Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:58:15 -0600
From: Dorothy E. Harris
To: nids @ anv.net
Subject: exobiology query
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your invitation to contribute my thoughts
on exobiology. I assume this originates from my membership in the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
I am not particularly well qualified to comment on
exobiology, but fortunately, little enough is known that any trained
biologist such as myself might make a reasonable contribution.
It is difficult for me to separate my thoughts on exobiology
from my thoughts on the origin of life on earth. However life on earth
originated, be it spontaneously or by some type of seeding event early
in life's history, similar mechanisms will have applied in other planetary
settings.
To my mind, the most crucial question with regard to
origin of life on earth is one of evolutionary speed, although considered
in a very particular way. The genetic information of an organism can
be considered, in a rough sense, a measure of its complexity. We think
that life similar to current prokaryotic life existed as far back as
3.8 billion years ago. This leaves only 0.7 billion years since the
origin of the earth itself for this prokaryotic degree of complexity
to evolve. If this was indeed DNA based life, with the associated ribosomal
protein machinery 3.8 billion years ago (which I think is still unclear),
then that whole mechanism would have to have evolved in an evolutionarily
short period of time. If, as is often supposed, earlier life was RNA
based, could its rate of evolution, or more particularly accumulation
of complexity, have been faster? Certainly DNA, with its corrective
copy, would appear to be a conservative force in evolution, and certainly
modern day RNA viruses shift their genomes much faster than DNA viruses.
It is not clear that the ability to shift genomes rapidly corresponds
to the ability to accumulate complexity rapidly, since rapid shifters
may not be able to retain information as well.
Modern RNA viruses still use the protein equipment
of modern cells, whereas early life would have operated without proteins,
in which case the operative parts of the cell, or chemical cycle, if
cell is too much of an assumption, would have been identical with its
genetic parts. This too could provide for alterations in evolutionary
speed. However, one cannot help but wonder if there really is too little
time for the whole present day protein machinery to have evolved here
on earth.
If early life on earth came from some extra-solar system
source, then we would have every reason to expect other DNA or RNA based
life to exist in the galaxy. We could even make predictions concerning
the chemical makeup of that life - what elements need to be present
and in what abundances. One interesting question from this point of
view concerns the chemical makeup of life on earth, and whether it corresponds
with the chemical makeup of some pre-biotic environment on the earth's
surface, or instead corresponds to the makeup of a planet perhaps produced
earlier in the history of the universe.
Another possibility is that life originated outside
of earth, but within the solar system, although I do not think the time
constraints on this problem are significantly different from those on
earth, and may suffer from a lesser energy input to the system on planets
further from the sun. In this case, we would expect to find related
life or its remains on other planets within out own system, but not
outside our solar system.
If, as most biologists seem to think, life originated
independently here on earth, we can have no expectation about life within
the galaxy, or even within the solar system. If life originates independently
in many places, then it will vary dramatically in its genetic material
and chemical makeup, although there may be some favored chemicals.
The above three hypotheses can be distinguished in
the course of exploration of the solar system and nearby planetary systems.
The solar system is of course already being explored, and much of the
information it has to offer will probably be known in the next few centuries.
Nearby planetary systems are not within the reach of our technology,
but perhaps will be within the next millenium. In any case, if we find
dramatically different life within the solar system, we will likely
conclude that life originated independently on earth.
In any case, all of these hypotheses would suggest
that life either originated on earth or was carried here from some source,
which, would have to be quite local with respect to the galaxy. This
is assuming that whatever carried life to earth did not move at relativistic
speeds! If THIS assumption were to turn out to be false, and related
life were found in another galaxy or a great distance away in our own,
then we would really have to think of what we would consider super-natural
effects. Information with respect to this question could only be derived
by communication with a distant civilization, and lends particular importance
to ventures such as SETI.
To my mind, all of these questions of exobiology as
they relate to the position of life on earth are of enormous importance.
Their answers will provide us with our first understanding of who we
really are, and any scientifically observable super-natural involvement.
It will also put in perspective, for all to understand, man's place
among the life forms of this very precious, living planet.
Sincerely
Dr. Dorothy Forbes (formerly Harris).
From: thomas hackney
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: ETI scenario
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 16:20:20 PST
I found your web treatment regarding scenarios of ET-human
contact most interesting and fairly thorough. I'd like to point out
a small hole, however, in your list of possibilities.
Significantly, the most used word in your list is "non-natural."
Here (alas!) is a good reason for an ET agency to initiate contact with
our species by using a quite "natural" cosmic and thereby
somewhat ambiguous (and plausibly deniable) method of communication.
You see, it has always been my contention that an ET
agency would choose a more graduated method and strategy to broach contact
with us, as opposed to some more precipitous methods. I feel certain
that an advanced, ethical and/or experienced space-faring intelligence
would not disclose their existence to us all at once but would first
test the waters and gauge a preliminary human response first. After
all, once disclosure is made, it cannot be rescinded should this turn
out not to have been a very good idea. Another reason for this approach
relates to the fact that humans are not the most benign creatures imaginable
(quite the contrary, in fact). We are materialistic, venal, aggressive
and unpredictable. We deal in mega-death regularly. We are not very
ethically advanced, to put it kindly. If this were not enough, can you
imagine the global reaction to "conclusive" full-bodies contact?
So the "approach" should, logically, be rather
tentative and experimental, rather than obvious and conclusive. One
scenario that takes the above into account is the one described at:
www.nais.com/~thack (my web's index). Why not have a look (or a long
read). Every word of it is historical fact. Only my interpretation of
the events discussed is open to some debate, though I'd argue that it
holds together rather like a rock.
I'd be interested to know your response to this evidence
is.
Tom Hackney
From: Wayne L. Haag
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Attn. Dr. Kelleher
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 09:08:10 +0200
Dear Colleagues,
Many thanks for calling my attention to your web-site
and to the very interesting essays. As you have been gracious enough
to send me your message and make your web-site available, I will share
some of my reflections with you.
Although the confirmed landing of an extra-terrestrial
space craft, or a response to the messages we are beaming, would be
dramatic, we must not be overly influenced by, nor overly dependent
on, nor blinded by, the discovery of such dramatic evidence, in our
attempt to gain a comprehensive "understanding" about the
existence of and nature of other intelligent beings. Most probably we
will have to continue to accumulate the "evidence" gradually,
in small pieces, from various sources.
That the earth and those who inhabit it are a small
part of a larger whole, seems to be now self-evident. That our species
is programmed to be aware that it is part of a larger whole and that
we must relate to beings of higher intelligence, seems also to be self-evident.
This characteristic/need appears to be as universal in our species,
as is our programming for language. The existence of other intelligent
beings, to which we humans can relate, is widely accepted by all religions.
Some of us try to communicate with and become more
a part of the larger whole, by sending signals to the depths of space,
while others meditate and pray. That depends on our individual experiences
and skills.
I expect that as science, technology and knowledge
evolve, there will be a greater understanding of and acceptance of many
of the central tenants that are common to all religions. What we consider
to be the material and the spiritual will tend to be less and less contradictory
and more and more mutually confirming.
We probably meet with and/or communicate with regularly,
those other kindred intelligent beings in spiritual and material forms
during our lives and in the afterlife. I would expect this to be an
ongoing process and not unique to this point in time. Just like our
attempts to reach out are not unique to this point in time. But of course,
we always have been looking for a "sign". Our understanding
will evolve as we invest more in reaching out and as we invest more
in reaching inward. Both are exciting journeys and probably more closely
related than we now imagine!!
We have no choice but to continue the search. All of
the best to you and your colleagues, who have banded together to search.
May you find satisfaction and fulfillment. You carry on the tradition
of our species, since time immemorial.
With Best Wishes,
Wayne L. Haag
Sasakawa Global 2000 Mozambique
Date sent: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:24:20 -0700
To: nids@anv.net
From: Jim Moore
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Hi - Sorry not to respond sooner; 9/22 was a while
ago. But so it goes. I've had just a quick look at the website, more
to note the fact of the essays than to try to evaluate them. For what
it's worth, my opinion is that SETI is extraordinarily worthwhile despite
the continued lack of success; human history shows plenty of evidence
that tough questions are not always resolved in under 30 years <grin>.
>1) SHOULD SCIENTISTS STUDY THE TOPIC OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL
INTELLIGENCE?
Yes.
>2) IS SCIENCE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE TOPIC OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL
INTELLIGENCE?
Clearly. Whether satisfactorily so is inevitably a
matter of opinion that will only finally be settled when someone confirms
ETI (absence of confirmation cannot be confirmation of absence...).
>3)WHAT STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE ARE REQUIRED BY SCIENCE
AND BY SOCIETY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ETI?
ETI is like porn; there is no single standard that
will be acceptable to everyone, and most people won't know what their
own standards really are until confronted with evidence that pushes
those standards. Abstract debate is unlikely to settle much, beyond
saying that "if a saucer lands on the capital, and octopods address
Congress on CNN, those who still claim it's swamp gas will be acting
in a bloody-minded fashion".
>4) SHOULD RESEARCH ON ETI BE SPONSORED BY GOVERNMENT,
BY INDUSTRY OR BY PRIVATE MONEY?
Yes. This is a policy question?
>5) WHAT WOULD BE THE SOCIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONSEQUENCES TO SOCIETY OF CONTACT WITH AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE?
Everyone agrees it would be profound; hopefully everyone
would agree (when pushed) that the consequences would be extraordinarily
complex, in the sense of not predictable from initial conditions. There
is little worth to phrasing the question like this, as thought there
could be some specific answers, from the standpoint of working out what
we'll do with ETI. That is not to say that we won't learn a great deal
about ourselves from considering the question (ideally experimentally,
via simulations etc, but also via social psych/survey instruments).
But confusion of the purpose of such work (learning about us) with the
SETI mission itself (learning about 'them') can lead to frustration
among those who don't believe there's a 'them'.
Anyhow, two cents worth.
Jim
Jim Moore http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/
Date sent: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:15:23 -0800 (PST)
From: B. Fink
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Science Essay Competition
Dear Dr Kelleher,
Responding as promised to your e-mail of 8 Dec 1998:
I found the winning essays of the SETI competition
wonderfully provocative and original. I've learned a great deal from
them and feel fortunate that they and the two runner-up essays which
I selected at random were brought to my attention. I've also read the
other runner-up abstracts and the two high school papers. I would like
to mention a couple of limitations which I think most of these essays
share with many current discussions of this exciting topic.
First, some writers still appear to be formulating
their projects on the basis of a probability of successful SETI calculated
some forty years ago. It would seem desirable to base current discussion
on a recalculation that takes into account the huge increases in knowledge
and understanding of cosmic and biological evolution accumulated since
the 1950s.
Second, in my view insufficient consideration is being
given to the pivotal energy requirements of life and intelligence. On
our planet this energy is everywhere mediated by adenosine triphosphate
(ATP). If we assume that this is also likely to be the case in extraterrestrial
life and intelligence, SETI should probably include efforts to identify
the presence of phosphorus (apparently not yet discovered in interstellar
space) in any region to be searched. The crucial role of phosphoryl
group energy in the evolution of life in general and consciousness in
particular currently receives scant attention. Yet such energy appears
to be an enduring and indispensable link in the continuity between the
cosmosphere and our evolutionary biosphere. I would deem it a great
privilege to be given the opportunity to outline in this forum the evidence
for my view of the relevance of phosphoryl energy to SETI.
Sincerely,
B. Raymond Fink, M.D.
Professor Emeritus, Anesthesiology 356540
University of Washington Seattle WA 98195
Date sent: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:29:55 -0800 (PST)
From: B. Fink
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Dear Dr. Kelleher,
The page below describes the essence of my argument
for the connection between phosphoryl energy and SETI.
A full account of the theory and its connection to
the evolution of consciousness and intelligent behavior will approach
book length and may not be welcome. Is it what you would like me to
undertake?
Sincerely,
Ray Fink
"Chemical Search for Extraterrestrial Life and
Intelligence"
Bioenergeticists emphasize that a living organism is
an open system through which a continuous flux of energy and matter
takes place. They also stress that the flow of energy through such a
system acts to organize it (1, 2). In all living systems of planet Earth,
the fluxes of usable energy are disseminated in the form of molecules
of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The usable energy of ATP is present
in the bond formed when a molecule of phosphate is combined with a molecule
of adenosine diphosphate (ADP) with the elimination of a molecule of
water. The formation and use of ATP energy might well be regarded as
the scientific equivalent of the old-time mystical entity called vital
force or elixir of life. No alternative to ATP as a carrier of biological
energy can be envisaged on the basis of known chemistry. The relevance
of this to SETI becomes clear when we consider how ATP is formed in
living organisms.
Many primitive organisms can form all the ATP they
need by fermenting their nutrients without the aid of oxygen. Advanced
organisms, in contrast, make most of their ATP in a process called oxidative
phosphorylation which does use atmospheric oxygen and yields many times
more ATP than fermentation. A nervous system capable of intelligent
behavior uses huge amounts of ATP and surely presupposes a planetary
atmosphere rich in oxygen. Thus detection of oxygen in the atmosphere
of a planet would be a sensible preliminary to a SETI in that particular
body (or any other).
A negative finding would of course not exclude the
presence of unintelligent life dependent on ATP formed by fermentation.
But ATP formed by fermentation does require the presence of phosphate
derived from the soil. So any instrumented examination of an unexplored
site for signs of life might well begin with a test for phosphorus in
the target location. B.R. Fink 12/17/ 1998
1. Morowitz, H.J. Energy Flow in Biology. Academic
Press, 1968. 179 pp
2. Fox, R.F. Energy and the Evolution of Life. W.H. Freeman, 1988. 182
pp.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:29:55 -0800 (PST)
From: nids@anv.net
To: B. Fink
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Dr. Fink:
Thank you for your post. It could also be said that
GDP, GTP, and NADPH, even in some circumstances glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate,
might fall into the same category. However, can you provide (without
taking up too much of your time) the connection between the use of high-energy
phosphoryl groups and the evolution of consciousness? You might be aware
of Stuart Hameroff's work at the University of Arizona which posits
that neuronal microtubules are the basic anchoring mechanism for consciousness
in the brain. Of course microtubules are undergoing an endless succession
of phosphorylation/dephosphorylation reactions catalyzed by microtubule
associated kinase (MAP kinase). Do you see any relevance of this in
your SETI arguments?
Sincerely,
Colm A Kelleher, Ph.D.
Date sent: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:43:42 -0800 (PST)
From: B. Fink
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Dear Dr. Kelleher,
An important clue to the connection between the use
of high-energy phosphoryl groups and the evolution of consciousness
is the prompt loss of consciousness that occurs when the oxygen supply
of the brain is interrupted. The brain contains very little reserve
oxygen or ATP. A continuous supply of oxygen is necessary to maintain
the mitochondrial output of high-energy phosphoryl groups that drives
the metabolism of brain and maintains its consciousness.
The above-described situation is of course a product
of evolution. Just how it evolved is not known. I have a theory that
builds on the evolution of the bottleneck of oxygen intake in air-breathing
vertebrates. This bottleneck is in the larynx. Its evolution supports
a curious macroscopic correlation of complexity in larynx and forebrain,
apparent from morphological comparisons in certain species of extant
fish, urodele amphibians, reptiles (including birds), monotreme mammals,
marsupial mammals, and placental mammals, especially the primates --
monkeys, apes, and man.
The number of components of the laryngeal passages
increases significantly in the course of the above-noted sequence of
animal groups. This is best appreciated when the larynx is viewed as
a folding mechanism in which a number of soft-tissue folds converge
bellows-like in the general region corresponding to the Adams apple.
Inspiration draws the human larynx downward, unfolds the bellows, opens
the passage, and apparently increases its air conductance to an extent
related to the force of inspiration. Elastic restitution restores the
resting configuration during the succeeding expiration. Manual and other
efforts fold and close the passage to various degrees; the extreme occurs
during the swallowing of food, (which of course supplies the reductant
which oxygen will oxidize).
It seems inescapable that the human brain includes
a certain complex entity that is at once physical and psychical, whose
activity produces the unitary result experienced as consciousness. My
friend Stuart Hameroff identifies consciousness speculatively with an
unknown quantal phenomenon in neuronal microtubules. My own theory,
no less speculative but perhaps more amenable to experimental test,
tentatively invokes certain specific molecular events associated with
mitochondrial production of ATP in massed neurons of the forebrain.
This may be too recondite to interest SETI investigators, but does seem
consistent with the role of phosphoryl energy flow in the terrestrial
biophere in general and consciousness in particular.
Raymond Fink 12/18/98
P.S. Thank you for noting that GTP. GDP, NADPH, and
glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate might be said to fall into the same category
as ATP. I omitted them from the outline because they all derive their
phosphate from ATP.
Date sent: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:15:17 -0800 (PST)
From: B. Fink
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Thank you for your comment. By all means, you are welcome
to post my communications as part of your ongoing SETI debate. I am
eager for reasoned, good-tempered critique and discussion
Ray Fink
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Dr. Colm Kelleher wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:43:42 -0800 (PST)
> > From: B. Fink
> > To: nids@anv.net
> > Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
> > Thank you very much for your prompt and interesting
reply. If you do not mind > > we would like to post this
as a part of our ongoing SETI debate.
> Best wishes and happy holidays,
> Colm Kelleher
From: Isaac Eliezer
To: nids@anv.net
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 12:03:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Dear Dr. Kelleher:
Thank you for your message of November 30. It was fascinating
to read the three winning essays. I failed to find in them any scientific
evidence supporting the existence of ETIs and I am very skeptical about
it, but who knows what the future may bring.
Isaac Eliezer
Date sent: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:15:23 -0800 (PST)
From: B. Fink
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Science Essay Competition
Dear Dr Kelleher,
Responding as promised to your e-mail of 8 Dec 1998:
I found the winning essays of the SETI competition
wonderfully provocative and original. I've learned a great deal from
them and feel fortunate that they and the two runner-up essays which
I selected at random were brought to my attention. I've also read the
other runner-up abstracts and the two high school papers. I would like
to mention a couple of limitations which I think most of these essays
share with many current discussions of this exciting topic.
First, some writers still appear to be formulating
their projects on the basis of a probability of successful SETI calculated
some forty years ago. It would seem desirable to base current discussion
on a recalculation that takes into account the huge increases in knowledge
and understanding of cosmic and biological evolution accumulated since
the 1950s.
Second, in my view insufficient consideration is being
given to the pivotal energy requirements of life and intelligence. On
our planet this energy is everywhere mediated by adenosine triphosphate
(ATP). If we assume that this is also likely to be the case in extraterrestrial
life and intelligence, SETI should probably include efforts to identify
the presence of phosphorus (apparently not yet discovered in interstellar
space) in any region to be searched. The crucial role of phosphoryl
group energy in the evolution of life in general and consciousness in
particular currently receives scant attention. Yet such energy appears
to be an enduring and indispensable link in the continuity between the
cosmosphere and our evolutionary biosphere. I would deem it a great
privilege to be given the opportunity to outline in this forum the evidence
for my view of the relevance of phosphoryl energy to SETI.
Sincerely,
B. Raymond Fink, M.D.
Professor Emeritus, Anesthesiology 356540
University of Washington Seattle WA 98195
To: nids@anv.net
From: Tomas Feininger
Subject: SETI, etc.
December 9, 1998
Dear Dr. Kelleher,
Thank you for your e-mail letter of December 7th.
Your communication mystifies me. It was made clear
by the results of planetary probes now more than a decade ago that there
is no extra terrestrial life within the solar system. Then, following
attendance at a SETI session at an AAAS meeting (Boston, 1969?), I made
a few back-of-the envelope computations, taking into account interstellar
distances and the probable lifespan of a technological society (based
on a human model), and came to the conclusion that I still hold: A waste
of time and effort. Spitting against the wind.
Voilà.
Yours sincerely
Tomas Feininger
Geologist
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 12:37:04 -0500
From: Ed Hodgson
Organization: Hamilton Standard Space & Sea Systems Department
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: Essay Contest Winners
I read with interest the winning essays on the subject
of the most likely source of confirmation of extra-terrestrial intelligence.
While I am primarily a working technologist and quite skeptical of many
of the details presented in these essays, I believe it is essential
that we continue this sort of activity. It is only be exploring the
fringes of our present scientific knowledge and practice that we can
hope to find the breakthrough directions that will carry us beyond the
limits of incremental growth.
Of the three essays, I found the third dealing with
the "Astronomical Hypothesis" the most intriguing although
the information presented is far too scant for any real assessment of
the merits of the hypothesis. I am sufficiently intrigued in this case
to research the topic a bit farther over the next few weeks. The second
essay, dealing with evaluation of the two prevalent paradigms for extra-terrestrial
intelligence detection and interaction struck me as rather pedestrian
and uninteresting, while the first seemed woven of an intellectual cloth
far more gossamer and unsubstantial than the solar sails it describes
as leading candidates for interstellar travel. At several points, the
logic it presented seemed too tenuous for credence. These included for
example, the simultaneous assertions that ETI's lurking in our solar
system would view us much as we view termites (i.e. of no real interest)
and that having mastered interstellar travel, they have over millions
and billions of years they have occupied energetically unfavorable orbits
in our solar system requiring the use of massive reflectors to provide
needed solar energy while avoiding the more desirable orbital neighborhood
of the earth or the obvious step of colonizing the earth and other planets
for easy access to the resources they afford.
Thanks for the invitation to read and comment. I will
from time to time check back to see what is new.
Ed Hodgson
Date sent: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 02:36:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Kevin O'Driscoll
To: NIDS Staff
Subject: Re: Science Essay Competition
Dear Drs. Kelleher et al.,
I read the essays with great interest, and in general
I found them to be thought provoking. While the established scientific
community is right to be highly skeptical of UFO sightings and of reports
of abductions by ETI beings, the overwhelming anecdotal evidence for
these phenomena surely deserves more and closer scrutiny. While searches
for ETI outside of our solar system and within it are both necessary,
it is my intuition that the search within will more easily yield convincing
evidence. All human science requires observation by the human senses
and interpretation with the human psyche. It is therefore unreasonable
for the established scientific community to continue to discredit the
observations of many individuals and corroborating accounts by groups
of individuals of these highly unusual and ordinarily unexplainable
phenomena.
It is, of course, possible that most or all of these
encounters may eventually be explained by as of yet unknown physical
features of the native terrestrial environment, or by unexplained psychological
phenomena. However, by the same token, it is illogical to patently exclude
extraterrestrial origins for these unexplained phenomena because of
the limitations of our current level of intelligence. Therefore, in
order to remain open intellectually, we cannot absolutely deny the possibility
of ignorance of some physical features of the earth, or of the workings
of our minds, nor can we deny at least the possibility of ETI. Whether
or not the putative ETI life form(s) are indeed of extra-solar systemic
or extra-galactic origins is not important to their discovery if they
exist transiently near earth. What is critical is devising experiments
that will prove that these observed phenomena are not hallucinations.
Perhaps the most critical aspect of this is reducing the negative sociological
impact on one's credibility as a scientist in the undertaking of research
on these unexplained phenomena. Since this type of research is currently
not supported in a major way by government funding it is also both difficult
and counterproductive for establishment scientists to pursue it in their
careers. Given the potential for advances in our own technology and
civilization it can be argued that this failure to fund research on
unexplained UFO phenomena is irresponsible.
Assuming for a moment that at least some UFO sightings
result from ETI activities, the putative ETI beings clearly possess
mechanisms of propulsion that are beyond our current ability to understand.
Given their advanced technology, it follows that the extraterrestrials
may also be more advanced in evolution than is our race. Since the humanoid
form is a product of evolution, if an extraterrestrial race evolved
independently, then it is likely that their evolution followed similar
selection for form and function in a similar environment of elements.
It is also possible that the ETI race seeded terrestrial evolution as
an experiment beginning with simple replicating crystals, proteins or
nucleic acids, or with more advanced bacteriological or viral biota
in order to determine if the evolutionary process were reproducible.
If this is true, then the purported biological experiments conducted
on abductees are logical. On the other hand, it may be that the creator
or creator race generated the universe as we know it from alternative
physical environs and substances, and would thus take on a Judeo-Christian
God-like aspect. The iconoclastic challenge to the human psychic status
quo is clearly sufficiently dangerous that government agencies including
prominently the military are loath to fully report on UFO phenomena.
The declassification of all UFO sightings by the government would be
a substantial step in the right direction toward legitimizing their
scientific investigation.
Having actually witnessed a UFO sighting myself in
the presence of a friend who also observed it, I hope to lend some credence
to the possibility that these phenomena, while possibly optical tricks,
are certainly neither personal hallucinations nor paranormal hoaxes.
Our observation of a UFO in New York state twenty years ago closely
matched similar sightings I have subsequently read of by many others.
And while that is probably a strain on my own credibility, personally
I can only conclude that seeing is indeed believing.
Sincerely Yours,
Kevin O'Driscoll, Ph.D.
Columbia University
From: Erlanson@aol.com
Date sent: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:11:26 EDT
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: comments on SETI
I have not read the essays, but will give you some
of my views related to the subject. I think it is fair to say that our
current methods of communication are not a likely source for others
to use. My simplistic example is a terahertz bandwidth signal in the
x-ray/gamma ray frequencies. This assumes the speed of light as a limiting
case, not necessarily so. Those civilizations probably have no interest
in us. Therefore the communications would not be intended for us, and
probably "impossible" to detect with our current technologies.
(the "impossible" is to niggle towards new technologies).
There are many unexplained events that occur in space
near earth, but are generally not given rigorous examination. Some may
be the results of outside visitors, from other locations, from other
times, or both. While I was with the FedGov, this stuff generally got
pretty dumb reviews. But I don't subscribe to the idea that ETs would
pick up people and let them live to tell about it.
Another factor is that other civilizations may be very
far apart, and thus of low probability of being detected by any means.
Conversley, the possible hints of activity may represent several or
more independent groups of time/space travelers.
Date sent: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 09:00:34 -0700
From: Ed M Baumgartner
Organization: AMS (Pty) Ltd, PO Box 1980, Halfway House, So. Africa,
1685
To: NIDS Staff
Subject: ETI Essays
Dear Mindy Floyd,
Thank you for your e-mail of 15 Oct. '98.
I'm not too sure how you came by my e-mail address,
or how you thought that I may be interested in this topic. However,
I enjoyed visiting your web site and was interested enough to download
Dutton & Ashpole's essay on the subject. I found the contents fascinating,
and am amazed that certain correlations have been made regarding possible
trajectory paths of probes, and so forth. I was also not aware of the
fact that this kind of serious research was taking place. This topic,
in my experience, is usually as taboo in academic circles (after dinner
discussions) as "Von Denekin" is regarding the origins of
man and some of the contradictions evident in "classical"
archaeology. I do have an interest (as a mere sideline) in the possibilities
of there having been technologically advanced humans on Earth approximately
10 to 12 thousand years ago. I feel a certain degree of frustration
in the fact that certain knowledge has been kept from our education
system in order to promote certain religious and/or conventional "lines"
of thinking regarding early human history. This broad subject may, or
may not, tie up with the research being done on ETIs, I have not read
sufficiently widely on the subject to know. The jury is still out on
this one.
I certainly am not knowledgeable enough to write a
"crit" on such matters, and would not presume to do so, as
I have not done any independent work in the field. So, while I found
the subject matter stimulating, I am unfortunately in no position to
contribute to the debate surrounding the search for ETI. By the way
I don't have a PhD, so no Dr. title is necessary please. Thank you again.
Yours sincerely,
Ed M Baumgartner
Aircraft Structural Integrity Programs, Loads, Stress, Fatigue
Co-ordinating the Aircraft Structural Integrity Bureau in South Africa,
at:
AMS (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 1980
Halfway House
1685 South Africa
AMS is part of the SPESCOM Group.
Systems House and Specialists in Information Technology
From: Jim Pagliasotti
To: Dr. Colm Kelleher
Subject: RE: science essay contest
Date sent: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:43:41 -0600
Dear Dr. Kelleher:
Thank you for your very informative message. Please
forgive my delay in responding - it wasn't for lack of interest.
I'd like to begin by congratulating you and your team
at NIDS for provoking discussion on a topic of great interest. Certainly,
the quality of the essays you received is indicative of the high level
of consideration that thoughtful people give this subject. As you mention,
the societal impact of contact with extraterrestrial intelligence will
be staggering.
My comments may not be germane to your organization's
interests, since the emphasis clearly is on ETI. But I would encourage
a similar discourse on other matters related to Astrobiology, which
constitute a less sensational but I believe more likely set of circumstances
that may challenge our ethical and moral thinking.
In ascending order of likelihood:
The discovery of extant or previously existing life on other worlds,
whether or not it is intelligent
The terra-forming of other worlds (this is something
that got Alvin Toffler tremendously excited at the recent Astrobiology
road mapping conference — he was against it) and the related subject
of placing human life on a terra-formed body.
The consequence of cross-pollinization between worlds,
in our missions to them, among them, and in returning to the mother
planet
The potential for manipulating the evolutionary cycle
once it is set in motion on a foreign body, and
The potential for manipulating the evolutionary cycle
here on earth (which is happening mostly unconsciously at this point
- although cloning, test tube babies, etc indicate that it is well underway
in conscious form).
Based on Toffler's response, it is fair to say that
these possibilities are subjects of moral and ethical consequence. He
was quick to say that we need to be very thoughtful about the consequences
of terraforming. The logical response is that we already are terraforming
the earth, so the condition is pre-existing.
In the same article, I was quoted as saying, "These
are god-like powers. The question is: because we can do it, does that
mean we should do it?" The extension of that reasoning is: what
are the consequences of doing it, and what are the consequences of not
doing it?
I really believe that these are questions we are more
likely to confront in the near term, and that they too have serious
implications for our morals and ethics.
Anyhow, for what its worth, I did want to respond to
your message. Best regards,
JP
Date sent: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 16:48:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jason Wright
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: essay
Having read the winning essays from the NIDS Essay
Competition, I think that I understand the purpose of the contest. It
has, I think, become very difficult for alternative interpretations
of phenomena to be seriously addressed in the scientific community by
people with the credentials to carry out authoritative investigations.
I think that the issue of finding extra-terrestrials locally (i.e. within
the solar system) has become so colored by science fiction and strange
characters that any discussion on the topic in an academic context is
considered purely whimsical.
Kenneth Jones' essay provided the term "paradigms"
to describe the two approaches to the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence,
and, I think, correctly pointed out many of the key differences between
the two schools of thought. I think, however, that his Second Paradigm
is dismissed by many scientists not because of any bullheadedness on
the part of the scientific community, but because of systematic problems
with the hypothesis:
- The chief evidence and motivations of the hypothesis, abduction reports and sightings, have been consistently difficult to verify, often debunked as hoaxes, and coincident with humanity's ventures into space and creation of characters of extra-terrestrial origin in fiction (suggesting a terrestrial origin to such evidence).
- The testability of the hypothesis is in serious doubt: either the hypothetical extra-terrestrials are intentionally hiding their presence or they are not. In the first case our ability to detect them is in serious trouble, since presumably they have a far superior technology, resources, and logistics. Further, the existence of witnesses and organizations devoted to proving their existence seems to contradict this case. In the second case, one would expect no difficulty in detecting the presence of such creatures as they move through US airspace. The inconsistency of reported detections calls such reports into question. Explaining difficulties in either of these cases requires assigning detailed motives and abilities to the visiting aliens, which are necessary only to explain a lack of evidence for other details. Such explanations have always been looked upon with a raised eyebrow in science (and for good reason).
- The validity of the Second Paradigm in no way invalidates the First, which can be studied in a very objective manner with fewer preconceptions than the Second. The Second Paradigm assumes that it is difficult to detect local aliens, perhaps even impossible by traditional means. It is entirely possible that the galaxy is filled with space-faring civilizations, one of which is clandestinely visiting earth. The Second Paradigm merely asks scientists to look into an additional arena for extra-terrestrial intelligence, which most will be disinclined to do.
- More evidence is explained by the non-existence of local aliens
than by their presence. On purely scientific grounds, the hypothesis
of local aliens is therefore out-of-favor without an explicit motivation
for pursuing it.
The remaining two winning essays deal with proposed searches
for local ETs, which will, I think, be considered by most scientists
to be borderline pseudo-science, since they will seem to be motivated
by Jones' Second Paradigm which, as I have stated, is discounted by
most scientists.
In all, I think that there is little danger in the
scientific community's disinterest in matters concerning local ETs:
since SETI is at this point funded almost purely by private money its
contribution to the discussion is minimal, and if aliens are local their
presence will presumably be more easily detected as we become more adept
at space travel.
Unfortunately, I doubt that you will see much positive
response from the American scientific community, which is tightly knit
within fields and can stigmatize highly-unorthodox scientists. Most
of the interest will likely not come from scientists otherwise engaged
in more accepted fields of research, but from scientists who enjoy looking
into "Epistemological Aspects" of such debates.
Best wishes in your pursuits,
Jason Wright
Department of Astronomy
Boston University
From: Morris Jones
To: jtwright@astro.bu.edu
Copies to: nids@anv.net
Subject: Replying to Jason Wright
Date sent: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 17:01:39 PDT
TO: Jason Wright, Boston University
CC: nids@anv.net
Jason Wright from Boston University has provided some interesting comments
on why the school of thought that I refer to in my essay (Epistemological
Aspects of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) as the "Second
Paradigm" of extraterrestrial intelligence is generally ignored
by the scientific community. For the record, the Second Paradigm postulates
that extraterrestrials exist and are visiting Earth regularly for the
purpose of abducting humans. The First Paradigm is a more mainstream
approach that focuses on radioastronomy searches for ETI.
As Wright points out, it's true that the Second Paradigm
is often rejected by scientists because of the quot;giggle factor"
of assuming that its advocates have seen too much Star Trek, but Wright
also notes with clarity that the Paradigm is also difficult to integrate
into mainstream scientific practice.
Wright points out that it is difficult to verify the
evidence that is usually advanced in support of the Second Paradigm
(such as eyewitness or abductee statements) and also difficult to collect
further evidence on the basis that any putative aliens marching boldly
forward in the name of the Second Paradigm don't seem keen to advertise
their existence. This taps into one of the most frequently used (or
abused) statements used to attack the Paradigm: "If aliens could
fly here, they would land on the White House lawn". The overall
question of the existence of ETI is further complicated by the failure
of the First Paradigm and SETI experiments to provide any convincing
evidence themselves.
These arguments reach to the core of why genuine progress
in this field has been so difficult to achieve. Working out ways to
move past these epistemological road blocks was one of the goals of
my essay, and presumably a goal of everyone who is taking part in NIDS-related
discussions.
The issue of aliens allegedly trying to conceal their
existence from us is probably the thorniest issue Wright raises. As
he points out, it provides a convenient way to demolish the results
of any experiment or observation conducted in this field. Second Paradigm
researchers have, at various times, suggested that alien spacecraft
are radar-invisible, or witnesses are subjected to mental conditioning
that renders them unable to retrieve artefacts, or we're all being shadowed
by strange men in black who erase radar tapes and intimidate witnesses.
Hence, real evidence will be impossible to acquire. One could argue
that such overt cover-up attempts by both Earthmen and ETIs could exist,
but then be faced with the difficulty of explaining away the number
of reported UFOs and the testimonies of alleged abductees. Perhaps the
suppression is only partially successful. Perhaps these reports are
designed to confuse the situation and throw investigators off the track.
Wright further goes on to remind us of one of the biggest difficulties
of any investigation into ETI: It's difficult to evaluate any piece
of evidence when we have no real idea of how ETI would behave or think.
The cover-up issue is difficult to argue through. It is untestable,
as the suggestion of a cover-up action, or failure of a cover-up attempt,
can be used to prove or disprove anything.
Hence, Wright's biggest objection to the Second Paradigm
can't be brushed off. The only way of addressing it directly, as I point
out in my essay, would be for any group (ETI or otherwise) engaged in
a putative cover-up to cease and go public with real evidence. The only
alternative I see is for the scientific community to sharpen its methodologies
and perform tests that deliver falsifiable data.
In order for any serious research to be undertaken,
we need to design experiments that are staged under controlled conditions
and produce data through objective means. This eliminates any chance
for interference by men in black, and will allow the results to be evaluated
through scientific scrutiny. In practice, I suggest that careful examination
of alleged abductees is probably the most scientifically valid course
of action in testing the postulates of the Second Paradigm. The experiment
I suggest is that of monitoring these individuals with scientific instruments
ranging from video cameras to neurophysical sensors while the abductee
is physically ensconced in a controlled environment such as a laboratory.
Evidence recorded by well-understood instrumentation is likely to be
far more objective than a personal statement, which supplies no physical
evidence.
Such an experiment would also require the direct witnessing
of several credible individuals to avoid suggestions of fakery. It could
be advisable to hire well-regarded debunkers for the task!
The goal of such an experiment would be to investigate
whether or not the perception of an abduction experience is an artefact
of neurophysiological activity (a reasonable hypothesis to test). An
alternative outcome would possibly provide the first scientifically
valid recording of an abduction event.
My other suggestion for an experiment to detect the
use of an advanced spacecraft propulsion system (yes, a "warp drive")
would provide less rigorous data, and would be as difficult to falsify
as an allegedly artificial radio transmission. As with radio SETI, an
anomalous reading could be a natural astrophysical phenomenon or a genuine
signal: making the distinction is difficult when we try to recognise
something we have never seen before. However, it would at least provide
data that would be less subjective than testimony.
Wright also suggests that the other two winning essays
deal with issues that the scientific community would generally label
as "borderline pseudo-science". I think the suggestions made
in these essays should not be dismissed without some analysis. Granted,
it is entirely possible that no evidence of ETI would be uncovered by
any of the suggestions made, but both presentations do at least base
their ideas on accepted science and fairly permissible experimental
procedure. The concept of "world ships" is scientifically
and sociologically valid. If something is possible, it makes sense to
look for it, whether the object in question is a hypothetical subatomic
particle or a space ark. As for tracing the paths of UFO sightings,
the Dutton-Ashpole essay has at least applied some sort of statistical
analysis to a recorded phenomenon, and suggested that existing data
should be further investigated. Nevertheless, the detection of a pattern
in UFO flightpaths may not imply the existence of ETI, even if it does
imply something artificial. I strongly suspect that many UFO reports
from reliable witnesses are actually "black" aircraft built
by the USA and other nations. Such aircraft are likely to be tested
on predictable flightpaths allocated by governments. This suggestion
is worth considering, given the recent history of programs such as the
B-2 and F-117, but if we remember that the identity of these classified
aircraft is unlikely to be acknowledged, this suggestion also throws
us back into the murky waters of cover-up arguments.
As Wright suggests, it seems to be difficult to generate
much interest across the scientific community in these matters. I feel
this is detrimental to both research in the field of ETI and the way
the scientific community relates to the world at large. The current
First Paradigm/Second Paradigm debate reminds me of the controversies
that enveloped cosmology in the fifties, when Velikovsky came out with
his radical theories on the formation of the solar system. Velikovsky's
suggestions quickly gained a sympathetic ear amongst the general public:
if the scientific community had reacted more quickly, and with a logical
response, he probably would not have generated such a cult following.
In time, the scientific community responded in an appropriate manner,
inviting Velikovsky to an AAAS meeting where his arguments were demolished
by experimental evidence and reason, instead of simply ignoring him.
Carl Sagan documents the rise of Velikovsky and the power of a reasoned
response quite well in his book, Broca's Brain. Whether mainstream science
likes it or not, the second paradigm has gained an enormous following
amongst the general public. The arrogant refusal of most scientists
to address the issues it raises in a rational forum has certainly contributed
to its popularity, fuelling the suggestions of a cover-up. I don't believe
in Velikovsky at all for reasons that mainstream physics has clearly
demonstrated, but I am uncertain that the issues raised by the Second
Paradigm can entirely be dismissed as nonsense. Even if the abduction
phenomenon is not evidence of ETI, there is at least some form of social
or psychological activity going on. Investigating these issues will
be difficult, but as long as the scientific community fails to activate
the principles of logic and experimentation that is claims to cherish,
there will be no way for anyone to claim the higher ground in this debate.
One other problem with investigating this phenomenon
is the need for repeatability on a wide scale. Any area of scientific
research that is judged to be legitimate quickly attracts a reasonably
large number of qualified practitioners and leads to the creation of
one or more specialised journals. Such a state has yet to appear in
the ETI research field: even mainstream SETI is small. Sheer numbers
of workers and work in this field will be necessary before it achieves
widespread credibility. Even if a few well-prepared experiments on the
Second Paradigm are carried out, there will be a need for them to be
repeated dozens of times with different researchers and different subjects.
The sheer number of alleged abductees demands a significantly large
response in terms of data collection. If this is not done, a well-planned
experiment conducted on just a handful of subjects will be judged as
being unfit for extrapolation to the abductee community in general:
the fact that the evaluated subjects experienced nothing paranormal
would not necessarily mean it was not happening to others. However,
if hundreds of subjects are studied with consistent results, the case
for making broader assumptions about the phenomenon will be strong.
Without science there is no debate, but without debate
there is no science.
Morris Jones BSc MA
Sydney, Australia
Date sent: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 21:24:12 -0700
To: nids@anv.net
From: Jim Lyons
Subject: essay competition
Dear Dr. Kelleher,
Thank you for directing my attention to your recent
essay competition on ETI. A very brief comment on the essays: with apologies
to the winning essayists, I found the essays to be painfully anthropomorphic
and/or a rehash of well worn ideas. Please note that I am not condemning
the contest. Quite the contrary. To be disinterested in such grand questions,
one has to have either 'one foot in the grave' or a rapidly approaching
proposal deadline. That's all I have to say about the essays.
Instead, I would like to say a word about the paucity
of scientists participating in the competition. The essay questions
were not posed in a manner that most scientists would find agreeable.
ETI has not been demonstrated, abductions notwithstanding, in our solar
system or elsewhere. That's all the data we have. A better, albeit negative,
question would be: What are the implications of our lack of contact
with ETI? Personally, I find it somewhat surprising that space is not
awash in (non-terrestrial) encoded radio waves. It's the first real
suggestion of humankind's uniqueness. I can think of at least two reasons
for our lack of ETI contact thus far: 1) technological life is rare;
2) technological planets 'announce' there presence with radio for only
a short period of time (e.g., for only ~ 1000 yrs of their history).
The could be many reasons for a short window of radio emissions from
a technological planet. Perhaps better communications technology exists.
Or perhaps it is dangerous to announce one's presence, and a type of
natural selection occurs which again limits the period of radio transmissions.
Who knows. By choosing a window of time for radio transmissions, one
can go back to the Drake equation and re-address the issue of probabilities
of ETI contact (a laSETI-type detection methods). Undoubtedly someone
has already done this, and I am guilty of rehashing!
All the best,
Jim Lyons
****************
James R. Lyons, Ph.D.
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093-0506
****************
From: David L. Summers
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
To: nids@anv.net
Subject: NIDS Essays
Dear NIDS staff,
The NIDS Essay winners made fascinating reading. I'll
start off by admitting that I'm not a specialist in this field (unless
you count the fact that I write and edit science fiction).
Two notions in the essays stand out to me: 1) That
ETI's might not want to communicate with us. 2) That ETI's might have
communication technology that we don't understand and thus don't know
how pursue. The problem with these ideas is that you can't prove or
disprove them at present.
However, these ideas do provide a very partial motivation
for the continued pursuit of the sciences in general and physics in
particular. The more we learn, the more we may have something to "talk
about." The more we learn, the better chance we have of understanding
what is being said and how. (If anything is being said at all. Though,
I'd hate to think that's the case.)
Aside from the work of SETI specialists, I think one
of the most important things space scientists can do is simply keep
their eyes open for anything that might be a sign of ETI's. If such
a sign turns up, pursue it...figure out what it is. Just don't be so
hopeful that you forget to be skeptical.
Yours,
David L. Summers
Observing Specialist, New Mexico State University
