SETI on the lookout for artificial intelligence

Slowly but surely, SETI is starting to get the picture: If we're going to find life out there—and that's a big if—it's probably not going to be biological. Writing in Acta Astronautica, SETI's Seth Shostak says that the odds likely favour detecting machine intelligences rather than "biological" life.

Yay to SETI for finally figuring this out; shame on SETI for taking so long to acknowledge this. Marvin Minsky has been telling them to do so since the Byurakan SETI conference in 1971.

John Elliott, a SETI research veteran based at Leeds Metropolitan University, UK, agrees. "...having now looked for signals for 50 years, SETI is going through a process of realising the way our technology is advancing is probably a good indicator of how other civilisations—if they're out there—would've progressed. Certainly what we're looking at out there is an evolutionary moving target."

Both Shostak and Elliott admit that finding and decoding any eventual message from thinking machines may prove more difficult than in the "biological" case, but the idea does provide new directions to look. Shostak believes that artificially intelligent alien life would be likely to migrate to places where both matter and energy—the only things he says would be of interest to the machines—would be in plentiful supply. That means the SETI hunt may need to focus its attentions near hot, young stars or even near the centres of galaxies.

Personally, I find that last claim to be a bit dubious. While I agree that matter and energy will be important to an advanced machine-based civilization, close proximity to the Galaxy's centre poses a new set of problems, including an increased chance of running into gamma ray bursters and black holes, not to mention the problem of heat—which for a supercomputing civilization will be extremely problematic.

Moreover, SETI still needs to acknowledge that the odds of finding ETIs is close to nil. Instead, Shostak and company are droning on about how we'll likely find traces in about 25 years or so. Such an acknowledgement isn't likely going to happen; making a concession like that would likely mean they'd lose funding and have to close up shop.

So their search continues...

Source.

Sam Vaknin: The Ten Errors of Science Fiction

Global Politician columnist Sam Vaknin argues in a recent article that science fiction is guilty of ten specific mistakes when postulating the characteristics of advanced extraterrestrial life. Specifically, he contends that sci-fi writers consistently buy into fallacies about:

1. Life in the universe

2. The concept of structure
3. Communication and interaction
4. Location
5. Separateness
6. Transportation
7. Will and intention
8. Intelligence
9. Artificial vs. natural
10. Leadership

While the article certainly raises some food for thought, Vaknin's call for writers to think more 'outside of the box' is a bit of a stretch, if not condescending. Science fiction writers, for the most part, take great pains to weave a coherent narrative around novel imaginings of what ETIs might look like. Moreover, Vaknin is himself guilty of considerably hand-waving, arguing that ETIs may be existentially and qualitatively of a different sort than what we might expect, but at the same time he doesn't provide any substantive or compelling evidence for us to believe otherwise.

Sure, I agree that ETIs may be dramatically different than what we can imagine and that they may exist outside of expected paradigms, but until our exoscience matures we should probably err on the side of the self-sampling assumption and figure that the ignition and evolution of life tends to follow a similar path to the one taken on Earth. Now, I'm not suggesting that we refrain from hypothesizing about radically different existence-states; I'm just saying that these sorts of extraordinary claims (like alternative intelligences spawning different quantum realities) require the requisite evidence. It's far too easy to fantasize about some kind of energy-based hive-mind living in the core of asteroids, it's another thing to prove that such a thing could come about through the laws of physics [my example, not Vaknin's].

In the article, Vaknin also posits six basic explanations to the Fermi Paradox (and the apparent failure of SETI) that are not mutually exclusive:

1. That Aliens do not exist
2. That the technology they use is far too advanced to be detected by us and, the flip side of this hypothesis, that the technology we use is insufficiently advanced to be noticed by them
3. That we are looking for extraterrestrials at the wrong places
4. That the Aliens are life forms so different to us that we fail to recognize them as sentient beings or to communicate with them
5. That Aliens are trying to communicate with us but constantly fail due to a variety of hindrances, some structural and some circumstantial
6. That they are avoiding us because of our misconduct (example: the alleged destruction of the environment) or because of our traits (for instance, our innate belligerence) or because of ethical considerations

Very quickly, point number one is possible but grossly improbable, points two to five are essentially the same argument—that we don't yet know where, how and what to look for, and point six violates the non-exclusivity principle (explains some but not all ETI behavior). It's odd that Vaknin selected these particular six arguments. There are many, many potential resolutions to the FP with these not being particularly stronger than any other (though point #1 has a lot of traction among the Rare Earthers.). And where is the Great Filter argument, which is possibly the strongest of them all?

Nice try, Vaknin, but the Great Silence problem is more complex than what you've laid out.

Five reasons why Stephen Hawking—and everyone else—is wrong about alien threats

Stephen Hawking is arguing that humanity may be putting itself in mortal peril by actively trying to contact aliens (an approach that is referred to as Active SETI). I’ve got five reasons why he is wrong.

Hawking has said that, “If aliens visit us, the outcome would be much as when Columbus landed in America, which didn’t turn out well for the Native Americans.”

He’s basically arguing that extraterrestrial intelligences (ETIs), once alerted to our presence, may swoop in and indiscriminately take what they need from us—and possibly destroy us in the process; David Brin paraphrased Hawking’s argument by saying, “All living creatures inherently use resources to the limits of their ability, inventing new aims, desires and ambitions to suit their next level of power. If they wanted to use our solar system, for some super project, our complaints would be like an ant colony protesting the laying of a parking lot.”

It’s best to keep quiet, goes the thinking, lest we attract any undesirable alien elements.

A number of others have since chimed in and offered their two cents, writers like Robin Hanson,Julian Savulescu, and Paul Davies, along with Brin and many more. But what amazes me is thateveryone is getting it wrong.

Here’s the deal, people:

1. If aliens wanted to find us, they would have done so already

First, the Fermi Paradox reminds us that the Galaxy could have been colonized many times over by now. We’re late for the show.

Second, let’s stop for a moment and think about the nature of a civilization that has the capacity for interstellar travel. We’re talking about a civ that has (1) survived a technological Singularity event, (2) is in the possession of molecular-assembling nanotechnology andradically advanced artificial intelligence, and (3) has made the transition from biological to digital substrate (space-faring civs will not be biological—and spare me your antiquated Ring World scenarios).

Now that I’ve painted this picture for you, and under the assumption that ETIs are proactively searching for potentially dangerous or exploitable civilizations, what could possibly prevent them from finding us? Assuming this is important to them, their communications and telescopic technologies would likely be off the scale.Bracewell probes would likely pepper the Galaxy. And Hubble bubble limitations aside, they could use various spectroscopic and other techniques to identify not just life bearing planets, but civilization bearing planets (i.e. looking for specific post-industrial chemical compounds in the atmosphere, such as elevated levels of carbon dioxide).

Moreover, whether we like it or not, we have been ‘shouting out to the cosmos’ for quite some time now. Ever since the first radio signal beamed its way out into space we have made our presence known to anyone caring to listen to us within a radius of about 80 light years.

The cat’s out of the bag, folks.

2. If ETIs wanted to destroy us, they would have done so by now

I’ve already written about this and I suggest you read my article, “If aliens wanted to they would have destroyed us by now.”

But I’ll give you one example. Keeping the extreme age of the Galaxy in mind, and knowing that every single solar system in the Galaxy could have been seeded many times over by now with various types of self-replicating probes, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that a civilization hell-bent on looking out for threats could have planted a dormant berserker probe in our solar system. Such a probe would be waiting to be activated by a radio signal, an indication that a potentially dangerous pre-Singularity intelligence now resides in the ‘hood.

In other words, we should have been destroyed the moment our first radio signal made its way through the solar system.

But because we’re still here, and because we’re on the verge of graduating to post-Singularity status, it’s highly unlikely that we’ll be destroyed by an ETI. Either that or they’re waiting to see what kind of post-Singularity type emerges from human civilization. They may still choose to snuff us out the moment they’re not satisfied with whatever it is they see.

Regardless, our communication efforts, whether active or passive, will have no bearing on the outcome.

3. If aliens wanted our solar system’s resources, they would haven taken them by now

Again, given that we’re talking about a space-faring post-Singularity intelligence, it’s ridiculous to suggest that we have anything of material value for a civilization of this type. They only thing I can think of is the entire planet itself which they could convert into computronium (Jupiter brain)—but even that’s a stretch; we’re just a speck of dust.

If anything, they may want to tap into our sun’s energy output (e.g., they could build a Dyson Sphere or Matrioshka brain) or convert our gas giants into massive supercomputers.

It’s important to keep in mind that the only resource a post-Singularity machine intelligence could possibly want is one that furthers their ability to perform megascale levels of computation.

And it’s worth noting that, once again, our efforts to make contact will have no influence on this scenario. If they want our stuff they’ll just take it.

4. Human civilization has absolutely nothing to offer a post-Singularity intelligence

But what if it’s not our resources they want? Perhaps we have something of a technological or cultural nature that’s appealing.

Well, what could that possibly be? Hmm, think, think think….

What would a civilization that can crunch 10^42 operations per second want from us wily and resourceful humans….

Hmm, I’m thinking it’s iPads? Yeah, iPads. That must be it. Or possibly yogurt.

5. Extrapolating biological tendencies to a post-Singularity intelligence is asinine

There’s another argument out there that suggests we can’t know the behavior or motivational tendencies of ETI’s, therefore we need to tread very carefully. Fair enough. But where this argument goes too far is in the suggestion that advanced civs act in accordance to their biological ancestry.

For examples, humans may actually be nice relative to other civs who, instead of evolving from benign apes, evolved from nasty insects or predatory lizards.

I’m astounded by this argument. Developmental trends in human history have not been driven by atavistic psychological tendencies, but rather by such things as technological advancements, resource scarcity, economics, politics and many other factors. Yes, human psychology has undeniably played a role in our transition from jungle-dweller to civilizational species (traits like inquisitiveness and empathy), but those are low-level factors that ultimately take a back seat to the emergent realities of technological, demographic, economic and politico-societal development.

Moreover, advanced civilizations likely converge around specific survivalist fitness peaks that result in the homogenization of intelligence; there won’t be a lot of wiggle room in the space of all possible survivable post-Singularity modes. In other words, an insectoid post-Singularity SAI or singleton will almost certainly be identical to one derived from ape lineage.

Therefore, attempts to extrapolate ‘human nature’ or ‘ETI nature’ to the mind of its respective post-Singularity descendant is equally problematic. The psychology or goal structure of an SAI will be of a profoundly different quality than that of a biological mind that evolved through the processes of natural selection. While we may wish to impose certain values and tendencies onto an SAI, there’s no guarantee that a ‘mind’ of that capacity will retain even a semblance of its biological nature.

So there you have it.

Transmit messages into the cosmos. Or don’t. It doesn’t really matter because in all likelihood no one’s listening and no one really cares. And if I’m wrong, it still doesn’t matter—ETIs will find us and treat us according to their will.

Drake: Use the Sun as a 'magnifying glass' to find ET

SETI founder Frank Drake wants to take the search for extraterrestrial intelligence to the next level by implementing a process called gravitational microlensing.

Microlensing is based on the gravitational lens effect: massive objects can bend the light of a bright background object. This can generate multiple distorted, magnified, and brightened images of the background source. More specifically, when a distant star or quasar gets sufficiently aligned with a massive compact foreground object, the bending of light due to its gravitational field leads to two distorted unresolved images resulting in an observable magnification. The time-scale of the transient brightening depends on the mass of the foreground object as well as on the relative proper motion between the background 'source' and the foreground 'lens' object.

In other words, Drake is essentially suggesting that we use our Sun as a 'giant magnifying glass' by positioning an observatory at a distance of around 500AU from it. Theoretically, the resultant microlense would be so powerful that we could see alien planets—and even their continents and oceans.

He contends that advanced extraterrestrial civs may have been doing this for millions of years already and we need to get with the program. Moreover, Drake says this isn't just a one-way system—gravitational lensing could be used to transmit signals to other worlds as well. Considering that our civilization's entire communications schema is about to go digital, he argues that this may be our best bet to communicate with our celestial neighbors.

Okay, now the bad news. The primary problem I have with Drake's suggestion, aside from the fact that it would take over a hundred years to set the crafts into position (which is more an issue of patience than a technical concern), is that the exercise would likely result in failure. Yes, such an observatory would undoubtedly help us discover more exoplanets—even those teeming with life. But it's unlikely that we'd receive any kind of communication by using it.

Among other things, the Fermi Paradox suggests that the timescales in question would not just allow for a civ to set-up and use gravitational microlensing, but to seed every solar system in the Galaxy with Bracewell probes. Sure, extraterrestrials could set microlenses up, but if they're capable of that feat then they're not too far from being able to send out swarms of self-replicating Bracewells.

Again, like I've harped on time and time again, if there are advanced civs out there, and they've wanted to communicate with us, they would have done so by now.

I'm not suggesting that we bail on Drake's project. Quite the contrary. Let's do it. Let's set up this microlense and see what we get. A negative data point can be just as useful as a positive one. And maybe it'll help us discover Dyson Spheres or other megastructures. In addition, the astrological benefits of such an observatory would be incalculable, so it wouldn't be a complete waste by any means.

We just need to temper the expectations of the contact optimists out there, of which Frank Drake is one.

New theory suggests that we may not be alone after all

Astrophysicist Brandon Carter's long-standing argument against finding intelligent extraterrestrial life has been roundly challenged by a team of Serbian researchers led by Milan Ćirković.

Carter's theory assumed set timescales for two processes: the life cycle of a star and the emergence of complex life. By statistically combining the two Carter concluded that complex life takes longer to emerge than the life-friendly duration of most stars -- with the implication being that intelligence is excruciatingly rare in the Galaxy and we may be alone.

Not satisfied with this conclusion, Ćirković and colleagues Branislav Vukotić and Ivana Dragićević are now disputing these assumptions. In their Astrobiology paper, "Galactic Punctuated Equilibrium: How to Undermine Carter's Anthropic Argument in Astrobiology," they contend that there is no reason to assume life evolves only gradually. They argue life could evolve in fits and starts - mirroring an evolutionary theory called punctuated equilibrium.

The abstract of their paper reads,

Our approach is based on relaxing hidden uniformitarian assumptions and considering instead a dynamical succession of evolutionary regimes governed by both global (Galaxy-wide) and local (planet- or planetary system–limited) regulation mechanisms. Notably, our increased understanding of the nature of supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, and strong coupling between the Solar System and the Galaxy, and the theories of “punctuated equilibria” and “macroevolutionary regimes” are in full accordance with the regulation-mechanism picture. The application of this particular strategy highlights the limits of application of Carter's argument and indicates that, in the real universe, its applicability conditions are not satisfied. We conclude that drawing far-reaching conclusions about the scarcity of extraterrestrial intelligence and the prospects of our efforts to detect it on the basis of this argument is unwarranted.

In plain English, the conditions in the Universe required for the emergence of intelligent life have only recently been established (in cosmological scales). Prior to 'recent times', universal mechanisms were in place to continually thwart the evolutionary development of intelligence, namely through gamma-ray bursts, super novae and other forms of nastiness. Occasional catastrophic events have been resetting the "astrobiological clock" of regions of the Galaxy causing biospheres to start over. "Earth may be rare in time, not in space," they say. They also note that the rate of evolution is intimately connected with a planet's environment, such as the kind of radiation its star emits.

This is why the authors reject a strict uniformitarian approach; the Universe is not the same now as it was in the past.

And importantly, given the possibility that the conditions for intelligence to emerge are now in place, we shouldn't give up hope about our chances of discovering extraterrestrial life.

Australian astrophysicist detects curious laser pulses from space

Radio SETI is pretty much doomed to failure, but that doesn't mean advanced extraterrestrial intelligences (ETIs) aren't transmitting other signatures that could potentially indicate their existence. Take laser pulses, for example. Unlike radio waves that suffer a dissipative effect the further out they travel, lasers can traverse extreme distances and still remain highly focused and detectable.

This is the assumption of a growing movement in SETI circles called optical SETI (OSETI). Rather than listen for incoming radio signals, these scientists are scanning the heavens in search of deliberate light patterns that may reveal the existence of ETIs.

And now news out of Australia indicates that an OSETI adherent may have actually found something. Astrophysicist Ragbir Bhathal from the University of Western Sydney recently detected a series of mysterious pulses that has him wondering if somebody isn't at the other end.

Bhathal picked up the signal in December 2008 and has been studying the data ever since. He wants to be sure that it's not natural phenomenon (similar to a pulstar) before he jumps to any conclusion. Moreover he hasn't been able to re-detect the signal despite his daily efforts to do so; he is methodically scanning the area in hopes of of finding it again.

But Bhathal has the initial data set and his hope is to put together a peer reviewed paper some day. He may be on a wild goose chase, but his efforts show that novel approaches to SETI are certainly in order.

"NASA is already using lasers for space communication and it's not unrealistic to imagine that an extraterrestrial intelligence might be using them as well," he says. "In terms of Earth technology today, we have achieved a maximum of 10x15 watts of laser power for a brief period, but an advanced civilization could have lasers with powers of 10x25."

He admits, however, that our failure to pick up any interstellar signals so far could mean that advanced civilizations are using a communications technique still not discovered on Earth. "It is risky to judge everything by our own technology," he says.

More.

SETI's Seth Shostak: Alien hunter

Seth Shostak is borderline absurd in this video. Bigger than a bread box? Jeez, SETI is 1) in serious denial about its chances of detecting extraterrestrial signals and 2) still about 20 to 30 years behind the times.

Now, to be fair, I know that Shostak knows better. He has said,

SETI searches are agnostic when it comes to the biochemistry of the aliens. After all, from our point of view, what makes them “intelligent” is their ability to build a radio transmitter or a powerful laser. The details of their construction are of no consequence for the search — except insofar as they might not be living on planets surrounding an ordinary star. If they are machine intelligence, they may have migrated away from their natal solar system, and of course that WOULD affect our search strategies.

Okay, then let's talk about those strategies. Dysonian SETI, perhaps? Scanning the outer galaxial rim for alternative habitable zones?

Shame that Shostak has to cloud SETI in the baggage of antiquated expectations of Spielbergesque visitors from another planet. Remember: Shostak's job is not to find signs of ETI, but to secure funding for SETI. Talk of post-Singularity colonization waves isn't likely going to win over converts...

New theory may explain why radio SETI has failed

It's been nearly 50 years since scientists first started scanning the heavens for radio signals that would indicate the presence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. And in all those 50 years we haven't heard so much as a peep. The apparent failure of radio SETI thus far has provided much of the fuel that now powers the Fermi Paradox, the observation that we haven't encountered signs of ETI's when we probably should have by now.

But a new theory may explain part of the problem and why radio SETI has so far proved fruitless. Reginald Smith from the Bouchet-Franklin Institute in Rochester argues that there is a limit to how far a radio signal from ET can travel before it becomes too faint to hear. If true, this could have interesting ramifications for radio SETI and our expectations for the project.

In his article, "Broadcasting but not receiving: density dependence considerations for SETI signals,"Smith applies his idea to the Drake Equation and derives a minimum density of civilizations below which contact is improbable within a given volume of space. The calculation depends on factors such as the lifetime of a civilization and the distance that it might be possible to communicate via radio signals. His thesis has produced some interesting scenarios.

"Assuming the average communicating civilization has a lifetime of 1,000 years, ten times longer than Earth has been broadcasting, and has a signal horizon of 1,000 light-years, you need a minimum of over 300 communicating civilization in the galactic neighborhood to reach a minimum density," writes Smith.

Consequently, if there are less than 300 advanced civilizations in our galaxy, the chances are that they’ll never notice each other. And a figure of N being less than 300 is not out of the question given recent insights into cosmology, astrobiology and the rise of the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

Smith's theory has led some to suggest that the Fermi Paradox has been solved. But their thinking here is flawed.

Our (apparent) inability to detect radio signals does not wipe away other means for extraterrestrial communication (quantum communication schemes, Bracewell probes) or detection (Dysonian SETI, interstellar calling cards, etc.), nor does it answer the issue as to why the Galaxy hasn't been colonized by now (i.e. self-replicating Von Neuman colonization probes).

So, while Smith's theory may explain the failure of radio SETI, it doesn't erase the problem of the Great Silence.

Could ET be sending messages by tweaking variable stars?

From the Nature article, 'Galactic internet' proposed:

Just by gazing at the stars, earthling astronomers might have unwittingly picked up broadcasts from extraterrestrial civilizations. So says a neutrino physicist, adding that it might take researchers just a few months of searching to find evidence of this alien internet.

John Learned at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu and his colleagues think that signals could be sent by manipulating Cepheid variable stars. These rare stars can be seen in other galaxies more than 60 million light years from our own.

Cepheids dim and brighten regularly, in a pattern that depends on their brightness. This lets astronomers measure the distance to the stars, helping to resolve mysteries such as the Universe's age and how fast it is expanding. As such, any sufficiently advanced civilization would want to monitor such stars, the scientists reasoned.

To send messages using a Cepheid, Learned and his colleagues suggest that extraterrestrials might change the star's cycle. A Cepheid becomes dimmer as ionized helium builds up in its atmosphere. Eventually, the atmosphere expands and deionizes, restarting the cycle.

More.

A year ago on SentDev: The Drake Equation is obsolete

Just say no to N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL.

Copyright Lynette Cook
I'm surprised how often the Drake Equation is still mentioned when people discuss such things as the search for extra terrestrial intelligence (SETI), astrobiology and problems like the Fermi Paradox.

Fairly recent insights in such fields as cosmology, astrobiology and various future studies have changed our perception of the cosmos and the ways in which advanced life might develop.

Frank Drake's equation, which he developed back in 1961, leaves much to be desired in terms of what it's supposed to tell us about both the nature and predominance of extraterrestrial life in our Galaxy.

The Drake Equation

The Drake equation states that:

where:

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate and:

R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Arbitrary at best

The integers that are plugged into this equation are often subject to wide interpretation and can differ significantly from scientist to scientist. Even the slightest change can result in vastly different answers. Part of the problem is that our understanding of cosmology and astrobiology is rapidly changing and there is often very little consensus among specialists as to what the variables might be.

Consequently, the Drake formula relies on 'stabs in the dark.' This makes it highly imprecise and unscientific. The margin of error is far beyond what should be considered acceptable or meaningful.

No accounting for cosmological development or time

Another major problem of the Drake Equation is that it does not account for two rather important variables: cosmological developmental phases and time (see Cirkovic, "The Temporal Aspect of the Drake Equation and SETI").

More specifically, it does not take into consideration such factors as the age of the Galaxy, the time at which intelligence first emerged, or the presence of physiochemical variables necessary for the presence of life (such as metallicity required to form planets). The equation assumes a sort of cosmological uniformity rather than a dynamic and ever changing universe.

For example, the equation asks us to guess the number of Earth-like planets, but it does not ask us when there were Earth-like planets. And intelligence itself may have been present as long as 2 to 4.5 billion years ago.

The Galaxy's extreme age and the potential for intelligence to have emerged at disparate points in time leaves an absurdly narrow window for detecting radio signals. The distances and time-scales in question are mind-boggingly vast. SETI, under its current model, is conducting an incredibly futile search.

Detecting ETI's

Which leads to the next problem, that of quantifying the number of radio emitting civilizations. I'm sure that back in the 1960's it made a lot of sense to think of radio capability as a fairly advanced and ubiquitous means of communication, and by consequence, an excellent way to detect the presence and frequency of extraterrestrial civilizations.

But time has proven this assumption wrong. Our radio window is quickly closing and it will only be a matter of time before Earth stops transmitting these types of signals -- at least unintentionally (active SETI is a proactive attempt to contact ETI's with radio signals).

Due to this revelation, the entire equation as a means to both classify and quantify certain types of civilizations becomes quite meaningless and arbitrary. At best, it's a way of searching for a very narrow class of civilizations under very specific and constrained conditions.

Rather, SETI should continue to redefine the ways in which ETI's could be detected. They should try to predict future means of communication (like quantum communication schemes) and ways to identify these signals. They should also look for artificial objects such as megascale engineering and artificial calling cards (see Arnold, "Transit Lightcurve Signatures of Artificial Objects").

The future of advanced intelligence

Although possibly outside the auspices of this discussion, the Drake Equation does not account for the presence of post-radio capable civilizations, particularly post-Singularity machine intelligences. This is a problem because of what these types of civilizations might be capable of.

The equation is used to determine the number of radio capable civilizations as they conduct their business on their home planet. Again, this is a vary narrow view of ETI's and the space of all possible advanced civilizational types. Moreover, it does not account for any migratory tendency that advanced civs may have.

The Drake Equation does not tell us about exponential civilizational growth on account of Von Neumann probe disbursement. It does not tell us where advanced ETI's may be dwelling or what they're up to (e.g. Are they outside the Galaxy? Do they live inside Jupiter Brains? Do they phase shift outside of what we regard as habitable space? etc.). This is a serious shortcoming because the answers to these questions should help us determine not just where we should be looking, but they can also provide us with insight as to the makeup of advanced intelligence life and our own potential trajectory.

In other words, post-Singularity ETI's may represent the most common mode of existence for late-stage civilizations. And that's who we should be looking for rather than radio transmitting civs.

Are we alone?

Michael Crichton once put out a very weak argument against the Drake Equation. He claimed that SETI was a religious endeavor because it was a search for imaginary entities. He is wrong, of course; we should most certainly search for data where we think we might find it. I believe, despite the low odds, that it is reasonable to assume that our search for life on other planets is warranted. Even a negative result can be meaningful.

Consequently, SETI should keep listening, but expect to hear nothing. If we should suddenly hear something from the depths of space, then we will have to seriously re-evaluate our assumptions.

At the same time we should find better ways to detect advanced life and tweak the Drake Equation in such a way as to account for the missing variables and factors I mentioned earlier.

Again, and more generally, we should probably adopt the contact pessimist's frame. Back in the 60's and 70's, when the contact optimists like Sagan, Shklovskii and Drake ruled the Earth, it was not uncommon to think that N in the equation fell somewhere between 10x6 to 10x9.

These days, in the post Tipler and Hart era of astrosociobiology, cosmologists and astrobiologists have to take such factors into consideration as Von Neumann probes, the Fermi Paradox, the Rare Earth Hypothesis, stronger variants of the anthropic principle and catastrophism.

Put another way, as we continue to search for advanced ETI's, and as we come to discover the absurdity of our isolation here on Earth, we may have no choice but to accept the hypothesis that advanced life does not venture out into space for whatever reason (the most likely being self-destruction).

Our other option is to cross our fingers and hope that something radical and completely unpredictable lies on the other side of the technological Singularity.

Latest podcast posted: 2008.03.18

The latest episode of the Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. Alternative audio formats are also available.

This episode: The Fermi Paradox is back with a vengeance, nanotechnology will reshape humanity, and why evolutionary psychology says we should cut Spitzer some slack.

Latest podcast posted: 2008.02.26

The latest Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. You can also access alternative audio formats.

In this episode I discuss discuss Active SETI and the precautionary principle, why meat eaters are bad people, and the struggle to make vegetarianism the new normal.

Latest audiocast posted: 2008.02.19

The latest Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. You can subscribe to this feed. Go here for alternative audio formats.

In this episode I discuss a conversation I had with Alcor's Tanya Jones, why the Drake Equation is obsolete, and Anonymous's war on Scientology.

Grinspoon: Who Speaks for Earth?

There's a provocative new article by David Grinspoon, author of Lonely Planets, about the METI debate in SEED Magazine:

After decades of searching, scientists have found no trace of extraterrestrial intelligence. Now, some of them hope to make contact by broadcasting messages to the stars. Are we prepared for an answer?

Excerpt:

Zaitsev has already sent several powerful messages to nearby, sun-like stars—a practice called "Active SETI." But some scientists feel that he's not only acting out of turn, but also independently speaking for everyone on the entire planet. Moreover, they believe there are possible dangers we may unleash by announcing ourselves to the unknown darkness, and if anyone plans to transmit messages from Earth, they want the rest of the world to be involved. For years the debate over Active SETI versus passive "listening" has mostly been confined to SETI insiders. But late last year the controversy boiled over into public view after the journal Nature published an editorial scolding the SETI community for failing to conduct an open discussion on the remote, but real, risks of unregulated signals to the stars. And in September, two major figures resigned from an elite SETI study group in protest. All this despite the fact that SETI's ongoing quest has so far been largely fruitless. For Active SETI's critics, the potential for alerting dangerous or malevolent entities to our presence is enough to justify their concern.

Interesting quote by Michael Michaud, a former top diplomat within the US State Department and a specialist in technology policy: "Active SETI is not science; it's diplomacy. My personal goal is not to stop all transmissions, but to get the discussion out of a small group of elites."

More on this debate here and here.

Astrosociobiology article on Wikipedia deleted

The astrosociobiology page on Wikipedia has been deleted. For the sake of posterity, I present its final incarnation here:

Astrosociobiology

Astrosociobiology (also referred to as exosociobiology, extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), and xenosociology) is the speculative scientific study of extraterrestrial civilizations and their possible social characteristics and developmental tendencies. The field involves the convergence of astrobiology, sociobiology and evolutionary biology. Hypothesized comparisons between human civilizations and those of extraterrestrials are frequently posited, placing the human situation in the same context as other extraterrestrial intelligences. Whenever possible, astrosociobiologists describe only those social characteristics that are thought to be common (or highly probable) to all civilizations. Since no extraterrestrial civilizations have ever been studied, the subject is entirely hypothetical and necessarily self-referential.

Contents

1 Methodologies
2 Assumptions
2.1 Possible unique aspects of Earth life
2.2 Counter-argument: abundance of alternative sources
3 Possible extraterrestrial characteristics
4 Civilization types
5 Notable astrosociobiologists
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

Methodologies

Sociobiology attempts to explain animal behavior, group behavior and social structure in terms of evolutionary advantage or strategy and using techniques from ethology, evolution and population genetics. Sociobiologists are especially interested in comparative analyses, particularly in studying human social institutions and culture.

Astrobiology is the speculative field within biology that considers the possible varieties and characteristics of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiologists speculate about the possible ways that organic life could come into being in the universe and the potential for artificial and postbiological life.

Astrosociobiologists, like evolutionary biologists and sociobiologists, are concerned with the phenomenon of convergent evolution, the evolutionary process in which organisms not closely related independently acquire some characteristic or characteristics in common, usually (but not necessarily) a reflection of similar responses to similar environmental conditions. Examples include physical traits that have evolved independently (e.g. the eye), ecological niches (e.g. pack predators), and even technological innovations (e.g. language, writing, the domestication of plants and animals, and basic tools and weapons). Astrosociobiologists take the potential for convergent evolution off-planet and speculate that certain ecological and sociological niches may not be Earth-specific or human-specific and are archetypal throughout the universe.

However, there may be limits to this kind of speculation, particularly if there is a dearth of comparable habitats to our own across the galaxy. Some thinkers, while acknowledging that biological and social evolution may follow similar patterns across the universe, also note the problem of evidence and the absence of extraterrestrial contact. Simon Conway Morris, in his book, Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe, notes life's "eerie" ability to repeatedly navigate to a single solution. "Eyes, brains, tools, even culture: all are very much on the cards," he writes. "So if these are all evolutionary inevitabilities, where are our counterparts across the galaxy? The tape of life can only run on a suitable planet, and it seems that such Earth-like planets may be much rarer than hoped. Inevitable humans, yes, but in a lonely Universe."[1]

Assumptions

In order for astrosociobiologists to embark on speculations about the condition and characteristics of extraterrestrial civilizations, a number of assumptions are necessarily invoked:

1. Extraterrestrial civilizations exist
2. Extraterrestrial civilizations operate in agreement with the known laws of physics
3. Extraterrestrial civilizations must in some part resemble our own, both in terms of: a) morphological and psychological characteristics, and b) civilizational traits and tendenciesIn other words, astrosociobiologists assume that intelligent life arises from similar environmental conditions and similar evolutionary processes as humanity.

It is currently difficult to tell if these are valid assumptions. For example, the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox suggests that we might be alone in the galaxy. It's also conceivable that aliens and their civilizations may scarcely resemble our own. Astrosociobiology also involves a fair degree of environmental determinism. Astrosociobiologists counterargue that all of these points can be countered by the Copernican principle and the self-sampling assumption (a variant of the anthropic principle). We shouldn't assume, they argue, that we're unique and we should start from the premise that we are very typical.

Possible unique aspects of Earth life

It is possible that the unique conditions on Earth allow for specific technologies to develop which would take many times longer for a civilization not having these conditions to achieve. The list of possibly unique conditions on Earth, and of related discoveries, is quite long. Some examples:

* The Hall-Héroult process and the Bayer process, if not discovered in the late 19th Century, might have led to a delay in the creation of aluminium-dependent technologies, such as aircraft and rocketry.
* The Moon produces tides, and offers some protection from asteroids, comets, and radiation. [2]
* Many discoveries were essentially accidental, such as the discovery of penicillin. Others were based on a theoretical insight, such as the transistor.

It is possible that the conditions for the creation of hydrocarbons, coal, or natural gas would not exist on other planets. These fuels were essential for us to move past dependence upon wood and animal based energy systems. Although waterwheel, wind, and solar energy technologies existed, they were not developed further until suitable industrial techniques were found to produce better materials. These techniques consume massive amounts of energy, and therefore could not be powered by the unimproved technologies. A similar argument could be made that without fossil fuel technologies, more powerful technologies, such as nuclear reactors, could not develop.

Counter-argument: abundance of alternative sources

Human perception has a natural bias towards the known energy development paths of Human civilization. It must also be noted that during both the 1973 energy crisis and the 1979 energy crisis highly industrialized societies continued to function; many moved towards developing alternative energy technologies on a massive scale under the assumption that these could provide the energy needed to continue industrial and commercial processes should fossil fuel supplies be compromised in some critical way.

Given this development, it is possible that a society could develop without a stage where fossil fuel based energy production occurs. This version of Buckminster Fuller's argument on current solar income conforms with Paul Hawken's idea of restorative economy, stating that fossil fuel based energy production is not essential nor desirable given the effects and alternatives.

Possible extraterrestrial characteristics

Given these assumptions, astrosociobiologists attempt to make predictions about those characteristics that may be common to all extraterrestrial societies. For example, based on human experience, astrosociobiologists conclude very broadly that all civilizations go through similar developmental stages, including stone age and agrarian culture, industrialization, globalization, and an information age. Similar assumptions are made about the development of technological innovations (universal technological archetypes) and scientific breakthroughs (including the rough chronological order in which these advancements are developed). The possibility also exists for the existence of common cultural and meta-ethical characteristics of advanced societies (i.e. the notion that advanced societies will independently reach the same conclusions about ethics, morality and social imperatives).

Astrosociobiologists also theorize about the existence of developmental mechanisms that constrain and give directionality to the evolution of organisms and society itself. One such guiding evolutionary force is the notion of the megatrajectory. Posited by A. H. Knoll and R. K. Bambach in their 2000 collaboration, "Directionality in the History of Life," Knoll and Bamback argue that, in consideration of the problem of progress in evolutionary history, a middle road that encompasses both contingent and convergent features of biological evolution may be attainable through the idea of the megatrajectory:

We believe that six broad megatrajectories capture the essence of vectoral change in the history of life. The megatrajectories for a logical sequence dictated by the necessity for complexity level N to exist before N+1 can evolve...In the view offered here, each megatrajectory adds new and qualitatively distinct dimensions to the way life utilizes ecospace. – [3]

According to Knoll and Bambach, the six megatrajectories outlined by biological evolution thus far are:

1. the origin of life to the "Last Common Ancestor"
2. prokaryote diversification
3. unicellular eukaryote diversification
4. multicellular organisms
5. land organisms
6. appearance of intelligence and technology

Some astrosociobiologists, such as Milan Ćirković and Robert J. Bradbury, have taken the megatrajectory concept one step further by theorizing that a seventh megatrajectory exists: postbiological evolution triggered by the emergence of artificial intelligence at least equivalent to the biologically-evolved one, as well as the invention of several key technologies of the similar level of complexity and environmental impact, such as molecular nanoassembling or stellar uplifting.

Along similar lines, historian of science Steven J. Dick, in his 2003 paper "Cultural Evolution, the Postbiological Universe and SETI," posited a central concept of cultural evolution he called the Intelligence Principle:

The maintenance, improvement and perpetuation of knowledge and intelligence is the central driving force of cultural evolution, and that to the extent intelligence can be improved, it will be improved. [– [4]]

It is through the application of this principle, argues Dick, that speculations about the developmental tendencies of advanced civilizations can be made.

The difficultly of engaging in such speculation, however, is that it is highly theoretical; there is very little empirical evidence. Moreover, humanity hasn't progressed through these later developmental stages. Astrosociobiologists currently have no data to support the idea that human civilization will continue on into the foreseeable future. Indeed, in considering the Fermi Paradox, scientists may actually have a data point suggesting a limitation to how far advanced civilizations can develop.

However, with each advancing step that the human species takes, astrosociobiologists will assume that extraterrestrials--both past and present –will have gone through similar stages.

Civilization types

A method for classifying civilization types was introduced by Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev in 1964. Known as the Kardashev scale, classifications are assigned based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal and increasing logarithmically:

* Type I - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet, approximately 1016W.
* Type II - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 1026W.
* Type III - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 1036W.

Human civilization has yet to achieve full Type I status, as it is able to harness only a portion of the energy that is available on Earth. Carl Sagan speculated that humanity's current civilization type is around 0.7.

Notable astrosociobiologists

• Frank Drake
• Freeman Dyson
• Nikolai Kardashev
• Carl Sagan
• Frank Tipler

See also

• Allen Telescope Array
• Astrolinguistics
• Drake equation
• Exobiology
• Fermi Paradox
• Interstellar Responsibility Quarantine
• SETI
• S.W.A.G.
• Sociobiology
• Technological Singularity
• Transhumanism

References

1. ^ Morris, Simon Conway (2004). Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60325-0.
2. ^ Comins, Neil F. (1995). What if the Moon Didn't Exist?: Voyages to Earths That Might Have Been. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-092556-6.
3. ^ Knoll, A. H.; R. K. Bambach (2000). "Directionality in the history of life: diffusion from the left wall or repeated scaling of the right". Paleobiology 26 (4): 1-14.
4. ^ Dick, Steven J. (2003). "Cultural Evolution, the Postbiological Universe and SETI". International Journal of Astrobiology 2: 65-74.

External links

• Astrobiology Magazine
• Astrobiology Web
• SETI Institute

The problem with 99.9 % of so-called 'solutions' to the Fermi Paradox

Non-exclusivity.

Sure everyone has a convenient answer to the Fermi Paradox, but nearly all of them fail the non-exclusivity test. While some solutions to the FP may account for many if not most of the reasons why we haven't detected signs of ETI's, they cannot account for all.

For example, take the notion that interstellar travel is too costly or that civs have no interest in embarking on generational space-faring campaigns. Sure, this may account for a fair share of the situation, but in a Universe of a gajillion stars it cannot possibly account for all. There's got to be at least one, if not millions of civs, who for whatever reason decide it just might be worth it.

Moreover, answers like the ‘zoo hypothesis,’ ‘non-interference,’ or ‘they wouldn’t find us interesting,' tend to be projections of the human psyche and a biased interpretation of current events.

Cosmological determinism

Analyses of the FP need to adopt a more rigid and sweeping methodological frame.

We need to take determinism more seriously. The Universe we observe is based on a fixed set of principles -- principles that necessarily invoke cosmological determinism and in all likelihood sociological uniformitarianism. In other words, the laws of the Universe are moulding us on account of selectional pressures beyond our control.

Civilizations that don't conform to adaptive states will simply go extinct. The trouble is, we have no say in what these adaptive states might be like; we are in the business of conforming such that we continue to survive.

The question is, what are these adaptive states?

Strong convergence

Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom refers to this as the strong convergence hypothesis -- the idea that all sufficiently advanced civilizations converge towards the same optimal state.

This is a hypothesized developmental tendency akin to a Dawkinsian fitness peak -- the suggestion that identical environmental stressors, limitations and attractors will compel intelligences to settle around optimal existential modes. This theory does not favour the diversification of intelligence – at least not outside of a very strict set of living parameters.

The space of all possible minds...that survive

Consequently, our speculations about the characteristics of a post-Singularity machine mind must take deterministic constraints into account. Yes, we can speculate about the space of all possible minds, but this space is dramatically shrunk by adaptationist constraints.

The question thus becomes, what is the space of all possible post-Singularity machine minds that result in a civilization's (or a singleton's) ongoing existence?

And it is here that you will likely begin to find a real and meaningful explanation to the Fermi Paradox and the problem that is non-exclusivity.

Interactive Drake Equation

Space Radio: More Static, Less Talk.

Should SETI break the Great Silence?

Centauri Dreams has more on the SETI/METI controversy: SETI’s Dilemma: Break the Great Silence? Excerpt:

When Alexander Zaitsev presented his recent paper at the International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad (India) recently, he spoke from the center of a widening controversy. The question is straightforward: Should we broadcast messages intentionally designed to be received by extraterrestrial civilizations, thereby notifying them of our existence? Zaitzev, chief scientist at the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, addressed the question by seeing a necessary relationship between SETI (the search for ETI) and METI (messaging to other civilizations).

Indeed, the Russian scientist, working at the Evpatoria Deep Space Center in the Ukraine, has the experience to discuss METI from a practical standpoint. Evpatoria has already transmitted a number of messages, the so-called ‘Cosmic Call’ signal (1999) being made up of various audio, video, image and data files submitted by people around the world. The later ‘Teen-Age Message,’ aimed at six Sun-like stars, was sent in 2001; another ‘Cosmic Call’ followed in 2003.

Zaitzev has in the interim emerged as a leading spokesman for direct messaging to extraterrestrial civilizations, an idea now hotly debated by a relatively small group of researchers concerned about its implications. I note the size of the debate pointedly — it is remarkable to me that an issue that has the potential of involving the entire human species in what could become a first contact scenario is known only to a limited number of professionals, within whose ranks there is by no means agreement.

Entire article.

My thoughts on the issue.

Arecibo Observatory in danger of being shut down

Bad news: Looks like the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico may be shut down due to budget cuts.

This would be a heavy blow to the scientific community. In addition to the SETI project, the Observatory has amassed decades worth of data about the cosmos, it has mapped the surfaces and interiors of neighboring planets, and is the only facility on the planet able to track NEO's with enough precision to tell which ones might strike the Earth.

From the Washington Post article, "Radio Telescope And Its Budget Hang in the Balance":

The National Science Foundation, which has long funded the dish, has told the Cornell University-operated facility that it will have to close if it cannot find outside sources for half of its already reduced $8 million budget in the next three years -- an ultimatum that has sent ripples of despair through the scientific community.

The squeeze is part of a larger effort to free up money for new ventures in astronomy -- projects that even Arecibo's depressed staff agrees ought to be launched. But many astronomers say that if Arecibo succumbs, the cause of death will be politics, not a lack of good science.

They note that states with major observatories, such as New Mexico and West Virginia, have senators famous for their power over purse strings, some of whom are already gearing up to fight proposed cuts. By contrast, Puerto Rico, a commonwealth of the United States, has no senators. And its representative in the House, Resident Commissioner Luis G. Fortu?o (R), does not have a vote.

Messages to ET and the precautionary principle

Science fiction author and futurist David Brin recently contacted me and brought me up to speed on his efforts to raise awareness about the active SETI approach, also known as METI (messages to extraterrestrial intelligences). Brin is vehemently opposed to this idea, as he believes it could put humanity in great peril. For all we know, he argues, some malevolent ETI is lurking in the neighborhood waiting for less advanced civilizations to draw attention to themselves.

Brin writes,

Let there be no mistake. METI is a very different thing than passively sifting for signals from the outer space. Carl Sagan, one of the greatest SETI supporters and a deep believer in the notion of altruistic alien civilizations, called such a move deeply unwise and immature....

Sagan — along with early SETI pioneer Philip Morrison — recommended that the newest children in a strange and uncertain cosmos should listen quietly for a long time, patiently learning about the universe and comparing notes, before shouting into an unknown jungle that we do not understand.

Brin invited me to join a closed discussion group where this issue is examined and debated. The purpose of the exercise is to not just think more deeply about this issue, but to also raise awareness and possibly prevent a catastrophe (i.e. alien invasion). Essentially, Brin argues that METI needs to be strongly considered before any group or individual takes it upon themselves to shout out to the heavens. He is particularly concerned how some groups, including SETI, are dismissive of his concerns. His fear is that someone will unilaterally decide to start transmitting messages into the depths of space.

I was unsure at first about whether or not I should join this group. As a contact pessimist I’m fairly certain that the fear about a METI approach is unwarranted -- not because ETI's are likely to be friendly, but because no one's listening. And even if they are listening, there's nothing we can do about it; any advanced ETI that's on a search-and-destroy mission would likely have the 'search' aspect figured out. I'm not sure how any civilization could hide in the Galaxy. Consequently, METI is somewhat of a non-issue in my opinion.

That being said, however, I did reach the conclusion that there is a non-zero chance that we could run into trouble should we change our approach from listening to messaging. For example, resident berserkers could be waiting, for what ever reason, for this sort of change in our radio signals. Perhaps they are waiting for a sign that we've passed a certain developmental threshold.

I think this argument is extremely weak and improbable, but it's not impossible; it should not be ruled out as a potential existential risk.

Which leads me to the precautionary principle. Since no one is listening, there is no harm in not sending messages out into the cosmos. Again, if a friendly ETI wanted to do a meet-and-greet, they should have no trouble finding us. But because there is the slim chance that we may alert a local berserker (or something unknown), we should probably refrain from the METI approach for the time being.

So, I took Brin up on his offer and I’ve joined the discussion group. We are currently considering the possibility of organizing a conference centered around the issue. I’ll continue to post about this topic as news develops. More information can be found here.