Posted on 10/05/2019 12:05:15 PM PDT by DoodleBob
SENDING messages into deep space could be the best way for Earthlings to find extraterrestrial intelligence, but it carries a grave risk: alerting hostile aliens to our presence. Game theory may provide a way to navigate this dilemma.
So far the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has mostly been restricted to listening for signs of technology elsewhere. Only a few attempts have been made to broadcast messages towards distant stars. Many scientists are against such “active” SETI for fear of revealing our presence. If all aliens feel the same way then no one will be broadcasting, and the chance of detecting each other is limited.
To weigh up the potential losses and gains, Harold de Vladar of the Institute of Science and Technology Austria in Klosterneuburg turned to the prisoner’s dilemma, a game-theory problem in which two prisoners choose between admitting their shared crime or keeping quiet, with different sentences depending on what they say. An individual prisoner gets off scot free if they rat on a partner who remains silent, with the silent partner getting a maximum sentence. If they both rat on each other, each gets a medium sentence. By contrast, if both stay silent, both get token sentences – the best overall result.
De Vladar reasoned that the SETI dilemma is essentially the same, but reversed. Mutual silence for prisoners is equivalent to mutual broadcasting for aliens, giving the best results for both civilisations. And while a selfish prisoner rats, a selfish civilisation is silent, waiting for someone else to take the risk of waving “Over here!” at the rest of the universe.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
I Imagine an attack with advanced alien technology against earth would be as simple as a GMO virus. Much cheaper and easier than a single nuke to accomplish.
We have signals that are 70-80 light-years out from earth. A star-faring race with FTL that picks them up in our present will figure out that we’re close whether it’s in a straight line from one point or triangulate from two points a few light-years apart, not “millions.” Signal strength, the variety, anything they can unscramble, will tell them some things about us before they ever lay optics on us.
If a FTL civilization knows about us now, it’s as good as always having known. We can’t yet stop whatever they want to do about, to, or with us. If they’re that bad-ass, they’ll just dust us off the planet. If they want to deal, they have an advantage. Yeah, so what? We work it out or work on it.
_First Contract_ was a very interesting read about earth’s first contact with star-faring alien races. There are reasons aliens may not want to eradicate us. At least not right away. Especially if they can get everything they want by not having to.
Until you learn how many nuclear power plants are required to generate the power levels necessary for sending signals inter-stellar distances.
None of those signals generated on Earth will be intelligible at inter-stellar distances.
In Sagan’s book, they receive signals from outside the solar system. Basically, an alien civilization returns to earth some of the first TV signals that earth broadcast. Among them the ‘36 Olympics. But I imagine they picked a lot more. But it was enough for communication to continue.
I read the book and saw the movie once. The premise that sets up the book is what stuck with me the most. The rest is an interesting read. Naturally, the aliens learn more about us than we do about them because they hold all the advantages in communication.
I really enjoyed the movie Arrival that came out a few years ago. I thought the ending weak. But quite strong until then.
Which means there's nothing out there.
But that won't happen because signals from earth won't reach out that far.
Look glorp, it’s a potemkin Galaxy !
Your logic is sound—unfortunately, there is no natural law that we talking apes have the ability to understand the universe in any correct way.
I think we are totally clueless—and future generations will laugh at our stupidity the way we laugh at cargo cults or sun worshippers.
We wouldn’t recognize aliens if they were growing under our feet.
But—we humans have always excelled at one thing—ignorant arrogance.
I’m gonna read it for a third time.
When you consider Dr. Steven Greer has already briefed over 1,000 people in govt. from cia directors on down on what is really going on even talking about a “signal” is so backward its hardly relevant.
I wonder if anyone here has ever heard of the Phoenix lights.
Skeptics always say—”Well, if there are aliens, why don’t they land on the White House lawn.”
Does flying over it count? ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incident
Well as long as the alien isn’t named Sarris.......
I Imagine an attack with advanced alien technology against earth would be as simple as a GMO virus. Much cheaper and easier than a single nuke to accomplish.
Why is the assumption always that an alien civilization is automatically far more advanced than we primitive Earthlings? Who is to say Planet Earth doesn't harbor the most advanced carbon based life in the universe?
Triangulation does not work in this instance - sorry I forget the reasons but no. There has to be a specific location such as spiral arm coordinates, solar references, Solar type, near by stars and type. Etc. Radio location is too uncertain and too slow. Specific location needed hence ‘unmanned’ disguised scouts like the ones just passing through the system.
Smart aliens would never “lay eyes” on us. No need. A causal strike would take place from some location many light years away.
“Science already knows nature of reality, only the details remain to be filled in.”
Right out of 1950s science. Not much has changed.
But countless anomalies lie all over the Earth that cannot be filly explained without sounding foolish, or on detailed examination just plain wrong. We hardly have any idea what happened and who the players were in the Old Egyptian Kingdom let alone things that happened thousands of years prior.
It is my assumption (and I can make a bunch of arguments for it)—but as ignorant talking apes we can’t know for sure.
I am just very suspicious of the psychology of human arrogance—and I think we are getting the wrong answers by asking the wrong questions.
If we were traveling 1% of the speed of light it would take us 450 years to get to the closest star. And 1% of the speed of light is more than 100 times faster than the fastest satellite we’ve ever put up. Why would any civilization waste its resources on such a thing even if it were possible? I am not at all convinced that technology can overcome any obstacle if you give it time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.