Discovering Even Friendly Aliens Could Have Some Real Risks For Humanity

People wrestle with the idea of contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence in science fiction. The discussions are moving from fiction to reality.

Academics are going back and forth, one paper at a time, with regards to the response to a potential contact with anETI.

Whether you think it's likely or not, the discussion is interesting. It may tell us more about humanity than it does about the aliens.

A new paper titled "geo political implications of a successful SETI program" is the latest in a long line of papers. The paper's three authors are associated with a number of institutions. The writer is from Penn State University.

The paper has been accepted for publication in the journal Space Policy and is currently available on the website arxiv.org.

The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: A Realpolitik Consideration was published in 2020 The paper was published in the journal Space Policy and brought a new emphasis to the discussion about potential contact.

The authors are both men. The Center for Space Research at the University of Texas is where Wisian and Traphagan are from. The paper will be referred to as WT 2020.

The risk of searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) and sending Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) is the focus of much of the thinking around the subject.

If the ETI is technologically advanced, what would it be like? What if they are similar to conquistadors? Stephen Hawking said in 2010 that advanced aliens might become nomads and look to colonize whatever planets they could reach.

Those types of invaders make a lot of money for Hollywood, but the authors of WT 2020 focused on a different risk, one which doesn't get a lot of attention.

There is a risk.

The risk of detecting an alien signal from SETI activity is usually considered to be insignificant.

How risky is detecting a signal? We and our real politics.

History has a lot of examples of realpolitik. Realpolitik is politics based on practical and material factors rather than ethical objectives, according to the dictionary.

The view of interstate relations where the state could be regulated or controlled by law is flawed and that power obeys only greater power is a definition of realpolitik.

Politics between political groups is called realpolitik. In public-facing situations where ideology and virtue-signaling run amok and leaders use political theatre to sway the populace and advance their causes, realpolitik is different from oration political leaders use in elections.

Power in our world is the subject of realpolitik. There is an example of realpolitik from World War 2.

The British Prime Minister played nice with Stalin. When they met with Stalin, they called him an ally. The Americans sent a steady stream of supplies to Russia so that they could fight and weaken Hitler.

The clip from the Yalta Conference is famous. The three leaders are nice with each other. Realpolitik spun a different web.

Stalin was aware of the need for him to help win the war. After the war, Stalin promised to hold democratic elections in Poland. As a result of the war, Poland and other countries were occupied by Russia and the West became enemies. Stalin practiced it well.

The world was at war at that point in time. Why is it relevant to our current age?

Human nature isn't different.

It could be troubling for religious people if we don't detect a signal from anETI. There may be some upheaval in religious countries or even religious extremists.

The thought is that it would die down and people would come back to their lives. It would be a big deal for scientists, but most people wouldn't change a thing. The thinking is summed up in the paper. How would nations respond?

There will be some measure of realpolitik when nations are competing. Monopolizing contact with an tii presents potential benefits for the nation that dominates it.

There is a risk of conflict over the perceived benefit of monopoly access to communication channels, according to the authors.

It's important to consider this possibility when analyzing the risks and benefits of contact.

The danger lies in what we do to ourselves.

If the ETI wasn't malicious, we would likely have a technological advantage over them. A technological edge could be gained if a government dominates communications with theETI.

China, Russia, or the USA would love to have that technological advantage. The authors are looking at this realpolitik lens. It could result in conflict.

Realpolitik considerations should be important in planning for a successful SETI. Several recommendations are made by them. They suggest that SETI scientists form supportive relationships with local law enforcement, strengthen the perimeters and security of their institutions, and strengthen personnel security for scientists and their families.

Security measures similar to those of nuclear power plants can be adopted by radio telescopes.

The new paper doesn't think security actions are helpful. They don't think it's likely that any nation could monopolise communications with an Eti.

While we do not dispute that a realpolitik response is possible, we uncover concerns with W&T's presentation.

There are flaws in the WT 2020 analysis that need to be fixed.

It could be the most relevant response if there is a realpolitik response. The new paper shows that it is highly unlikely that a nation would be able to monopolise communication with the aliens.

A nation thinks it could monopolise communications.

Other aspects of the realpolitik scenario are criticized by the authors. Is it possible for a western democracy to monopolise a signal? According to the authors, western science is well integrated internationally.

Our most powerful observatories have a lot of partners. The scientific community does not run on protection of information.

The sample contact scenario is criticized by the authors. A monopolizing nation could be helped by contact that seems trivial. It is not likely.

It's not clear that this could happen. For a new insight to be useful, we need the appropriate scientific context to understand it.

Medieval scholars could use a book on nuclear weapons design. They could act on it if they understood it. Not likely, according to the authors, and the same is true when it comes to advanced technological information.

Specific technological advantage could be gained. We already have a lot of nuclear weapons. We also have bio weapons. Is it possible that the monopolizer could build a super-weapon by accidentally sharing information with an eti? The authors say that this is drifting into the realm of science fiction.

The best way to prevent state actors from thinking they will get a monopoly is to be open. The measures urged in WT 2020 could lead to a realpolitik nightmare.

In their new paper, the authors say that it's important to implement security protections in the SETI and METI fields.

The existence of hardened facilities and locked-down information flows could be seen as evidence that some world-changing activity was occurring within that community or facility, thus leading to exactly the kind of espionage and conflict that W&T are trying to avoid in the first place.

The papers agree about the risks of contact.

The authors of the new paper say that W&T's legitimate worry is that the perception of an information monopoly could lead to dangerous conflict.

If a nation thinks it's in danger, they can engage in pre-emptive strikes. The worry and fear of some societies would be harder to bear than others. There would be flash points.

There is a concern about the security of scientists working on contact with anETI.

Even if we have good reason to avoid extensive security protections of facilities per se, there are still other reasons to put in place security measures meant to protect the SETI practitioners themselves.

The scientists could be targets of harassment. There are a lot of crazies out there, as evidenced by the COVID Pandemic.

A realpolitik response to a contact scenario is worth considering, but we maintain that it is just one of the many candidate post-contact responses that merit consideration.

They suggest that there are better alternatives and responses.

They say that the WT 2020 paper is based on the idea that political leaders will misperceive the potential for contact to be manipulated. The authors of this paper do not agree with the recommendations given in the WT 2020 report.

They suggest the world should do something when we contact an ETI.

The authors recommend transparency, data sharing, and education of policymakers instead of hardening security.

That's what you'd imagine. It doesn't make for great science fiction, but it might prevent us from fighting.

This article was published in the past. The original article is worth a read.