the$ nee on their own "lanet so that the$ ha&e no esire #or interstellar
communication ?21@. 4he$ ma$ ha&e ta:en u" transcenental s"iritual "ractices that #ocus their
e##orts inwar rather than outwar ?!3@, or the$ might limit their s"ace e6"loration to "assi&e
interstellar "robes ?!1,.F-F-@. %erha"s (47 actuall$ o inhabit nearb$ star s$stems an etect
our raio lea:age but ha&e no "lans to sen a res"onse until we sen them a more intentional
message ?2!,!3@. 4he$ ma$ be unim"resse with the qualit$ o# our broacasts, or the$ ma$
choose to conser&e their resources an ecie that interstellar communication is too e6"ensi&e.
Bor our "ur"oses here, these non-communicati&e (47 are in&isible all the same.
Binall$, we must ac:nowlege the "ossibilit$ o# scenarios in which (47 are too #ar awa$ #or
communication. 7t ma$ be that (47 ha&e no esire to maintain long-term communication with
us, but the$ also ma$ be too "h$sicall$ istant #rom (arth to consier communication ?1E-1F@.
,n (47 broacast #rom another gala6$, #or e6am"le, ma$ not ha&e $et reache (arth an woul
1E
"robabl$ be too #aint to etect with moern technolog$. Ji:ewise, (47 that li&e be$on 1--
light $ears #rom (arth woul not ha&e etecte our raio lea:age an ma$ not $et :now o# our
"resence. (&en i# intelligent li#e is common in the uni&erse, it ma$ still onl$ arise once or twice
within a gala6$ ?1!@ so that the li:elihoo o# interstellar communication is iminishe. 4hen
again, the gala6$ ma$ be #ull o# non-e6"ansi&e (47 that ma$ still embar: u"on interstellar raio
communication but are too #ar awa$ #or us to ha&e $et recei&e their messages. Human
e6"ansion in s"ace ma$ lea to e&entual contact with non-e6"ansi&e (47, but asie #rom this
"ossibilit$, non-e6"ansi&e (47 will remain in&isible to us an ha&e little in#luence on humanit$.
+" 0oticeable but indifferent to us
7t is "ossible that humanit$ coul succee in ienti#$ing (47 in the gala6$, onl$ to #in that we
are ini##erent to the cumulati&e e6"erience. 4his ma$ seem unli:el$, gi&en that the isco&er$
that e6traterrestrials e6ist elsewhere in the gala6$ woul ha&e wie-reaching im"lications.
+e&ertheless, there are se&eral scenarios in which our e&aluation o# the encounter coul be one
o# ini##erence.
,s an initial scenario, su""ose that "lanet-#ining missions success#ull$ ienti#$ an e6trasolar
terrestrial "lanet orbiting a Sun-li:e star with an atmos"heric com"osition similar to (arth ?F1@.
Bollow-u" obser&ations with raio telesco"es re&eal unintentional electromagnetic lea:age
coming #rom the "lanet, which suggests the "resence o# intelligent li#e. Howe&er, su""ose
#urther that we ecoe this lea:age to #in no more than the (47 equi&alent o# ol tele&ision
shows an obscure militar$ transmissions. 4hese broacasts ma$ contain ne6t to nothing in
terms o# in#ormation usable b$ humans, an the "ublic ma$ quic:l$ lose interest in non-
res"onsi&e (47 with uninteresting messages ?!.@. (&en acti&e (47 broacasts that are targete
towar (arth ma$ contain in#ormation that we #in useless or esoteric. Gemote obser&ation o# an
(47 "lanet ma$ also re&eal stri:ingl$ i##erent chemical com"ositions between their worl an
ours. (47 that originate #rom a gas giant "lanet, #or e6am"le, ma$ ha&e #ollowe a com"letel$
i##erent e&olutionar$ tra=ector$ that lea&es little room #or biological similarit$ between us an
them. 8ommunication with such (47 ma$ "ro&ie little use#ul in#ormation #or humans. ,#ter
all, an (47 societ$ that eats onl$ h$rogen might not ha&e an$ "ractical in#ormation relating to
e&elo"ment issues on (arth, an the &ast i##erence in biolog$ might rener them unable to
communicate with us at all. 7# the search #or li#e #ins that the gala6$ is in #act teeming with
(47, then uninteresting (47 "lanets such as these will li:el$ #all to low "riorities #or ma:ing
contact.
,nother scenario in&ol&es us #ining that contact with (47 creates a mil nuisance or requires
more e##ort than we woul li:e to s"en. 4he #ilm District 9 02--31 highlights a contact scenario
where we isco&er a hel"less (47 crew that requires human assistance in orer to sur&i&e ?F2@.
%lace in a tem"orar$ re#ugee cam", the (47 in District 9 is"la$ a wie range o# tem"eraments,
1.
but their o&erall "resence anno$s the humans because the (47 re#ugee cam" seems to be a
"ermanent #i6ture. Similarl$, we ma$ isco&er through remote messaging that (47 nee our hel"
but "ro&ie little in return, so that contact with (47 e&entuall$ begins to rain human resources.
'ner i##erent circumstances, "erha"s (47 ma:e contact with (arth to welcome us into the
Galactic 8lub but onl$ a#ter we com"lete a set o# require bureaucratic tas:s. (47 that ma:e
contact with (arth will certainl$ be more technologicall$ a&ance than humans toa$, so it is
entirel$ "lausible that the requirements to enter a Galactic 8lub will be be$on our abilities. 7n
these scenarios, contact with (47 bene#its humanit$ b$ con#irming the "resence o# li#e
elsewhere, but the consequences o# contact are su##icientl$ isru"ti&e, anno$ing, or com"licate
that human ci&ili9ation remains ini##erent.
, #inal scenario in&ol&es isagreement within human ci&ili9ation regaring whether or not
contact has occurre. 4he sim"lest conitions #or this to occur woul be i# we recei&e a
message #rom (47 that cannot be unambiguousl$ ecoe. +o S(47 signal has $et been
ienti#ie as e6traterrestrial in origin, an i# we o e&er stumble u"on an actual (47 broacast
then there coul be a long an teious "rocess to emonstrate its authenticit$. Jess "robable
moes #or this #orm o# contact ha&e been e6"lore in #ilms such as Contact 0133F1 an K!A"
02--11 in which the nature o# the (47 is onl$ reali9e b$ a han#ul o# humans an ismisse b$
the rest. 7# our etection o# (47 lac:s an ob&ious an unambiguous signal, then i##erent humans
I e&en incluing i##erent (47 researchers I coul reach i##erent conclusions on the question o#
etection. ,n$ bene#its o# mere etection coul be o##set b$ the turmoil o# the isagreement. ,
scenario in&ol&ing more than mere etection coul also still create con#lict an isorer, but this
outcome seems less li:el$.
, !ntentional harm to us
4he last scenarios we consier are those in which contact with (47 is harm#ul to humanit$
0Bigure 1, right column1. 4his is a "articularl$ im"ortant set o# scenarios because o# the strong
caution the$ im"ose on our S(47 an M(47 enea&ors. 4hese scenarios ha&e also recei&e
e6tensi&e consieration in both #ictional an non-#ictional realms. Here we e6"lore one main
t$"e o# scenario in which an (47 coul be harm#ul) intentional harm. 4he "ossibilit$ o# (47
causing unintentional harm is iscusse in the #ollowing section. 7n the intentional harm
scenarios, (47 ecie that the$ wish to cause us harm an then #ollow through on this wish. 7n
the unintentional harm scenarios, (47 o not wish us an$ harm but ina&ertentl$ harm us
an$wa$s.
5e see two t$"es o# scenarios in which (47 might intentionall$ harm us. 4he #irst scenario
in&ol&es hostile, sel#ish (47 that attac: us so as to ma6imi9e their own success. 4his scenario
suggests a stanar #ight-to-win con#lict) a war o# the worls. 4he secon scenario in&ol&es (47
1F
that are in no wa$ sel#ish but instea #ollow some sort o# uni&ersalist ethical #ramewor:. (47
might attac: us not out o# sel#ishness but instea out o# a uni&ersalist esire to ma:e the gala6$ a
better "lace.
,1 Selfish extraterrestrials
, sel#ish (47 is one that "laces intrinsic &alue onl$ on "ro"erties o# itsel#) its li&es, its wel#are,
etc. 4he iea o# a sel#ish (47 is quite "rominent in iscussions o# (47. Bor e6am"le, geogra"her
Jare Diamon ?F!@, rawing #rom his e6"ertise in encounters between i##erent intelligent
"o"ulations on (arth, argues that astronomers are o#ten o&erl$ o"timistic about (47 encounters)
4he astronomers an others ho"e that the e6traterrestrials, elighte to isco&er #ellow
intelligent beings, will sit own #or a #rienl$ chat. %erha"s the astronomers are rightC thatKs
the best-case scenario. , less "leasant "ros"ect is that the e6traterrestrials might beha&e the
wa$ we intelligent beings ha&e beha&e whene&er we ha&e isco&ere other "re&iousl$
un:nown intelligent beings on earth, li:e un#amiliar humans or chim"an9ees an gorillas.
Just as we i to those beings, the e6traterrestrials might "rocee to :ill, in#ect, issect,
conquer, is"lace or ensla&e us, stu## us as s"ecimens #or their museums or "ic:le our s:ulls
an use us #or meical research. M$ own &iew is that those astronomers now "re"aring again
to beam raio signals out to ho"e-#or e6traterrestrials are naL&e, e&en angerous.
5hile Diamon is correct in noting that man$ astronomers neglect the "otential "erils o# an (47
encounter, it woul be a mista:e to assume that astronomers are uni#orml$ naL&e in this regar.
Bor e6am"le, +obel Jaureate astronomer Sir Martin G$le o""oses acti&e e##orts to communicate
with (47 ue to concern that humans woul be attac:e ?!.,F2-FE@. Similar concerns ha&e been
raise b$ se&eral others ?2.,2!,F.-FF@. (&en 8arl Sagan, who is usuall$ quite o"timistic about
(47 encounters, has e6"resse concern regaring (47 ris:s ?12@. , common theme unerl$ing
the "essimism o# these &arious commentators is the li:elihoo that (47 woul be more a&ance
than humanit$.
, core concern is that (47 will learn o# our "resence an quic:l$ tra&el to (arth to eat or ensla&e
us. %reation is common among li#e #orms on (arth because it can be more e##icient to "re$
u"on other biota than it is to ine"enentl$ utili9e autotro"h$ #or energ$, carbon #i6ation, an
other nutrients #or cellular material ?F/@. 4his ma$ be less o# a concern i# the chiralit$ o#
organics on (arth is "oorl$ suite as a uni&ersal #oo source ?F/@. ,itionall$, an a&ance
societ$ ca"able o# interstellar tra&el ma$ be less li:el$ to turn to humans as a source o# #oo or
labor because the$ shoul ha&e alrea$ sol&e these "roblems through some combination o#
machine labor, arti#icial s$nthesis, an conser&ation ?12@. +e&ertheless, other sel#ish moti&es
ma$ cause (47 to harm us, such as their ri&e to s"rea their belie#s through e&angelism 0a:in to
the s"rea o# 8hristianit$ or 7slam1 or their esire to use humans #or entertainment "ur"oses. ,s
1/
Sh:lo&s:ii an Sagan ?12@ iscuss)
>r "erha"s human beings ha&e some relati&el$ uncommon talent, o# which the$ are
themsel&es entirel$ unaware. J. B. S. Halane once "ointe out to me that sea lions an seals
ha&e a remar:able abilit$ to balance a rubber ball on their noses, which is "art o# the reason
we maintain them in ca"ti&it$.
4hus in one (47 contact scenario, the (47 use humanit$ #or entertainment "ur"oses =ust as we
use sea lions an seals #or this. Sh:lo&s:ii an Sagan ?12@ continue to "oint out that (47 ma$
esire to be the sole galactic "ower an will eliminate other li#e #orms when the$ start to get in
the wa$. Similarl$, an (47 ma$ sim"l$ be intereste in using us as a means #or growth o# their
econom$. >n an ini&iual le&el the$ ma$ not be intereste in :illing us, but ma$ be intereste
in incor"orating us into their ci&ili9ation so the$ can sell us their "roucts, :ee" us as "ets, or
ha&e us mine raw materials #or them. Such a scenario coul be harm#ul or bene#icial to us,
e"ening on the methos the$ use to bring us into their societ$.
'ner what conitions might (47 be sel#-interesteM Here it is again use#ul to consier "ossible
resolutions to the Bermi "arao6, in "articular the Sustainabilit$ Solution. 7t is unli:el$ that
humanit$ will encounter an e6"onentiall$ e6"ansi&e ci&ili9ation ?1/-13@ because we li:el$
woul ha&e alrea$ etecte (47 i# e6"onential e6"ansion coul be maintaine on galactic
scales. 4hus e6"onentiall$ e6"aning (47 "robabl$ o not e6ist or otherwise o not ha&e the
ca"acit$ to e6"an throughout the gala6$. 4his is #ortunate #or humanit$, since e6"onentiall$
e6"ansi&e (47 woul li:el$ be quite harm#ul, =ust as e6"onentiall$ e6"ansi&e "o"ulations on
(arth 0incluing at least some "ortions o# humanit$1 can be harm#ul #or other members o# their
ecos$stems. ,n e6ce"tion to this is a ci&ili9ation that has e6"onentiall$ grown an colla"se in
the "ast but i not succumb to com"lete ecological colla"se. Such a societ$ ma$ reco&er an
choose once again to embar: u"on a e&elo"ment "attern o# e6"onential e6"ansion. 7# such an
(47 ci&ili9ation e6ists toa$, then the$ coul be e6tremel$ harm#ul, e&en i# the$ are onl$
moeratel$ more a&ance than we are, because i# the$ continue u"on their e&elo"mental
tra=ector$ to ra"il$ coloni9e the gala6$, then the$ will li:el$ consume our resources be#ore their
colla"se occurs.
,s iscusse abo&e, we ha&e reason to belie&e that a sustainable (47 is less li:el$ to be harm#ul
than an unsustainable, e6"onentiall$ e6"ansi&e (47. Howe&er, it remains entirel$ "ossible #or an
(47 to be both sustainable an harm#ul. Such an (47 coul be e6"aning as #ast as ha""ens to
be sustainabl$ "ossible, along a coloni9ation wa&e#ront as in the simulations b$ +ewman an
Sagan ?21@. 'nli:e the sustainable ci&ili9ation escribe abo&e, this ma#imally e#pansi$e
ci&ili9ation woul be sustainable but still eager to consume whate&er resources it coul. 4his
t$"e o# (47 ci&ili9ation woul li:el$ consume all the resources o# (arth an estro$ humanit$ i#
we got in its wa$. 7n the anal$sis o# (47 e6"ansion, a :e$ question is thus whether or not the
13
e6"ansion is occurring at or near the ma6imal "ossible rate.
," /ni$ersalist extraterrestrials
7t might seem unli:el$ that a uni&ersalist (47 woul intentionall$ harm us. 4his is because
uni&ersalist (47 "lace inherent &alue on whate&er traits that it &alues 0li&es, ecos$stems, etc.1
regarless o# whether it relates to our ci&ili9ation or theirs. 7n other wors, a uni&ersalist (47
ci&ili9ation woul be in no wa$ biase against us. 5ithin humanit$, uni&ersalism is commonl$
associate with "eace an coo"eration, not with harm an estruction. But this is because
human "o"ulations are all generall$ similar. 7#, #or e6am"le, we see: to ma6imi9e total
ha""iness, then we will succee b$ a&oiing con#lict within humanit$, because con#lict generall$
reuces ha""iness #or nearl$ all humans.
Such ma$ not be the case #or (47. Just because an (47 ci&ili9ation hols uni&ersalist ethics oes
not mean that it woul ne&er see: our harm. 4his is because (47 ma$ be quite i##erent #rom us
an coul conclue that harming us woul hel" ma6imi9e whate&er the$ &alue intrinsicall$ ?!2@.
Bor e6am"le, i# (47 "lace intrinsic &alue on li&es, then "erha"s the$ coul bring about more li&es
b$ estro$ing us an using our resources more e##icientl$ #or other li&es. >ther #orms o#
intrinsic &alue ma$ cause uni&ersalist (47 to see: our harm or estruction as long as more &alue
is "rouce without us than with us. +o&elist Douglas ,ams ca"tures this scenario &i&il$ in
The %itchhiker&s 'uide to the 'ala#y, where (47 "lace intrinsic &alue on ci&ic in#rastructure 0or,
more li:el$, on some consequence o# its use1 an estro$ (arth to ma:e wa$ #or a h$"ers"ace
b$"ass. ,t the heart o# these scenarios is the "ossibilit$ that intrinsic &alue ma$ be more
e##icientl$ "rouce in our absence.
,n interesting an im"ortant case o# uni&ersalist ethics in this conte6t is when ci&ili9ation itsel#
hols intrinsic &alue. (47 that su""ort this ethical #ramewor: woul see: to ma6imi9e the total
number o# ci&ili9ations, the i&ersit$ o# ci&ili9ations, or some other "ro"ert$ o# ci&ili9ations. ,ll
else equal, such (47 woul s"eci#icall$ wish #or our ci&ili9ation to remain intact. But all else
ma$ not be equal. 7t is "lausible that such (47 might tr$ to harm or e&en estro$ us in orer to
ma6imi9e the numberNi&ersit$Netc. o# ci&ili9ations. 4his coul occur i# our resources coul be
use to more e##icientl$ to generate or retain other ci&ili9ations, though this "ossibilit$ seems
highl$ remote gi&en how e##icientl$ tune humanit$ is to its en&ironment. ,lternati&el$, such
(47 coul see: our harm i# the$ belie&e that we are a threat to other ci&ili9ations.
4he thought o# humanit$ being a threat to other ci&ili9ations ma$ seem im"lausible gi&en the
li:elihoo o# our technological in#eriorit$ relati&e to other ci&ili9ations. Howe&er, this
in#eriorit$ ma$ be a tem"orar$ "henomenon. %erha"s (47 obser&e our ra"i an estructi&e
e6"ansion on (arth an become concerne o# our ci&ili9ational tra=ector$. 7n light o# the
Sustainabilit$ Solution to the Bermi "arao6, "erha"s (47 belie&e that ra"i e6"ansion is
2-
threatening on a galactic scale. Ga"il$ 0ma6imall$1 e6"ansi&e ci&ili9ations ma$ ha&e a
tenenc$ to estro$ other ci&ili9ations in the "rocess, =ust as humanit$ has alrea$ estro$e
man$ s"ecies on (arth. (47 that "lace intrinsic &alue on ci&ili9ations ma$ ieall$ wish that our
ci&ili9ation changes its wa$s, so we can sur&i&e along with all the other ci&ili9ations. But i# (47
oubt that our course can be change, then the$ ma$ see: to "reem"ti&el$ estro$ our
ci&ili9ation in orer to "rotect other ci&ili9ations #rom us. , "reem"ti&e stri:e woul be
"articularl$ li:el$ in the earl$ "hases o# our e6"ansion because a ci&ili9ation ma$ become
increasingl$ i##icult to estro$ as it continues to e6"an. Humanit$ ma$ =ust now be entering
the "erio in which its ra"i ci&ili9ational e6"ansion coul be etecte b$ an (47 because our
e6"ansion is changing the com"osition o# (arthAs atmos"here 0e.g. &ia greenhouse gas
emissions1, which there#ore changes the s"ectral signature o# (arth. 5hile it is i##icult to
estimate the li:elihoo o# this scenario, it shoul at a minimum gi&e us "ause as we e&aluate our
e6"ansi&e tenencies.
7t is worth noting that there is some "receent #or harm#ul uni&ersalism within humanit$. 4his
"receent is most a""arent within uni&ersalist ethics that "lace intrinsic &alue on ecos$stems.
Human ci&ili9ation a##ects ecos$stems so strongl$ that some ecologists now o#ten re#er to this
e"och o# (arthAs histor$ as the anthro"ocene ?F3@. 7# oneAs goal is to ma6imi9e ecos$stem
#lourishing, then "erha"s it woul be better i# humanit$ i not e6ist, or at least i# it e6iste in
signi#icantl$ reuce #orm. 7nee, there are some humans who ha&e a&ance "recisel$ this
argument ?/--/2@. 7# it is "ossible #or at least some humans to a&ocate harm to their own
ci&ili9ation b$ rawing u"on uni&ersalist ethical "rinci"les, then it is at a minimum "lausible that
(47 coul a&ocate harm to humanit$ #ollowing similar "rinci"les.
4he "ossibilit$ o# harm#ul contact with (47 suggests that we ma$ use some caution #or M(47.
Gi&en that we ha&e alrea$ altere our en&ironment in wa$s that ma$ &iewe as unethical b$
uni&ersalist (47, it ma$ be "ruent to a&oi sening an$ message that shows e&ience o# our
negati&e en&ironmental im"act. 4he chemical com"osition o# (arthAs atmos"here o&er recent
time ma$ be a "oor choice #or a message because it woul show a ra"i accumulation o# carbon
io6ie #rom human acti&it$. Ji:ewise, an$ message that inicates o# wies"rea loss o#
bioi&ersit$ or ra"i rates o# e6"ansion ma$ be angerous i# recei&e b$ such uni&ersalist (47.
>n the other han, a&ance (47 ma$ alrea$ :now about our ra"i en&ironmental im"act b$
listening to lea:e electromagnetic signals or obser&ing changes in (arthAs s"ectral signature. 7n
this case, it might be "ruent #or an$ message we sen to a&oi en$ing our en&ironmental
im"act so as to a&oi the (47 catching us in a lie.
1 /nintentional harm to us
4he harm scenarios consiere thus #ar ha&e all in&ol&e (47 that inten to cause us harm, but it
21
is not the onl$ t$"e o# scenario in which (47 actuall$ o cause us harm. S"eci#icall$, it is
"ossible #or (47 to cause us harm es"ite them not wishing to o so. Here the esires o# (47
ma$ e&en be irrele&ant) such (47 coul hol an$ &alue s$stem #rom sel#ish to uni&ersalist while
still causing unintentional harm in se&eral wa$s. 7n one set o# scenarios, (47 coul ina&ertentl$
bring us some sort o# "h$sical ha9ar, such as a isease or an in&asi&e s"ecies. 7n another set o#
consierations, (47 coul ina&ertentl$ bring an in#ormation ha9ar, such as technological
amage or a "resence that emorali9es or estabili9es human societ$.
11 -hysical ha2ard
7# humanit$ comes into irect "h$sical contact with either (47 themsel&es or some (47 arti#act,
then it ma$ be "ossible #or humanit$ to be unintentionall$ harme. >ne o# the most "rominent
scenarios o# this :in is the transmission o# isease to humanit$. 4his scenario is ins"ire b$ the
man$ instances in which humans an other s"ecies on (arth ha&e su##ere se&erel$ #rom iseases
introuce #rom other regions o# the "lanet. Such iseases are s"rea &ia the global tra&els o#
humans an our cargo an also through certain other isease &ectors. 7ntrouce iseases ha&e
been e6tremel$ "otent because the "o"ulation recei&ing the isease has no "rior e6"osure to it
an thus no buil-u" o# immunit$. 7nee, isease introuctions are blame #or loss o# human
li#e so wies"rea as to ha&e altere the broaest contours o# human histor$ ?/!@.
7# (47 coul introuce isease to humanit$, then the im"acts coul be I but woulnAt necessaril$
be I e&astating. 4he isease coul quite easil$ be signi#icantl$ i##erent #rom an$thing our
immune s$stems ha&e e&er encountere be#ore. 4he isease coul also be entirel$ un#amiliar to
our meical :nowlege, an it coul "otentiall$ be highl$ contagious an highl$ lethal. 4his
combination o# contagiousness 0i.e. high G
-
?/2@1 an lethalit$ 0i.e. high mortalit$ rate1 is
unli:el$ in e6isting "athogens because such "athogens woul quic:l$ :ill their host "o"ulation
an then ie out themsel&es. Burthermore, i# we ha alrea$ encountere such a isease on
(arth, then we li:el$ woulnAt be here an$more. Howe&er, a isease #rom (47 woul be new to
us. 7t "resumabl$ woul not be highl$ contagious an lethal to the (47 themsel&es or to the
other organisms in their bios"here, but it coul be e&astating to humans an the (arth s$stem.
4hen again, (47 biolog$ ma$ be so &astl$ i##erent #rom (arth biolog$ that no signi#icant
interactions between organisms occur. (47 ma$ ha&e their own contagious iseases that are
unable to in#ect humans or (arth-li#e because we are not use#ul hosts #or (47 "athogens. ,#ter
all, the (47 iseases woul ha&e e&ol&e se"aratel$ #rom (arth biota an thus be incom"atible.
So while there are reasons to belie&e that an (47 isease which a##ecte humanit$ woul be
e&astating, there are also reasons to belie&e that an (47 isease woul not a##ect humanit$.
7t is worth noting that a isease brought b$ an (47 coul harm us without in#ecting us. 4his
woul occur i# the isease in#ects other organisms o# interest to us. Bor e6am"le, (47 coul
in#ect organisms im"ortant to our #oo su""l$, such as cro" "lants or li&estoc: animals. , non-
22
human in#ection woul be less li:el$ to estro$ humanit$ an more li:el$ to onl$ harm us b$
wi"ing out some "otentiall$ signi#icant "ortion o# our #oo su""l$. 7n a more e6treme case, (47
isease coul cause wies"rea e6tinction o# multi"le s"ecies on (arth, e&en i# humans remain
unin#ecte.
7t ma$ be "ossible to "rotect humanit$ #rom iseases brought b$ (47. 4he most straight#orwar
o"tion is sim"l$ to "re&ent contact between the (47 bios"here an (arthAs bios"here. Se&eral
calls #or such "re&ention ha&e alrea$ been a&ance, o#ten uner the rubric o# "lanetar$
"rotection ?/E@. 7# we ne&er come into contact with an (47 bios"here, then we "robabl$ cannot
become in#ecte b$ its iseases. 4his #act has im"lications both #or how humanit$ hanles
communications with (47 I #or e6am"le, whether our communications encourage contactIan
#or human s"ace e6"loration "olic$ I #or e6am"le, whether we sen "robes in search o# (47 li#e,
an whether we sen these "robes bac: to (arth i# li#e is #oun.
7# "re&ention #ails an (47 isease is contacte, then treatment ma$ be aie b$ in#ormation
about the biolog$ o# (47 an other organisms in their bios"here. %erha"s such in#ormation coul
be use to e&elo" &accines or other countermeasures. Howe&er, our e6"erience with no&el
iseases on (arth, such as no&el in#luen9a strains, suggests that it ta:es much less time #or a
isease to s"rea than #or us to #in a cure. 4he s"rea o# (47 iseases ma$ be e&en more ra"i
an the cure e&en more i##icult to e&elo". 4here#ore, an$ hea start we can get #or our cure
e&elo"ment coul be highl$ &aluable. 4his in turn ma:es remotel$ recei&e in#ormation about
(4 biolog$ 0i.e. biolog$ o# the (47 an others in their bios"here1 &aluable. 7# we can recei&e
in#ormation about (4 biolog$ be#ore we ma:e "h$sical contactI#or e6am"le, i# we can recei&e it
&ia electromagnetic transmissionIthen "erha"s we can e&elo" aequate countermeasures to (4
iseases be#ore we encounter them. 4he "ossibilit$ that "h$sical contact with (47 ma$ in#ect
humanit$ with a eal$ isease also suggests that we ma$ want to re#rain #rom broacasting an$
s"eci#ics o# our biolog$. Malicious (47 that learn about our biolog$ will :now how to best
e6"loit our immune s$stems an ma$ e&en esign a human-tailore biological wea"on be#ore
coming to estro$ us. 4hus, one "ossible M(47 strateg$ ma$ be to acti&el$ see: in#ormation
about (4 biolog$ while care#ull$ guaring the etails o# human an (arth biolog$.
Diseases are not the onl$ "h$sical ha9ar we ma$ unintentionall$ #ace #rom (47. , similar
biological ha9ar is the in&asi&e s"ecies. 5hereas a isease in#ects an harms an organism b$
o&erwhelming its immune s$stem, an in&asi&e s"ecies a##ects an harms an ecos$stem b$
o&erwhelming its ecological #unctions. 4he istinction between iseases an in&asi&e s"ecies is
at most a blurr$ one. , isease can at least sometimes be classi#ie as an in&asi&e s"ecies.
Some iseases, such as &iral iseases, are not well-classi#ie as s"ecies, while some iseases are
not in&asi&e because the$ ha&e a "ermanent an entrenche status within their host "o"ulation.
Ji:ewise, some in&asi&e s"ecies are not iseases "er se but instea are harm#ul in other wa$s.
Bor e6am"le, an introuce "reator is a isease onl$ in a meta"horical sense.
2!
7n the conte6t o# an encounter with (47, the $namics o# in&asi&e s"ecies are similar to the
$namics o# introuce iseases. 7n both cases, humanit$ is "articularl$ &ulnerable ue to the
e6treme no&elt$ o# the introuce agent, because our natural e#enses an our s:ille res"onse
e##orts are unaccustome to the agent. ,lso, in both cases, humanit$ coul bene#it #rom
"re&enting contact with the (4 bios"here an #rom remotel$ recei&e in#ormation about the (4
biolog$. ,lthough an in&asi&e e6traterrestrial s"ecies seems li:e it shoul is"lace at least some
"ortion o# (arthAs ecos$stem, it is also "ossible that such in&asi&e s"ecies occu"$ a com"letel$
i##erent ecological niche than an$ e6tant li#e on (arth. 4hus, we ma$ #in that an
e6traterrestrial in&asi&e s"ecies ta:es u" resience on our "lanet without causing an$ estruction
at all 0analogous to a shaow bios"here I see ?!!,.2@1.
>ne non-biological "h$sical ha9ar that we coul #ace #rom irect contact with (47 is
unintentional mechanical harm. Bor e6am"le, (47 might accientall$ crush us while attem"ting
an unrelate maneu&er. 4his scenario "arallels instances on (arth in which humans
ina&ertentl$ estro$ the ecos$stems o# s"ecies that then go e6tinct. ,ll else equal, humanit$
woul generall$ "re#er not causing the e6tinction o# s"ecies, but we o#ten "rioriti9e other
matters. 7nee, in man$ cases we ma$ not ha&e e&en reali9e that an enangere s"ecies was
"resent until a#ter e6tinction has occurre. %erha"s (47 coul ina&ertentl$ estro$ humanit$
uner analogous circumstances.
7n a similar class o# scenarios, (47 coul ina&ertentl$ unleash some harm#ul #orce into the
gala6$ through some act o# incom"etence, quite "ossibl$ harming itsel# in the "rocess. Bor
e6am"le, an otherwise bene&olent e6traterrestrial ci&ili9ation coul accientall$ unleash the
e6traterrestrial equi&alent o# an ;unBrienl$ ,rti#icial 7ntelligence< 0uB,7 ?/.@1. 4his (4 uB,7
woul be out o# the control o# its 0bene&olent1 ma:ers an woul li:el$ estro$ humanit$ as it
attem"te to #ul#ill whate&er ob=ecti&e #unction it ha""ene to ha&e. 4he os that this ob=ecti&e
#unction will ha""en to bene#it humans seems e6tremel$ small. 7nee, it ma$ be i##icult #or
humans to create such an ob=ecti&e #unction e&en with consierable eicate e##ort ?/.@. 7n
another e6am"le, (47 that e6"lore the gala6$ using automate sel#-re"licating "robes 0also
:nown as &on +eumann "robes1 ma$ ina&ertentl$ unleash a catastro"hic coloni9ation wa&e that
ra"il$ s"reas throughout the gala6$ an estro$s other ci&ili9ations ?1-,2.@. Such a scenario
ma$ arise either #rom #ault$ esign o# automate "robes or #rom the malicious intent o#
arti#iciall$ intelligent "robes. Bostrom ?2/@ suggests that such unesirable outcomes coul be
the result o# e&olutionar$ $namics in which the unesirables are the strong which sur&i&e
e&olutionar$ "ressures. Binall$, it is "ossible that (47 coul rener some "ortion o# the gala6$
uninhabitable &ia an accient in a "h$sics e6"eriment, =ust as there are concerns that certain
human "h$sics e6"eriments with "article accelerators coul be accientall$ estructi&e ?/F@.
,n$ o# these scenarios woul in&ol&e the (47 accientall$ harming humanit$ an "robabl$ also
itsel#.
22
1" !nformation ha2ard
7# humanit$ i not come into irect "h$sical contact with (47, it coul still be "ossible #or (47
to unintentionall$ harm humanit$. 4his coul occur i# (47 sen harm#ul in#ormation to
humanit$ &ia electromagnetic transmission. , malicious (47 broacaster coul, #or e6am"le,
sen a message containing harm#ul in#ormation that either amages human technolog$,
analogous to a com"uter &irus, or coerces humans into a seemingl$ benign but ultimatel$
estructi&e course o# action, such as the construction o# a angerous e&ice, ?F.@.
,s another e6am"le, (47 might sen in#ormation about its biolog$, "erha"s ho"ing that
humanit$ coul use this in#ormation to "rotect itsel# against (4 iseases or in&asi&e s"ecies.
Howe&er, "erha"s such an e##ort woul bac:#ire on humanit$ i# we use the in#ormation to create
a isease, in&asi&e s"ecies, or other ha9ar. 4he ha9ar woul be create b$ humans #rom the
in#ormation recei&e, an the creation coul be intentional or unintentional. But i# the creation
was intentional, then it woul be human intent, not (47 intent. 4he "ossibilit$ o# an intentional
or unintentional in#ormational ha9ar suggests that at least some care shoul be ta:en in e##orts
to etect an anal$9e electromagnetic signals sent #rom (47.
4here is one #inal in#ormation ha9ar scenario to consier. 7n this scenario, contact with (47
ser&es as a emorali9ing #orce to humanit$, with strong negati&e consequences. 7n human
histor$, contact between moern societ$ an stone age culture usuall$ leas to the emise o# the
more "rimiti&e societ$. Ji:ewise, in the e&ent o# contact with (47, humanit$ ma$ be ri&en
towar global cultural colla"se when con#ronte with (47 technolog$, belie#s, an li#est$le ?//@.
(&en i# the (47 are #rienl$ towar us an gi&e us the choice to acce"t or re=ect their :nowlege,
the &ast i##erences between our res"ecti&e societies ma$ #orce the more "rimiti&e one 0ours1
into a emorali9ing state o# societal colla"se. Bor this reason, i# (47 o alrea$ :now o# our
"resence an i# the$ wish to "reser&e the integrit$ o# our ci&ili9ation, then the$ ma$ choose to
re&eal themsel&es to us slowl$ an grauall$ in orer to a&oi a calamitous res"onse ?2!@.
3 Conclusion
4he outcome o# contact between humanit$ an (47 e"ens on man$ #actors that cannot be #ull$
:nown at this time. 4he scenario anal$sis "resente in this "a"er there#ore ser&es as a means o#
training our mins to recogni9e "atterns an anal$9e outcomes be#ore contact with (47 e&er
occurs. ,ctual contact ma$ not "recisel$ #ollow the scenarios consiere here, but an$ amount
o# anal$sis to "re"are oursel&es #or contact will increase the li:elihoo o# a "ositi&e outcome.
4here#ore, the anal$sis "resente here ser&es as a ste" towar e&elo"ing a com"rehensi&e
strateg$ #or res"oning to contact with (47.
2E
Base on the in#easibilit$ o# sustaine e6"onential e6"ansion through s"ace, it seems less li:el$
that (47 will estro$ us because o# their lac: o# resources. +e&ertheless, (47 coul still ecie
to harm us intentionall$ because o# their own ethical consierations, or the$ ma$ cause us
unintentional harm through in&asi&e s"ecies or cultural colla"se. 7t is also entirel$ "ossible that
contact with (47 will ha&e little im"act on (arth or humanit$, es"eciall$ i# the #orm o# (47 li#e is
&astl$ i##erent #rom li#e on (arth. S(47 o#ten assumes that an$ two intelligent ci&ili9ations in
the uni&erse coul communicate, but we cannot neglect the "ossibilit$ that the human s"ecies
will be com"letel$ unable to com"rehen the language or communication e##orts o# (47. 4he
"ossibilit$ o# a neutral (47 encounter, then, is =ust as worth$ o# consieration as a scenario with
#rienl$ or hostile (47.
>ur anal$sis suggests some immeiate "ractical recommenations #or humanit$. >ne
recommenation is that messages to e6traterrestrials shoul be written cautiousl$. Bor e6am"le,
"rior messages ha&e inclue etails o# human biolog$, such as the numbers one through ten
0our base ten s$stem is li:el$ eri&e #rom the number o# #ingers on our hans1 an the #orm an
structure o# the D+, molecule. Howe&er, etails about our biolog$, though seemingl$ harmless,
ma$ actuall$ hel" certain (47 to cause us harm. , malicious (47 listener ma$ use a message
about human biolog$ to esign a "otent biological wea"on #or use against (arth. Since these
messages will ultimatel$ be sent towar un:nown (47, we cannot :now whether or not the$
might be recei&e b$ such a malicious (47. 4here#ore, caution is warrante. Bor e6am"le,
initial communication with (47 ma$ be best limite to sim"le mathematical iscourse #or
securit$ "ur"oses until we ha&e a better iea o# the t$"e o# (47 we are ealing with. 7n our &iew,
ecision ma:ing regaring messaging shoul #actor in the "robabilities an magnitues o#
"ossible message scenarios through a #ormal ris: anal$sis that coul raw on the scenario
anal$sis "resente here.
,nother recommenation is that humanit$ shoul a&oi gi&ing o## the a""earance o# being a
ra"il$ e6"ansi&e ci&ili9ation. 7# an (47 "ercei&es humanit$ as such, then it ma$ be incline to
attem"t a "reem"ti&e stri:e against us so as to "re&ent us #rom growing into a threat to the (47 or
others in the gala6$. Similarl$, ecos$stem-&aluing uni&ersalist (47 ma$ obser&e humanit$As
ecological estructi&e tenencies an wi"e humanit$ out in orer to "reser&e the (arth s$stem as
a whole. 4hese scenarios gi&e us reason to limit our growth an reuce our im"act on global
ecos$stems. 7t woul be "articularl$ im"ortant #or us to limit our emissions o# greenhouse gases,
since atmos"heric com"osition can be obser&e #rom other "lanets. 5e ac:nowlege that the
"ursuit o# emissions reuctions an other ecological "ro=ects ma$ ha&e much stronger
=usti#ications than those that eri&e #rom (47 encounter, but that oes not rener (47 encounter
scenarios insigni#icant or irrele&ant.
, #inal recommenation is that "re"arations #or (47 encounter, whether through M(47, S(47,
human e6"lorations o# s"ace, or an$ other #orm, shoul consier the #ull breath o# "ossible
2.
encounter scenarios. 7nee, "erha"s the central conclusion o# the anal$sis "resente here is that
(47 contact coul "rocee in a wie range o# wa$s. 7t is ina""ro"riate an inaequate to blinl$
assume that an$ one s"eci#ic scenario woul result #rom contact. 'ntil such contact occurs, we
sim"l$ o not :now what woul ha""en. Gi&en the uncertaint$, the broa scenario anal$sis
"resente here is an im"ortant ste" towars hel"ing us thin: through an "re"are #or "ossible
contact.
Des"ite its merits, our scenario anal$sis remains #unamentall$ limite in se&eral im"ortant
wa$s. ,s is common with scenario anal$sis in general, we o##er no quanti#ication scheme #or the
"robabilities o# s"eci#ic scenarios. 5e also o not quanti#$ the magnitue o# the im"acts 0bene#it
or harm1 o# s"eci#ic scenarios. 4he result o# this is that we are unable to "rouce a cumulati&e
anal$sis o# the ris:s an rewars o# contact with (47 or attem"ting to o so with M(47. Such a
quantitati&e ris: anal$sis woul be o# tremenous &alue #or ecision ma:ing "ur"oses. 7nee,
the nee has been ac:nowlege #or such anal$sis in orer to in#orm ecisions about M(47 an
other S(47 acti&ities ?/3@. Howe&er, the e##ort require #or such an anal$sis is #ar be$on the
sco"e o# what we can accom"lish in a single "a"er an thus must be le#t #or #uture wor:. 4he
scenario anal$sis "resente here is an im"ortant ste" towars a quantitati&e ris: anal$sis, but it is
not a com"lete ris: anal$sis on its own.
,n aitional ca&eat to our scenario anal$sis eri&es #rom the limits o# our :nowlege about
contact with (47. Because we ha&e no em"irical ata about (47, we must e6tra"olate #rom the
in#ormation that we o ha&e a&ailable, incluing :nowlege about the obser&able uni&erse an
:nowlege about oursel&es. 5e must bear in min that our obser&ations are ine&itabl$ con#ine
to human e6"erience, an so our e6tra"olations, no matter how generali9e, ma$ still contain
im"licit anthro"ocentric biases. 7t is entirel$ "ossible that (47 will resemble nothing we ha&e
"re&iousl$ e6"erience or imagine, in which case the contact ma$ not resemble an$ scenario we
coul e&elo". 4his "ossibilit$ oes not mean that we shoul com"letel$ ismiss an$ anal$sis o#
e6traterrestrials, since there is also a strong "ossibilit$ that the contact woul ha&e some
resemblance to our scenarios. +e&ertheless, the "ossibilit$ that our e6"erience an imagination
coul come u" se&erel$ short remins us to use caution in inter"reting our anal$sis. 'ntil we
actuall$ etect (47, we will remain highl$ uncertain as to their nature an to the outcomes that
woul #ollow #rom our contact with them.
>ne area #or #uture wor: concerns im"acts 0bene#its an harms1 to nonhumans. 4his "a"er has
#ocuse on the im"acts o# contact to humanit$. 5e ha&e thus neglecte im"acts to the (47, to
the rest o# (arth, to the rest o# the gala6$, an "ossibl$ e&en to other entities as well. 5e
#ocuse on humanit$ to maintain a reasonabl$ narrow sco"e #or the "a"er, not because we
belie&e that im"acts to nonhumans are unim"ortant. 7nee, we #eel strongl$ that consieration
o# im"acts to nonhumans re"resents an im"ortant area #or #uture wor:.
2F
,n aitional area #or #uture wor: concerns quantitati&e ris: assessment. , quantitati&e
assessment o# the scenarios "resente in this "a"er woul be o# tremenous use in e&elo"ing
strategies #or res"oning to contact with (47. Howe&er, because we ha&e no obser&ations o#
(47, an$ attem"t at quantitati&e anal$sis will struggle to assign numerical "robabilities to the
qualities o# an un:nown (47 ci&ili9ation. 8ertain as"ects o# this "roblem, such as rates o#
e6"ansion an e6"loration, can be constraine with :nown "h$sical moels, though, so at least
some egree o# quanti#ication is "ossible. ,itionall$, continue e6"loration o# our gala6$ an
uni&erse will re&eal in#ormation that will #urther constrains some o# these scenarios such as the
istribution o# terrestrial "lanets, the "re&alence o# (arth-li:e atmos"heric biosignatures, or the
e6istence o# arti#icial raio signals. , com"lete quantitati&e assessment o# ris: #rom an
encounter with e6traterrestrials ma$ be i##icult to com"lete in the near #uture, but e&en
incremental "rogress will hel" us choose an o"timal strateg$ i# an when we ma:e actual contact
with (47.
(&en i# contact with e6traterrestrials ne&er occurs, our scenario anal$sis still acts as a set o#
#uture tra=ectories #or human ci&ili9ation. >ur thin:ing about the nature o# e6traterrestrials an
intelligent li#e in general is reall$ an e6ercise in imagining the wa$s that #uture humans coul
e6ist uner i##erent circumstances or in i##erent en&ironments. 4his scenario anal$sis there#ore
hel"s to illuminate the consequences o# "articular ecisions, such as the moe o# e6"ansion or
the ethical #ramewor: o# an intelligent ci&ili9ation, an ma$ hel" us istinguish between
esirable an unesirable tra=ectories #or humanit$. ,s we continue the search #or
e6traterrestrials into the #uture, "erha"s our thin:ing about the i##erent moes o# contact will
hel" human ci&ili9ation to a&oi colla"se an achie&e long-term sur&i&al.
Ac%nowled&ments
Jason Mathen$ an 7lana Brito "ro&ie hel"#ul assistance on isease s"rea $namics. 4wo
anon$mous re&iewers "ro&ie hel"#ul #eebac: on an earlier &ersion o# this article. ,n$
remaining errors are our own.
#eferences
?1@ G. 8occoni, %. Morrison, Searching #or interstellar communications, +ature 1/2 013E31
/22-/2..
?2@ M.,.G. Michau, 8ontact with ,lien 8i&ili9ations) >ur Ho"es an Bears about
(ncountering (6traterrestrials. 8o"ernicus Boo:s, +ew Oor:, 2--F.
?!@ B.D. Dra:e, %ro=ect >9ma, %h$sics 4oa$ 12 013.11 2--2..
?2@ J. 4arter, 4he search #or e6traterrestrial intelligence 0S(471, ,nnual Ge&iew o#
,stronom$ an ,stro"h$sics !3 02--11 E11-E2/.
2/
?E@ G.,. Breitas, B. Pales, , search #or natural or arti#icial ob=ects locate at the (arth-
Moon libration "oints, 7carus 22 013/-1 222-22F.
?.@ B. Pales, G.,. Breitas, , search #or ob=ects near the (arth-Moon lagrangian "oints,
7carus E! 013/!1 2E!-2EF.
?F@ B. 8ornet, S.J. Strie, Solar s$stem S(47 using raio telesco"e arra$s. 8ontact in
8onte6t 1 02--!1 &1i2Ns!eti-ata."#.
?/@ M.H. Hart, ,n e6"lanation #or the absence o# e6traterrestrials on (arth, Duarterl$ Journal
o# the Go$al ,stronomical Societ$ 1. 013FE1 12/-1!E.
?3@ G.+. Bracewell, 4he galactic club) 7ntelligent li#e in outer s"ace. San Brancisco, 8,, 5H
Breeman an 8o., 13FE.
?1-@ G.D. Brin, 4he great silence - 4he contro&ers$ concerning e6traterrestrial intelligent li#e,
Duarterl$ Journal o# the Go$al ,stronomical Societ$ 22 013/!1 2/!-!-3.
?11@ S. 5ebb, 7# the 'ni&erse is 4eeming with ,liens--where is (&er$bo$M) Bi#t$ Solutions
to the Bermi %arao6 an the %roblem o# (6traterrestrial Ji#e, S"ringer-Perlag, +ew
Oor:, 2--2.
?12@ M.M. Qir:o&iR, BermiKs "arao6-4he last challenge #or 8o"ernicanismM Serbian
,stronomical Journal 1F/ 02--31 1-2-.
?1!@ %.D. 5ar, D. Brownlee, Gare (arth) 5h$ 8om"le6 Ji#e is 'ncommon in the 'ni&erse,
S"ringer-Perlag, +ew Oor:, 2---.
?12@ 7.S. Sh:lo&s:ii, 8. Sagan, 7ntelligent Ji#e in the 'ni&erse, Holen-Da$, San Brancisco,
13...
?1E@ 8. Sagan, 8ommunication with (6traterrestrial 7ntelligence 08(471, M74 %ress,
8ambrige, M,, 13F!.
?1.@ S.,. Sa"lan, (6traterrestrial 8i&ili9ations) %roblems o# 7nterstellar 8ommunication,
7srael %rogram #or Scienti#ic 4ranslations, Jerusalem, 13F1.
?1F@ %.S. 5esson, 8osmolog$, e6traterrestrial intelligence, an a resolution o# the Bermi-Hart
"arao6, Duarterl$ Journal o# the Go$al ,stronomical Societ$ !1 0133-1 1.1-1F-.
?1/@ S. &on Hoerner, %o"ulation e6"losion an interstellar e6"ansion, Journal o# the British
7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ 2/ 013FE1 .31-F12.
?13@ J.D. Haqq-Misra, S.D. Baum, 4he sustainabilit$ solution to the Bermi "arao6, Journal o#
the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ .2 02--31 2F-E1.
?2-@ J.M. Diamon, 8olla"se) How Societies 8hoose to Bail >r Succee, Pi:ing %ress, 2--E.
?21@ 5.7. +ewman, 8. Sagan, Galactic ci&ili9ations) %o"ulation $namics an interstellar
i##usion, 7carus 2. 013/11 23!-!2F.
?22@ J.,. Ball, 4he 9oo h$"othesis, 7carus 13 013F!1 !2F-!23.
?2!@ J.5. Dearor##, (6amination o# the embargo h$"othesis as an e6"lanation #or the great
silence, Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ 2- 013/F1 !F!-!F3.
?22@ B.D. Dra:e, 8. Sagan, 7nterstellar raio communication an the #requenc$ selection
"roblem, +ature 22E 013F!1 2EF-2E/.
23
?2E@ G. Ben#or, J. Ben#or, D. Ben#or, Searching #or cost-o"timi9e interstellar beacons,
,strobiolog$ 1- 02-1-1 231-23/.
?2.@ M. M. Qir:o&iR, >bser&ation selection e##ects an global catastro"hic ris:s, in) +.
Bostrom, M.M. Qir:o&iR 0(s.1, Global 8atastro"hic Gis:s, >6#or 'ni&ersit$ %ress,
>6#or, 2--/, "". 12--12E.
?2F@ J. Sche##er, ,liens can watch K7 Jo&e Juc$K, 8ontact in 8onte6t 2 02--21 &2i1Nluc$."#.
?2/@ ,.J. Haitse&, Sening an searching #or interstellar messages, ,cta ,stronautica .!
02--/1 .12-.1F.
?23@ 8.J. De&ito, G.4. >ehrle, , language base on the #unamental #acts o# science, Journal
o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ 2! 0133-1 E.1-E./.
?!-@ D. ,tri, J. DeMarines, J. Haqq-Misra. , "rotocol #or messaging to e6traterrestrial
intelligence, S"ace %olic$, in re&iew.
?!1@ G.+. Bracewell, 8ommunications #rom su"erior galactic communities, +ature 1/. 013.-1
.F--.F1.
?!2@ J.G. Gice, (4) 8ome an gone unnoticeM, 8ontact in 8onte6t 1 02--21
&1i1Netcomeangone."#.
?!!@ %. Da&ies, 4he (erie Silence, Houghton Mi##lin Harcourt, +ew Oor:, 2-1-.
?!2@ S.D. Baum, 'ni&ersalist ethics in e6traterrestrial encounter. ,cta ,stronautica .. 02-1-1
.1F-.2!.
?!E@ G.5. 5rangham, D. %eterson, Demonic Males) ,"es an the >rigins o# Human
Piolence, Mariner Boo:sNHoughton Mi##lin, +ew Oor:, 133F.
?!.@ J.J. Heilhron, J. 8onwa$, D.S. 8ullers, S. Dic:, B. Bine$, S.S. Guth:e, S. Seniston,
S(47 an histor$, in) J. Billingham, G. He$ns, D. Milne, S. Do$le, M. Slein, J. Heilbron,
M. ,sh:ena9i, M. Michau, J. Jut9, S. Shosta: 0(s.1, Social 7m"lications o# the
Detection o# an (6traterrestrial 8i&ili9ation) , Ge"ort o# the 5or:sho"s on the 8ultural
,s"ects o# S(47. S(47 %ress, Mountain Piew, 8,, 1332, "". !!-.-.
?!F@ D.,. Pa:och, O.S. Jee, Geactions to recei"t o# a message #rom e6traterrestrial
intelligence) , cross-cultural em"irical stu$, ,cta ,stronautica 2. 02---1 F!F-F22.
?!/@ %. Morrison, J. Billingham, J. 5ol#e, 4he search #or (6traterrestrial 7ntelligence 0S(471,
+,S,-S%-213, +ational ,eronautics an S"ace ,ministration, ,mes Gesearch 8enter,
Mo##ett Biel, 8,, 13FF.
?!3@ D.H. Grins"oon, Jonel$ %lanets) 4he +atural %hiloso"h$ o# ,lien Ji#e, (88>, +ew
Oor:, 2--!.
?2-@ 7. ,lmTr, J. 4arter, 4he isco&er$ o# (47 as a high-consequence, low-"robabilit$ e&ent,
,cta ,stronautica. 7n "ress 02--31 oi)1-.1-1.N=.actaastro.2--3.-F.--F.
?21@ J.D. Haqq-Misra, %lanetar$ Messenger, 8reates"ace, Scotts Palle$, 8,, 2--3.
?22@ G. Gon9ale9, J.5. Gichars, 4he %ri&ilege %lanet) How >ur %lace in the 8osmos is
Designe #or Disco&er$, Gegner$ %ublishing, 5ashington, D8, 2--2.
!-
?2!@ 4. %eters, (6o-theolog$) s"eculations on e6traterrestrial li#e, in) J. G. Jewis 0(.1 4he
gos ha&e lane) new religions #rom other worls, S'+O %ress, ,lban$, +O, 133E, "".
1/F-2-..
?22@ J.B. Gallowa$, ,n international relations "ers"ecti&e on the consequences o# S(47, S"ace
%olic$ 12 0133.1 1!E-1!F.
?2E@ 8. Sagan, BrocaKs Brain) Ge#lections on the Gomance o# Science, Ballantine Boo:s, +ew
Oor:, 13F3.
?2.@ 8. Sagan, 5.7. +ewman, 4he soli"sist a""roach to e6traterrestrial intelligence, Duarterl$
Journal o# the Go$al ,stronomical Societ$ 22 013/!1 11!-121.
?2F@ J. ,rnhart, 4he new Darwinian naturalism in "olitical theor$, ,merican %olitical Science
Ge&iew /3 0133E1) !/3-2--.
?2/@ +. Bostrom, 4he #uture o# human e&olution, in) 8. 4an$ 0(.1, Death an ,nti-Death)
4wo Hunre Oears ,#ter Sant, Bi#t$ Oears ,#ter 4uring, Gia 'ni&ersit$ %ress, %alo
,lto, 2--2, "". !!3-!F1.
?23@ G. Ganol"h, M. S. Gace, 8. McSa$, Geconsiering the ethical an theological
im"lications o# e6traterrestrial li#e, 8enter #or 4heolog$ an +atural Sciences Bulletin 1F
0133F1 1-/.
?E-@ B.G. Binne$, (.M. Jones, 7nterstellar Migration an the Human (6"erience, 'ni&ersit$ o#
8ali#ornia %ress, Ber:ele$, 13/E.
?E1@ M.D. %a"agiannis, ,re we all alone, or coul the$ be in the ,steroi Belt, Duart. J. Go$.
,str. Soc 13 013F/1 2FF-2/1.
?E2@ 8. Secs:es, 4he "ossibilit$ o# #ining traces o# e6traterrestrial intelligence on asterois,
Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ E1 0133/1 1FE-1F3.
?E!@ 8. Secs:es, Scenarios which ma$ lea to the rise o# an asteroi-base technical
ci&ili9ation, ,cta ,stronautica E- 02--21 E.3-EFF.
?E2@ G. Bur:e-5ar, %ossible e6istence o# e6tra-terrestrial technolog$ in the solar s$stem,
Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ E! 02---1 1-12.
?EE@ B. >AJear$, Mining the ,"ollo an ,mor asterois, Science 13F 013FF1 !.!.
?E.@ M.J. Sonter, 4he technical an economic #easibilit$ o# mining the near-earth asterois,
,cta ,stronautica 21 0133F1 .!F-.2F.
?EF@ M. Busch, %ro#itable asteroi mining, Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ EF
02--21 !-1-!-E.
?E/@ S.J. Strie, ,n instrument-base metho to search #or e6traterrestrial interstellar robotic
"robes, Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ E2 02--11 2-1!.
?E3@ ,. 4ough, Small smart interstellar "robes, Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ E1
0133/1 1.F-1F2.
?.-@ S. Ba6ter, 4he "lanetarium h$"othesis) , resolution o# the Bermi "arao6, Journal o# the
British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ E2 02--11 21--21..
?.1@ G. Hanson, How to li&e in a simulation, Journal o# (&olution an 4echnolog$ F 02--11 1.
!1
?.2@ S.,. Benner, 8.O. Swit9er, 8hance an necessit$ in biomolecular chemistr$. 7s li#e as we
:now it uni&ersalM, in) H. Brauen#eler, J. Deisenho#er, %.G. 5ol$nes 0(s.1, Sim"licit$
an 8om"le6it$ in %roteins an +ucleic ,cis, 1333, Dahlem 'ni&ersit$ %ress, Berlin,
1333, "". !!3-!.!.
?.!@ 5. Bains, Man$ chemistries coul be use to buil li&ing s$stems, ,strobiolog$ 2 02--21
1!F-1.F.
?.2@ %.8.5. Da&ies, S.,. Benner, 8.(. 8lelan, 8.H. Jinewea&er, 8.%. McSa$, B. 5ol#e-
Simon, Signatures o# a shaow bios"here, ,strobiolog$ 3 02--31 221-223.
?.E@ S. 5einberg, Ji&ing in the multi&erse, in) B. 8arr 0(.1, 'ni&erse or Multi&erseM,
8ambrige 'ni&ersit$ %ress, 8ambrige, 'S, 2--F, 23-22.
?..@ 8. Secs:es, (&olution an etectabilit$ o# a&ance ci&ili9ations, Journal o# the British
7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ .2 02--31 !1.-!13.
?.F@ G.,. Breitas, 4he case #or interstellar "robes. Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$
!. 013/!1 23--23E.
?./@ G.J. Matlo##, Dee"-S"ace %robes, S"ringer-Perlag, Berlin, 2---.
?.3@ G. B=Ur:, (6"loring the gala6$ using s"ace "robes, 7nternational Journal o# ,strobiolog$
. 02--F1 /3-3!.
?F-@ 8. 8otta, ,. Morales, , com"utational anal$sis o# galactic e6"loration with s"ace "robes)
7m"lications #or the Bermi "arao6, Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$ .2
02--31 /2-//.
?F1@ D.J. Des Marais, M.>. Harwit, S.5. Juc:s, J.B. Sasting, D.+.8. Jin, J.7. Junine, J.
Schneier, S. Seager, 5.,. 4raub, +. J. 5ool#, Gemote sensing o# "lanetar$ "ro"erties
an biosignatures on e6trasolar terrestrial "lanets, ,strobiolog$ 2 02--21 1E!-1/1.
?F2@ S.D. Baum, Bilm re&iew) District 3, Journal o# (&olution an 4echnolog$ 2- 02--31 /.-
/3.
?F!@ J. Diamon, 4o whom it ma$ concern, +ew Oor: 4imes Maga9ine, E December 1333,
"". ./-F1.
?F2@ 5. Sulli&an, ,stronomer Bears Hostile ,ttac:C 5oul See" Ji#e on (arth a Secret, +ew
Oor: 4imes 2 +o&ember 013F.1 2..
?FE@ G.,. Jemarchan, D.(. 4arter, ,cti&e search strategies an the S(47 "rotocols) 7s there a
con#lictM, S"ace %olic$, 1- 013321 1!2-122.
?F.@ G. ,. 8arrigan Jr, Do "otential S(47 signals nee to be econtaminateM ,cta
,stronautica E/ 02--.1 112-11F.
?FF@ 4. Berris, 4he MinKs S:$) Human 7ntelligence in a 8osmic 8onte6t, Bantam Boo:s, +ew
Oor:, 133!.
?F/@ 8.S. 8oc:ell, M. Jee, 7nterstellar "reation, Journal o# the British 7nter"lanetar$ Societ$
EE 02--21 /-2-.
?F3@ %.J. 8rut9en, (.B. Stoermer, 4he ;,nthro"ocene<, 7GB% +ewsletter 21 02---1 1F-1/.
?/-@ Gaia Jiberation Bront, Statement o# %ur"ose 0, Moest %ro"osal1, 1332,
htt")NNwww.churcho#euthanasia.orgNresourcesNgl#Ngl#so".html
!2
?/1@ %. Jin:ola, 8an Ji#e %re&ailM) , Gaical ,""roach to the (n&ironmental 8risis, 7ntegral
4raition %ublishing, Jonon, 2--3.
?/2@ Poluntar$ Human (6tinction Mo&ement, 2-1-. htt")NNwww.&hemt.org
?/!@ J. Diamon, Guns, Germs, an Steel) 4he Bates o# Human Societies, +orton, +ew Oor:,
133F.
?/2@ J. M. He##ernan, G. J. Smith, J. M. 5ahl, %ers"ecti&es on the basic re"roucti&e ratio,
Journal o# the Go$al Societ$ 7nter#ace 2 02--E1 2/1-23!.
?/E@ J.D. Gummel, J. Billings 7ssues in "lanetar$ "rotection) "olic$, "rotocol an
im"lementation. S"ace %olic$ 2- 02--21 23IE2.
?/.@ (. Ou:ows:$, 8ogniti&e biases "otentiall$ a##ecting =ugment o# global ris:s, in) +.
Bostrom, M. Qir:o&iR 0(s.1 Global catastro"hic ris:s, >6#or 'ni&ersit$ %ress, >6#or,
2--/, "". 31-113.
?/F@ ,. Sent, , critical loo: at ris: assessments #or global catastro"hes, Gis: ,nal$sis 22
02--21 1EF-1./.
?//@ D. Morrison, Mc+eill, 8onsequences o# contact, in) 8. Sagan 0(.1, 8ommunication with
(6traterrestrial 7ntelligence, M74 %ress, 8ambrige, M,, 13F!, "". !!!-!23.
?/3@ ,. 4ough, %ositi&e consequences o# S(47 be#ore etection, ,cta ,stronautica 22 0133/1
F2E-F2/.
!!