Just because we can do something, doesn’t necessarily mean we should.We’ve got all these scientists monkeying around with genetic links and tossing ethical concerns out the window on an almost daily basis. While seeking cures for an assortment of diseases, pumping ourselves full of short-term antibiotic cures, are we setting ourselves up for some bio-catastrophe? Is that all we should be worrying about?
According to Troy Allen-Mills of The Australian, a new debate is heating up about the scientific community’s quest for seeking out intelligent life in outer space, and whether it’s really a good idea or not. I guess this could be a good place to place a partisan spin on things.A liberal mind would surmise that all beings out yonder are peace-loving creatures. Upon discovering our primitive civilization, they’d want to embrace us with compassion and understanding. On the other hand, my conservative mind says that while there’s a good chance they’d be friendly, there’s also a good chance they may see us as food, thus we may not wish to leave our doors unlocked.
According to The Australian, “In California last October, astronomers switched on the first elements of a giant array of radio telescopes that will vastly extend the sweep of signals into outer space. Known as the Allen Telescope Array, it was built with the help of a $US25 million ($26million) donation from Paul Allen, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, and is a joint project of the Radio Astronomy Laboratory of the University of California at Berkeley, and the Seti (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) Institute, the US’s foremost centre of ET research.”We’ve essentially done the same thing (not to this extreme) in many nations around our globe. There are all kinds of low-tech magnets attracting many people into countries, and as we all know, not all who enter do so with the best of intentions. Some are people who have no intention of playing by the rules of the nations they’ve entered, and no one within is immune.
Some of the people issuing these extra-terrestrial invitations on our behalf, are seemingly so absorbed, they haven’t given a thought to the consequences.
“To me, that’s the most exciting question imaginable. What do we need that we don’t have? How can we realize our potential? What will it take to solve important problems and improve people’s lives? What should exist, and how might we create it—right now?
“I have always been captivated by new ideas that answer these questions. From technology to science to music to art, I’m inspired by those who’ve blurred the boundaries, who’ve looked at the possibilities, and said, “What if…?”
But think about this, and forgive me if this sounds like a Hollywood pitch for “Independence Day II”….
Suppose there’s this race of inter-galactic scavengers, roaming around the universe, devouring everything in their path. It could well be that they may be running out of planetary bodies to ravage, but as luck would have it, they receive a signal from Mr. Allen’s radio telescope saying, “C’mon down!” This race derives from the “primitive”, PC-based signal received that we’re probably a pushover, at best. And once they get here, will Mr. Allen even think about issuing an apology, and if so, what’ll it be worth?
What happens if the respondents are not that intelligent, but respond by instinct (see “parasites”)? Who, or what, are we luring here and what kind of “civilization-changing event” might they bring about?
It always seems to come back to ethics questions.
Who will speak for Earth if an alien civilization replies? That may all depend on the intentions of the responders.
If they are “nice aliens”, there are lots of people they could talk to. Most governments have good people within. I wouldn’t suggest they go first to the United Nations. The Secretary General would probably be designated the spokesman, but we’d probably piss off the aliens soon thereafter when the UN started demanding kickbacks.
“It is unscientific to impute to remote intelligences wisdom and serenity, just as it is to impute to them irrational and murderous impulses. We must be prepared for either possibility.”
– Bernard Lovell, British founder of the Jodrell Bank ObservatoryBut the damage may have already been done.
Let’s hope they were right.
Bob Parks is a member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, Senior Writer for the New Media Journal, VP of Marketing and Media Relations/Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, VP of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly, and commentator for the Intel Radio Network




Add A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.