I have no problem with people who search for ET via the use of radar or radio, as in the story posted below my comments. They’re passionate about what they do and good luck to them. However, one thing always makes me wonder if it’s really worth it, and it’s this: our civilization has changed dramatically in the last 100 years; and technologically speaking we are constantly on the move (forwards or backwards is sometimes debatable!).

Similarly, if there are highly advanced civilizations “out there,” it may be the case that their technology far exceeds the need for radio or indeed radar. Such technology may have become obsolete in their culture centuries ago. I know it’s a simplistic comparison, but look at how something as basic as the usage of the camera has changed in the last few years - from a practically all-encompassing reliance on film to a near-overwhelming use of digital. Who could have predicted 30 years ago how the Internet would have changed even our most basic forms of communication? And did I mention texting?

My point is this: it may not be the case that extra-terrestrial life does not exist. It may simply not be aware that we are trying to contact it via ways and means that are as outdated to it, as are those big, chunky mobile phones of a few years ago to us.

And there is another factor, too: namely the life-span of an advanced civilization. Without wishing to sound downbeat, there are very good reasons for thinking that our civilization may not last more than a couple of more centuries - if that even. Over-population, environmental collapse, global-warming, war, and starvation are just some of the factors.

Perhaps it is the destiny of all advanced cultures to ultimately burn out  - or simply collapse due to complete and utter stagnation. And then the cycle begins again. Let’s face it: the Egyptians didn’t last. Neither did the Roman Empire. And the British Empire is long gone. Why should 21st Century humankind be any different? Instead, the remnants of our society will pick up the pieces and start anew. A new culture will begin and we will be but a memory based on a few artefacts, legends, and cultural mythology.

But what does this have to do with the search for ET? Well, if it is indeed the case that civilizations begin, flourish, but ultimately collapse, then what are the chances of us contacting them at the specific time when they have developed sufficiently to understand radio and utilize it, but before they reach their demise? I’d say the chances are slim.

Consider this: before the advent of radio, humankind still had a fairly advanced society. Yet, if ET’s had been beaming radio signals in our direction and in our pre-radio era, they would have drawn a blank, and possibly assumed that the reason they were not getting a reply was because no-one was there. How wrong they would have been. However, here’s the important part: there were several occasions in the last few decades when we came close to wiping ourselves out - such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Had that been the case, and had our civilization had come to an end in the 1960s, the “window period” between our development of radio and our obliteration would have been incredibly small.

Therefore, it’s not just a case of firing off radio messages in the right direction. We need to realize, too, that the star-systems we are focusing on may be home to the equivalent of simplistic cave-dwellers; the irradiated, starving survivors of a planetary disaster; or beings so far in advance of us that their technology defies description. The idea that they would be at a similar level of evolution and technology - and employing the use of a similar technology that allows them to even recognize that we are trying to say hello - is about as likely as me winning the lottery.

12 Comments to “Can You Hear Me Now?”

1. Raven Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 1:35 pm

   Stanton Friedman, addressing the question of SETI and the chances of its success wrote the following (see Friedman’s website:

   “A German General just before the start of World War II in Europe noted (see Ref. 2) that the Brits were building a whole array of tall (more than 200′) towers with cross pieces which he figured had to be part of a radar net. The Graf Zeppelin slowly moved parallel to the array and listened and found no signals. The frequency being used was 10 times higher than what the Germans were using and they fortunately were never aware of how well their planes were being tracked.

   If civilizations, with a great deal of common heritage and similar background and access to similar science, can’t correctly predict the technique to be used by similar people a few hundred miles away, why assume we can second-guess aliens?”

   It’s a pretty big set of “IFs” that we will detect them “if” they happen to be using the same kind of electromagnetic technologies we use, and “if” they use the same range of radio frequencies we are using, and “if” they are transmitting outwards in all directions and not using directed transmissions (maybe to cut down on unnecessary EM pollution,) and “if” their transmissions are powerful enough, and “if” we happen to be looking in exactly the correct direction at exactly the right moment.

   It’s only lack of imagination and a myopic, egocentric line of thinking that leads us to believe anyone else’s technology would be based on the same principles our technology is based on. Ancient civilizations on our own planet have created amazing structures and societies without our electronics or, in some cases, without even the use of the wheel. Our technology is not yet capable of duplicating some of the feats of building and monument construction our ancients pulled off. Why would ET civilizations necessarily need our brand of science to build theirs?

   Perhaps there really is something akin to “thought transmissions”, and they have no need of artificial devices to communicate over distance. Or maybe there is something like wormholes allowing shortcuts through space, perhaps of physical objects or at least of communications signals. Even if ET does use radio waves, what’s to say he isn’t sending his signals to his buddies through wormholes or some “other space” because it allows for faster communications over vast distances?

   The idea of SETI is nice, and more power to anyone who wants to participate, but there’s certainly no reason to think that SETI’s failure (thus far) to find anything gives us any real idea about the probability of life outside our own little chunk of paradise in space.

2. paulkimball Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

   Don’t write SETI off just on Stan’s say-so (he’s been using that story for years, btw).

   The odds are that if they do pick up a signal, it won’t be a direct communique, but rather some random noise - a signal drifting in the interstellar ether, much as our old television and radio shows have drifted out.

   Will it happen? Probably not - but what exactly is Stan and the ETH crowd doing, or have they done, over the past sixty years to actually seek out the ET life they believe is here? Collect witness reports?

   Why haven’t they put their time, money and PR skills behind a passive radar scheme, or a network of sky watchers with camera and video? Could it be that they’re afraid that these things won’t find anything?

   Or is it just easier to sit back and ridicule the efforts (including the considerable fund-raising, much more successful than anything ufology has ever done) of people like the SETI guys, who are at least doing something?

   Paul

3. Nick Redfern Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

   Raven:

   Very good points. I think many pro-SETI people simply don’t realize the variables at work that might prevent contact. Or it may be more correct to say that they realize, but that is rarely translated to (and subsequently by) the media.

   The media often discusses SETI, and particularly on late-night TV documuentaries on alien life, UFOs etc. But seldom is the problem of “what if the aliens don’t use radio?” discussed.

   Usually, it’s just pointed out that Seti-type ops use radio and it’s assumed that ET is doing the same.

   So, I think people need to understand more the issue of how tough it could be to contact aliens even if they are there.

4. Nick Redfern Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

   Paul

   I think it’s fair to say that we need a radical overhaul of ufology to get ANY firm answers. Collecting reports etc., is fine. But, as you know, it just results in more reports and ever-more-bulging filing cabinets, and no firm answers.

   I’m not sure how we go about getting answers rather than just more testimony, etc. But I do know that unless the ufo “community” begins to think radically outside of the box and takes a new approach even the youngest ufologist alive today will go to his or her grave (just like Hynek, just like Stringfield, just like Gordon Creighton - the list goes on) after having devoted their lives to the subject but having absolutely and utterly failed to get the answers.

   And this doesn’t just apply to the ET angle, but any and all theories for UFO encounters.

5. m4ever Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 5:54 pm

   Excuse me - ‘centuries’ more advanced? Try perhaps BILLIONS of years more advanced.

   Humans think very small at times.

6. Raven Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

   Paul,

   I’m not advocating that we throw SETI away. Any good diagnostician will tell you that when you face a problem whose nature and attributes are complete unknowns, initially, you throw out the widest net you can and gather in all the possibilities. In that sense, SETI is one of the pieces of that web.

   The problem is in narrowing that focus down to SETI, the whole SETI, and nothing but SETI. Dyed in the wool advocates of SETI often carry on as if the limits of our own science, technology and paradigm of the nature of the universe give us give us the inside track on exactly what the capabilities of other species “out there” are capable of and hence, we know exactly where and how to look for signs of their existence. That’s nothing but human pride and arrogance. It narrows the net we cast, just as does presuming that all truly unidentified objects MUST be ET.

   I can’t put words in Friedman’s mouth, but I’ve read enough of the literature from him and from others who hold similar views that I think I could make a few guesses as to how he would respond to the question you posed as to what Friedman et al are doing to “seek out” ET, as you put it.

   First, he has stated numerous times that he has no doubts whatsoever that some UFOs are in fact extraterrestrial vehicles flying in our atmosphere or at least within close proximity to our planet. Whether or not you or I personally accept that as fact, he is 100% convinced of it.

   Futhermore, he has also stated on many occasions that he is absolutely certain physical evidence for the existence of ET is already in the hands of governments and military/intelligence agencies around the world.

   Again, whether or not you and I believe that to be the case, he is certain of it.

   If someone does happen to subscribe to those views, then what is the most reasonable course of action leading towards unquestioned verification of these facts? It certainly wouldn’t be searching the cosmos on the off chance you would stumble over an errant radio signal. That wouldn’t just be putting the cart before the horse; it would be sticking the horse behind the cart, which is even more ineffective. The proof is already here (in their view.) There are groups who know and can prove it by virtue of the bits and pieces of technology already in their possession, possibly even of ET bodies, and perhaps even with live ETs working here as liaisons.

   The most cost-effective, rational course of action would be:

   1) To amass enough evidence in the form of eye witness testimony, trace evidence and photographic/movie materials, rigorously studied and evaluated to insure its accuracy and,

   2) To get all of these kinds of evidence out into mass circulation so that,

   3) The people can put pressure on the governments and groups who have the concrete proof of ET and force the release of that information. In that context, SETI could conceivably become one piece of that evidence, but the chances of it are slender at best.

   If you or I don’t agree with the entire ET hypothesis in the way Friedman and Co. do, then we may see their approach as being more of a “do nothing but criticize” effort. But from their perspective all that research and collecting of stories and evidence, while minimizing (not completely eliminating) areas that don’t look as promising (read here, SETI,) makes terrific sense.

   Personally, I think SETI is a long shot, but I believe the possibility they might turn up something is just worthwhile enough that I let them use my CPU down time to crunch their numbers. Might as well make certain I’m getting my full money’s worth out of Comcast.

7. paulkimball Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 8:41 pm

   Raven:

   I know it makes sense to them - it just doesn’t make sense objectively given the “evidence” (a word I’ve taken to putting in quotation marks when referring to UFOs, because ETHers seem to have a different definition of “evidence” than most other people).

   Here’s the difference between the ETHers and SETI - the former have reached a conclusion, and then use the available “evidence” to support that conclusion, whereas SETI works it the other way - they are looking (probably, as Nick suggest, in vain) for evidence that will support a conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.

   Best regards,
   Paul

8. Greg Taylor Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 9:25 pm

   Hi Paul,

   Probably still not so much related to the “ETH crowd”, but there certainly are some ufological groups who have taken the more hands on effort you talk about - Project Hessdalen and Bob Bigelow’s NIDS studies spring to mind. I agree with Nick though, ufology needs to take stock and look at new approaches.

   Nick: Terence McKenna said it best I think - “To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant.”

   The following sentences from that quote are equally interesting, especially in light of some of Greg (Bishop’s) recent posts: “And yet, this has been chosen as the avenue by which it is assumed contact is likely to occur. Meanwhile, there are people all over the world — psychics, shamans, mystics, schizophrenics — whose heads are filled with information, but it has been ruled a priori irrelevant, incoherent, or mad. Only that which is validated through consensus via certain sanctioned instrumentalities will be accepted as a signal. The problem is that we are so inundated by these signals — these other dimensions — that there is a great deal of noise in the circuit.”

   Kind regards,
   Greg

9. chaos_engineer Says:
   January 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

   talk about SETI always reminds me of Don DeLillo’s novel “Ratner’s Star”, which involves attempts to decipher a message from outer space. obviously not one on the SETI bookshelf. i think they’re well aware of their flawed premise. there was even a book written on the subject. John C. Baird’s “The Inner Limits of Outer Space” (Uni. Press of New England, 1987).

   “In 1979 psychologist Jack Baird was part of a NASA study group to explore the feasibility of detecting radio signals from extraterrestrial civilizations. One of the few social scientists represented, he soon discovered to his dismay that the engineers, physicists, and astronomers in the group quickly settled on a narrow set of conceptions as to what form a message from outer space might take. Little consideration was given to the fact that our view of how aliens might communicate is totally subjective and earthbound. Baird realized that even with the best scientific apparatus, this lack of introspection might lead to an inability even to recognize an extraterrestrial message, much less understand its contents.”

   or, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, “If ET could talk, we could not understand him.”

10. Raven Says:
    January 12th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    Paul,

    The thing is, the traditional ET hypothesis may just turn out to be correct, or at least partially correct. Aside from collecting, analyzing and publishing the data, what method of research do you propose as being more effective?

    The concept of SETI has an Achilles heel, namely, would we recognize and agree upon a signal as being intelligently contrived if we ran across one? Pulsars certainly had us fooled when they were first discovered. Chaos number theory has demonstrated the exquisite capability of randomness to produce structure and symetry. How would we definitively distinguish noise from intelligent signal? Prime numbers? Pi to the hundredth decimal? Only if ET sets out to be found, and whatever UFOs turn out to be (and that could be many things,) the phenomenon as a collection of things appears to have a real aversion to being pinned down in the spotlight.

    Perhaps a more disconcerting thought is, What if our governments humor us? What if they admit that ET is real and the proof has been in our hands for decades? I see a very real danger of our accepting that proof as the whole story. In fact it seems more likely to be just one page in a very large book.

11. paulkimball Says:
    January 13th, 2007 at 2:34 am

    Raven:

    You wrote:

    “The thing is, the traditional ET hypothesis may just turn out to be correct, or at least partially correct.”

    I’ve never disputed that, but with each passing day I come to see it as more and more unlikely. Still, it’s a valid hypothesis.

    The problem I have is that some people, particularly within American ufology, persist on treating it - and presenting it publicly - as a proven fact, when it’s not, at least not in any objective sense.

    Best regards,
    Paul

12. Nick Redfern Says:
    January 13th, 2007 at 9:18 am

    Greg

    McKenna is one of my heroes (and there aren’t many of those). Far more people in ufology (particularly those with abduction interests) need to read his works.

    Best,
    Nick

Contribute Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.