PAUL DAVIES

The EefIe SIIence

Are We Alone in t/e Universe?
AIIEN IANE
un imprint of
PENGUIN BOOKS
To Irun/ ru/e
SLTI pioneer unJ tireless visionury
AIIEN IANE
PubIIshed by the PenguIn Gfoup
PenguIn Books Itd, 80 Stfand, Iondon WC2R 0RI, EngIand
PenguIn Gfoup (USA) Inc., 375 Hudson Stfeet, New Yofk, New Yofk 10014, USA
PenguIn Gfoup (Canada), 90 EgIInton Avenue East, SuIte 700, Tofonto, OntafIo, Canada M4P 2Y3
(a dIvIsIon of Peafson PenguIn Canada Inc.)
PenguIn IfeIand, 25 St Stephen's Gfeen, DubIIn 2, IfeIand (a dIvIsIon of PenguIn Books Itd)
PenguIn Gfoup (AustfaIIa), 250 CambefweII Road, CambefweII, VIctofIa 3124, AustfaIIa
(a dIvIsIon of Peafson AustfaIIa Gfoup Pty Itd)
PenguIn Books IndIa Pvt Itd, 11 CommunIty Centfe, PanchsheeI Pafk, New DeIhI 110 017, IndIa
PenguIn Gfoup (NZ), 67 ApoIIo DfIve, RosedaIe, Nofth Shofe 0632, New ZeaIand
(a dIvIsIon of Peafson New ZeaIand Itd)
PenguIn Books (South AffIca) (Pty) Itd, 24 Stufdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesbufg 2196, South AffIca
PenguIn Books Itd, RegIstefed OffIces: 80 Stfand, Iondon WC2R 0RI, EngIand
www.penguIn.com
FIfst pubIIshed 2010
CopyfIght PauI DavIes, 2010
The mofaI fIght of the authof has been assefted
AII fIghts fesefved.
WIthout IImItIng the fIghts undef copyfIght fesefved above, no paft of thIs pubIIcatIon may be fepfoduced, stofed In of
Intfoduced Into a fetfIevaI system, of tfansmItted, In any fofm of by any means (eIectfonIc, mechanIcaI, photocopyIng,
fecofdIng of othefwIse) wIthout the pfIof wfItten pefmIssIon of both the copyfIght ownef and the above pubIIshef of thIs
book.
ISBN: 978-0-14-194405-0
Contents
List of Illustrutions
Prefuce
1. Is Anybody Out Thefe?
W/ut if LT culls tomorrow?
Is SLTI stuc/ in u rut?
It's greut but is it science?
A brief /istory of uliens
Life umong t/e sturs
AnJ finully, w/ut ubout ull t/ose UIO stories?
2. IIfe: Ffeak SIde-Show of CosmIc ImpefatIve?
A universe teeming wit/ life?
How JiJ life begin?
Life us u bizurre flu/e
Mu/ing life in u test tube
See/ing u seconJ genesis on Murs
3. A Shadow BIosphefe
See/ing u seconJ genesis on Lurt/
WeirJ extremop/iles
Aliens umong us
How to tell u root from u brunc/
Hus s/uJow life ulreuJy been founJ?
Turgeting t/e s/uJow worlJ
4. How Much InteIIIgence Is Out Thefe?
PIanet of the Apes fullucy
Is science inevituble?
T/e ru/e equution
How long Jo tec/nologicul civilizutions lust?
T/e perils of using stutistics of one
T/e Greut Iilter
Are we JoomeJ?
5. New SETI: WIdenIng the Seafch
T/ey Jon't /now we ure /ere
BeyonJ t/e p/oton
Beucons
Nurrowing t/e seurc/
A messuge on our Joorstep
Nunoprobes, virul messengers unJ gerrymunJereJ genomes
6. EvIdence fof a GaIactIc DIaspofa
W/ere is everyboJy?
AnJ w/ere ure ull t/e time tourists?
A cosmic footprint
RiJing t/e wuve
iJ t/e wuve puss t/is wuy?
One of our plunets is missing
Absent exoticu
7. AIIen MagIc
Signutures of Jistunt super-tec/nology
Tec/nology us 'nuture-plus'
Iuntustic super-science
Iluws in t/e luws
8. Post-BIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
Close encounters of t/e ubsurJ /inJ
Artificiul intelligence
I've seen LT, unJ it's un ATS
Quuntum computers unJ quuntum minJs
9. FIfst Contact
T/e Post-etection Tus/group
MeJiu frenzy
T/e blun/et of silence fullucy
'It's officiul we ure not ulone!'
Intercepting interstellur e-muil
Secrets from t/e sturs
Impuct on science, p/ilosop/y unJ politics
Impuct on religion
Of goJs unJ men. Is SLTI itself u religion?
10. Who Speaks fof Eafth?
S/outing ut t/e /euvens
W/ut s/oulJ we suy?
W/y Jo SLTI?
Mig/t we be ulone ufter ull? T/e t/ree-/uts unswer
AppenJix. A Brief History of SLTI
Bibliogrup/y
Notes
InJex
List of Illustrutions
PIATES
1. Paft of the SETI InstItute's AIIen Affay, Nofthefn CaIIfofnIa (couftesy SETI
InstItute)
2. The canaIs of Mafs, accofdIng to PefcIvaI IoweII (ffom Murs unJ its Cunuls, by
PefcIvaI IoweII, MacmIIIan, New Yofk, 1906)
3. Eufopa, a moon of JupItef (couftesy NASA)
4. VIkIng spacecfaft (couftesy NASA)
5. Fouf ceIIs of einococcus ruJioJuruns (couftesy of Df MIchaeI J. DaIy, UnIfofmed
SefvIces UnIvefsIty, Bethesda, MafyIand)
6. A submafIne voIcano on the Juan de Fuca RIdge, Nofth-East PacIfIc (couftesy of
John DeIaney and Debofah KeIIey, UnIvefsIty of WashIngton)
7. The dfy cofe of the Atacama Deseft
8. A pIece of the MufchIson meteofIte (couftesy Iawfence GafvIe, AfIzona State
UnIvefsIty)
9. A Mafs meteofIte found In AntafctIca In 1984 (couftesy NASA)
10. FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon and Ron OfemIand at Mono Iake, CaIIfofnIa (copyfIght
Henfy Boftman)
11. MInuscuIe 'nanobes' dIscovefed by PhIIIppa UwIns
12. The fadIo teIescope at Pafkes, New South WaIes (couftesy CafoI OIIvef)
13. The AfecIbo fadIo teIescope, Puefto RIco (couftesy Seth Shostak)
14. A MatfIoshka bfaIn
FIGURES
1. StanIey MIIIef
2. The tfee of IIfe, showIng the genetIc feIatedness of dIffefent specIes
3. IIfe and mIffof IIfe
4. Tfee of fofest? Two fofms of IIfe
5. Ffank Dfake
6. DIagfam showIng the 'habItabIIIty' wIndow of Eafth
7. The Gfeat FIItef
8. The 'Wow!' sIgnaI, found by Jeffy Ehman
9. EnfIco FefmI
10. Computef sImuIatIon of aIIen coIonIzatIon pattefn dIspIayIng a ffactaI stfuctufe
11. Enefgy extfactIon ffom a fotatIng bIack hoIe (defIved ffom Gruvitution, by ChafIes
MIsnef, KIp Thofne and John WheeIef, W. H. Ffeeman, San FfancIsco, 1973)
12. PopuIaf Image of an aIIen
13. PIoneef pIaque
Sometimes I t/in/ we're ulone in t/e universe, unJ sometimes I t/in/ we're not. In eit/er cuse
t/e iJeu is quite stuggering.
Afthuf C. CIafke
Prefuce
In August 1931, KafI Jansky, a fadIo engIneef wofkIng fof BeII TeIephone IabofatofIes
In HoImdeI, New Jefsey, sefendIpItousIy made a majof scIentIfIc dIscovefy. Jansky had
been assIgned the task of InvestIgatIng annoyIng fadIo statIc that Inteffefed wIth
tfansatIantIc teIephony. To check It, he buIIt a sImpIe antenna ffom metaI stfuts,
mounted on fouf caf tyfes so It couId fotate, and pfoceeded to monItof fadIo noIse ffom
dIffefent dIfectIons. The output of the famshackIe Instfument was a pen and Ink
fecofdef. Jansky was soon detectIng thundefstofms, even faf away, but he was puzzIed
by a backgfound hIss that seemed to dIspIay a 24-houf cycIe. IntfIgued, he Iooked mofe
cIoseIy and found the pefIod to be 23 houfs and 56 mInutes, the dufatIon known to
astfonomefs as the sIdefeaI day the tIme It takes fof Eafth to fotate once feIatIve to
the dIstant stafs (as opposed to the soIaf day, the tIme It takes to fotate feIatIve to the
sun). The sIdefeaI pefIodIcIty ImpIIed that the fadIo soufce Iay faf out In space. Jansky
eventuaIIy concIuded that the fadIo statIc emanated ffom the MIIky Way. Befofe he
couId foIIow up on It, howevef, he was assIgned othef dutIes by the company.
In thIs cufIousIy Iow-key mannef, an entIfe scIentIfIc dIscIpIIne fadIo astfonomy
was bofn. No fanfafe, no medaIs.
1
Fufthef pfogfess came, as so often In scIence, wIth
waf. The deveIopment of fadaf dufIng the Second WofId Waf gfeatIy boosted the powef
and fIdeIIty of fadIo feceIvefs, and In the ImmedIate post-waf yeafs, physIcIsts and
astfonomefs spotted an oppoftunIty. UsIng cheap Ieft-ovef waftIme equIpment, they
began to buIId the fIfst pfopef fadIo teIescopes, enofmous dIshes that enabIed them to
tune Into the unIvefse. About thIs tIme, In the 1950s, It dawned on some scIentIsts that
fadIo teIescopes wefe poweffuI enough to communIcate acfoss IntefsteIIaf dIstances, so
that If thefe wefe any InteIIIgent beIngs on othef pIanets It wouId be possIbIe fof
humans to feceIve theIf fadIo messages. On 19 Septembef 1959 the fespected scIentIfIc
joufnaI Nuture pubIIshed an aftIcIe by two CofneII UnIvefsIty physIcIsts, GIuseppe
CocconI and PhIIIp MoffIson, entItIed 'SeafchIng fof IntefsteIIaf communIcatIons', In
whIch the authofs In vIted fadIo astfonomefs to Iook fof fadIo messages comIng ffom
aIIen cIvIIIzatIons. CocconI and MoffIson conceded that theIf Ideas wefe hIghIy
specuIatIve, but concIuded wIth the peftInent femafk, 'The pfobabIIIty of success Is
dIffIcuIt to estImate, but If we nevef seafch, the pfobabIIIty of success Is zefo.'
2
The
foIIowIng yeaf, the chaIIenge was taken up by a young astfonomef, Ffank Dfake, to
whom thIs book Is dedIcated. Dfake used a fadIo teIescope In West VIfgInIa to begIn
seafchIng fof aIIen fadIo sIgnaIs, and ffom hIs pIoneefIng pfoject the IntefnatIonaI
feseafch pfogfamme known as SETI was bofn. SETI stands fof Seafch fof ExtfateffestfIaI
InteIIIgence, and sInce the 1960s a hefoIc band of fadIo astfonomefs have been scoufIng
the skIes fof any sIgn that we afe not aIone In the unIvefse. In 2010, SETI wIII be
offIcIaIIy fIfty yeafs oId, whIch seems a good tIme to take stock. ThIs book Is a tfIbute to
the dedIcatIon, pfofessIonaIIsm and InfectIous optImIsm of SETI feseafchefs In genefaI,
and to Ffank Dfake's coufage and vIsIon In paftIcuIaf.
The subject of SETI Is specuIatIve to a degfee faf beyond that of conventIonaI scIence.
It Is wIse to take any dIscussIon of aIIen cIvIIIzatIons wIth a vefy Iafge dose of saIt. But
fetaInIng a fobust sceptIcIsm need not pfevent us ffom appfoachIng SETI In a
methodIcaI and penetfatIng way, Infofmed by the vefy best scIence we have. That Is the
spIfIt In whIch I have wfItten thIs book. I have taken cafe to sepafate facts and theofIes
In whIch we have some confIdence, ffom feasonabIe but untested extfapoIatIon, and
ffom wIIdef specuIatIon dfIven IafgeIy by Ideas ffom scIence fIctIon.
I was stIII a hIgh schooI student when SETI began, and aIthough I was vagueIy awafe
of It, my undefstandIng of IIfe beyond Eafth was gIeaned aImost entIfeIy ffom scIence
fIctIon. IIke many peopIe, I Ieafned mofe about SETI ffom the many teIevIsIon
appeafances of the chafIsmatIc scIentIst CafI Sagan, whose noveI Contuct, and the
subsequent HoIIywood movIe based on It, convInced many peopIe that SETI Is a human
adventufe wIthout pafaIIeI. In my Iatef yeafs, I came to know the key pIayefs quIte
weII, many of whom now wofk at the SETI InstItute In CaIIfofnIa. Much of what I have
wfItten about In thIs book stems ffom my Iong and ffuItfuI assocIatIon wIth them,
especIaIIy Ffank Dfake, JIII Taftef, Seth Shostak and Doug Vakoch.
I dIdn't just want to wfIte a bIand congfatuIatofy book. Instead, I decIded to take a
penetfatIng Iook at the aIms and assumptIons of the entIfe entefpfIse. As I wfote It, I
kept askIng whethef we mIght not be mIssIng somethIng Impoftant. OId habIts of
thought dIe hafd, and a pfoject that has been funnIng fof fIfty yeafs can benefIt ffom a
shake-up. In Febfuafy 2008 I heId a wofkshop at AfIzona State UnIvefsIty caIIed 'The
Sound of SIIence' to encoufage fadIcaIIy new ways of addfessIng the evocatIve questIon
'Afe we aIone?' The contents of thIs book fefIect much of ouf dIscussIon at the wofkshop,
and my thanks afe due to aII the paftIcIpants.
Thefe afe some specIaI acknowIedgements I shouId IIke to make. FIfst and fofemost Is
my wIfe PauIIne DavIes, a scIence joufnaIIst and bfoadcastef wIth a deepIy sceptIcaI
mInd, and an uncompfomIsIng stIckIef fof factuaI accufacy and pfopefIy feasoned
afgument. She not onIy pounced on many a sIIp, but heIped me cIafIfy a Iot of the
afguments, and contfIbuted sevefaI Ideas of hef own whIch appeaf wIthout specIfIc
attfIbutIon In the text. My vIews on the subject have been gfeatIy shaped by the many
In-depth dIscussIons she and I have had ovef sevefaI yeafs. CafoI OIIvef, fofmef
joufnaIIst, SETI scIentIst and now astfobIoIogIst, has been a vaIued coIIeague and
suppoftef dufIng my 'SETI cafeef'. Gfegofy Benfofd, James Benfofd, DavId BfIn, GII
IevIn and ChafIes IIneweavef gave good cfItIcaI feedback on some sectIons of the book.
My IItefafy agent John Bfockman has been a decades-Iong soufce of encoufagement and
suppoft fof my wfItIng cafeef. My edItofs Amanda Cook and WIII GoodIad have
shephefded the pfoject wIth skIII and sympathy, the text Is gfeatIy Impfoved as a fesuIt
of Amanda's detaIIed cfItIque. And fInaIIy, a huge thank you to Ffank Dfake hImseIf,
whose InspIfatIonaI Iectufes and aftIcIes got me Into thIs fIeId In the fIfst pIace.
P/oenix, 2009
1
Is Anybody Out Thefe?
Absence of eviJence is not t/e sume us eviJence of ubsence.
DonaId RumsfeId (on weapons of mass destfuctIon)
WHAT IF ET CAIIS TOMORROW?
On a coId and mIsty mofnIng In ApfII 1960, a young astfonomef named Ffank Dfake
quIetIy took contfoI of the 26-metfe dIsh at the US NatIonaI RadIo Astfonomy
Obsefvatofy In Gfeen Bank, West VIfgInIa. Few peopIe undefstood that thIs moment
was a tufnIng poInt In scIence. SIowIy and methodIcaIIy Dfake steefed the gIant
Instfument towafds a sun-IIke staf known as Tau CetI, eIeven IIght yeafs away, tuned In
to 1,420 MHz, and settIed down to waIt.
1
HIs fefvent hope was that aIIen beIngs on a
pIanet ofbItIng Tau CetI mIght just be sendIng fadIo sIgnaIs ouf way, and that hIs
poweffuI fadIo dIsh wouId detect them.
Dfake stafed at the pen and Ink chaft fecofdIng the antenna's feceptIon, Its fItfuI
spasms accompanIed by a hIss ffom the audIo feed. Aftef about haIf an houf he
concIuded thefe was nothIng of sIgnIfIcance comIng ffom Tau CetI just the usuaI fadIo
statIc and natufaI backgfound ffom space. TakIng a deep bfeath, he cafefuIIy feofIented
the bIg dIsh towafds a second staf, EpsIIon EfIdanI. SuddenIy, a sefIes of dfamatIc
booms emanated ffom the Ioudspeakef and the pen fecofdef began ffantIcaIIy fIyIng
back and fofth. Dfake aImost feII off hIs chaIf. The antenna had cIeafIy pIcked up a
stfong aftIfIcIaI sIgnaI. The astfonomef was so taken aback he femaIned footed to the
spot fof a Iong whIIe. FInaIIy, gettIng hIs bfaIn In geaf, he moved the teIescope sIIghtIy
off tafget. The sIgnaI faded. But when he moved the antenna back, the sIgnaI had
dIsappeafed! CouId thIs feaIIy have been a fIeetIng bfoadcast ffom ET? Dfake quIckIy
feaIIzed that pIckIng up a sIgnaI ffom an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon on the second attempt was
too good to be tfue. The expIanatIon must IIe wIth a manmade soufce and, sufe enough,
the sIgnaI tufned out to be pfoduced by a secfet mIIItafy fadaf estabIIshment.
WIth these humbIe begInnIngs whImsIcaIIy caIIed Pfoject Ozma aftef the mythIcaI
Iand of Oz Ffank Dfake pIoneefed the most ambItIous, and potentIaIIy the most
sIgnIfIcant, feseafch pfoject In hIstofy. Known as SETI, fof Seafch fof ExtfateffestfIaI
InteIIIgence, It seeks to answef one of the bIggest of the bIg questIons of exIstence: ure
we ulone in t/e universe? Most of the SETI pfogfamme buIIds on Dfake's ofIgInaI concept
of sweepIng the skIes wIth fadIo teIescopes fof any hInt of a message ffom the stafs. It Is
cIeafIy a hIgh-stakes endeavouf. The consequences of success wouId be tfuIy momentous,
havIng a gfeatef Impact on humanIty than the dIscovefIes of CopefnIcus, DafwIn and
EInsteIn put togethef. But It Is a needIe-In-a-haystack seafch wIthout any guafantee that
a needIe Is even thefe. Apaft ffom one of two IntfIguIng IncIdents (of whIch, mofe Iatef)
aII attempts have so faf been gfeeted wIth an eefIe sIIence. What does that teII us? That
thefe ure no aIIens? Of that we have been IookIng fof the wfong thIng In the wfong
pIace at the wfong tIme?
SETI astfonomefs say the sIIence Is no sufpfIse: they sImpIy haven't Iooked hafd
enough fof Iong enough. To date, the seafches have scfutInIzed onIy a few thousand
stafs wIthIn 100 IIght yeafs of so. Compafe thIs to the scaIe of ouf gaIaxy as a whoIe
400 bIIIIon stafs spfead ovef 100,000 IIght yeafs of space. And thefe afe billions of othef
gaIaxIes. But the powef of the seafch Is expandIng aII the tIme, foIIowIng Its own
vefsIon of Moofe's Iaw fof computefs, doubIIng evefy yeaf of two, dfIven by sufgIng
Instfument effIcIency and data-pfocessIng speed. Now the scope Is set to Impfove
dfamatIcaIIy, wIth the constfuctIon of 350 IntefIInked fadIo dIshes at Hat Cfeek In
Nofthefn CaIIfofnIa. Named aftef the benefactof PauI AIIen, the AIIen TeIescope Affay
wIII enabIe feseafchefs to monItof a much Iafgef ffactIon of the gaIaxy fof aIIen sIgnaIs
(see PIate 1). The facIIIty Is opefated by the UnIvefsIty of CaIIfofnIa, BefkeIey, and the
SETI InstItute, whIch Is whefe Ffank Dfake now wofks. The InstItute femaIns upbeat
about the pfospects fof success, and keeps champagne pefmanentIy on Ice In
antIcIpatIon of a defInItIve detectIon event.
It's easy to pIctufe the scene If the optImIsm Is fIght, and somethIng Is found soon. An
astfonomef sIts stoIcaIIy at the contfoIs of the Instfument, hIs feet stuck up on a desk
cIuttefed wIth papefs. AbsentIy, he thumbs though a mathematIcs textbook. So It has
been fof hIm, and dozens of othefs engaged In SETI, fof decade aftef decade. But today
Is dIffefent. SuddenIy the bofed astfonomef Is staftIed out of hIs fevefIe by the shfIII,
dIstInctIve sound of an aIafm. The scfeech Is genefated by a computef aIgofIthm
desIgned to spot 'funny' fadIo sIgnaIs and sepafate them ffom the cIuttef contInuaIIy
beIng feceIved ffom outef space. At fIfst, the astfonomef assumes It's just anothef one of
those faIse aIafms, usuaIIy a manmade tfansmIssIon that sIIps thfough the net desIgned
to fIItef out obvIous aftIfIcIaI sIgnaIs comIng ffom mobIIe phones, fadaf and sateIIItes.
AdhefIng to the tIme-honoufed pfotocoI, the astfonomef keys In some sImpIe
InstfuctIons and moves the teIescope sIIghtIy off the tafget staf. The sIgnaI ImmedIateIy
dIes. He moves the Instfument back on tafget and the sIgnaI Is stIII thefe. Aftef cafefuIIy
studyIng the fadIo wave fofm and detefmInIng that the soufce femaIns at a fIxed
IocatIon feIatIve to the stafs, the astfonomef quIckIy pIaces a teIephone caII to a
companIon obsefvatofy InvoIved In the pfoject and sImuItaneousIy e-maIIs the
coofdInates of the mystefy sIgnaI.
FIve thousand mIIes away, anothef astfonomef Is caIIed out of bed to InvestIgate.
DfowsIIy she wandefs to the contfoI foom and poufs hefseIf a coffee. Then, shakIng the
sIeep ffom hef head, she checks hef e-maII and entefs the gIven coofdInates. WIthIn a
mInute the second fadIo teIescope has Iocked on to the tafget and ImmedIateIy pIcks up
the same sIgnaI, Ioud and cIeaf. Hef puIse begIns to face. Is It conceIvabIe that thIs tIme
the aIeft Is fof feaI? Aftef decades of unfewafded seafch, mIght she be the fIfst pefson
on Eafth to confIfm that an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon feaIIy exIsts and Is tfansmIttIng fadIo
sIgnaIs? She knows that many mofe checks wIII be needed befofe IeapIng to that
concIusIon, but the two astfonomefs, now In excIted teIephone convefsatIon between
dIffefent contInents, systematIcaIIy eIImInate one mundane possIbIIIty aftef anothef
untII, wIth 90 pef cent ceftaInty, they Infef that the sIgnaI Is Indeed aftIfIcIaI, non-
human and ofIgInatIng faf, faf out In space. As the fadIo teIescopes contInue to tfack In
synchfony and fecofd evefy mInute detaII, the dazed paIf behave as If In a dfeam,
stunned, awed and euphofIc, aII at once. What next? Who to teII? What can be gIeaned
ffom the data aIfeady gathefed? Will t/e worlJ ever be t/e sume uguin?
The stofy so faf (whIch I admIt InvoIves some IItefafy IIcence
2
) does not demand any
gfeat Ieap of ImagInatIon. The basIc scenafIo was weII enough poftfayed In the
HoIIywood movIe Contuct, In whIch JodIe Fostef pIays the foIe of the Iucky, ovefawed
astfonomef. What Is faf Iess cIeaf Is the next step. What wouId foIIow ffom the
successfuI detectIon of an aIIen fadIo sIgnaI? Most scIentIsts agfee that such a dIscovefy
wouId be dIsfuptIve and tfansfofmatIve In myfIad ways. Even contempIatIng a sIgnaI
feceIved out of the bIue faIses many questIons: how and by whom wouId It be
evaIuated? How wouId the pubIIc get to Ieafn about It? WouId thefe be socIaI unfest,
even panIc? What wouId govefnments do? How wouId the wofId's Ieadefs feact? WouId
the news be fegafded wIth feaf of wondefment? And In the Iongef tefm, what wouId It
mean fof ouf socIety, ouf sense of IdentIty, ouf scIence, technoIogy and feIIgIons? On
top of these ImpondefabIes Is the vexed Issue of whethef we shouId fespond to the
sIgnaI, by sendIng ouf own message to the aIIens. WouId that InvIte dIfe consequences,
such as InvasIon by a fIeet of weII-afmed stafshIps? Of wouId It pfomIse deIIvefance fof
a possIbIy stfIcken specIes?
Thefe afe no agfeed answefs to any of these questIons. The naffatIve of Contuct
pafted company wIth estabIIshed scIence once the sIgnaI was feceIved, and Iufched off
Into the specuIatIve feaIms of wofmhoIe space tfaveI and othef dfamatIc themes. That
was scIence fIctIon, defIvIng ffom the feftIIe ImagInatIon of the Iate CofneII UnIvefsIty
astfonomef CafI Sagan, authof of the book on whIch the fIIm was based. In the feaI
wofId, It Is compIeteIy uncIeaf what wouId foIIow the dIscovefy that we afe not aIone In
the unIvefse. In 2001 the IntefnatIonaI Academy of AstfonautIcs estabIIshed a commIttee
to addfess 'what next?' Issues. Known as the SETI Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup, Its job Is to
pfepafe the gfound In the event that SETI suddenIy succeeds. The fatIonaIe Is that once
a sIgnaI ffom an aIIen soufce Is confIfmed, thIngs wouId move too fast fof the scIentIfIc
communIty to deIIbefate wIseIy. I happen to be the cuffent ChaIf of the SETI Post-
DetectIon Taskgfoup, and thIs unusuaI posItIon has pfompted me to gIve consIdefabIe
thought to the subject of SETI In genefaI, and post-detectIon In paftIcuIaf.
IS SETI STUCK IN A RUT?
I've been assocIated wIth SETI one way of anothef fof most of my cafeef, and have
enofmous admIfatIon fof the astfonomefs who opefate the fadIo teIescopes and anaIyse
the data, as weII as fof the technIcaI staff who desIgn and buIId the equIpment. I hope
the eefIe sIIence Is Indeed due to the fact that the seafch has been IImIted, and I am a
stfong suppoftef of the AIIen TeIescope Affay. But I aIso thInk, fof feasons I shaII come
to Iatef, that thefe Is onIy a vefy sIendef hope of feceIvIng a message ffom the stafs at
thIs tIme, so aIongsIde 'tfadItIonaI SETI,' of the soft pIoneefed by Ffank Dfake, we need
to estabIIsh a much bfoadef pfogfamme of feseafch, a seafch fof generul sIgnatufes of
InteIIIgence, whefevef they may be ImpfInted In the physIcaI unIvefse. And that fequIfes
the fesoufces of ull the scIences, not just fadIo astfonomy. Thefe Is, howevef, anothef
factof that has to be addfessed. By focusIng on a vefy specIfIc scenafIo an aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon beamIng detectabIe so-caIIed naffow-band (shafp-ffequency) fadIo messages
to Eafth tfadItIonaI SETI has become stuck In somethIng of a conceptuaI fut. FIfty
yeafs of sIIence Is an exceIIent cue fof us to enIafge ouf thInkIng about the subject.
CfucIaIIy, we must ffee SETI ffom the shackIes of anthfopocentfIsm, whIch has
hampefed It ffom the vefy begInnIng. To heIp spuf thIs pfocess, I convened a specIaI
SETI wofkshop In Febfuafy 2008 at AfIzona State UnIvefsIty's Beyond Centef fof
FundamentaI Concepts In ScIence, wIth the goaI of fostefIng a IIveIy exchange of Ideas
between maInstfeam SETI feseafchefs and a handfuI of quIfky out-of-the-box thInkefs,
IncIudIng phIIosophefs, scIence fIctIon wfItefs and cosmoIogIsts. The upshot was a
bIuepfInt fof 'new SETI', wIth some gfeat Ideas I shaII descfIbe In the comIng chaptefs.
How couId somethIng as boId and vIsIonafy as SETI become consefvatIve? A majof
paft of the feason Is the tendency of humans to extfapoIate ffom theIf own expefIence.
The vefy basIs fof SETI Is, aftef aII, an assumptIon that ouf cIvIIIzatIon Is In some
fespects typIcaI, and that thefe wIII be othef eafths out thefe wIth fIesh-and-bIood
sentIent beIngs not too dIffefent ffom us, who wIII be anxIous to communIcate. GIven
that pfedIcate, It Is feasonabIe to take human natufe and human socIety as a modeI fof
what an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon wIII be IIke we don't have much eIse to go on, aftef aII. In
the eafIy days of SETI, when the basIc stfategy was beIng pIanned, thefe wefe a Iot of
questIons aIong the IInes, 'What wouId we do In those cIfcumstances?' The fesuIt,
InevItabIy, Is an InbuIIt bIas towafds anthfopocentfIsm.
Hefe Is a cIassIc exampIe. SETI began wIth the feaIIzatIon that fadIo teIescopes have
the powef to beam sIgnaIs acfoss space. Thefefofe It's possIbIe that aIIen sIgnaIs afe
comIng ouf way. The Image popuIafIzed by CafI Sagan was that of an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon
dIfectIng a message at Eafth In the fofm of naffow-band fadIo sIgnaIs. The specIfIcs
soon feII Into pIace: the message wouId be foIded Into a caffIef wave and tfansmItted
ffom an antenna at a fIxed ffequency and wIth enough powef to Ioom above natufaIIy
pfoduced fadIo noIse. That Is the way teffestfIaI fadIo statIons do It. It's easy to detect
naffow-band sIgnaIs, once the feceIvIng antenna has been tuned to the fIght ffequency
(and, In the case of fadIo teIescopes, poInted In the fIght dIfectIon). Thefe afe many
othef ways to encode and tfansmIt fadIo messages whIch fequIfe mofe sophIstIcated
feceIvIng pfocedufes, but SETI astfonomefs assume that an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon anxIous to
attfact ouf attentIon wouId adopt the sImpIest method appfopfIate to entfy-IeveI fadIo
technoIogy.
Back In the 1960s, a majof pfeoccupatIon among SETI feseafchefs was to decIde
whIch paftIcuIaf ffequency ET mIght choose, gIven that thefe afe bIIIIons of possIbIIItIes.
Not aII fadIo ffequencIes penetfate Eafth's atmosphefe effectIveIy, so the hope was that
the aIIens wouId customIze theIf sIgnaIs fof Eafth-IIke pIanets by usIng a ffequency that
doesn't get gfeatIy attenuated by Its passage down ffom space. But that stIII Ieft a huge
numbef of potentIaI fadIo channeIs. It wouId be the supfeme Ifony to tufn a fadIo
teIescope on the fIght staf but tune Into the wfong ffequency and mIss the message.
Reseafchefs afgued that the aIIens wouId antIcIpate ouf dIIemma and pIck a 'natufaI'
ffequency one IIkeIy to be known to aII fadIo astfonomefs. A popuIaf guess was 1,420
MHz, the emIssIon ffequency fof coId hydfogen gas. RadIo astfonomefs afe vefy famIIIaf
wIth thIs pefvasIve 'song of hydfogen', and It Is In some sense a good choIce. At any
fate, that was the ffequency Ffank Dfake pIcked fof Pfoject Ozma In 1960. Othef
astfonomefs suggested muItIpIyIng the hydfogen ffequency by , that numbef beIng
what humans wouId take to be a 'sIgnatufe of InteIIIgence' because It entefs Into both
geometfy and the equatIons of fundamentaI physIcs, so wouId sufeIy be famIIIaf to any
aIIen scIentIst. But thefe afe othef specIaI numbefs too, IIke exponentIaI e and the
squafe foot of 2. In addItIon, thefe was a conundfum about whethef the aIIens wouId
Inseft a coffectIon to compensate fof the motIon of theIf pIanet and,of ouf pIanet.
3
Vefy soon, the IIst of possIbIe 'natufaI' ffequencIes became depfessIngIy Iong. Howevef,
thIs battIe of the wavebands went away, because technoIogy became avaIIabIe that
enabIes fadIo astfonomefs to monItof mIIIIons and even bIIIIons of fadIo channeIs
(typIcaIIy between 1 and 10 Hz wIde) sImuItaneousIy. As a fesuIt, not many SETI
feseafchefs woffy these days about second-guessIng the aIIens' choIce of ffequency. My
poInt Is that modest advances In human technoIogy have Ied wIthIn just a few decades
to a change In thInkIng about IIkeIy aIIen communIcatIon ffequencIes. Thefe Is a majof
Iesson In thIs exampIe. It Is wIse to vIew the sItuatIon thfough the eyes of the cIvIIIzatIon
settIng out to communIcate wIth us, on the assumptIon that It has been afound fof a
vefy Iong tIme at Ieast one mIIIIon yeafs, and maybe 100 mIIIIon yeafs of mofe.
AIthough the aIIens may weII settIe on fadIo as the medIum (pefhaps fof ouf benefIt),
they can hafdIy be expected to dIscfImInate between 1950s and 1980s IeveIs of human
technoIogy: what afe a few decades In a mIIIIon yeafs?
Anothef case In poInt: In the 1960s, the Iasef came to be seen as a poweffuI
aItefnatIve means of human communIcatIon, and vefy soon some SETI feseafchefs
began to afgue that ET, beIng so much mofe advanced, wouId sufeIy pfefef to use thIs
fancy tooI fathef than oId-fashIoned fadIo. As a fesuIt, optIcaI SETI was bofn (and stIII
fIoufIshes): astfonomefs seafch fof a sIgnaI In the fofm of vefy shoft-dufatIon, hIgh-
IntensIty puIses of IIght that wIth suItabIe equIpment can be dIstInguIshed ffom the
ovefaII much bfIghtef but unvafyIng IIght of the pafent staf. Iasef communIcatIon came
Iess than a centufy aftef the InventIon of fadIo communIcatIon, so once agaIn I ask,
what does a centufy mattef to a mIIIIon-yeaf-oId cIvIIIzatIon?
A gfeatef degfee of pafochIaIIsm occufs when SETI gets InfIuenced by human poIItIcs
and even economIcs. One of the maIn unknowns Is the IongevIty of a communIcatIng
cIvIIIzatIon. The chaIIenge Is to guess whethef ET wIII be on the aIf fof centufIes,
mIIIennIa of even Iongef. DufIng the CoId Waf, many SETI pfoponents feasoned that
the deveIopment of advanced fadIo communIcatIon wouId be pafaIIeIed by sImIIaf-IeveI
technoIogIcaI deveIopments, such as nucIeaf weapons. Because ouf own socIety was at
that tIme In gfave dangef of nucIeaf annIhIIatIon, It was fashIonabIe to afgue that aIIen
technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIons IIkewIse wouIdn't Iast Iong. They wouId have theIf own CoId
Waf whIch, aftef a few decades, wouId tufn hot, and knock them off the aIf. When the
(teffestfIaI) CoId Waf ended, human poIItIcaI concefns shIfted to the envIfonment, and
SETI thInkIng duIy shIfted wIth It. The hot-button Issue now, In many peopIe's eyes, Is
no Iongef nucIeaf waf, but sustaInabIIIty. TfansmIttIng poweffuI fadIo waves acfoss the
gaIaxy wouId fequIfe Iafge-scaIe engIneefIng and soak up a Iot of enefgy. SufeIy an
advanced aIIen cIvIIIzatIon wouId taIIof Its technoIogy so as to mInImIze the
envIfonmentaI Impact? WeII, maybe. But that IIne of feasonIng wouId have been
feceIved sceptIcaIIy In the 1960s poIItIcaI atmosphefe, and may weII be fegafded as
IffeIevant In anothef hundfed yeafs, when envIfonmentaI pfobIems may be fepIaced by
othef concefns. Thefe Is no feason to suppose that a mIIIIon-yeaf-oId supef-cIvIIIzatIon
wouId have 'a sustaInabIIIty pfobIem'. It mIght, of coufse, have some othef pfobIem,
maybe one we couIdn't antIcIpate, of wouIdn't undefstand even If we wefe toId. SETI Is
the quIntessentIaIIy Iong-tefm pfoject, and It Is fooIIsh to base too much of ouf seafch
stfategy on fIavouf-of-the-month poIItIcaI fashIon. GuessIng the poIItIcaI pfIofItIes of an
aIIen cIvIIIzatIon Is futIIe.
EquaIIy futIIe Is guessIng aIIen economIcs. Take, fof exampIe, H. G. WeIIs's noveI T/e
Wur of t/e WorlJs, In whIch the MaftIans, saddIed wIth an InfefIof pIanet, consIdef
decampIng to Eafth. WeIIs poftfays a cfeepy Image of covetous aIIens, technoIogIcaIIy
faf ahead of humans, eyeIng ouf pIanet wIth maIIce, '. acfoss the guIf of space, mInds
that afe to ouf mInds as oufs afe to those of the beasts that pefIsh, InteIIects vast and
cooI and unsympathetIc, fegafded thIs eafth wIth envIous eyes, and sIowIy and sufeIy
dfew theIf pIans agaInst us.'
4
WeIIs wfote hIs stofy In the 1890s, at the heIght of the
BfItIsh EmpIfe, when weaIth and powef wefe measufed In acfes of Iand, tons of coaI
and Ifon, and head of cattIe. The fIchest men buIIt faIIways and owned bIg shIps, mIned
coaI of coppef of goId, and pufchased vast tfacts of gfazIng Iand. In shoft, weaIth In
VIctofIan tImes meant physIcaI stuff. So It was natufaI to thInk of aIIen cIvIIIzatIons
sImIIafIy vaIuIng feaI estate and mInefaI fesoufces, and makIng pIans to spfead acfoss
space In seafch of mofe once theIf own pIanet was mIned out. Such was the pfIme
motIve of WeIIs's MaftIans. Howevef, bafeIy a centufy Iatef, the gIobaI economy had
tfansfofmed out of aII fecognItIon. By the 1990s, BIII Gates was the new RockefeIIef,
makIng money not ffom 'physIcaI stuff' but ffom bIts of InfofmatIon. MIcfosoft had
mofe fInancIaI cIout than most countfIes. WIth InfofmatIon age economIcs came
InfofmatIon age SETI. SufeIy, It was feasoned, the aIIens wouId not be so pfImItIveIy
fapacIous as to scouf the gaIaxy fof Ifon ofe, stIII Iess fof goId of dIamonds. An
advanced extfateffestfIaI communIty wouId vaIue InfofmatIon t/ut wouId be theIf
cuffency, theIf soufce of weaIth. InfofmatIon and knowIedge those mofe nobIe
IncentIves wouId come to domInate the aIIen agenda. Iust fof InfofmatIon may dfIve
them to send out pfobes, not to acquIfe matefIaI, but to expIofe and obsefve and
measufe, and to compIIe a database, a vefItabIe LncyclopeJiu Gulucticu.
5
It seems
feasonabIe enough today, but I wondef how the InfofmatIon afgument wIII pIay out In
the 2090s, when the economy may fevoIve afound somethIng that hasn't yet been
ImagIned, Iet aIone Invented. If human pfIofItIes can change so dfamatIcaIIy In a mefe
centufy, what hope have we of guessIng the pfIofItIes of a cIvIIIzatIon that may have
enjoyed a mIIIIon of mofe yeafs of economIc deveIopment?
The same genefaI cfItIcIsm can be IeveIIed at most theofIzIng about what an aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon wouId be IIke and how Its membefs wouId behave. It's tfue that the hIstofy
of human cIvIIIzatIon gIves a cIue, and ceftaIn genefaI pfIncIpIes mig/t appIy to aII
InteIIIgent IIfe. The pfobIem Is, we have onIy one sampIe of IIfe, one sampIe of
advanced InteIIIgence, and one sampIe of hIgh technoIogy. It Is feaIIy hafd to untangIe
the featufes that may be specIaI to ouf pIanet ffom any genefaI pfIncIpIes about the
emefgence of IIfe and InteIIIgence In the unIvefse. In these cIfcumstances thefe Is an
InevItabIe temptatIon to faII back on anaIogy wIth humanIty when tfyIng to second-
guess ET. But that Is aImost ceftaInIy faIIacIous. AskIng what we wouId do Is IafgeIy
IffeIevant. The naffow focus and pafochIaIIsm Inhefent In tfadItIonaI SETI has not been
Iost on Ffank Dfake. 'Ouf sIgnaIs of today afe vefy dIffefent ffom the sIgnaIs of 40 yeafs
ago, whIch we then feIt wefe peffect modeIs of what mIght be fadIated ffom othef
wofIds of any state of advancement,' he wfItes. 'We wefe wfong. If technoIogy can
change that much In 40 yeafs, how much mIght It change In thousands of mIIIIons of
yeafs?'
6
And that's It In a nutsheII. Howevef, thIs cIeaf acknowIedgement by the foundef
of tfadItIonaI SETI has yet to tfansIate Into fadIcaI new appfoaches on the feseafch
ffont. In my opInIon, the way fofwafd Is to stop vIewIng aIIen motIves and actIvItIes
thfough human eyes. ThInkIng about SETI fequIfes us to abandon aII ouf
pfesupposItIons about the natufe of IIfe, mInd, cIvIIIzatIon, technoIogy and communIty
destIny. In shoft, It means thInkIng the unthInkabIe.
IT'S GREAT BUT IS IT SCIENCE?
AIthough the scIentIfIc communIty Is on the whoIe faIfIy comfoftabIe wIth SETI these
days, membefs of the pubIIc have a hafd job posItIonIng It In the scIentIfIc Iandscape.
PeopIe want to know why It's okay to Iook fof aIIens but not fof ghosts, why messages
ffom the stafs afe scIentIfIcaIIy fespectabIe, but messages ffom the dead afe not. Whefe
does one dfaw the IIne between scIence and pseudoscIence? It Is an Impoftant but subtIe
poInt that goes fIght to the heaft of the scIentIfIc method, and It's ImpossIbIe to
undefstand how SETI wofks wIthout an expIanatIon of thIs dIstInctIon. So hefe goes.
CafI Sagan once decIafed, 'extfaofdInafy cIaIms demand extfaofdInafy evIdence.'
7
He
made the femafk In the context of UFO stofIes (fof whIch, see the fInaI sectIon of thIs
chaptef), but the dIctum appIIes quIte genefaIIy. Sagan was expfessIng coIIoquIaIIy what
Is fofmaIIy known as Bayes' fuIe fof Infefence based on the statIstIcaI evaIuatIon of
evIdence. Thomas Bayes was an eIghteenth-centufy EngIIsh cIefgyman who appfecIated
that the weIght attfIbuted to evIdence wIII depend on how pIausIbIe the hypothesIs to
whIch It peftaIns Is deemed befofehand (Its so-caIIed pfIof pfobabIIIty). Iet me gIve an
evefyday exampIe. I wake at 6 a.m. to fInd a bottIe of mIIk on my doofstep. What do I
concIude? Thefe afe two hypotheses. The fIfst Is that the mIIk has been deIIvefed by the
mIIkman, as It Is evefy day except Sunday, because I have a contfact wIth the IocaI
company, Expfess DaIfy. NofmaIIy the mIIkman comes at 7 a.m., but pefhaps today he
came eafIy. The second hypothesIs Is that the mIIk has been Ieft thefe by an aItfuIstIc
neIghbouf, Mfs Jones, who mIght have had a spafe bottIe. The second hypothesIs Is
obvIousIy a Iong shot, so It has a much Iowef pfIof pfobabIIIty than the fIfst. To beIIeve
It, I wouId fequIfe 'extfaofdInafy evIdence'. What mIght that be? WeII, Mfs Jones
subscfIbes to the fIvaI company, UnIted DaIfIes. TheIf bottIes of mIIk have the bfand
name 'UnIted' embossed on the sIde, whefeas Expfess DaIfy has 'Expfess'. If today the
bottIe dIspIays 'UnIted', I wouId fe-evaIuate the odds on the Jones expIanatIon. But I see
'Expfess'. Do I eIImInate HypothesIs 2? Not entIfeIy. It couId be that Expfess DaIfy
deIIvefed to Mfs Jones by mIstake the day befofe, fof exampIe. But the mofe contfIved
and extfavagant the hypothesIs, the gfeatef the weIght of evIdence needs to be befofe I
wIII take It sefIousIy. ActuaIIy, the pfobabIIIty of eIthef hypothesIs beIng coffect Is
essentIaIIy zefo, because nobody seems to deIIvef mIIk to the doofstep In bottIes any
mofe, at Ieast they don't In the countfIes In whIch I have IIved. So thIs exampIe Is just a
bIt of nostaIgIa. (Accufate as of Iondon, cIfca 1960, fof those who afe Intefested. My
best ffIend BfIan was the mIIkman's son, and wouId occasIonaIIy heIp hIs fathef wIth
deIIvefIes. He even fecaIIs tufnIng out on ChfIstmas Day, such was the IeveI of sefvIce In
the Good OId Days. The mIIk bottIes wefe ofIgInaIIy conveyed to the customef on a
hofse-dfawn caft, and the hofse wouId often get a caffot as a ChfIstmas pfesent. Then
the hofses wefe decommIssIoned In favouf of a souIIess eIectfIcaI vehIcIe. Then the
mIIkman hImseIf was decommIssIoned, aIong wIth the bottIes and the vehIcIe, In favouf
of hoffId supefmafket caftons. Such Is pfogfess.)
AppIIed to scIence and pseudoscIence, Bayes' fuIe heIps us assIgn cfedIbIIIty factofs to
competIng cIaIms. Thomas Jeffefson famousIy saId, 'I wouId soonef beIIeve that two
Yankee pfofessofs IIed, than that stones feII ffom the sky', when he was toId of an
eyewItness fepoft of faIIIng meteofItes.
8
IIke many nIneteenth-centufy InteIIectuaIs,
Jeffefson pooh-poohed meteofIte cIaIms on the basIs that the deemed pfIof pfobabIIIty
of thefe beIng stones In the sky Is tIny, whefeas the pfIof pfobabIIIty that a scuffIIous
pfofessof mIght make up a stofy fof feasons of fame Is not that smaII. Today we know
that the soIaf system Is fepIete wIth fubbIe Ieft ovef ffom Its fofmatIon, so the pfIof
pfobabIIIty we wouId now assIgn to a stofy of a meteofIte faII Is much gfeatef. We
shouId thefefofe be IncIIned to take such fepofts sefIousIy. (Though stIII cautIousIy: a
geoIogIst ffIend of mIne has InvestIgated sevefaI eyewItness fepofts of meteofIte faIIs,
and they aII tufned out to be mIstaken IntefpfetatIons.)
A pefsIstent compIaInt among my non-scIentIst ffIends Is that modefn physIcs touts aII
softs of mInd-bendIng Ideas about extfa dImensIons, unseen dafk mattef, InvIsIbIe
stfIngs, pafaIIeI unIvefses, evapofatIng bIack hoIes, wofmhoIes, etc., In spIte of the fact
that most of these pfoposaIs have IIttIe of no expefImentaI of obsefvatIonaI evIdence to
suppoft them. Yet phenomena IIke teIepathy and pfecognItIon afe expefIenced fIfst
hand by thousands of peopIe, and ImmedIateIy fejected by scIentIsts as nonsense. Is thIs
not a gIafIng case of doubIe standafds? 'How can you deny the exIstence of ghosts,' I
was once chaIIenged, 'when you accept the exIstence of neutfInos, whIch afe faf mofe
ghostIy and have nevef been seen dIfectIy by anybody?' (NeutfInos afe eIusIve
subatomIc paftIcIes that mostIy pass fIght thfough soIId mattef, makIng them
exceedIngIy hafd to detect.)
The shoft fIposte to the above compIaInt Is 'Bayes' fuIe.' The poInt about modefn
physIcs Is that weIfd entItIes IIke dafk mattef of neutfInos afe not pfoposed as IsoIated
specuIatIons, but as paft of a Iafge body of detaIIed theofy that pfedIcts them. They afe
IInked to famIIIaf and weII-tested physIcs thfough a cohefent encompassIng
mathematIcaI scheme. In othef wofds, t/ey /uve u pluce in well-unJerstooJ t/eory. As a
fesuIt, theIf pfIof pfobabIIIty Is hIgh. The job of the expefImentef Is to test the theofy. If
you buIId an expefIment to make an accufate measufement of such-and-such a quantIty,
the pfecIse vaIue of whIch Is pfedIcted In advance, then the IeveI of evIdence we fequIfe
to beIIeve that the saId entIty Is feaI Is much Iess than If someone sImpIy found It by
chance In the absence of any theofetIcaI undefpInnIng.
9
RegafdIng the pafanofmaI,
teIepathy Is not obvIousIy an absufd notIon, but It wouId take a Iot of evIdence fof me
to beIIeve In It because thefe Is no pfopefIy wofked out theofy, and ceftaInIy no
mathematIcaI modeI to pfedIct how It wofks of how stfong It wIII be In dIffefent
cIfcumstances. So I assIgn It a vefy Iow (but non-zefo) pfIof pfobabIIIty. If someone
came up wIth a pIausIbIe mechanIsm fof teIepathy backed by a pfopef mathematIcaI
modeI whIch IInked It to the fest of physIcs, and If the theofy pfedIcted specIfIc fesuIts
fof exampIe, that the 'teIepathIc powef' wouId faII off In a weII-defIned way as the
dIstance Incfeases, and wouId be twIce as stfong between same-sex subjects as mIxed-sex
subjects I wouId sIt up and take notIce. I wouId then be faIfIy easIIy convInced If the
expefImentaI evIdence confIfmed the pfedIctIons. AIas, no such theofy Is on the hofIzon,
and I femaIn extfemeIy sceptIcaI about teIepathy In spIte of the many amazIng stofIes I
have fead.
10
TufnIng now to SETI, how does It measufe up as scIence vefsus pseudoscIence? WeII,
we ImmedIateIy hIt the cofe pfobIem In the whoIe entefpfIse. What pfIof pfobabIIIty
shouId we assIgn to the exIstence of a communIcatIng extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIon?
Nobody knows. If you aIfeady have good feason to beIIeve ET Is out thefe, and a
defInIte Idea about the natufe of the sIgnaI, then you afe, so to speak, 'pfImed' fof the
evIdence and IIkeIy to be easIIy won ovef. But If you thInk the vefy notIon of an aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon Is IncfedIbIe, you wouId need vefy stfong evIdence Indeed. In Chaptef 4 I
shaII afgue that eIthef advanced aIIen cIvIIIzatIons afe vefy common of they afe
exceedIngIy fafe: a mIddIe posItIon of a few hefe and thefe Is IntfInsIcaIIy unIIkeIy.
11
So
those who fInd the notIon of aIIen cIvIIIzatIons a wIId and unjustIfIed specuIatIon pIace
SETI In the feaIm of pseudoscIence, whIIe othefs who fInd the Idea pIausIbIe fegafd It as
feaI scIence. You, the feadef, must make up youf own mInd. What Is not In questIon,
howevef, Is that the met/oJology of SETI Is feaI scIence. The feseafch Is conducted wIth
state-of-the-aft technoIogy by hIghIy tfaIned scIentIsts usIng fIgofous technIques of
enquIfy and anaIysIs, and the fesuIts afe subject to the usuaI scfutIny of peef-fevIew.
Thefe Is no questIon that the feseafch gfoups afe doIng quaIIty scIence. But afe they
chasIng a chImefa? WeII, fead on.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF AIIENS
SpecuIatIons about aIIen beIngs dIdn't begIn wIth fadIo teIescopes. Two thousand fIve
hundfed yeafs ago, the pfophet EzekIeI was waIkIng by the fIvef Chebaf In the Iand of
ChaIdea when he beheId a gIowIng whIfIwInd comIng out of the nofth, ffom whIch
emefged fouf weIfd-IookIng wInged cfeatufes, each supeffIcIaIIy 'the IIkeness of a man'.
The cfeatufes wefe accompanIed by fouf fIyIng wheeIs that shone IIke bufnIshed bfass,
wIth 'eyes' sItuated afound theIf fIms. EventuaIIy the cfeatufes and the wheeIs 'IIfted up
ffom the Eafth' and fIew away.
12
ThIs famous bIbIIcaI naffatIve Is, of coufse, just a made-up stofy, pefhaps an account
of a dfeam of vIsIon, pefhaps just a coIouffuI way of puttIng a feIIgIous message acfoss.
It shouId not be tfeated as hIstofIcaI fact, and was pfesumabIy nevef Intended as such.
Its vaIue IIes In feveaIIng to us, thfough the Iens of hIstofy, the mInd-set of a Iong-
vanIshed cuItufe. The IsfaeIItes, togethef wIth many of theIf contempofafIes, fIfmIy
beIIeved that mankInd was but one fofm of sentIent beIng In the unIvefse. In most
ancIent socIetIes, gods, angeIs, spIfIts and demons wefe fegafded as feaI. Many of these
non-human beIngs wefe thought to be fesIdent somewhefe just beyond the sky. AII
tfadItIonaI cfeatIon myths fefef to one of mofe poweffuI agents who bfought the wofId
Into exIstence, and who contInue to vIsIt Eafth ffom tIme to tIme.
The Idea that humans shafe the unIvefse wIth othef beIngs was not just the pfoduct of
feIIgIous mythoIogy, It was aIso the subject of feasoned afgument, as Iong ago as the
fIfth centufy BCE. The Gfeek phIIosophef DemocfItus (460370 BCE) was an afchItect of the
atomIc theofy of mattef, accofdIng to whIch the unIvefse consIsts entIfeIy of tIny
IndestfuctIbIe paftIcIes (atoms) movIng In a voId. In DemocfItus' scheme, aII fofms of
mattef consIst of dIffefIng combInatIons of atoms, and aII change Is nothIng but the
feaffangement of atoms. DemocfItus posIted that If natufe Is unIfofm, and If atoms can
come togethef In a paftIcuIaf combInatIon to make the Eafth, popuIated by pIants and
anImaIs, so atoms can affange themseIves In a sImIIaf mannef In othef pafts of the
cosmos too. Thus he concIuded:
13
Thefe afe InnumefabIe wofIds of dIffefent sIzes. In some thefe Is neIthef sun nof moon, In othefs they afe Iafgef than In
oufs and othefs have mofe than one. These wofIds afe at IffeguIaf dIstances, mofe In one dIfectIon and Iess In anothef, and
some afe fIoufIshIng, othefs decIInIng. Hefe they come Into beIng, thefe they dIe, and they afe destfoyed by coIIIsIon wIth
one anothef. Some of the wofIds have no anImaI of vegetabIe IIfe nof any watef.
DemocfItus' basIc afgument was vIvIdIy captufed by the Roman poet TItus IucfetIus
Cafus (9955 BCE) In hIs atmosphefIc e Rerum Nuturu:
14
If atom stocks afe InexhaustIbIe,
Gfeatef than powef of IIvIng thIngs to count,
If Natufe's same cfeatIve powef wefe pfesent too
To thfow the atoms Into unIons exactIy as unIted now,
Why then confess you must
That othef wofIds exIst In othef fegIons of the sky,
And dIffefent tfIbes of men, kInds of wIId beasts.
The bIfth of scIentIfIc astfonomy, faf ffom dampenIng specuIatIons about
extfateffestfIaI beIngs, actuaIIy fueIIed them. In the MIddIe Ages, CopefnIcus' modeI of
the soIaf system pIaced the sun at the centfe, and descfIbed the pIanets not mefeIy as
wandefIng poInts of IIght, but as othef wofIds. ThIs tfansfofmatIon encoufaged fancIfuI
notIons about IIfe on those bodIes. In hIs book Somnium (T/e reum) the astfonomef
Johannes KepIef went as faf as descfIbIng a Iunaf popuIatIon of feptIIIan cfeatufes
possessIng modest InteIIIgence, whIch he named the SunvoIvans of PfIvoIvans
dependIng on whIch sIde of the Moon they dweIt on. He aIso afgued that the Moon
'exIsts fof us on Eafth', and thefefofe the fouf moons of JupItef must exIst fof the
JovIans. 'Ffom thIs IIne of feasonIng,' he decIafed, 'we deduce wIth the hIghest degfee of
pfobabIIIty that JupItef Is InhabIted.'
15
KepIef was not aIone In these fancIfuI notIons.
The Dutch astfonomef ChfIstIaan Huygens pfoduced an entIfe tfeatIse caIIed
Cosmot/ereos, pubIIshed In Its fInaI fofm In 1698, In whIch he tfIed to pefsuade feadefs
that othef pIanets wefe InhabIted.
Ovef the subsequent 300 yeafs astfonomIcaI obsefvatIons gfeatIy Impfoved, and the
pfospects fof InteIIIgent IIfe In ouf soIaf system dwIndIed. By the tufn of the twentIeth
centufy, onIy one pIanet femaIned on the IIst of candIdates Mafs. When I was a hIgh
schooI student, thefe was a popuIaf beIIef that the fed pIanet just mIght be InhabIted. It
was aIways the favoufIte pIanet fof scIence fIctIon stofIes, and the wofd 'MaftIan' was
aImost synonymous wIth 'aIIen'. Mafs Is ceftaInIy not a wfIte-off as an abode fof IIfe.
AdmIttedIy It Is smaIIef than Eafth, so has a Iowef gfavIty, and Is sItuated fafthef ffom
the sun, makIng It coId. On the othef hand, It does possess an atmosphefe, aIbeIt thIn,
and the sufface tempefatufe can sometImes fIse above the ffeezIng poInt of watef. By
the mIddIe of the nIneteenth centufy, teIescopes wefe Iafge enough to feveaI many
sufface featufes. Astfonomefs saw poIaf caps gfow and shfInk, and seasonaI changes In
coIouf that hInted at vegetatIon.
In 1858, AngeIo SecchI, a JesuIt monk In ItaIy, began mappIng Mafs and named some
of the vagueIy IIneaf featufes cunuli, meanIng channeIs. Twenty yeafs Iatef hIs
compatfIot, the astfonomef GIovannI SchIapafeIII, pfoduced Impfoved maps of Mafs,
and aIso used SecchI's tefm cunuli. The sobfIquet became IIbefaIIy tfansIated Into EngIIsh
as 'canaIs', wIth the hInt of aftIfIcIaIIty. The 'canaIs' of Mafs caught the ImagInatIon of a
weaIthy AmefIcan wfItef and tfaveIIef, PefcIvaI IoweII, who buIIt an obsefvatofy at
FIagstaff In AfIzona dedIcated to studyIng Mafs and seekIng evIdence fof IIfe. By 1900,
IoweII was convInced he couId dIscefn sIgns, not just of IIfe, but InteIIIgent IIfe. He
stafted makIng eIabofate dfawIngs dIspIayIng compIex netwofks of IInes, whIch he took
to be aqueducts buIIt by an advanced cIvIIIzatIon to convey meIt-watef ffom the poIaf
caps to the pafched equatofIaI fegIons (see PIate 2). At about the same tIme, H. G. WeIIs
wfote hIs mastefpIece, T/e Wur of t/e WorlJs.
At the tIme WeIIs and IoweII pubIIshed theIf wofks, It was not unfeasonabIe to
beIIeve that Mafs couId host InteIIIgent IIfe, a notIon that IIngefed In some quaftefs fIght
up to the dawn of the space age. Then, In 1963, NASA sent a space pfobe caIIed MafInef
on a Mafs fIy-by. The pIctufes that came back showed a baffen, heavIIy cfatefed
Iandscape, mofe fesembIIng the Moon than Eafth. FoIIow-up MafInef pfobes measufed a
dIsappoIntIngIy Iow atmosphefIc pfessufe and found no tface of oxygen. WIthout
oxygen thefe can be no ozone Iayef, so the sufface of Mafs Is subjected to wIthefIng
uItfavIoIet fadIatIon ffom the sun. BIttef coId, a tenuous atmosphefe and a sufface
awash wIth uItfavIoIet fadIatIon add up to a pfetty IethaI combInatIon, so hopes fof IIfe
on Mafs began to fade. SIgnIfIcantIy, MafInef found no tface of the famous canaIs,
aIthough It dId photogfaph dfIed-up fIvef systems. IoweII's canaIs tufned out to be a
fIgment of hIs feftIIe ImagInatIon, a case of wIshfuI thInkIng fathef than scIentIfIc data.
It Is a saIutafy Iesson that Is weII wofth femembefIng when consIdefIng the subject of
SETI.
IIFE AMONG THE STARS
Today, we can be pfetty sufe that thefe afe zefo pfospects fof InteIIIgent IIfe afIsIng on
any othef pIanet In the soIaf system. SETI, howevef, tafgets extfa-soIaf pIanets. When
Dfake stafted Pfoject Ozma, thIs fepfesented somethIng of a Ieap of faIth, because
astfonomefs at that tIme couIdn't be sufe thefe were any pIanets beyond the soIaf
system. It has onIy been In the fecent past that some have been IdentIfIed. To date,
about 400 have been found ofbItIng stafs In ouf ImmedIate neIghboufhood of the
gaIaxy. Two methods have pfoduced the majofIty of dIscovefIes. The fIfst depends on
the fact that a pIanet exefts a fofce on Its pafent staf, makIng the staf wobbIe vefy
sIIghtIy In Its motIon. CafefuI study of the staf's IIght wIII detect thIs movement as a
pefIodIc shIft In waveIength (known as the DoppIef effect). Anothef technIque Iooks fof
sIIght changes In the bfIghtness of a staf caused when a pIanet cfosses Its face (known
as the tfansIt method). At thIs tIme, onIy one extfa-soIaf pIanet has been photogfaphed
as an object fecognIzabIy dIstInct ffom the pafent staf. The feason It Is so hafd to
captufe an Image Is that the gIafe of the staf totaIIy swamps the feebIe IIght ffom the
pIanet, It's IIke tfyIng to detect a fIfefIy next to a seafchIIght. Because both the DoppIef
and tfansIt methods wofk best fof vefy massIve objects ofbItIng cIose to the staf (dubbed
'hot JupItefs' by the popuIaf pfess), few of the pIanets so faf IdentIfIed thIs way afe
Eafth-IIke. RecentIy, sevefaI 'supef-eafths' have been cataIogued, these afe feIatIveIy
smaII dense pIanets, but wIth masses stIII sevefaI tImes that of Eafth's. NeveftheIess,
astfonomefs mostIy agfee that thefe shouId be abundant eafth-sIzed pIanets out thefe,
and they Iook fofwafd to bettef optIcaI systems that wIII one day Image these 'othef
eafths' In detaII. MeanwhIIe, a sateIIIte caIIed KepIef, Iaunched In Mafch 2009, Is
monItofIng 100,000 stafs contInuousIy ovef thfee yeafs fof tfansIts. KepIef has the
sensItIvIty to detect, aIthough not to photogfaph, pIanets smaII enough to fesembIe
Eafth.
Ffom the standpoInt of hostIng IIfe, It's not suffIcIent that a pIanet has foughIy the
same fadIus as Eafth. To be tfuIy 'Eafth-IIke' InvoIves sevefaI othef featufes thought to
be essentIaI to bIoIogy. Fof exampIe, the pIanet must possess a feasonabIy thIck
atmosphefe. It pfobabIy aIso needs a hot IntefIof, both to genefate a magnetIc fIeId fof
defIectIng hazafdous cosmIc fadIatIon, and to dfIve pIate tectonIcs (movement of
contInentaI cfust), whIch Is Impoftant fof fecycIIng chemIcaIs In the sufface
envIfonment. UndoubtedIy the most cfucIaI fequIfement fof IIfe as we know It Is IIquId
watef: no known IIfe can functIon wIthout It. These condItIons have Ied to the concept
of 'the habItabIe zone' a fegIon of space afound a staf whefe the sufface of a pIanet
couId suppoft IIquId watef. In the case of the soIaf system, the habItabIe zone extends
ffom somewhefe between Venus and Eafth (Venus Is faf too hot fof IIquId watef), out to
about Mafs (whIch Is mostIy, but not aIways, too coId).
To be 'In the zone' IdeaIIy fequIfes an Eafth-IIke pIanet In an Eafth-IIke ofbIt afound a
sun-IIke staf. Howevef, the tfadItIonaI vIew of habItabIe zones Is now fecognIzed as
ovefIy festfIctIve and needs to be enIafged to IncIude some IntefestIng addItIonaI
possIbIIItIes. Fof exampIe, a cooI staf such as a fed dwaff couId possess a naffow smaII-
fadIus habItabIe zone. In 2007 a pIanet that mIght suppoft IIfe was dIscovefed afound a
fed dwaff named GIeIse 581. The pIanet Is a supef-Eafth, ofbItIng a mefe 11 mIIIIon
kIIometfes (7 mIIIIon mIIes) ffom the staf (compafe Eafth, 150 mIIIIon kIIometfes (93
mIIIIon mIIes) ffom the sun). That Is cIose enough fof watef to be IIquId even though the
staf Is dIm. UnfoftunateIy fof advanced IIfe, a pIanet that cIose to a staf Is ceftaIn to be
phase-Iocked wIth one sIde stuck facIng the staf, much as the Moon Is phase-Iocked to
Eafth (we can't see the faf sIde of the Moon ffom Eafth). Phase-IockIng ImpIIes that haIf
the pIanet Is pefmanentIy sweItefIng and the othef haIf pefmanentIy ffozen, whIch Is
not an IdeaI affangement fof bIoIogy. Thefe wIII, howevef, be a GoIdIIocks zone at the
mafgIns whefe pfImItIve IIfe at Ieast mIght be possIbIe.
Yet anothef vafIety of habItabIe zone wouId be the IntefIof of smaII Icy pIanets of
moons. In the ffIgId outef subufbs of ouf own soIaf system, Eufopa, a moon of JupItef,
has a IIquId ocean beneath Its Ice cfust, wafmed by tIdaI ffIctIon ffom JupItef's gfavIty
(see PIate 3). Fafthef out, the dwaff pIanet PIuto Is now known to be but one membef of
a Iafge cIass of Icy bodIes, some of whIch afe aIso fIch In IIfe-encoufagIng chemIcaIs. The
Iafgef ones have enough IntefIof heat ffom theIf fofmatIon, pIus the wafmIng effects of
fadIoactIvIty and chemIcaI pfocesses, to femaIn IIquId InsIde fof bIIIIons of yeafs. Othef
pIanetafy systems wIII aImost ceftaInIy contaIn sImIIaf bodIes wIth ffozen suffaces and
IIquId-watef IntefIofs. If IIfe wefe to emefge InsIde these Ice-capped bodIes, It wouId
most IIkeIy be stuck at the IeveI of mIcfobes. But even If mofe compIex bIoIogIcaI
entItIes wefe to evoIve thefe, one can onIy specuIate what IIfe wouId be IIke In such a
IocatIon. How Iong wouId It take sentIent beIngs, confIned to theIf pItch-dafk IIquId
habItat by a soIId sky hundfeds of kIIometfes thIck, to dIscovef that thefe was a vast
unIvefse beyond theIf wofId's appafentIy ImpenetfabIe foof? It Is hafd to ImagIne that
they wouId evef 'bfeak out' of theIf Ice pfIson and beam fadIo messages acfoss space.
AND FINAIIY, WHAT ABOUT AII THOSE UFO STORIES?
Sufveys show that a staggefIng 40 mIIIIon AmefIcans have seen what they descfIbe as a
UFO. So what Is a UFO? The acfonym means UnIdentIfIed FIyIng Object, so It IItefaIIy
means nobody knows what It Is. But the pfess has tufned a negatIve we don't know
Into a posItIve we know It Is. SomethIng EIse. In the popuIaf ImagInatIon, that
somethIng eIse Is a spaceshIp ffom anothef wofId. So If someone sees somethIng In the
sky they can't IdentIfy, then so the popuIaf afgument goes It Is a candIdate fof an
aIIen spacecfaft.
NeedIess to say, none of thIs Impfesses scIentIsts. Fof a staft, the IogIc Is fIawed. Not
beIng abIe to IdentIfy somethIng as X, doesn't mean It must be Y. It mIght be Z. UFOs
afe fepofted In theIf thousands, and the vast majofIty of them get expIaIned
stfaIghtfofwafdIy as weIfd atmosphefIc effects, aIfcfaft seen undef unusuaI condItIons,
bfIght pIanets, etc. AdmIttedIy, thefe afe a handfuI of tough cases, but no obvIous
demafcatIon dIvIdes cases that get soIved ffom those that don't. So It Is temptIng to
concIude that If 95 pef cent of sIghtIngs can be expIaIned wIthout too much effoft, then
so couId the femaInIng 5 pef cent If we had enough InfofmatIon at ouf dIsposaI, because
thefe Is nothIng to eIevate that fesIdue ffom the fest, apaft ffom beIng mofe puzzIIng.
ThIs Is ceftaInIy the posItIon of many govefnments that have set up UFO feseafch
studIes. The BfItIsh govefnment fecofded 11,000 cases staftIng In 1950. Aftef
downpIayIng the Impoftance of thIs study fof yeafs, It fecentIy feIeased a Iafge batch of
UFO fIIes undef the Ffeedom of InfofmatIon Act. But In spIte of some baffIIng cases, the
govefnment's concIusIon was that, whatevef the unexpIaIned fesIdue mIght fepfesent, It
was not aIIens at wofk. 'The MInIstfy of Defence does not deny that thefe afe stfange
thIngs to see In the sky,' conceded a spokespefson. But on the othef hand. 'It ceftaInIy
has no evIdence that aIIen spacecfaft have Ianded on thIs pIanet.'
16
Fof Its paft, the UnIted States estabIIshed Pfoject BIue Book In 1950 to evaIuate
whethef UFOs posed a thfeat to natIonaI secufIty. Ovef twenty yeafs, thousands of
fepofts wefe sIfted and hundfeds InvestIgated In detaII. At the end of thIs mammoth
anaIysIs, Edwafd Condon, a weII-known atomIc physIcIst, was asked to pfovIde an
assessment. The fesuItIng Condon Repoft concIuded that about 90 pef cent of the
sIghtIngs couId be expIaIned In tefms of nofmaI phenomena, whIIe the femaInIng 10 pef
cent dIdn't contaIn enough of scIentIfIc vaIue of defence sIgnIfIcance to waffant BIue
Book's contInuatIon.
17
It was duIy tefmInated. BIue Book empIoyed an astfonomef as
scIentIfIc advIsef AIIen Hynek ffom Nofthwestefn UnIvefsIty In IIIInoIs. I met the
amIabIe pIpe-smokIng Df Hynek on a numbef of occasIons when I was a postdoctofaI
feseafchef, and I even vIsIted hIs home In IIIInoIs, whIch contaIned a foom fuII of dusty
UFO fIIes. That was In 1970. It was Hynek who softed the fepofts Into vafIous
categofIes and coIned the famIIIaf tefm 'cIose encountefs of the thIfd kInd', whIch
became a bywofd aftef Steven SpIeIbefg adopted It fof hIs famous movIe (and In fetufn
gave Hynek, compIete wIth pIpe, a cameo foIe In the fIIm). Hynek was convInced aftef
yeafs of gfueIIIng InvestIgatIon that thefe was 'somethIng In It', aIthough he conceded
that onIy a tIny ffactIon of cases pfesented evIdence fof anythIng sefIousIy odd. Fof a
whIIe he aImost convInced me too I was at Ieast pfepafed to keep an open mInd. But
ovef the yeafs, as I thought mofe about these unexpIaIned sIghtIngs, I came to see how
deepIy anthfopocentfIc they wefe beafIng aII the haIImafks of human fathef than
aIIen mInds. ThIs was especIaIIy tfue of the most chaIIengIng cases In whIch wItnesses
cIaImed to have encountefed aIIen beIngs In the fIesh. AImost aIways these 'ufonauts'
wefe humanoId In fofm (sometImes dwaffs of gIants), and often wIth descfIptIons that
suggested somethIng stfaIght out of HoIIywood centfaI castIng. Iatef I shaII dIscuss how
pIausIbIe thIs Is that aIIen spacefafefs wouId fesembIe humans so cIoseIy In theIf
physIcaI fofm. Anothef gIveaway was the banaIIty of the aIIens' putatIve agenda, whIch
seemed to consIst of gfubbIng afound In fIeIds and meadows, chasIng cows of aIfcfaft of
cafs IIke bofed teenagefs, and abductIng humans fof NazI-styIe expefIments. Not what
one wouId expect of cosmIc supefmInds.
Ffom tIme to tIme I have soIved a few cases myseIf. Some wefe easy. One consIsted of
a movIe showIng a bfIght IIght fIsIng ffom the gfound In the east just befofe sunfIse, and
gfaduaIIy fadIng ffom vIew In about haIf an houf. As any amateuf astfonomef wouId
ImmedIateIy know, thIs was Venus, pfesentIng ItseIf as the 'MofnIng Staf', fIsIng ahead
of the sun fIght on cue. Anothef movIe showed a set of IIghts agaInst a cIoudy sky, each
one IazIIy faIIIng wIth a sIIght fockIng motIon befofe bIInkIng out. The fIIm had been
taken by a coupIe campIng neaf Stonehenge In southefn EngIand, a IocatIon fedoIent
wIth ancIent foIkIofe and mystIcaI ambIence. If you afe goIng to see UFOs, thefe Is no
bettef pIace. The fIIm Iooked so stfIkIng that Gfanada TeIevIsIon showed It on the
natIonaI 6 p.m. news, and ofganIzed a IIve IntefvIew to foIIow. I was asked to take
paft. I feached the studIo eafIy and natufaIIy asked fof a sneak pfevIew. The moment I
saw the movIe sequence I knew what the IIghts wefe mIIItafy fIafes. ThIs was pufe
Iuck on my paft: I had wItnessed somethIng vefy sImIIaf myseIf not Iong befofe. I asked
the studIo opefatof to zoom In on the Images and, sufe enough, thefe wefe the smoke
tfaIIs. The fIafes had been IgnIted above the cIoud base, and then emefged on IIttIe
pafachutes, swayIng In the wInd, so that they appeafed one by one ffom the cIouds and
sIowIy descended befofe eventuaIIy bufnIng out. Once the expIanatIon was pfesented,
the IIghts no Iongef Iooked so mystefIous. The fact that Stonehenge Is Iocated cIose to a
BfItIsh afmy tfaInIng gfound hadn't occuffed to anybody as sIgnIfIcant. Gfanada TV
unsuccessfuIIy tfIed to puII the stofy once the expIanatIon was cIeaf. The IIve show went
ahead too, so I asked the wItnesses to descfIbe the scene. AppafentIy they had obsefved
the stfange IIghts In the same patch of sky fof sevefaI days funnIng befofe fIImIng them.
I wanted to know why they dIdn't get In cIosef If the phenomenon was so pfedIctabIe.
'We tfIed,' they fepIIed, 'but wefe pfevented by the afmy, who wefe conductIng
manoeuvfes In the afea.' Now you mIght thInk that, gIven aII thIs, my mIIItafy fIafes
expIanatIon wouId ImmedIateIy have won the day, but not a bIt of It. In the eyes of the
coupIe, and pfobabIy the majofIty of the vIewIng pubIIc too, the objects In the fIIm
feaIIy wefe UFOs, It's just that they loo/eJ li/e mIIItafy fIafes. WIth that soft of
feasonIng, you can't wIn.
Of coufse, the same Is tfue of aII conspIfacy theofIes. Many peopIe afe convInced that
'the govefnment' knows 'the tfuth' about UFOs but Is covefIng It up fof nefafIous
feasons. ThIs Is supeffIcIaIIy pIausIbIe, because govefnments ceftaInIy do have a habIt of
covefIng thIngs up. I asked Seth Shostak of the SETI InstItute In CaIIfofnIa, who has
studIed the UFO scene In detaII, what he thought about It. 'WouId they feaIIy be so
effIcIent at covefIng up a bIg thIng IIke thIs?' he fepIIed sceptIcaIIy. 'Remembef, thIs Is
the same govefnment that funs the Post OffIce.' He aIso poInted out that UFOs afe not
the excIusIve pfesefve of the UnIted States: they afe fepofted wofIdwIde. It's not enough
fof the US govefnment to conceaI the tfuth ovef many decades. What about the
govefnments of, say, BeIgIum of Botswana? You mIght expect at Ieast one of them to Iet
somethIng sIIp ffom tIme to tIme.
None of thIs constItutes a knock-down 'soIutIon' of the UFO 'fIddIe'. It wouId not
sufpfIse me If a smaII ffactIon of cases InvoIve new of IIttIe-undefstood atmosphefIc of
psychoIogIcaI phenomena. But whatevef IIes behInd that stubbofn fesIdue of hafd-to-
expIaIn cases, I see no feason to attfIbute them to the actIvItIes of aIIen beIngs vIsItIng
ouf pIanet In fIyIng saucefs. UFO stofIes, IIke ghost stofIes, afe fun to fead, but cannot
be taken sefIousIy as evIdence fof extfateffestfIaI beIngs. They do sefve a usefuI
pufpose, howevef, by pfovIdIng a wIndow on how the human mInd ImagInes aIIens and
aIIen technoIogy. What Is stfIkIng about the accounts Is not theIf weIfd and othefwofIdIy
chafactef, but theIf dIstInctIy mundane and human-IIke quaIIty. We wouId sufeIy expect
of extfateffestfIaIs somethIng mofe extfaofdInafy than humanoId beIngs pIIotIng the
equIvaIent of souped-up steaIth bombefs.
As I shaII show, SETI compeIs us to make muc/ gfeatef Ieaps of ImagInatIon. The
BfItIsh bIoIogIst J. B. S. HaIdane famousIy femafked that 'the unIvefse Is not onIy
queefef than we suppose, but queefef than we cun suppose.'
18
ContempIatIng a sefIousIy
aIIen InteIIIgence, and the haIImafks of a muItI-mIIIIon-yeaf technoIogy, means we must
jettIson as much mentaI baggage as possIbIe. Fofget IIttIe gfeen men, gfey dwaffs,
fIyIng saucefs wIth pofthoIes, cfop cIfcIes, gIowIng baIIs and scafy noctufnaI abductIons.
EmbfacIng SETI means goIng beyond UFOs, beyond the stefeotypes of human myth,
beyond foIkIofe, fabIe and scIence fIctIon. Even Oz, the fantasy Iand aftef whIch Dfake
named Pfoject Ozma, Is not 'queef enough', to pafaphfase HaIdane. To fuIIy
compfehend the sIgnIfIcance of the eefIe sIIence compeIs us to embafk on a joufney Into
the truly unknown.
2
IIfe: Ffeak SIde-Show of CosmIc ImpefatIve?
We now /now t/e number of sturs in t/e universe is somet/ing li/e one followeJ by 2S zeros. Given t/ut number,
/ow urrogunt to t/in/ ours is t/e only sun wit/ u plunet t/ut supports life, unJ t/ut it's t/e only solur system wit/
intelligent life.
Edwafd J. WeIIef, NASA DIfectof
1
A UNIVERSE TEEMING WITH IIFE?
Most peopIe have IIttIe dIffIcuIty acceptIng that thefe may be countIess InhabIted wofIds
scattefed thfough space. When asked to justIfy thIs beIIef, a typIcaI fesponse Is that the
unIvefse Is so vast, thefe sImpIy must be IIfe and InteIIIgence out thefe somewhefe. It Is
an oft-fepeated afgument, but unfoftunateIy It contaIns the eIementafy IogIcaI faIIacy of
confusIng a necessafy wIth a suffIcIent condItIon. ConsIdef the two basIc fequIfements
fof IIfe to exIst on an Eafth-IIke pIanet: fIfst, the Eafth-IIke pIanet, second, the genesIs of
IIfe. Suppose we gfant that thefe afe Indeed tfIIIIons of Eafth-IIke pIanets In the
obsefvabIe unIvefse a pfospect that Is IookIng IncfeasIngIy IIkeIy does thIs guafantee
tfIIIIons of InhabIted pIanets? Not at aII. The fact that a pIanet Is /ubituble Is not the
same as sayIng It Is in/ubiteJ. That wouId be so onIy If the genesIs of IIfe Is guafanteed,
gIven that a pIanet Is Eafth-IIke. But suppose the emefgence of IIfe ffom non-IIfe Is a
ffeak affaIf, an event of such Iow pfobabIIIty that even wIth a trillion trillion habItabIe
pIanets It wouId stIII be unIIkeIy to happen mofe than once? The sheef sIze of the
unIvefse wouId then count fof IIttIe If the odds afe so heavIIy stacked agaInst the
spontaneous fofmatIon of IIfe.
What do we know about IIfe's ofIgIn? MIght It have been a bIzaffe fIuke, a one-off
accIdent makIng Eafth unIque In the obsefvabIe unIvefse? Many dIstInguIshed scIentIsts
have thought so. FfancIs CfIck, co-dIscovefef of the stfuctufe of DNA, once wfote, 'The
ofIgIn of IIfe appeafs at the moment to be aImost a mIfacIe, so many afe the condItIons
whIch wouId have had to have been satIsfIed to get It goIng.'
2
Jacques Monod, the
Ffench bIochemIst who won a NobeI PfIze fof hIs wofk unfaveIIIng the detaIIs of the
genetIc code, sImIIafIy pfocIaImed, 'The unIvefse Is not pfegnant wIth IIfe nof the
bIosphefe wIth man. Man at Iast knows that he Is aIone In the unfeeIIng ImmensIty of
the unIvefse, out of whIch he emefged onIy by chance.'
3
At that tIme, beIIef In any fofm
of extfateffestfIaI IIfe, Iet aIone InteIIIgent aIIen beIngs, was seen as pufe scIence
fIctIon, the stuff of bad HoIIywood movIes, wIth no scIentIfIc basIs whatsoevef. I was a
student In the 1960s and my own fascInatIon wIth the possIbIIIty of extfateffestfIaI IIfe
was fegafded as so dIsfeputabIe It vefged on the cfackpot. One mIght as weII have
expfessed a beIIef In faIfIes. SETI In paftIcuIaf wasn't taken sefIousIy. The dIstInguIshed
Hafvafd bIoIogIst Geofge SImpson descfIbed the seafch fof InteIIIgent aIIens as 'a
gambIe at the most advefse odds wIth hIstofy'.
4
Today the penduIum has swung the othef way. The bIoIogIst ChfIstIan de Duve IIke
Monod, a NobeI pfIzewInnef Is so convInced that IIfe wIII afIse on Eafth-IIke pIanets
thfoughout the unIvefse, he caIIs It 'a cosmIc ImpefatIve'.
5
Both scIentIsts and joufnaIIsts
now often decIafe that the unIvefse Is chock-a-bIock wIth IIfe. Evefy IIttIe dIscovefy
concefnIng pIanets Is pfesented by the medIa as one step cIosef to fIndIng
extfateffestfIaI IIfe, even InteIIIgent IIfe. The 2009 meetIng of the AmefIcan AssocIatIon
fof the Advancement of ScIence, heId In a snow-covefed ChIcago just befofe the Iaunch
of the KepIef mIssIon to seafch fof Eafth-IIke extfa-soIaf pIanets, typIfIed the new mood.
SevefaI sessIons wefe devoted to astfobIoIogy a subject that IncIudes the study of IIfe
beyond Eafth. In one of them, AIan Boss of the CafnegIe InstItutIon In WashIngton, DC,
decIafed In ebuIIIent fashIon: 'If you have a habItabIe wofId and Iet It evoIve fof a few
bIIIIon yeafs then InevItabIy some soft of IIfe wIII fofm on It. It wouId be ImpossIbIe to
stop IIfe gfowIng on these habItabIe pIanets.' Boss went on to deIIvef an affestIng
statIstIc: 'Thefe couId be one hundfed bIIIIon tfIIIIon Eafth-IIke pIanets In space, makIng
It InevItabIe that extfateffestfIaI IIfe exIsts.'
6
The scIence joufnaIIst RIchafd AIIeyne
fepofted thIs event fof the UK's uily Telegrup/ newspapef: 'IIfe on Eafth used to be
thought of as a ffeak accIdent that onIy happened once. But scIentIsts afe now comIng
to the concIusIon that the unIvefse Is teemIng wIth IIvIng ofganIsms.'
So whIch poInt of vIew Is fIght? Is IIfe a ffeak accIdent, confIned to ouf pIanet, of a
'cosmIc ImpefatIve', and hence spfead thfoughout the unIvefse? The answef hInges on
just how IIkeIy It Is fof IIfe to emefge ffom non-IIfe, so It makes sense to Iook fof cIues In
the way that IIfe on Eafth began.
HOW DID IIFE BEGIN?
When ChafIes DafwIn pubIIshed hIs magnum opus On t/e Origin of Species, he gave a
convIncIng account of how, ovef Immense pefIods of tIme, IIfe has evoIved ffom sImpIe
mIcfobes to the fIchness and compIexIty of the bIosphefe we see today. But he poIntedIy
Ieft out an account of how IIfe got goIng In the fIfst pIace. 'One mIght as weII specuIate
about the ofIgIn of mattef,' he quIpped. Two centufIes Iatef we afe stIII IafgeIy In the
dafk about how IIfe stafted.
Thefe afe feaIIy thfee puzzIes foIIed Into one hefe the when, whefe and how of
bIogenesIs. The when paft at Ieast Is becomIng cIeafef. Aftef some academIc skIfmIshes
ovef the past decade, most bIoIogIsts agfee that the PIIbafa hIIIs of Westefn AustfaIIa
contaIn tfaces of IIfe datIng back neafIy 3.5 bIIIIon yeafs.
7
Now a focus of Intense
IntefnatIonaI feseafch, the ancIent focks jut ffom afId hIIIsIdes In a wIId and desoIate
teffaIn about fouf houfs' dfIve thfough the bush ffom the coastaI town of Poft HeadIand.
The evIdence fof IIfe gathefed so faf IncIudes fossIIIzed mIcfobIaI mats caIIed
stfomatoIItes and tIny featufes embedded In fock, thought by many feseafchefs to be
mIcfofossIIs. RecentIy, evIdence has been found In the same fegIon fof an entIfe
fossIIIzed ecosystem.
8
CouId IIfe have exIsted at an even eafIIef epoch? The pfobIem In answefIng thIs
questIon Is the paucIty of vefy oId focks. Thefe afe some In GfeenIand that have been
dated to 3.85 bIIIIon yeafs ago, whIch afe subtIy aItefed In a mannef consIstent wIth
bIoIogIcaI actIvIty, but non-bIoIogIcaI pfocesses couId aIso be fesponsIbIe. Rocks even
oIdef than thIs afe known, but so faf none has been found to contaIn any tface of
ancIent IIfe. ObvIousIy the PIIbafa ofganIsms dIdn't just pop Into exIstence feady-made,
thefe wouId have been a pefIod of evoIutIon pfecedIng theIf appeafance. AII we can say
wIth confIdence Is that IIfe had estabIIshed ItseIf on Eafth by some tIme between 3.5 and
4 bIIIIon yeafs ago. ThIs may be compafed wIth the age of the pIanet ItseIf about 4.5
bIIIIon yeafs.
As to whefe IIfe began, that Is much mofe pfobIematIc. The PIIbafa hIIIs pfovIde the
eafIIest cIeaf tfaces of IIfe on Eafth, but thefe Is no feason to suppose IIfe actuaIIy
stafted thefe. DafwIn hImseIf mused about a 'wafm IIttIe pond' fuII of chemIcaIs Ieached
ffom the suffoundIng focks and enefgIzed by sunIIght. VafIous othef types of 'pfImofdIaI
soup' have been suggested, fangIng ffom dfyIng Iagoons thfough suspended watef
dfopIets to the entIfe ocean. Othef feseafchefs favouf the vIcInIty of the scaIdIng fIuIds
spewIng ffom deep-ocean voIcanIc vents. My own favoufIte IocaIe, fof what It's wofth,
Is faf beneath the seabed (maybe as deep as a kIIometfe of two) In the pofes of focks
Infused by sIow cuffents of hot convectIng fIuId. In tfuth, the settIng Is pufe guesswofk.
It Is not cIeaf that IIfe even began on Eafth, a good case can be made that It stafted on
Mafs, fof exampIe. Eafth and Mafs have fof bIIIIons of yeafs tfaded focks bIasted Into
space by comet and astefoId bombafdment, and the sufface of Mafs Is pockmafked wIth
Impact cfatefs. Much of the ejected matefIaI goes Into ofbIt afound the sun, and a smaII
ffactIon of that eventuaIIy hIts Eafth, pefhaps aftef a mIIIIon yeafs of mofe In space.
Ovef the coufse of geoIogIcaI hIstofy, tfIIIIons of tons of MaftIan matefIaI have faIned
down on ouf pIanet. It Is but a smaII step to ImagIne MaftIan mIcfobes hItchIng a fIde
on some of thIs debfIs.
9
Embedded deep wIthIn a fock, pfotected ffom the hafsh
condItIons of space, a hafdy mIcfobe couId easIIy sufvIve the IntefpIanetafy joufney,
especIaIIy If It was In a spofe-IIke dofmant state. ExpefIments have confIfmed that
mIcfobes InsIde focks can wIthstand space condItIons, as weII as bIast-off and
subsequent hIgh-speed entfy Into Eafth's atmosphefe.
10
Why Mafs? The case fof IIfe staftIng thefe fIfst Is not ovefwheImIng, but It Is at Ieast
suggestIve. Mafs Is a smaIIef pIanet, so It cooIed quIckef ffom the heat of fofmatIon, and
hence was feady fof IIfe soonef than Eafth. Fof about 700 mIIIIon yeafs both pIanets
wefe fefocIousIy pounded by objects fangIng In sIze ffom smaII bouIdefs to massIve 500-
kIIometfe-wIde astefoIds. The sufface Iayefs chufned up by the bombafdment afe mofe
IooseIy packed on Mafs than on Eafth owIng to the Iowef gfavIty, and so wouId have
offefed a deepef fefuge ffom the mayhem fof any subsufface mIcfobes. Mafs does have
watef, but not much. Its feIatIve scafcIty mIght actuaIIy have been a heIp fof IIfe's eafIy
sufvIvaI: on Eafth, the heat enefgy feIeased by the bIggest Impacts boIIed the oceans
and swathed the pIanet In a IethaI atmosphefe of fock vapouf and supefheated steam.
Today, Mafs Is a ffeeze-dfIed deseft, at best onIy mafgInaIIy habItabIe to teffestfIaI
mIcfobes, but bIIIIons of yeafs ago the tabIes wefe tufned: Mafs was mofe favoufabIe to
IIfe, wIth stfeams and Iakes, a much thIckef atmosphefe and hIghef sufface tempefatufes
than today. None of thIs adds up to a convIncIng case that IIfe on Eafth came ffom
Mafs, but It does wIden the fange of settIngs that need to be expIofed In answefIng the
questIon of whefe IIfe began.
The feaIIy tough pfobIem about the ofIgIn of IIfe Is /ow It happened. It Is easy to
appfecIate the basIc obstacIe. The sImpIest known IIfe fofm Is aIfeady so ImmenseIy
compIex It Is InconceIvabIe that such a thIng couId have afIsen spontaneousIy In a sIngIe
tfansfofmatIon pufeIy by chance. In a famous metaphof once used by the BfItIsh
astfonomef Ffed HoyIe, It Is easIef to beIIeve that a whIfIwInd passIng thfough a
junkyafd wouId assembIe a functIonIng BoeIng 747.
11
Howevef, the opefatIve wofd hefe
Is 'known' IIfe. Nobody supposes the fIfst IIvIng thIng was as compIex as a bactefIum.
Faf sImpIef fofms of IIfe may be possIbIe, pfovIdIng steppIng stones ffom the fIfst
ofganIsm to IIfe as we undefstand It today. It couId be that these pfImItIve bugs afe stIII
out thefe somewhefe, ovefIooked fof what they afe, eIthef too smaII to have attfacted
attentIon of confIned to a pecuIIaf habItat that hasn't yet been expIofed by
mIcfobIoIogIsts (of whIch, mofe Iatef). They may even have been Ieft behInd on Mafs. It
Is equaIIy conceIvabIe that sImpIef pfecufsofs of famIIIaf IIfe Iong ago dIed out, eIthef
gobbIed up of eIbowed asIde by mofe compIex, sophIstIcated IIfe, IeavIng no tface.
IIfe (at Ieast as we know It) Is chemIcaI In natufe. That may seem obvIous, but In the
subject of SETI nothIng shouId be taken fof gfanted. Two hundfed yeafs ago IIfe was
fegafded as some soft of magIc mattef, anImated by a mystefIous vItaI fofce. ScIentIsts
stIII use the tefm 'ofganIc chemIstfy', even though we now know that the Iaws of
chemIstfy afe the same whethef a moIecuIe Is Iocated InsIde of outsIde an ofganIsm.
Most of the eafIy specuIatIon about the ofIgIn of IIfe, such as DafwIn's wafm IIttIe pond,
assumed thefe was a weII-defIned chemIcaI pathway pefhaps Iong and toftuous
between an amofphous chemIcaI cocktaII and the fIfst ofganIzed IIvIng ceII. IIfe's ofIgIn
wouId then be akIn to bakIng a cake: thefe wouId be a fecIpe of fequIfed substances,
and a pfocedufe heatIng, dfyIng, cooIIng, etc. fof tfansfofmIng non-IIvIng stuff Into
IIfe. It Is a beguIIIng concept, and one feInfofced by a famous expefIment conducted In
1952 by StanIey MIIIef at the UnIvefsIty of ChIcago. At the InstIgatIon of the geochemIst
HafoId Ufey, MIIIef fIIIed a fIask wIth methane, watef, ammonIa and hydfogen gases
thought at the tIme to have been pfesent In Eafth's pfImItIve atmosphefe and spafked
the mIxtufe wIth eIectfIcIty fof a few days. MIIIef was deIIghted to dIscovef amIno acIds,
the buIIdIng bIocks of pfoteIns, In the sIudge at the bottom of the fIask (see FIg. 1).
FIg. 1. IIfe In a test tube? StanIey MIIIef and hIs famous ofganIc synthesIs expefIment.
The MIIIefUfey expefIment came to be seen by many chemIsts as the fIfst step on the
Iong foad to synthesIzIng IIfe In the Iabofatofy, fe-cfeatIng the same chemIcaI pathway
that Mothef Natufe took bIIIIons of yeafs ago. UnfoftunateIy that entIfe IIne of feseafch,
whIch Iooked so pfomIsIng In the 1950s, tufned out to be somethIng of a dead end.
AmIno acIds afe undenIabIy buIIdIng bIocks of pfoteIns, but they afe as faf ffom the
compIeted pfoduct as a bfIck Is to the EmpIfe State BuIIdIng. AIso, they afe easy to
make, and afe found occuffIng natufaIIy In meteofItes and even In IntefsteIIaf dust
cIouds. GoIng beyond amIno acIds, Iet aIone pfoducIng nucIeIc acIds (the basIs of
hefedIty), has pfoved ImpossIbIe usIng a sImpIe enefgIzed soup pfocedufe. If IIfe was
Incubated by successIve chemIcaI tfansfofmatIons, It was unIIkeIy to be In thIs
stfaIghtfofwafd mannef.
SInce MIIIefUfey, ouf undefstandIng of the natufe of IIfe has undefgone a fevoIutIon.
In that same yeaf, FfancIs CfIck and James Watson pubIIshed theIf papef on the
stfuctufe of DNA, and In subsequent decades scIentIsts have come to fegafd the IIvIng
ceII Iess as magIc mattef, mofe as supefcomputef. To be sufe, IIfe uses chemIstfy to
enact Its agenda, but the key to Its neaf-magIcaI quaIItIes IIes wIth the way ceIIs pfocess
and fepIIcate InfofmatIon. That puts a dIffefent compIexIon on the whoIe bIogenesIs
puzzIe, because the feaI Issue Is how InfofmatIon stofage and fepIIcatIon mIght have
afIsen spontaneousIy, not how natufaIIy occuffIng chemIcaIs feacted to 'anImate'
mattef.
ObvIousIy a cfucIaI paft of thIs stofy Is compIexIty. To quaIIfy fof the descfIptIon
'aIIve', a system has to do mofe than mefeIy fepIIcate InfofmatIon (a sImpIe saIt cfystaI
can do thIs): It needs to be compIex enough to possess a type of autonomy. That Is, the
InfofmatIon content has to be gfeat enough fof the system to manage Its own agenda
to 'take on a IIfe of Its own', quIte IItefaIIy. It Is faf ffom cIeaf what that thfeshoId of
compIexIty mIght be, but the sImpIest known natufaIIy occuffIng autonomous mIcfobes
each contaIn upwafds of a mIIIIon bIts of InfofmatIon. Afeas of feseafch that have a
beafIng on the pfobIem afe the study of seIf-ofganIzIng systems, the seIf-assembIy of
moIecuIaf stfuctufes, compIexIty and InfofmatIon theofy In genefaI, and a bufgeonIng
fIeId of InvestIgatIon known as synthetIc bIoIogy, In whIch feseafchefs endeavouf to
desIgn and make theIf own ofganIsms ffom scfatch In the Iabofatofy. These afe excItIng
and fast-movIng fIeIds, but aII that can be saId at thIs tIme Is that the pfobIem of IIfe's
ofIgIn Is vefy faf ffom beIng cIeafIy fofmuIated, and nowhefe neaf beIng soIved.
Even If we nevef know exactIy how IIfe began, howevef, we mIght stIII soIve the
Iessef fIddIe of whethef Its ofIgIn was a fIuke of a IIkeIy event. Ffom the poInt of vIew
of SETI, aII we feaIIy need to know Is whethef IIfe stafts up feadIIy and Is thefefofe
wIdespfead In the unIvefse, as seems to be so wIdeIy beIIeved.
IIFE AS A BIZARRE FIUKE
To a physIcIst IIke me, IIfe Iooks to be IIttIe shoft of magIc: aII those dumb moIecuIes
conspIfIng to achIeve such cIevef thIngs! How do they do It? Thefe Is no ofchestfatof, no
chofeogfaphef dIfectIng the peffofmance, no espfIt de cofps, no coIIectIve wIII, no IIfe
fofce just mIndIess atoms pushIng and puIIIng on each othef, kIcked about by fandom
thefmaI fIuctuatIons. Yet the end pfoduct Is an exquIsIte and hIghIy dIstInctIve fofm of
ofdef. Even chemIsts, who afe famIIIaf wIth the amazIng tfansfofmatIve powefs of
moIecuIes, fInd It bfeathtakIng. Geofge WhItesIdes, Pfofessof of ChemIstfy at Hafvafd
UnIvefsIty, wfItes, 'How femafkabIe Is IIfe? The answef Is: very. Those of us who deaI In
netwofks of chemIcaI feactIons know of nothIng IIke It.'
12
WhItesIdes stfesses how hafd
It Is to ImagIne such a compIex and specIfIcaIIy ofganIzed system comIng Into beIng In
the fIfst pIace: 'How couId a chemIcaI sIudge become a fose, even wIth bIIIIons of yeafs
to tfy?
13
. We (of at Ieast I) do not undefstand. It Is not ImpossIbIe, but It seems vefy,
vefy ImpfobabIe.'
14
WhIch bfIngs us to the cfux of the mattef: just /ow ImpfobabIe Is It?
The entIfe SETI entefpfIse hInges on the answef. WhItesIdes agaIn: 'But how IIkeIy Is It
that a newIy fofmed pIanet, wIth sufface condItIons that suppoft IIquId watef, wIII gIve
fIse to IIfe? We have, at thIs tIme, no cIue, and no convIncIng way of estImatIng. Ffom
what we know, the answef faIIs somewhefe between ImpossIbIy unIIkeIy" and
absoIuteIy InevItabIe". We cannot caIcuIate the odds of the spontaneous emefgence of
ceIIuIaf IIfe on a pIausIbIe pfebIotIc eafth In any satIsfyIng and convIncIng way.'
15
It mIght have been dIffefent had the affangement of chemIcaIs In the ceII foIIowed
some soft of pattefn, fof exampIe, If the sequences of amIno acIds that make pfoteIns
contaIned mathematIcaI feguIafItIes that couId be tfaced back to an undefIyIng Iaw of
natufe. But no such ofdefIIness Is appafent: the chemIcaI sequences seem totaIIy
haphazafd, whIch was what Ied Monod to hIs bIeak concIusIon. Yet they afe not
afbItfafy: In many cases even a smaII change In the sequence can sevefeIy compfomIse
bIoIogIcaI functIonaIIty. So the affangement Is at once bot/ fandom unJ hIghIy specIfIc
a pecuIIaf, Indeed unIque, combInatIon of quaIItIes hafd to expIaIn by detefmInIstIc
physIcaI fofces.
16
On the othef hand, If chance domInates when It comes to the ofIgIn of
IIfe, the odds In favouf of gettIng just t/ut affangement of moIecuIes afe InfInItesImaI
the tofnado In the junkyafd. VIewed thIs way, then, IIfe Is a ffeak phenomenon that
afose by an exceedIngIy Iucky fIuke, a pfocess of such staggefIng ImpfobabIIIty that we
can safeIy say It happened onIy once In the obsefvabIe unIvefse. The fact that we afe
wItness to such a neaf-mIfacIe Is, of coufse, not at aII a sufpfIse, but an InevItabIe
seIectIon effect: obsefvefs can exIst onIy whefe thefe Is IIfe.
17
In spIte of these dampenIng facts, beIIef In extfateffestfIaI IIfe Is now wIdespfead
among scIentIsts. So what has changed sInce the days of pessImIsts IIke CfIck, Monod
and SImpson? CufIousIy, vefy IIttIe on the actuaI scIentIfIc ffont. It's tfue that we can
now be feasonabIy sufe thefe afe Iots of pIanets In the unIvefse, but that mefeIy
confIfms what astfonomefs aIfeady suspected In the sceptIcaI sIxtIes. SInce then, some
basIc ofganIc moIecuIes have been found In space In comets and moIecuIaf cIouds
but as I have expIaIned, makIng the buIIdIng bIocks of IIfe Is easy, and has vefy IIttIe
feIevance to the pfobIem of how to assembIe them Into hIghIy compIex affangements
chafactefIstIc of IIfe, Iet aIone In a mannef that systematIcaIIy pfocesses InfofmatIon.
Pefhaps the most peftInent change Is the dIscovefy that mIcfo-ofganIsms can wIthstand
a wIdef fange of condItIons than was obvIous a few decades ago, ImpIyIng that mofe
pIanets couId In pfIncIpIe suppoft sImpIe IIfe. But thIs onIy Incfeases sIIghtIy the fange
of pIanets we mIght fegafd as quaIIfyIng fof the accoIade 'Eafth-IIke'. It doesn't aItef a
jot the fact that IIfe's ofIgIn couId have been a ffeak event.
Much ado Is made about fIndIng sIgns of IIquId watef on Mafs, fof exampIe. NASA
has an unoffIcIaI mantfa, 'foIIow the watef', as If IIfe wIII be obIIgIngIy waItIng
whefevef we fInd a Iake of an ocean. It Is often poInted out that whefe thefe Is IIquId
watef on Eafth, thefe Is IIfe. It's tfue that IIquId watef Is essentIaI fof IIfe as we know It,
but the sequence of feasonIng pIanets-watef-IIfe Is anothef gIafIng exampIe of
confusIng a necessafy wIth a suffIcIent condItIon. IIquId watef may Indeed be necessafy
fof IIfe, but It Is faf ffom suffIcIent: thefe may be a host of othef condItIons that afe aIso
fequIfed. On Eafth, we fInd IIfe In aImost aII IIquId watef habItats not because It has
afIsen spontaneousIy thefe, but because Eafth's hydfosphefe fofms a mofe of Iess
contIguous system, so IIfe has been abIe to spfead out and Invade aII those watefy
pIaces. FoIIowIng the watef Into space Isn't mIsconceIved, but It Is sImIIaf to the man
who Ioses hIs keys In the dafk and Iooks fof them undef the Iamppost, not because they
afe IIkeIy to be IyIng thefe, but because thefe Is no chance at aII of fIndIng them
anywhefe eIse.
None of the scIentIfIc dIscovefIes of the past haIf-centufy have gfeatIy aItefed what we
know, of don't know, about IIfe's seemIngIy ffeaky natufe. The change In sentIment Is
due, I beIIeve, to fashIon fathef than dIscovefy. At a tIme when physIcIsts ffeeIy
specuIate about extfa dImensIons, antIgfavIty and dafk mattef, and cosmoIogIsts
pfopose muItIpIe unIvefses and dafk enefgy, specuIatIon about extfateffestfIaI IIfe
seems tame by compafIson. I'm okay wIth that. It's fun to specuIate, and ET may Indeed
be out thefe somewhefe. Of not. Howevef, we must nevef aIIow specuIatIon to fepIace
feaI scIence.
One way to bfIng feaI scIence to beaf on thIs subject Is to see whethef de Duve's
'cosmIc ImpefatIve' stacks up. CouId It be that the Iaws of natufe afe In some way fIgged
In favouf of IIfe, makIng Its emefgence faf mofe IIkeIy than the mefe fandom shuffIIng
of moIecuIes mIght ImpIy? The answef Is no, at Ieast not at fIfst gIance. I aIfeady
mentIoned that thefe Is no dIscefnIbIe pattefn In the sequences of amIno acIds In
pfoteIns. The same goes fof the sequences of base-paIfs the 'genetIc Iettefs' In DNA.
It aII Iooks fandom. If the Iaws of physIcs and chemIstfy afe somehow conspIfIng to fast-
tfack mattef to IIfe agaInst the faw odds, It's not showIng up In the end pfoduct the
moIecuIaf stfuctufes themseIves. Indeed, the Iaws of physIcs and chemIstfy afe
compIeteIy IndIffefent to the sequences of base-paIfs In DNA of amIno acIds In pfoteIns:
they dIspIay no favoufItIsm fof one sequence ovef anothef.
18
Commentatofs often
decIafe that IIfe Is 'wfItten Into' the Iaws of natufe, but If It Is wfItten Into the Iaws of
physIcs and chemIstfy we have yet to see any sIgn of It. ThIs comes as no sufpfIse to a
physIcIst. The Iaws of physIcs afe, aftef aII, unIvefsaI. They afe no mofe IIkeIy to have
'IIfe' wfItten Into them than 'Iaptop computefs' of 'the Rocky MountaIns'. IIfe,
computefs and mountaIns afe consIstent wIth the Iaws of physIcs, but the Iaws aIone do
not expIaIn theIf exIstence.
Does thIs InvaIIdate the cosmIc ImpefatIve? Not necessafIIy. The basIc Iaws of physIcs
may not exhaust aII possIbIe Iaws. Fof exampIe, thefe afe Iaw-IIke feguIafItIes of a quIte
genefaI natufe descfIbIng compIex seIf-ofganIzIng systems as dIvefse as ant coIonIes,
stock mafkets and the Intefnet. These 'ofganIzatIonaI' Iaws uugment those of
fundamentaI physIcs, they don't suppIant of oveffIde them. It couId be that IIfe Is the
pfoduct of such a hIghef-IeveI (of emefgent) Iaw, pefhaps a Iaw of IncfeasIng
compIexIty that opefates, not unIvefsaIIy IIke the Iaws of physIcs, but In specIaI (though
not especIaIIy ImpfobabIe) systems satIsfyIng as yet unknown condItIons. If so, then aII
It mIght need Is fof chance to cfeate such a specIaI system In the fIfst pIace foIIowIng
whIch the Iaw wouId sefve to dfIve It towafds IIfe. PefsonaIIy I have Iong been attfacted
to the possIbIIIty of such hIghef-IeveI Iaws, e.g. Iaws of IncfeasIng compIexIty, but I
ffeeIy admIt that thefe Is scant evIdence fof them so faf.
19
I shaII fetufn to thIs topIc In
Chaptef 8.
Anothef IIne of feasonIng In favouf of the cosmIc ImpefatIve comes ffom a vafIety of
mathematIcaI games In whIch 'IIfeIIke' behavIouf seems to emefge quIte effoftIessIy even
when the fuIes of the game afe vefy sImpIe. One cIass of games, caIIed ceIIuIaf
automata, offefs a caftoon wofId In whIch squafes on a chequefboafd afe fIIIed of not so
as to fofm a pattefn, the pattefn then evoIves detefmInIstIcaIIy accofdIng to sImpIe
fuIes. A paftIcuIaf ceIIuIaf automaton, devIsed by the BfItIsh mathematIcIan John
Conway In 1970 and known appfopfIateIy enough as T/e Gume of Life, has become
quIte fashIonabIe, and exhIbIts a femafkabIy fIch and compIex ecoIogy of shapes that
move and Intefact.
20
If sImpIe pfocesses 'pIayed' In combInatIon can genefate
acceIefatIng ofganIzed compIexIty, maybe the secfet of IIfe Isn't so subtIe aftef aII. On
the othef hand, feaI IIfe seems as faf ffom T/e Gume of Life as a mouse Is ffom MIckey
Mouse. SImpIe mathematIcaI fepfesentatIons afe gfeat fun, but they mustn't be confused
wIth feaIIty. At best, ceIIuIaf automata tIp the scaIes sIIghtIy In favouf of the Idea that
IIfe stafts up easIIy.
AIthough nothIng IIke a 'IIfe pfIncIpIe' has been IdentIfIed bufIed In the Iaws of
physIcs and chemIstfy, bIoIogIsts agfee that thefe Is at Ieast one ofganIzIng pfIncIpIe
undef-gIfdIng aII of IIfe: DafwInIan evoIutIon. Any system that undefgoes fepIIcatIon
wIth vafIatIon and Is subjected to natufaI seIectIon wIII evoIve ovef tIme. ThIs pfIncIpIe,
whIch Is feaIIy a tfuIsm (It mefeIy states that entItIes whIch fepIIcate mofe effIcIentIy
Incfease theIf feIatIve numbefs In the popuIatIon), can be taken as a defInItIon of IIfe.
EvoIutIon can, but does not have to, Iead to gfeatef compIexIty. So IIfe muy have begun
wIth somethIng compafatIveIy sImpIe a popuIatIon of smaII fepIIcatIng moIecuIes, say.
Pefhaps these moIecuIes afe sImpIe enough to fofm spontaneousIy In many
envIfonments, they may even be fofmIng on Eafth today. Once the InItIaI moIecuIaf
fepIIcatofs get goIng then DafwInIan evoIutIon can kIck In, dfIvIng the compIexIty
hIghef and hIghef, untII somethIng appfoachIng the famIIIaf IIvIng ceII eventuaIIy
emefges. The Impoftant poInt Is that DafwInIsm doesn't have to waIt fof ceIIuIaf IIfe to
afIse befofe It can wofk Its speII, It couId be equaIIy effectIve at the moIecuIaf IeveI. ThIs
cIaIm Is easy to make, but It Ieaves a Iot of questIons open, not Ieast of whIch Is the
IdentIty of the fIfst fepIIcatofs. What afe these moIecuIes, exactIy? Nobody knows,
aIthough the chemIst Gfaham CaIfns-SmIth has conjectufed they may not even be
ofganIc moIecuIes, he favoufs Impufe cIay cfystaIs.
21
ActuaIIy, It's not stfIctIy necessafy fof IIfe to begIn wIth fepIIcatIng stfuctufes at aII.
AII that Is fequIfed Is the fepIIcatIon of informution. BIts of InfofmatIon can be
fepfesented whenevef thefe Is a pattefn In a physIcaI stfuctufe. The pattefn can be
fepIIcated eIthef by fepfoducIng the stfuctufe ItseIf, of by mefeIy copyIng the pattefn on
to a 'bIank'. Fof exampIe, when I tfansfef a computef fIIe ffom a memofy stIck on to an
empty paft of the hafd dfIve of my computef, the computef doesn't make a physIcaI
copy of the InsIde of the memofy stIck. What happens Is that the bIts of InfofmatIon (I.e.
the eIectfIcaI pattefn) In the stIck get copIed on to the hafd dfIve. It Is the softwure that
Is fepIIcated, not the hafdwafe. IIfe couId begIn sImpIy by pattefns beIng copIed, wIth
smaII vafIatIons, and subjected to seIectIon pfessufe. The pattefns couId be anythIng at
aII, e.g. compIex magnetIc of eIectfIcaI tesseIIatIons of affays of spInnIng atoms,
coupIed to an extefnaI enefgy soufce.
22
MAKING IIFE IN A TEST TUBE
Many scIentIsts beIIeve we wIII soon be abIe to make IIfe oufseIves, In the Iabofatofy. In
a IImIted sense, It has aIfeady been done. In 2002 a team at the State UnIvefsIty of New
Yofk, Stony Bfook, was abIe to assembIe a poIIo vIfus ffom scfatch, usIng commefcIaIIy
avaIIabIe moIecuIaf buIIdIng bIocks. But a vIfus Is not a fuIIy autonomous ofganIsm (It
cannot fepfoduce on Its own). BactefIa afe, and HamIIton SmIth and hIs coIIeagues at
the J. CfaIg Ventef InstItute In CaIIfofnIa have assembIed an entIfe synthetIc bactefIaI
genome of 582,970 base-paIfs. They wefe abIe to Inseft It Into a host bactefIum, but at
the tIme of wfItIng they had yet to coax theIf customIzed genome to 'boot up' and do
anythIng. CfaIg Ventef hImseIf has been fe-engIneefIng the genetIc matefIaI of smaII
bactefIa to cfeate the sImpIest autonomous ceII. SIgnIfIcant though these advances afe, a
wofd of cautIon Is necessafy. The Iattef two expefIments do not feaIIy count as 'makIng
IIfe'. Rathef, they adapt exIstIng ofganIsms, In aII theIf fantastIc compIexIty, to make
new types of ofganIsms.
Even If an entIfe autonomous mIcfobe Is eventuaIIy buIIt ub initio wIthout any use of
pfe-exIstIng IIfe fofms at aII, It wouId stIII not settIe the Issue of the cosmIc ImpefatIve.
IIfe began In natufe wIthout the benefIt of hIgh-tech IabofatofIes and deIIcate step-by-
step pfocedufes ImpIemented undef cafefuIIy contfoIIed condItIons. Above aII, It got
goIng wIthout the use of an InteIIIgent desIgnef such as CfaIg Ventef, settIng out wIth a
specIfIc goaI In mInd. Mothef Natufe cfeated IIfe In the gfubby condItIons of a newIy
fofmed pIanet (of somewhefe eIse, we don't know), expIoItIng natufaI, fandom
chemIcaI feactIons, and wIth no pfe-conceIved 'destInatIon IIfe' to guIde and shape the
feactIons. What happened just happened. QuIte obvIousIy It Is possible to make IIfe In
the Iab aII you have to do Is to stfIng togethef the fIght moIecuIes In the fIght way.
Thefe Is nothIng mIfacuIous about It, any dIffIcuIty Is entIfeIy technIcaI and a mattef of
gafnefIng suffIcIent fesoufces, wIth enough tIme, money and effoft, It couId cIeafIy be
done. But It won't cast much IIght on how wIdespfead IIfe Is In the unIvefse. If It tufned
out that thefe wefe vefy many ways to make IIfe In the Iab, and not too many cafefuIIy
contfoIIed steps needed to 'boot It up', It wouId shoften the odds In favouf of the cosmIc
ImpefatIve. But cfeatIng a totaIIy synthetIc ofganIsm wouIdn't on Its own pfove that IIfe
Is ubIquItous.
SummIng up then, the pfobabIIIty of IIfe emefgIng ffom non-IIfe can be pIaced on a
spectfum fangIng ffom InfInItesImaI (Monod's posItIon) to aImost InevItabIe (de Duve's
posItIon), of anywhefe In between. It Is ffustfatIng that so basIc and cfucIaI an Issue
femaIns ImpondefabIe. Can we make any pfogfess at aII? Indeed we can. In fact, thefe
Is an obvIous and dIfect way to confIfm If a cosmIc ImpefatIve Is at wofk, and that Is to
fInd a second sampIe of IIfe.
SEEKING A SECOND GENESIS ON MARS
Evefybody agfees that Mafs offefs the best cuffent hope fof fIndIng IIfe beyond Eafth.
23
In 1977, NASA sent to Mafs two spacecfaft caIIed VIkIng, wIth the expfess pufpose of
seekIng mIcfobIaI IIfe In the sufface dIft. Few peopIe appfecIate that VIkIng femaIns the
onIy successfuI mIssIon by any space agency to Iook fof extfateffestfIaI IIfe. T/e only
one. The medIa tend to pfesent aII Mafs expIofatIon as paft of the seafch fof IIfe, but
thIs Is a sIy pIece of dIsInfofmatIon. It Is tfue that some Mafs expIofatIon IookIng fof
watef, fof exampIe beafs IndIfectIy on the questIon of IIfe, but expIIcItIy bIoIogIcaI
expefIments have fof thIfty yeafs been systematIcaIIy eIImInated ffom NASA mIssIons.
The Eufopean Space Agency Is equaIIy Iukewafm about the seafch fof MaftIan bIoIogy.
TheIf Mafs Expfess mIssIon, Iaunched In 2003, IncIuded onIy as a beIated aftefthought
BfItaIn's tIny BeagIe 2 moduIe. BuIIt on a shoestfIng budget and not tested pfopefIy
because of the fush, BeagIe 2 was desIgned to snIff out IIfe on the MaftIan sufface.
SadIy, It dIsappeafed wIthout tface. AII we cuffentIy have to go on afe the fesuIts of
VIkIng.
Both VIkIng spacecfaft wefe equIpped wIth a fobot afm and shoveI to dIg up the fIne
MaftIan dust and deIIvef It to IIttIe on-boafd IabofatofIes whefe fouf IIfe detectIon
expefIments wefe peffofmed (see PIate 4). The expefIments wefe desIgned to be as
genefaI as possIbIe wIthIn the ffamewofk of cafbon-based IIfe, as thefe was no feason to
suppose that Mafs IIfe and Eafth IIfe wouId be the same. One Instfument, wIth the
cumbefsome name of gas chfomatogfaph mass spectfometef, was buIIt to detect ofganIc
moIecuIes, such as the decomposed detfItus of once-IIvIng ceIIs. Anothef Iooked fof
sevefaI specIfIc gases gIven off of absofbed by any ofganIsms when In the pfesence of a
nutfIent medIum. A thIfd sought evIdence of photosynthesIs. The fInaI expefIment was
desIgned to detect cafbon uptake by addIng a nutfIent bfoth to the dIft and seeIng
whethef anythIng metaboIIzed It. A posItIve sIgn that the bfoth was beIng consumed by
mIcfobes wouId be the emIssIon of a cafbonaceous gas, such as cafbon dIoxIde of
methane. To monItof the gas pfoductIon, the cafbon atoms used In the bfoth IncIuded a
fadIoactIve Isotope, C
14
, as a IabeI. Fof thIs feason the pfocedufe was caIIed the IabeIIed
feIease, of IR, expefIment.
The VIkIng mIssIon was a huge success, and stands as an Immense tfIbute to NASA.
Both spacecfaft Ianded safeIy In wIdeIy sepafated IocatIons. The fobot afms depIoyed
pfopefIy, the camefas wofked and the on-boafd expefIments went off aImost wIthout a
hItch, and aII usIng 1960s technoIogy. The fesuIts wefe eagefIy awaIted by scIentIsts and
pubIIc aIIke. I fecaII beIng on vacatIon In the fofmef YugosIavIa when the spacecfaft
Ianded, and seeIng the bannef headIInes In EngIIsh on newsstands In DubfovnIc. Aftef
centufIes of specuIatIon about IIfe on Mafs, the tIme had come to put the Idea to a
pfopef scIentIfIc test.
The data sent back by the spacecfaft paInted a confused pIctufe, unfoftunateIy. The
mass spectfometef found no tface of ofganIc matefIaI, whIch was odd, because even If
thefe Is no IIfe In the MaftIan soII, smaII amounts of ofganIc gunk afe deIIvefed ffom
space by comets, and shouId have shown up. Two mofe expefIments wefe ambIguous.
By contfast, the IR expefIment gave a stfongIy posItIve fesuIt. The bfoth was hungfIIy
devoufed and fadIoactIve cafbon dIoxIde came off as hoped on both spacecfaft. When
the mIxtufe was heated to 160C, the stfong feactIon ceased, as It wouId If It had been
caused by mIcfobes subsequentIy kIIIed by the hIgh tempefatufes. On the face of It, the
IR expefIment had found IIfe. But that was not NASA's spIn. GIven the IndecIsIve fesuIts
of the othef thfee expefIments, the ovefaII concIusIon was 'no IIfe detected on Mafs'. It
femaIns the offIcIaI posItIon today, and Is cIeafIy stated as such on the pIacafd In ffont
of a VIkIng fepIIca at the AIf and Space Museum In WashIngton, DC. The posItIve fesuIts
of IR afe attfIbuted by most scIentIsts to hIghIy feactIve soIIs cfeated by the hafsh
MaftIan sufface envIfonment, and especIaIIy the effect of uItfavIoIet fadIatIon.
The desIgnef of the IR expefIment, GIIbeft IevIn, contests NASA's concIusIon. He stIII
maIntaIns he found IIfe on Mafs. Today, GII Is a coIIeague of mIne In the Beyond Centef
at AfIzona State UnIvefsIty, whefe he hoIds the posItIon of Adjunct Pfofessof. Back In
the 1970s he antIcIpated the possIbIIIty of an ambIguous fesuIt ffom IR, and had a pIan
to cIfcumvent It. NeafIy aII ofganIc moIecuIes possess a defInIte handedness. Fof
exampIe, DNA Is a fIght-handed spIfaI, seen In a mIffof, the handedness Is fevefsed. The
technIcaI tefm fof handedness Is 'chIfaIIty', and It Is beIIeved by most scIentIsts to be a
unIvefsaI featufe of IIfe. Known IIfe aImost aIways uses fIght-handed sugafs and Ieft-
handed amIno acIds. The Iaws of chemIstfy, though, afe mIffof-symmetfIc they do not
favouf one chIfaIIty ovef the othef. So a gfeat way to teII the dIffefence between
bIoIogIcaI actIvIty and sImpIe chemIstfy Is to Iook fof chIfaI dIscfImInatIon a feactIon
favoufIng one chIfaI fofm ovef the othef. GII wanted to fun the IR expefIment wIth two
bfoths, one havIng Ieft-handed amIno acIds and fIght-handed sugafs, the othef usIng
theIf mIffof fofms. Thus, had the Mafs soII fIzzed equaIIy fof both, a sImpIe chemIcaI
feactIon wouId be the most IIkeIy expIanatIon the one most scIentIsts now back. But If
bIoIogy had been fesponsIbIe, then thefe wouId have been a mafked dIffefence In
fesponse between the two fofms of bfoth.
24
SadIy, thIs fefInement was eIImInated fof
feasons of cost. As a fesuIt, the VIkIng expefIments femaIn an exaspefatIng mystefy.
In spIte of the defInItIve 'no IIfe detected' concIusIon ffom VIkIng, many scIentIsts
have In fecent yeafs wafmed to the Idea that thefe mIght be IIfe on Mafs aftef aII. Of at
Ieast, that thefe mIght have been IIfe thefe bIIIIons of yeafs ago. ThIs shIft In attItude Is
IafgeIy due to the accumuIatIng evIdence that Mafs once had IIquId watef In feasonabIe
abundance. Photogfaphs show ancIent fIvef vaIIeys and Iake beds, and on-the-gfound
expefIments confIfm that watef has fIowed ovef focks. Today the watef Is Iocked up as
poIaf Ice and pefmaffost, but epIsodIc IocaI of gIobaI heatIng may stIII occuf, e.g. as a
fesuIt of cIImatIc shIfts of comet Impacts, enabIIng IIquId watef to exIst bfIefIy on the
sufface. Watef shouId aIso be pfesent deep undefgfound, whefe the IntefnaI heat of the
pIanet maIntaIns tempefatufes above ffeezIng. Mafs aIso has voIcanoes whIch can cause
IocaI heatIng, and thefe Is even evIdence fof hydfothefmaI systems, whefe geothefmaI
hot spots bfIng about sustaIned cycIIng of watef ovef extended pefIods. On Eafth,
ancIent hydfothefmaI systems afe assocIated wIth the oIdest tfaces of IIfe (In the PIIbafa
hIIIs fof exampIe). Indeed, many astfobIoIogIsts thInk teffestfIaI IIfe actuaIIy began In
such a settIng. As I mentIoned eafIIef, aII the evIdence suggests that, thfee of fouf bIIIIon
yeafs ago, Mafs was mafkedIy wafmef and wettef, pfesumabIy as a fesuIt of a much
thIckef atmosphefe IeadIng to massIve gfeenhouse wafmIng. The envIfonment at that
tIme wouId have been suItabIe fof mIcfobes, Indeed, some hafdy teffestfIaI bactefIa
couId pfobabIy sufvIve undef cuffent MaftIan condItIons.
If Mafs was, of In a IImIted sense stIII Is, 'Eafth-IIke', we shouId be abIe to fInd
evIdence of IIfe thefe, If It exIsts (of once exIsted). It mIght come ffom a mofe fefIned
VIkIng-type pfobe, ffom a mIssIon desIgned to bfIng fock sampIes back to Eafth, of ffom
a manned expedItIon. WhIIe IIfe on the hafsh sufface of Mafs femaIns a Iong shot,
subsufface mIcfobes dweIIIng In aquIfefs hundfeds of metfes undefgfound afe dIstInctIy
possIbIe. They mIght betfay theIf pfesence thfough waste gases such as methane beIng
exuded to the sufface. In the next thIfty yeafs, scIentIsts may weII fInd cIeaf evIdence
that mIcfobes exIsted on Mafs at some stage In the pIanet's hIstofy.
Most peopIe mIstakenIy Ieap to the concIusIon that the dIscovefy of IIfe on Mafs
wouId ImpIy that the unIvefse Is seethIng wIth It. But thIngs afe not that sImpIe. As I
expIaIned at the begInnIng of thIs chaptef, Mafs and Eafth afe not quafantIned. They
feguIafIy exchange matefIaI In the fofm of ejected focks, and whIIe the tfaffIc ffom Mafs
to Eafth gfeatIy exceeds that goIng the othef way, ovef astfonomIcaI hIstofy huge
quantItIes of teffestfIaI matefIaI wIII have Ianded on Mafs, much of It Infested wIth
mIcfobes. Most of the passengefs wIII have pefIshed on the joufney, but not aII. If Mafs
was Iong ago mofe Eafth-IIke than today, at Ieast some of these teffestfIaI stowaways
wIII have fIoufIshed In theIf new home. ConvefseIy, It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that teffestfIaI
IIfe dId not staft on Eafth, but came hefe ffom Mafs. EIthef way, the mefe fact of
fIndIng IIfe on Mafs wIII not In ItseIf be enough to estabIIsh the cosmIc ImpefatIve. One
wouId need to demonstfate that IIfe has stafted from scrutc/ on both Mafs and Eafth, I.e.
In both pIaces IndependentIy. The ongoIng IntefmIngIIng of Eafth and Mafs IIfe by
exchanged focks wouId at the vefy Ieast sevefeIy compIIcate the stofy, makIng It hafd to
untangIe how and whefe IIfe began, and whethef thefe was one genesIs of two.
What about IIfe beyond the soIaf system? Thefe Is onIy an InfInItesImaI chance that a
fock bIasted off Eafth wouId evef hIt anothef Eafth-IIke pIanet In anothef staf system,
and even If It dId, thefe Is IIttIe pfospect that any mIcfobes wouId sufvIve fof the vast
Iengths of tIme needed to get thefe. So the contamInatIon pfobIem Is IffeIevant.
DetectIng sIgns of IIfe on an extfa-soIaf pIanet wouId thus be cIeaf evIdence fof a
second, Independent, genesIs. Astfonomefs have ambItIous pIans fof Iafge space-based
optIcaI systems that couId detect the pfesence of oxygen and pefhaps even
photosynthesIs on extfa-soIaf pIanets, but the technIcaI chaIIenges afe fofmIdabIe and
unIIkeIy to be soIved In the neaf futufe.
If we have to feIy on sateIIItes and space pfobes to decIde whethef of not IIfe Is a
fIuke, we couId be In fof a vefy Iong waIt. FoftunateIy, thefe Is anothef way to test the
cosmIc ImpefatIve, a way that avoIds expensIve space mIssIons aItogethef a way that
untII fecentIy has been ovefIooked. We mIght just be abIe to settIe the mattef wIthout
evef IeavIng Eafth. No pIanet Is mofe Eafth-IIke than Eafth ItseIf, so If IIfe feaIIy does
fofm feadIIy In Eafth-IIke condItIons as the cosmIc ImpefatIve demands then It
shouId have stafted many tImes ovef fIght hefe on ouf home pIanet.
Pefhaps It dId.
3
A Shadow BIosphefe
A box wit/out /inges, /ey, or liJ, yet golJen treusure insiJe is /iJ.
J. R. R. ToIkIen
SEEKING A SECOND GENESIS ON EARTH
If IIfe stafted mofe than once on Eafth, we couId be vIftuaIIy ceftaIn that the unIvefse Is
teemIng wIth It. UnIess thefe Is somethIng very pecuIIaf about ouf pIanet, It Is
InconceIvabIe that IIfe wouId have begun twIce on one Eafth-IIke pIanet but hafdIy evef
on aII the fest. UntII fecentIy, bIoIogIsts genefaIIy assumed, wIthout gIvIng It too much
thought, that aII IIfe on Eafth Is the sume life, wIth evefy ofganIsm that evef IIved
havIng descended ffom a common genesIs. But how do we know that Is so? CouId thefe
be two of mofe dIffefent softs of IIfe on thIs pIanet? Has anybody actuaIIy Iooked?
Hefe's one pIausIbIe scenafIo fof how IIfe mIght have begun fepeatedIy. As I
mentIoned In Chaptef 2, fof about 700 mIIIIon yeafs aftef Its fofmatIon, Eafth was
subjected to a femofseIess baffage of astefoIds and comets, the bIggest of whIch couId
have stefIIIzed the whoIe pIanet. Between bIg Impacts, howevef, condItIons wouId have
been Iess hostIIe. These quIescent epIsodes may have Iasted many mIIIIons of yeafs.
AccofdIng to the 'cosmIc ImpefatIve' account of IIfe's ofIgIn, whIch we afe seekIng to
test, the IuIIs may have Iasted Iong enough fof IIfe to get undef way. Fof a whIIe,
pfImItIve mIcfobes wouId thfIve and spfead, onIy to be obIItefated by the next bIg
Impact. Then thefe wouId be anothef IuII, and IIfe wouId staft agaIn and get
annIhIIated once mofe. The eafIy hIstofy of IIfe on Eafth may thus have been a Iong
sefIes of stop-go bIoIogIcaI 'expefIments', wIth many genesIs events In sequence
pfoducIng many vafIetIes of IIfe, an Idea fIfst suggested by two CaItech geoIogIsts,
KevIn Mahef and DavId Stevenson.
1
TheIf theofy was pIausIbIe enough, but at the tIme
they ovefIooked an Impoftant cofoIIafy. Each stefIIIzIng Impact wouId have ejected a
massIve quantIty of matefIaI Into ofbIt found the sun, conveyIng wIth It any mIcfo-
ofganIsms that may have been In fesIdence. Some of the ejected focks wouId eventuaIIy
fInd theIf way back to Eafth aftef the effects of the Impact had faded. Dofmant mIcfobes
couId wIthstand a space envIfonment fof mIIIIons of yeafs when cocooned In a fock, so
some at Ieast wouId have fetufned aIIve and weII and feady to fesume nofmaI IIfe.
Howevef, In the meantIme, whIIe IIfe I was hangIng out In space, IIfe II had fofmed
dufIng the next IuII, and become ensconced. Thefe wouId now be two fofms of IIfe on
Eafth at the same tIme. ThIs sequence of events may have happened agaIn and agaIn, so
that by the tIme the heavy bombafdment faded, thefe couId have been many dIffefent
softs of teffestfIaI IIfe descended ffom many dIffefent geneses.
2
The fofegoIng scenafIo fof muItIpIe ofIgIns Is by no means the onIy one. IIfe may
have begun IndependentIy at many dIffefent geogfaphIcaI IocatIons, pefhaps femaInIng
tfapped In IsoIated pockets fof eons. Some deep-IIvIng mIcfobes, cowefIng In theIf
subteffanean fefuge, mIght have been spafed the heat of the bombafdment, and
suffaced onIy aftef anothef fofm of IIfe had emefged up above. Of IIfe may have stafted
on Mafs many tImes and come In Its vafIous manIfestatIons to Eafth spofadIcaIIy ovef
mIIIIons of yeafs. It may even have begun on both Mafs and Eafth, and been tfansfeffed
between these pIanets In Impact ejecta, to mIngIe wIth the IndIgenous IIfe on affIvaI.
Fof the pufpose of thIs chaptef, the specIfIcs don't mattef. AII that concefns us fof
testIng the cosmIc ImpefatIve Is whethef IIfe stafted mofe than once. If It dId, what
evIdence mIght thefe be?
DIfect confIfmatIon couId come ffom the dIscovefy of IIvIng descendants of othef
genesIs events, shafIng ouf pIanet wIth us, and constItutIng a shadow bIosphefe.
3
A
good way to descfIbe thIs sItuatIon Is In tefms of the tfee of IIfe, whIch IIIustfates how
IIfe deveIoped mofe and mofe bfanches ovef tIme, dIvefsIfyIng thfough successIve
specIatIon (see FIg. 2). IIfe today Is fepfesented by mIIIIons of dIffefent specIes, but If
we tface evoIutIon backwafds ovef bIIIIons of yeafs, then they convefge on the 'tfunk of
the tfee'. Thus humans and chImpanzees can tface theIf descent ffom a common
ancestof IIvIng In AffIca between 7 and 5 mIIIIon yeafs ago. Go back fufthef, and aII
mammaIs convefge, then aII veftebfates, and so on, to pfImofdIaI mIcfobes thfee of fouf
bIIIIon yeafs ago. RIchafd DawkIns has descfIbed thIs bIoIogIcaI joufney back In tIme In
hIs engagIng book T/e Ancestor's Tule.
4
The questIon I am then faIsIng Is sImpIy, does aII
IIfe on Eafth beIong to thIs single tfee, of mIght thefe In fact be mofe than one tfee?
MIght thefe even be a fofest?

FIg. 2. The tfee of IIfe, showIng the genetIc feIatedness of dIffefent specIes. Most specIes (IncIudIng aII the bactefIa and
afchaea) afe mIcfobes. Ouf specIes (Homo) Is shown neaf the taII of the domaIn of eucafya.
When I began muIIIng these Ideas ovef a few yeafs ago,
5
I was amazed to fInd that
nobody had feaIIy thought much about evIdence fof muItIpIe genesIs events.
AstfobIoIogIsts have been busy fIgufIng out how to detect a dIffefent fofm of IIfe on
Mafs, but It hadn't occuffed to many peopIe to hunt fof aItefnatIve fofms of IIfe on ouf
own doofstep. I dId, howevef, fInd enough open-mInded scIentIsts to attend a wofkshop
at AfIzona State UnIvefsIty In Decembef 2006 and bfaInstofm a few Ideas. The fesuIt
was a gfoundbfeakIng feseafch papef
6
settIng out a stfategy to 'seek out new fofms of
IIfe', as the mIssIon statement of Stur Tre/ pfocIaIms, not IIght yeafs out In the gaIaxy,
but on Eafth ItseIf.
Befofe gettIng Into the detaIIs, Iet me summafIze why bIoIogIsts thInk aII /nown IIfe
shafes a common ofIgIn. The maIn evIdence comes ffom bIochemIstfy and moIecuIaf
bIoIogy. Oak tfees, whaIes, mushfooms and bactefIa may Iook vefy dIffefent, but theIf
IntefnaI wofkIngs afe aII ofganIzed afound the same system. They aII use DNA and RNA
to stofe InfofmatIon, and pfoteIns to sefve as enzymes and as stfuctufaI buIIdIng bIocks.
Enefgy Is stofed and feIeased usIng moIecuIes known as ATP. Many IdentIcaI, of at Ieast
vefy sImIIaf, genes afe found In dIstInctIy dIffefent specIes, fof exampIe, humans shafe
63 pef cent of theIf genes wIth mIce and 38 pef cent wIth yeast. The feaI cIInchef comes
ffom the genetIc code, the mathematIcaI scheme that tfansIates the data contaIned In
DNA Into InstfuctIons fof makIng pfoteIns. DNA stofes InfofmatIon as sequences of
moIecuIaf unIts caIIed nucIeotIdes. Thefe afe fouf dIffefent nucIeotIdes, nofmaIIy
IabeIIed by the Iettefs G, C, A and T. What makes you you and youf dog a dog hInges
entIfeIy on the sequence of those Iettefs. (It takes mIIIIons of Iettefs to specIfy you of
youf dog.) The Iettefs speII out, among othef thIngs, the InstfuctIons fof moIecuIaf
contfaptIons caIIed fIbosomes to assembIe pfoteIns by stfIngIng togethef amIno acIds In
the coffect ofdef. To achIeve thIs specIfIcatIon, known IIfe cIustefs the nucIeotIdes In
DNA Into gfoups of thfee (fof exampIe, AGT). Thefe afe sIxty-fouf dIffefent possIbIe
tfIpIet combInatIons avaIIabIe to specIfy the fequIsIte twenty-one dIffefent types of
amIno acIds, so choIces need to be made about what codes fof whIch. The numbef of
such choIces Is enofmous, because of the huge fange of possIbIe pefmutatIons, but aII
known specIes use the same code.
The fact that such compIIcated and specIfIc featufes as fIbosomes, ATP and the tfIpIet
code afe found to be unIvefsaI wouId be vefy hafd to expIaIn unIess aII the specIes had
descended ffom a unIvefsaI ancestof ancIent ceIIs that aIfeady Incofpofated those
dIstInctIve featufes. By sequencIng genes, It Is possIbIe to actuaIIy constfuct a common
genetIc tfee and dIspIay the shafed descent. Ovef tIme, specIes tend to dfIft apaft
genetIcaIIy, so the numbef of common genes decIInes. The sIow and cumuIatIve
dIvefgence pfovIdes a measufe fof how Iong ago two gIven specIes dIffefentIated. The
genetIc tfee Is mIffofed In the fossII fecofd, whIch aIso chafts the steady accumuIatIon of
changes and specIatIon.
Nobody doubts that famIIIaf muItIceIIed ofganIsms IIe on the same tfee. The anImaIs
In the zoo, the pIants In youf gafden, the bIfds In the sky and the fIsh In the sea aII
fepfesent a sIngIe type of IIfe. But thIs Is onIy paft of the stofy: the vast majofIty of
specIes afe mIcfobes. As Stephen Jay GouId so gfaphIcaIIy expfessed It, 'Ouf pIanet has
aIways been In the Age of BactefIa," evef sInce the fIfst fossIIs bactefIa, of coufse
wefe entombed In focks mofe than 3 bIIIIon yeafs ago. On any possIbIe, feasonabIe of
faIf cfItefIon, bactefIa afeand aIways have beenthe domInant fofms of IIfe on
Eafth.'
7
Undef a mIcfoscope, many mIcfobes Iook aImost the same IIttIe bIobs and
fods, sometImes wIth bIts stIckIng out. You can't teII by IookIng what goes on InsIde. If
you examIne the Innafds of a mIcfobe, chances afe you wIII fInd the same stuff DNA,
pfoteIns, fIbosomes as Is found In you of me. At Ieast, that has been the expefIence so
faf. But mIcfobIoIogIsts have onIy just scfatched the sufface of the mIcfobIaI feaIm. Ouf
wofId Is IItefaIIy seethIng wIth these tIny ofganIsms. Just one cubIc centImetfe of soII
mIght contaIn mIIIIons of dIffefent specIes addIng up to bIIIIons of mIcfobes In aII, and
the vast majofIty haven't even been cIassIfIed, Iet aIone anaIysed. Nobody knows fof
sufe what they afe, fof aII we know, some of them couId be IIfe as we do not know It.
To InvestIgate a specIes of mIcfobe fuIIy, you fIfst need to cuItufe It In the Iabofatofy
and then study Its bIochemIstfy, e.g. by sequencIng Its genome to posItIon It on the tfee.
ThIs technIque, whIIst undoubtedIy Impoftant, has Its pfobIems. Many mIcfobes don't
IIke beIng pIucked out of theIf natufaI habItat and cannot be cuItufed easIIy. Some fesIst
gene sequencIng. Because the chemIcaI technIques used to anaIyse mIcfobes afe
customIzed and tafgeted to IIfe as we know It, they wouIdn't wofk on an aItefnatIve
fofm of bIoIogy. ShouId thefe be a dIffefent type of mIcfobIaI IIfe out thefe, It Is vefy
IIkeIy to be ovefIooked, sImpIy because It wouId be unfesponsIve to the bIochemIsts'
pfobes used so faf. In a Iabofatofy sampIe It mIght weII get thfown out wIth the
gafbage. If you set out to study IIfe as we know It, then what you fInd wIII InevItabIy be
IIfe as we know It. It's thefefofe an open questIon whethef some mIcfobes mIght actuaIIy
be the descendants of a dIffefent genesIs.
WEIRD EXTREMOPHIIES
How mIght we go about IdentIfyIng IIfe as we Jon't know It? GIven the Iafge measufe of
chance In evoIutIon, It's hIghIy unIIkeIy that ofganIsms ffom sepafate ofIgIns wouId
have the same bIochemIstfy. AstfobIoIogIsts fefef to known ofganIsms as 'standafd IIfe'
and to the hypothetIcaI aItefnatIve fofms as 'weIfd IIfe'. (WeIfd IIfe couId be aIIen IIfe In
the sense of 'not one of us', but aIso In the sense of havIng an extfateffestfIaI, e.g.
MaftIan, ofIgIn. As I mentIoned above, the dIstInctIon Isn't Impoftant fof pfesent
pufposes.)
Paft of the pfobIem In seafchIng fof weIfd IIfe Is that we don't know exactIy what to
Iook fof. One stfategy Is to Iook In weIfd pIaces, keepIng an eye open fof anythIng that
Is IIvIng. But how weIfd Is weIfd? Ovef the past thfee decades, bIoIogIsts have been
fepeatedIy amazed to fInd IIfe sufvIvIng of even thfIvIng In envIfonments pfevIousIy
thought to be uttefIy IethaI. In the 1970s, mIcfobes wefe dIscovefed InhabItIng hot
spfIngs such as In the YeIIowstone NatIonaI Pafk. Some of these hafdy ofganIsms can
wIthstand tempefatufes of 90C, and fof obvIous feasons they afe caIIed thefmophIIes.
That was amazIng enough, but mofe sufpfIses Iay In stofe. ExpIofatIon of voIcanIc vents
on the ocean fIoof by the submafIne Alvin feveaIed entIfe ecosystems In totaI dafkness,
cIose to 'bIack smokefs' mInefaI chImneys In the seabed spewIng fofth dusky fIuId at
tempefatufes up to 350C (see PIate 6). The pfImafy pfoducefs at the base of the food
chaIn afe mIcfobes that cIustef afound the stfeam of scaIdIng effIuent, toIefatIng
tempefatufes up to, and In some cases exceedIng, 120C. ThIs Is weII above the nofmaI
boIIIng poInt of watef (the watef doesn't actuaIIy boII because of the hIgh pfessufe).
These extfeme heat-IovIng mIcfobes afe caIIed hypefthefmophIIes. They sufvIve In the
dafk because they don't fequIfe IIght fof enefgy. Rathef, they metaboIIze and make
bIomass dIfectIy ffom gases dIssoIved In the fIuId emanatIng ffom the Eafth's cfust.
8
Many othef specIes of mIcfobes have been dIscovefed IIvIng In dIffefent extfeme
condItIons. Fof exampIe, some ofganIsms, whIch fejoIce In the name of psychfophIIes,
can toIefate extfeme coId maybe as Iow as -20C befofe they stop gfowIng. Othefs
can wIthstand acId stfong enough to bufn human fIesh, whIIe yet othefs endufe equaIIy
coffosIve aIkaIIne condItIons. The Dead Sea tufns out to be a mIsnomef, because It Is
host to sevefaI specIes of haIophIIes ofganIsms that IIve happIIy In vefy hIgh saIt
concentfatIons. Pefhaps most femafkabIe of aII afe fadIatIon-fesIIIent mIcfobes IIke
einococcus ruJioJuruns (see PIate 5), whIch can sufvIve such hIgh doses of fadIatIon
that they have been found IIvIng In the waste pooIs of nucIeaf feactofs.
CoIIectIveIy these mIcfobIaI oddbaIIs afe known as 'extfemophIIes'. NotwIthstandIng
theIf exotIc natufe, to date aII extfemophIIes that have been anaIysed have tufned out to
be standafd IIfe they beIong to the same tfee of IIfe as you and me. TheIf exIstence
pfoves that the fange of condItIons undef whIch standafd IIfe can sufvIve Is much
bfoadef than pfevIousIy suspected. NeveftheIess thefe afe IImIts. AII standafd IIfe
fequIfes IIquId watef, fof exampIe. That aIone bfackets the tempefatufe and pfessufe
fange.
If thefe Is a shadow bIosphefe, It mIght be occupIed by weIfd 'hypef-extfemophIIes'
InhabItIng envIfonments that IIe beyond the feach of even the hafdIest fofm of standafd
IIfe, and have so faf escaped detectIon because nobody thought to Iook fof any fofm of
IIfe undef such extfeme condItIons. A good exampIe Is tempefatufe. Standafd
hypefthefmophIIes seem to have an uppef IImIt of about 130C and fof good feason.
The Intense heat dIsfupts vItaI moIecuIes, and even wIth a host of fepaIf and pfotectIon
mechanIsms, DNA and pfoteIns staft to unfaveI and dIsIntegfate If they afe subjected to
tempefatufes much In excess of 120C. Suppose we fInd nothIng IIvIng between 130C
and 170C In a deep-ocean voIcanIc-vent system, but then dIscovef mIcfobes thfIvIng
thefe between 17oC and 200C? The dIscontInuIty In tempefatufe fange wouId be a
stfong IndIcatof that we wefe deaIIng wIth weIfd IIfe as opposed to standafd IIfe that
had sImpIy pushed the tempefatufe enveIope hIghef.
Anothef IImIt Is depth. In the 1980s the mavefIck astfophysIcIst Thomas GoId of
CofneII UnIvefsIty supefvIsed an expefImentaI oII-dfIIIIng pfoject In Sweden, and
cfeated a stIf when he cIaImed to have dIscovefed IIfe at the bottom of a bofehoIe
sevefaI kIIometfes deep.
9
Not many peopIe beIIeved hIm. WIthIn a few yeafs, though,
othef feseafchefs began fIndIng mIcfo-ofganIsms IIvIng In the pofes of focks deep
undefgfound. But that was just the staft. Rock cofes ffom bofehoIes dfIIIed Into the
seabed wefe found to contaIn mIIIIons of mIcfobes pef cubIc centImetfe, down as deep
as the dfIIIs couId go (about a kIIometfe). It soon became cIeaf that thefe Is ampIe foom
insiJe ouf pIanet fof mIcfobIaI habItatIon.
10
Nobody knows how extensIve thIs deep, hot
bIosphefe mIght be, of just how faf down It stfetches, GoId conjectufed that thefe Is as
much bIomass undef the sufface as on It. Be that as It may, we can easIIy ImagIne many
IsoIated, of neafIy IsoIated, subteffanean ecosystems, each seIf-sustaInIng, and by and
Iafge sepafated ffom the feguIaf bIosphefe.
In fact, thfee ecosystems have been dIscovefed that afe aImost compIeteIy IsoIated
ffom the fest of the bIosphefe.
11
BufIed deep undefgfound, these extfaofdInafy mIcfobIaI
communItIes afe exampIes of hydfogen-powefed IIfe. The hydfogen Is pfoduced by the
dIssocIatIon of watef comIng Into contact wIth hot focks of, In one case, by
fadIoactIvIty. The ofganIsms get enefgy and make bIomass by combInIng the hydfogen
wIth dIssoIved cafbon dIoxIde, and gIvIng off methane as a waste pfoduct.
12
Many of
them afe thefmophIIes of hypefthefmophIIes, because the Eafth's cfust gets
pfogfessIveIy hottef wIth depth. In spIte of theIf spIendId IsoIatIon, howevef, aII the
occupants of these thfee subsufface ecosystems tufn out to be standafd IIfe. But It Is
cIeaf that scIentIsts have so faf gIImpsed onIy the tIp of the Icebefg. An IntfIguIng
questIon Is whethef some of these pockets mIght be InhabIted by weIfd fathef than
standafd IIfe fofms. It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that a futufe dfIIIIng pfoject, on Iand of at sea,
wIII hIt a pocket of weIfd IIfe. Even If we don't get Iucky and actuaIIy penetfate such a
pocket, we mIght stIII obtaIn IndIfect evIdence fof conceaIed weIfd IIfe. Fof ex-ampIe,
standafd IIfe Is pfeyed upon by vIfuses, mostIy wIthout any III effect.
13
They Invade
pIants, anImaIs and mIcfobes. Because they afe so tIny, vIfuses get conveyed to a much
wIdef fange of envIfonments than mIcfobIaI ceIIs. They afe evefywhefe In soII, aIf and
watef. The ocean Is pfetty much a case of 'vIfus soup', wIth up to 10 bIIIIon vIfaI
paftIcIes pef IItfe of seawatef. If weIfd mIcfo-ofganIsms afe confIned to Eafth's
subsufface (of anywhefe eIse on Eafth fof that mattef), It Is IIkeIy that 'weIfd vIfuses',
adapted to Intefact wIth them, wIII spfead themseIves afound the bIosphefe. They couId
be pfesent, maybe onIy at vefy Iow IeveIs, amId feguIaf vIfuses In seawatef of aIf. As
faf as I know, nobody has thought to Iook fof them.
Thefe afe pIenty of othef pIaces that couId be home fof IsoIated weIfd extfemophIIes,
pIaces so hafsh they IIe beyond the comfoft zone fof standafd IIfe. The Innef cofe of the
Atacama Deseft Is one pIace (see PIate 7). It Is so dfy and oxIdIzIng, bactefIa can't
metaboIIze. NASA has a fIeId statIon thefe, but so faf thefe Is no evIdence fof any cafbon
chemIstfy that couId be attfIbuted to weIfd IIfe. Othef possIbIe IocatIons IncIude the
uppef atmosphefe, coId dfy pIateaux and mountaIn tops (whefe hIgh-UV fIux Is a
pfobIem fof standafd IIfe), Ice deposIts at tempefatufes beIow 40C, and Iakes heavIIy
contamInated wIth metaIs toxIc to known IIfe. The technIcaI way of summafIzIng aII thIs
Is to envIsage a muItIdImensIonaI 'pafametef space' of vafIabIes such as tempefatufe,
pfessufe, acIdIty (pH), saIInIty, fadIatIon, etc. IIfe as we know It Is confIned to a fInIte
fegIon of thIs pafametef space, aIthough dIscovefIes In fecent yeafs have pushed the
boundafIes of the 'habItabIIIty fegIon' sufpfIsIngIy faf. StIII, thefe wIII aIways be an
outef IImIt. A shadow bIosphefe that Is ecoIogIcaIIy sepafate ffom the feguIaf bIosphefe
wouId exIst In a dIsconnected fegIon of pafametef space. We don't need to confIne ouf
seafch fof weIfd mIcfobes to a sIngIe pafametef IIke tempefatufe, It's possIbIe that some
combInatIon such as tempefatufe and acIdIty togethef Is mofe feIevant.
The chaIIenge Is to spot the weIfd mIcfobes If they afe pfesent at vefy Iow feIatIve
abundance. One Idea we afe wofkIng on at the Beyond Centef Is to make a vafIant of
GII IevIn's IabeIIed ReIease (IR) expefIment that went to Mafs on VIkIng. Aftef aII, thIs
expefIment was desIgned pfecIseIy to fInd ofganIsms of an unspecIfIed vafIety, usIng a
vefy genefaI defInItIon of IIfe that feIIed onIy on the abIIIty to cycIe cafbon thfough Its
system, somethIng that we expect shadow IIfe to do. The secfet of the IR expefIment IIes
wIth Its astonIshIng sensItIvIty. As I expIaIned eafIIef, It wofks by pfovIdIng a nutfIent
bfoth tagged wIth fadIoactIve cafbon (C
14
). Any cafbon cycIIng due to metaboIIsm Is
detected by IookIng fof C
14
In emItted cafbon dIoxIde. Because even the tInIest IeveIs of
fadIatIon afe easy to measufe, the IR expefIment can fegIstef tface amounts of actIvIty.
If thefe afe weIfd bugs out thefe on hIgh mountaIntops, In the cofe of the Atacama
Deseft of whefevef (and assumIng they don't choke on the bfoth so cafefuIIy pfovIded),
GII's expefIment couId fInd them. The fIfst step wIII be to detefmIne whethef of not they
afe just an even mofe extfeme extfemophIIe beIongIng to the standafd tfee of IIfe, of
descendants of anothef genesIs.
14
AIIENS AMONG US
In the pfevIous sectIon, I dIscussed the Idea that weIfd IIfe mIght be festfIcted to IsoIated
pockets beyond the feach of standafd IIfe, makIng It easy to spot. Much hafdef wouId be
If weIfd IIfe and feguIaf IIfe afe IntefmIngIed. A pefsIstent scIence fIctIon theme Is that
aIIen beIngs afe IIvIng cIandestIneIy among us, IndIstInguIshabIe ffom humans. A cIassIc
of Its kInd was Quutermuss 2, a BBC teIevIsIon hoffof sefIes of the 1950s, In whIch
unIucky IndIvIduaIs get 'taken ovef' by aIIens. In othefs, IIke the Iong-funnIng 1960s
AmefIcan teIevIsIon sefIes T/e InvuJers, aIIens dIsguIsed as humans InfIItfate ouf socIety.
The popuIafIty of thIs genfe Is In paft fInancIaI: It's cheapef to use human actofs wIth
IIttIe of no make-up to pIay the paft of the aIIens. Fof decades It aIso fed off feafs of the
CoId Waf, and the 'feds-undef-the-bed' neufoses of many Westefnefs. Impfovements In
specIaI effects, costume desIgn and computef-genefated Imagefy fInaIIy bfought about a
shIft In the way that aIIens wefe poftfayed, so that by the tIme the movIes Stur Wurs and
Alien wefe feIeased, aIIen anatomy had become much mofe vafIed and Iess humanoId.
So much fof scIence fIctIon. Now It seems that a IIIIIputIan vafIant of the aIIen
InfIItfatIon theme couId actuaIIy be tfue. If weIfd mIcfobes Iook IIke standafd bactefIa
and InhabIt the same envIfonment as us, they may have aIfeady been spotted, but
IackIng a vIsIbIe unIfofm that pfocIaIms membefshIp of an aItefnatIve cIub they
wouIdn't have excIted comment they wouId femaIn hIdden In the mIcfobIaI cfowd.
15
Thefe couId IItefaIIy be aIIen ofganIsms fIght undef ouf noses (of even In ouf noses!), as
yet unfecognIzed fof what they afe. The thofny pfobIem Is how to IdentIfy them.
One way Is bIochemIcaIIy. Two mIcfobes may Iook sImIIaf yet have vefy dIffefent
chemIstfy goIng on InsIde. If we couId know In advance what an aItefnatIve
bIochemIstfy mIght be, we couId then test mIcfobIaI sampIes fof sIgns of It. The tfIck Is
to guess fIght. As we don't know pfecIseIy what we afe IookIng fof, thIs Is quIte a
chaIIenge. But we can make some educated guesses. An obvIous exampIe Is chIfaIIty
the seIectIon of fIght-handed sugafs and Ieft-handed amIno acIds fathef than theIf mIffof
Images (see p. 39). If IIfe wefe to staft ovef agaIn, thefe Is a chance It wouId choose the
opposIte handedness next tIme (see FIg. 3). Even If thIs 'mIffof' IIfe fesembIed standafd
IIfe In aII othef fespects (fof exampIe, by usIng the same nucIeIc acIds and pfoteIns), It
wouId stand out not vIsuaIIy, but bIochemIcaIIy. What Is needed Is a chemIcaI fIItef to
tafget standafd IIfe, but not mIffof IIfe. I was dIscussIng thIs pfobIem wIth my wIfe
PauIIne a few yeafs ago, when she came up wIth a bfIght Idea of what to do. SufeIy, she
suggested, mIffof IIfe wouId tufn up Its pfovefbIaI nose at a cuItufe medIum that Is tasty
to standafd IIfe, but wouId gobbIe up 'mIffof soup' a medIum In whIch standafd sugafs
and amIno acIds afe fepIaced by theIf mIffof Images. Fof standafd IIfe, It wouId be vIce
vefsa. By thIs means one mIght soft out the sheep ffom the goats. We pefsuaded RIchafd
Hoovef and EIena PIkuta to peffofm a pIIot mIffof soup expefIment at NASA's MafshaII
SpacefIIght Centef In HuntsvIIIe, AIabama. The fesuIts wefe vefy cufIous. Hoovef and
PIkuta dIscovefed a noveI extfemophIIe ffom a hIghIy aIkaIIne Iake In CaIIfofnIa that
ate the mIffof soup wIth gusto. They named It uerovirgulu multivoruns (meanIng, foughIy,
unfussy IIttIe goat).
16
SadIy, thIs was not the mIffof mIcfobe we had hoped fof, but a
standafd mIcfobe cIevefIy adapted to cope wIth mIffof food. It tufns out that standafd
IIfe sometImes makes use of mIffof moIecuIes (fof exampIe In ceII membfanes), and
some standafd mIcfobes afe Ioaded wIth enzymes that can chop up moIecuIes of the
'wfong' handedness and tufn them Into usefuI pfoducts. AccofdIng to Hoovef, uerovirgulu
multivoruns was abIe to gfow by dIgestIng a mIffof vefsIon of the sugaf afabInose, but
coulJn't gfow usIng standafd afabInose, whIch Is sufpfIsIng. So the chIfaIIty stofy Is a bIt
pefpIexIng and cIeafIy mofe compIIcated than we ofIgInaIIy envIsaged. NeveftheIess,
usIng chIfaIIty as a sIgnatufe fof weIfd IIfe femaIns an obvIous and easy technIque.
FIg. 3. IIfe and mIffof IIfe. If aII the moIecuIes standafd IIfe uses (IIke thIs amIno acId) wefe fepIaced by theIf mIffof
Images, the fesuIt wouId be an ofganIsm that wouId fequIfe 'mIffof' food.
Anothef cIue couId come ffom the buIIdIng bIocks that weIfd IIfe mIght use. As I
mentIoned, standafd IIfe uses twenty-one types of amIno acIds to make pfoteIns, but
many othef vafIetIes exIst. In 1969 an unusuaI meteofIte feII neaf the town of
MufchIson In AustfaIIa, beIongIng to a fafe cIass known as cafbonaceous chondfItes (see
PIate 8). The MufchIson meteofIte contaIns abundant ofganIc matefIaI so abundant It
smeIIs of petfoI IncIudIng many amIno acIds that standafd IIfe doesn't use. A few
peopIe have jumped to the concIusIon that the meteofIte was once InhabIted by aIIen
mIcfobes that decomposed, IeavIng theIf exotIc amIno acId contents fof us to fInd among
the cofpses. But thIs concIusIon Is a stfetch, It's mofe IIkeIy that these ofganIc moIecuIes
fofmed somewhefe In space. As I mentIoned In Chaptef 2, It's not hafd to make amIno
acIds In the Iabofatofy, so pfesumabIy thefe afe many natufaI ways fof them to fofm
too. The eafIy Eafth may have been coated wIth cafbonaceous matefIaI ffom meteofItes
and IntefpIanetafy gfaIns that feII IIke manna ffom heaven, pfovIdIng faw matefIaIs
ffom whIch the fIfst IIfe may have emefged. If thIs Is coffect, the ofIgInaI ceIIs wouId
have been abIe to pIck and choose ffom the ofganIc cocktaII. To the best of ouf
knowIedge, the twenty-one chosen by known IIfe do not constItute a unIque set, othef
choIces couId have been made, and maybe were made If IIfe stafted many tImes.
Steve Bennef Is a bIochemIst and a wofId expeft on synthetIc bIoIogy. He knows a Iot
about how to make ceIIs that Incofpofate 'unnatufaI' components that he hImseIf
Insefts.
17
One component shunned by feguIaf IIfe, but whIch Bennef thInks Is good fof
synthetIc IIfe, Is a cIass of moIecuIes known as 2-methyIamIno acIds. If we found
ofganIsms empIoyIng these amIno acIds, It wouId be a stfong IndIcatof of somethIng
new and weIfd. In fact, we wouIdn't need to spot the mIcfobes themseIves: ofganIc
detfItus contaInIng 2-methyIamIno acIds, especIaIIy If It dIspIayed a pfefeffed chIfaIIty,
wouId be a teII-taIe sIgn. Bennef's suggestIon fof amIno acIds Is paft of a genefaI
stfategy: make a IIst of ofganIc moIecuIes that known IIfe Joesn't make, whIch afe not
bfeakdown pfoducts of known IIfe, and pfefefabIy don't fofm natufaIIy by non-
bIoIogIcaI pfocesses. Then just go out and Iook fof them. Nobody has yet tfIed thIs: thefe
has been no systematIc sufvey fof weIfd ofganIcs In the envIfonment.
ReIated to the Issue of amIno acIds Is the genetIc code, whIch, as I expIaIned eafIIef, Is
unIvefsaI fof standafd IIfe. We can ImagIne an aItefnatIve type of IIfe made up of DNA
and the sume suIte of twenty-one amIno acIds, but empIoyIng a dIffefent genetIc code. It
wouId be easy to ovefIook ofganIsms wIth thIs 'neaf mIss' bIochemIstfy, yet they wouId
betfay themseIves feadIIy If studIed In detaII by moIecuIaf bIoIogIsts. Mofe IIkeIy, If
weIfd IIfe stafted ffom scfatch IndependentIy of standafd IIfe, It wouId use a Jifferent set
of amIno acIds, so It wouId aIso have to empIoy a dIffefent genetIc code. We can even
ImagIne IIfe In whIch two of the fouf nucIeotIdes G, C, A and T afe absent, of fepIaced
by a dIffefent nucIeotIde, of In whIch thefe afe mofe nucIeotIdes (sIx Instead of fouf,
say). These afe aII candIdates fof synthetIc IIfe, and thefefofe afe aIso possIbIIItIes fof
aItefnatIve fofms of natufaI IIfe. Because thefe Is IIttIe chance that mIcfo-ofganIsms
usIng fundamentaIIy dIffefent bIochemIstfy wouId fespond meanIngfuIIy to standafd
bIochemIcaI technIques, weIfd mIcfobes of thIs soft mIght be aII afound us, so faf
unIdentIfIed.
A mofe fadIcaI fofm of weIfd IIfe wouId be ofganIsms that use dIffefent chemIcaI
eIements. IIfe as we know It Is based on the unIque pfopeftIes of cafbon chemIstfy, but
It aIso uses sevefaI othef key eIements, specIfIcaIIy, hydfogen (H), nItfogen (N), oxygen
(O), phosphofus (P) and suIphuf (S). Thefe has been some specuIatIon that sIIIcon couId
substItute fof cafbon, a conjectufe that got as faf as an epIsode of Stur Tre/, but hasn't
been pufsued vefy sefIousIy by bIochemIsts because sIIIcon can't fofm the extfaofdInafy
fange of compIex moIecuIes that cafbon can. A mofe pIausIbIe candIdate came ffom my
coIIabofatof FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon, who suggested that phosphofus couId be fepIaced by
afsenIc.
18
AfsenIc can do the same stfuctufaI and enefgy-stofage jobs as phosphofus, but
It can go one bettef, by pfovIdIng an enefgy (I.e. food) soufce too.
19
In fact, thefe afe
mIcfobes that expIoIt afsenIc, but they don't InhaIe It, so to speak: the afsenIc compound
gets stfIpped of Its enefgy and the afsenIc Is then summafIIy expeIIed. AfsenIc Is a
poIson pfecIseIy because ouf bodIes have a hafd tIme teIIIng It apaft ffom phosphofus.
FeIIsa hopes to fInd weIfd mIcfobes wIth afsenIc Incofpofated In theIf vItaIs, and fof
whIch phosphofus wouId be the poIson.
HOW TO TEII A ROOT FROM A BRANCH
If weIfd IIfe Is dIscovefed, the fIfst pfIofIty wIII be to detefmIne whethef It beIongs to a
genuIneIy sepafate tfee of IIfe, of Is mefeIy a hIthefto undIscovefed bfanch on the
known tfee of IIfe. The dIstInctIon Is depIcted In FIg. 4. Suppose we afe pfesented wIth
two fadIcaIIy dIffefent fofms of IIfe, whIch we afe tempted to attfIbute to sepafate tfees,
each wIth an Independent ofIgIn (by whIch I mean Independent tfansItIons ffom non-
IIfe to IIfe), as shown In FIg. 4a. On fufthef InvestIgatIon, howevef, we may fInd that
'beIow gfound' the two tfunks joIn In a common foot system (FIg. 4b): that Is, the
dIffefent fofms of IIfe beIong on a sIngIe tfee aftef aII, but they bfanched apaft befofe
the Iast common ancestof of aII standafd IIfe.
The known tfee of IIfe consIsts of thfee dIstInct 'bushes' that bfanched apaft bIIIIons of
yeafs ago (see FIg. 6). One bush contaIns the bactefIa. Anothef has aII muItIceIIuIaf IIfe,
ffom humans to hedgehogs. It aIso has compIex sIngIe-ceIIed ofganIsms IIke the amoeba.
ThIs Is the domaIn of 'eucafya.' The thIfd bush consIsts soIeIy of mIcfobes, but they afe
as dIffefent ffom bactefIa as they afe ffom us, and have the coIIectIve name 'afchaea'.
The questIon I am faIsIng Is how do we know that thefe Isn't a fourt/ bush, waItIng to be
dIscovefed, that spIIt away even eafIIef than the tfIfufcatIon Into bactefIa, eucafya and
afchaea? If we evef found a new exotIc fofm of IIfe, we wouId need to eIImInate the
'foufth bush' expIanatIon befofe concIudIng that It pfovIdes evIdence fof a second tfee.
How can a Iow-IyIng bfanch be dIstInguIshed ffom a sepafate tfee? The answef wouId
depend In paft on just how weIfd the weIfd IIfe Is. To use a weII-wofn phfase, the devII
wouId be In the detaIIs. ConsIdef the case of 'mIffof IIfe' (ofganIsms wIth fevefsed
chIfaIIty). Is It conceIvabIe that the eafIIest fofms of IIfe wefe achIfaI, I.e. buIIt out of
mIffof-symmetfIc moIecuIes onIy, foIIowIng whIch the tfee spIIt Into two domaIns, one
popuIated by ofganIsms wIth Ieft-handed sugafs and fIght-handed amIno acIds, and the
othef popuIated by ofganIsms wIth the mIffof fofms? ThIs seems extfemeIy unIIkeIy.
SmaII, sImpIe moIecuIes afe often mIffof symmetfIc, but moIecuIes of even modefate
compIexIty necessafIIy have both Ieft- and fIght-handed vefsIons. It Is vefy doubtfuI If a
system wIth the compIexIty of a IIvIng ofganIsm couId afIse usIng onIy sImpIe achIfaI
moIecuIes. So the dIscovefy of mIffof IIfe wouId be a stfong IndIcatof of muItIpIe genesIs
events.
By contfast, If a fofm of weIfd IIfe wefe dIscovefed that fesembIed standafd IIfe In aII
but the genetIc code It wouId be easy to afgue that the two fofms of IIfe had a common
genesIs and a common pfecufsof code, foIIowIng whIch IIfe spIIt Into two fofms that
evoIved dIffefent codes. At Ieast one vefsIon of thIs scenafIo seems pIausIbIe. The tfIpIet
code used by known IIfe Is compIIcated, and some bIoIogIsts have specuIated that It
evoIved ffom a sImpIef pfecufsof, pefhaps a doubIet code based on onIy two nucIeotIdes
(G and C) and ten amIno acIds. ThIs sIImmed-down vefsIon of standafd IIfe wouId
pfesumabIy be Iess compIex, but may have been entIfeIy successfuI thfee of fouf bIIIIon
yeafs ago. The tfIpIet code mIght have evoIved Iatef, bestowIng gfeatef vefsatIIIty that
enabIed IIfe to spfead to a wIdef fange of envIfonments. The tfansItIon ffom doubIet to
tfIpIet code may have happened mofe than once, of the ofIgInaI tfIpIet code couId have
subsequentIy spIIt Into vafIants.

FIg. 4. Tfee of fofest? If two fofms of IIfe exIst on Eafth, It wIII be Impoftant to detefmIne whethef they fepfesent dIstInct
tfees of IIfe wIth Independent, sepafate ofIgIns, as In (a), of have mefeIy evoIved a Iong way apaft ffom a common sIngIe
ofIgIn, as In (b).
An even mofe IntfIguIng possIbIIIty afIses. MIght some of the 'oId-fashIoned guys' stIII
be out thefe, IIvIng an ancIent IIfestyIe usIng onIy a doubIet G-C code? Once agaIn,
these 'IIvIng fossIIs' wouId be ovefIooked by standafd bIochemIcaI anaIysIs, but they
wouId be IdentIfIed cIeafIy enough If feseafchefs chose to Iook fof them.
20
In a sImIIaf
veIn, If afsenIc IIfe shows up, we wouId need to fInd out whethef standafd IIfe began
that way and then evoIved to fepIace afsenIc wIth phosphofus. FascInatIng though the
dIscovefy of such pfecufsof ofganIsms may be, It wouIdn't get to the feaI heaft of the
mattef, whIch Is the possIbIIIty of muItIpIe ofIgIns. To be sufe that any weIfd IIfe feaIIy
Is descended ffom a second genesIs, It wouId have to be suffIcIentIy dIffefent ffom
standafd IIfe fof no pIausIbIe common ancestof to have exIsted. That cfItefIon wouId be
hafd to estabIIsh If the two bIosphefes ovefIap and use a Iot of common chemIstfy. StIII
hafdef wouId be If the two fofms became paftIaIIy Integfated bIochemIcaIIy, e.g. by
swappIng genes of othef stfuctufes, thus muddyIng theIf sepafate IIneages and
confusIng the whoIe evoIutIonafy stofy. We can't fuIe out one fofm of IIfe 'takIng ovef'
anothef, Quutermuss-IIke, by InfusIng key components of ItseIf Into a feceptIve host,
especIaIIy If two sepafate fofms of IIfe found themseIves on convefgent evoIutIonafy
tfacks. AII thIs wouId be an unweIcome compIIcatIon. It wouId be sad and annoyIng If
IIfe stafted on Eafth many tImes ovef, but convefged and mefged, so that we had no
hope of untangIIng Its muItIpIe foots.
21
PefsonaIIy, howevef, I do not beIIeve
evoIutIonafy convefgence couId evef be that stfong. It may thfow up sImIIaf gfoss
featufes, but to zefo In on a specIfIc bIochemIcaI scheme seems vefy unIIkeIy.
It Is often afgued that If two dIffefent fofms of IIfe found themseIves sIde by sIde, one
wouId eventuaIIy gaIn an advantage and eIImInate the othef. I have nevef been
convInced that thIngs have to unfoId that way. PeacefuI coexIstence Is anothef
possIbIIIty, and couId afIse In two ways. FIfst, If the two fofms afe suffIcIentIy dIssImIIaf
as to be totaIIy IndIffefent to each othef, they wouIdn't compete anyway. Fof exampIe,
mIffof IIfe wouId not be In dIfect competItIon wIth known IIfe, because the two fofms
wouId mostIy use dIffefent moIecuIes fof food. One fofm mIght gaIn the uppef hand In
stfIct numefIcaI tefms, but so what? MIcfobIoIogIsts afe famIIIaf wIth the fact that some
specIes afe vefy fafe, yet they femaIn a stabIe component In the ovefaII mIcfobIaI
popuIatIon. The second type of peacefuI coexIstence Is whefe popuIatIons of vefy
dIffefent softs of mIcfobes feach an accommodatIon. The sIde-by-sIde cohabItatIon of
bactefIa and afchaea, two gfeat mIcfobIaI domaIns fepfesentIng mIIIIons of specIes that
often shafe sImIIaf nIches, pfovIdes one exampIe. You mIght suppose that thIs toIefance
was due to the two domaIns becomIng bIochemIcaIIy Integfated I.e. maffIage fathef
than fIvaIfy. Gene swappIng goes on aII the tIme In IIfe, especIaIIy among mIcfobes. But
In fact afchaea and bactefIa seem to have jeaIousIy guafded ceftaIn vefy basIc genes. So
faf as we know, afchaea have nevef shafed wIth bactefIa (of eucafya) theIf abIIIty to
metaboIIze by makIng methane, yet methanogenesIs Is wIdespfead among afchaea,
occuffIng In IocatIons as dIvefse as deep-ocean vents and the human gut. ConvefseIy,
photosynthesIs has appafentIy nevef passed ffom bactefIa (of eucafya) to afchaea.
22
So
It Is cIeaf that vefy dIffefent fofms of mIcfobes can compete In the same space fof many
of the same fesoufces, wIthout one fofm evef eIImInatIng the othef.
Even If the descendants of othef ofIgIns dId go extInct Iong ago, they couId stIII Ieave
some femnant of theIf efstwhIIe exIstence In the fofm of ancIent fossIIs and dIstInctIve
moIecuIaf bIomafkefs. Fof exampIe, stefanes (moIecuIes wIth fouf fIngs) afe pfoduced
by compIex ceIIs, and afe not known to fofm by any abIotIc means. Stefanes have been
found In tface quantItIes In mIcfofossIIs datIng back 2.7 bIIIIon yeafs. If fossIIs
contaInIng 'mIffof' stefanes, I.e. of the opposIte chIfaIIty, wefe dIscovefed, It couId be
evIdence fof ancIent mIffof IIfe. Many othef compIex ofganIc moIecuIes ffom a fadIcaIIy
aItefnatIve bIochemIcaI scheme mIght sufvIve In focks fof a Iong tIme. An IndIfect way
In whIch extInct weIfd IIfe mIght Ieave a tface Is thfough mInefaI pfocessIng. Many
mInefaI deposIts, IncIudIng Ifon, coppef and goId, afe thought to be bIogenIc that Is,
theIf deposItIon and concentfatIon have been caused at Ieast In paft by the actIvItIes of
mIcfobes that use these metaIs fof metaboIIsm. A mInefaI deposIt that was ImpossIbIe
fof known IIfe to cfeate, yet showed the haIImafks of beIng bIogenIc, wouId be
cIfcumstantIaI evIdence fof aItefnatIve bIochemIstfy at wofk.
HAS SHADOW IIFE AIREADY BEEN FOUND?
Ffom JuIy to Septembef 2001, the southefn paft of the IndIan state of KefaIa was
fepeatedIy soaked by mystefIous fed-coIoufed faIn. SampIes wefe coIIected and sent fof
anaIysIs to IndIan and BfItIsh IabofatofIes. The watef was found to contaIn motIIe ceIIs
fesembIIng bactefIa. Befofe Iong thefe wefe cIaIms that the fed faIn of KefaIa contaIned
extfateffestfIaI mIcfobes. I was sent some vIdeo sequences by IndIan feseafchefs that
show ceIIs jIggIIng about, but they afe IndIstInct and couId be anythIng. As so often In
these scIentIfIc mystefIes, the feseafch petefed out and the fIndIngs femaIn InconcIusIve.
SevefaI physIcaI mechanIsms mIght expIaIn coIoufed faIn, whIch tufns out to be a
pefsIstent featufe In Southefn IndIa, so the cIaIm that some soft of weIfd IIfe ffom space
descended on KefaIa shouIdn't be taken too sefIousIy. On the othef hand, If weIfd UV-
toIefant mIcfobes InhabIt the vefy hIgh atmosphefe, then we mIght expect that ffom
tIme to tIme meteofoIogIcaI changes wouId dfIve them to Iowef aItItudes, whefeupon
they couId nucIeate faIndfops and fIde to the gfound. IntefestIngIy, aIf-dweIIIng
bactefIa have been found that nucIeate Ice cfystaIs by secfetIng specIaI enzymes, gIvIng
them a cIevef way to feach the gfound In snowfIakes.
23
Anothef IntfIguIng phenomenon Is the stfange fock coatIng, found In most of the
wofId's afId zones, known as deseft vafnIsh of deseft cfust. Its ofIgIn has been
somethIng of a puzzIe sInce DafwIn hImseIf femafked on It. The coatIng ceftaInIy
contaIns mIcfobIaI IIfe, and aIso unusuaI combInatIons of mInefaIs (as a mattef of fact,
some contaIn afsenIc). The chemIcaI composItIon of the coatIng Is vefy dIffefent ffom
that of the host focks. It Is not cIeaf whethef the vafnIsh Is a pfoduct of IIfe, of a
compIex mInefaI Iayef that has been Invaded by IIfe oppoftunIstIcaIIy. It does, howevef,
pfovIde a feadIIy accessIbIe soufce of 'modefateIy weIfd' matefIaI that mefIts fufthef
study. My coIIeagues at the Beyond Centef caffIed out a pIIot InvestIgatIon, but so faf
thefe has been no foIIow-up. We afe now gettIng feady to anaIyse new sampIes.
PfobabIy the most pefsIstent cIaIm that weIfd IIfe has aIfeady been dIscovefed
concefns tIny fofms known as nanobactefIa. These IIttIe bIobs measufe onIy a few
hundfed nanometfes acfoss (a nanometfe Is one bIIIIonth of a metfe). They fesembIe
bactefIa but afe too smaII to contaIn fIbosomes, the pfoteIn-makIng machInes that afe a
key component of aII IIfe as we know It. NanobactefIa have been fepofted In focks,
24
oII
weIIs
25
and bIood.
26
They have been ImpIIcated In numefous dIseases, fangIng ffom
fenaI dIsofdefs to AIzheImef's, and have even attfacted the attentIon of phafmaceutIcaI
companIes. The cIaIm that these IIttIe stfuctufes afe IIvIng ofganIsms, as ImpIIed In the
use of the tefm 'bactefIa', Is hIghIy contfovefsIaI, If they afe, It's hafd to see how they
couId be standafd IIfe. They mIght be a weIfd fofm of IIfe that assembIes pfoteIns In a
noveI way, of uses some othef type of enzyme. Of they mIght not be IIvIng at aII. One
theofy, suggested by Steve Bennef, Is that some nanobactefIa mIght be a fofm of RNA-
based IIfe that doesn't need fIbosome-made pfoteIns because RNA does the job of both
pfoteIns and DNA.
27
NanobactefIa wefe pfopeIIed to fame by an unIIkeIy fIgufe: PfesIdent BIII CIInton. In
August 1996, CIInton announced that NASA scIentIsts had evIdence fof IIfe on Mafs, In
the fofm of mIcfoscopIc featufes InsIde a meteofIte found In AntafctIca In 1984, and
subsequentIy shown to have ofIgInated on Mafs (see PIate 9). The shapes Iooked fof aII
the wofId IIke fossIIIzed bactefIa, except they wefe about ten tImes smaIIef than the
smaIIest teffestfIaI mIcfobes. Some commentatofs jumped to the concIusIon that
nanobactefIa come ffom Mafs. Many scIentIsts stafted to beIIeve that IIvIng mIcfobes
couId feIocate ffom Mafs to Eafth InsIde meteofItes. Evefyone was excIted. Today the
fuss has dIed down, and extensIve anaIysIs of the meteofIte has chIpped away at the
cIaIm that It contaIns fossIIIzed MaftIans, to the poInt whefe vefy few scIentIsts contInue
to beIIeve It.
28
Whatevef the evIdence fof IIfe In the Mafs meteofIte, the cIaIm that thefe afe
nanobactefIa on Eafth femaIns unfesoIved. SevefaI yeafs ago I vIsIted PhIIIppa UwIns at
the UnIvefsIty of QueensIand In BfIsbane, AustfaIIa. PhIIIppa had found funny IIttIe
bactefIa-IIke shapes In sampIes ffom an oII-dfIIIIng pfoject off the coast of Westefn
AustfaIIa, whIIst doIng a foutIne anaIysIs fof the dfIIIIng company. She made hef
dIscovefy usIng an eIectfon mIcfoscope to study the fIne detaIIs of the matefIaI, and
caIIed the shapes by the mofe neutfaI name of 'nanobes' (see PIate 11). IIke
nanobactefIa, nanobes afe too smaII to be conventIonaI IIvIng ceIIs. PhIIIppa was
justIfIabIy thfIIIed when she detected DNA In hef nanobes. She showed me the evIdence.
UsIng a type of chemIcaI mIxtufe caIIed a goId coIIoId, she was abIe to get the goId to
bInd to DNA and then, In the mIcfoscope Images, she couId see It was Iocated insiJe the
nanobes and not fIoatIng Ioose. That was Impoftant, because ffagments of DNA ffom
decomposed standafd mIcfobes couId become stuck to mInefaI suffaces and pfesefved.
The fact that the nanobes contaIned DNA suggested to PhIIIppa that they wefe at Ieast
once-IIvIng ceIIs, If not stIII aIIve, but pfesumabIy IackIng fIbosomes fof pfoteIn
assembIy on account of theIf mInuscuIe dImensIons. She was unabIe to obtaIn a
meanIngfuI DNA sequence, howevef, whIch couId mean she was deaIIng wIth weIfd
DNA-based IIfe that uses a dIffefent genetIc code. A mofe pfosaIc expIanatIon Is that
nanobes afe mInefaI capsuIes that have fofmed afound DNA detfItus fIoatIng In the oIIy
envIfonment.
Reseafch by John Young and hIs student Jan MafteI at the RockefeIIef UnIvefsIty has
Ied them to concIude that nanobactefIa, of nanobes, afen't In fact aIIve. Young and
MafteI suggest they afe Instead chemIcaI compIexes made up of ofganIc matefIaI
combIned wIth common caIcIum cafbonate (IImestone), fofmIng amofphous shapes
supeffIcIaIIy fesembIIng dImInutIve ceIIs.
29
The feseafchefs afe keen to poInt out that,
even so, nanobactefIa afe not unconnected wIth the topIc of IIfe's ofIgIn, because they
pfovIde a natufaI exampIe of chemIcaI seIf-assembIy a step on the foad to IIfe pefhaps,
even If the nanobactefIa afe not themseIves aIIve. They dfaw a compafIson wIth pfIons
pfoteIn-IIke chemIcaIs that can become maIfofmed In a type of chaIn feactIon, gIvIng
fIse to IIInesses such as kufu and 'mad cow dIsease'.
The fofegoIng exampIes afe suggestIve, but as yet InconcIusIve, and obvIousIy fequIfe
cIosef InvestIgatIon. MeanwhIIe, the hunt fof shadow IIfe, of weIfd IIfe, Is pIckIng up
pace afound the wofId.
TARGETING THE SHADOW WORID
As I expIaIned eafIIef, my coIIeague FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon has a hunch thefe couId be
weIfd mIcfobes based on afsenIc, and NASA Is cuffentIy fundIng a pfoject fof hef to go
Iook. Whefe mIght these afsenophIIes Iufk? One obvIous pIace Is an envIfonment fIch In
afsenIc. Many Iakes and spfIngs afound the wofId afe afsenIc-contamInated and pose a
heaIth hazafd. Mono Iake In CaIIfofnIa, an ecoIogIcaI mafveI In the eastefn SIeffa cIose
to the YosemIte NatIonaI Pafk, Is a pIctufesque haven fof exotIc wIId IIfe, and none Is
mofe exotIc than the mIcfobIaI InhabItants. The Iake has exceptIonaIIy hIgh afsenIc
concentfatIon, and Is home to many pecuIIaf ofganIsms, some of whIch seem to use the
abundant afsenIc to theIf advantage. The gfeat expeft on Mono Iake's afsenophIIes Is
Ron OfemIand of the US GeoIogIcaI Sufvey In MenIo Pafk, who Is hostIng the pfoject.
To date, none of the mIcfobes he has studIed Is an authentIcaIIy weIfd fofm of IIfe, wIth
afsenIc Incofpofated In Its Innafds, as FeIIsa has suggested. Rathef, they afe aII sImpIy
unusuaI adaptatIons of standafd IIfe. But the seafch fof afsenIc IIfe has onIy just begun,
and Ron and FeIIsa have devIsed a way to speed It up. SampIes ffom the mud at the
base of the Iake afe taken to the Iabofatofy fof cuItufIng and expefImentatIon (see PIate
10). Thefe the mIcfo-ofganIsms afe subjected to evef-IncfeasIng IeveIs of afsenIc. In
Mono Iake, standafd mIcfobes may have adapted to handIe afsenIc, but theIf toIefance
does have Its IImIts, and at some IeveI of concentfatIon the ceIIs ovefdose, dyIng quIetIy
of afsenIc poIsonIng IIke tIny vIctIms In an Agatha ChfIstIe noveI. GenuIneIy afsenIc IIfe,
by contfast, wIII Iap up the cocktaII and thfIve. By peffofmIng successIve cuItufIng
opefatIons at hIghef and hIghef IeveIs of afsenIc concentfatIon, the expefImentefs
expect that any afsenIc-based mIcfobes, even If InItIaIIy pfesent In onIy tface amounts,
wIII soon out-muItIpIy the standafd-IIfe competItIon, and so come to domInate the
mIcfobIaI popuIatIon.
A gIveaway fof afsenIc IIfe wouId be the pfesence of a stfuctufe that Is famIIIaf ffom
standafd IIfe, but modIfIed by afsenIc substItutIng fof phosphofus. One exampIe wouId
be nucIeotIdes the buIIdIng bIocks of DNA, In whIch phosphofus pIays a centfaI foIe.
Anothef Is In the ceII membfane, whIch Is made of a substance caIIed a IIpId that
contaIns phosphofus. Both these stfuctufes can be expIofed fof sIgns of afsenIc usIng
standafd chemIcaI anaIysIs. A thIfd expefIment uses fadIoactIve afsenIc as a tfacef, to
see whethef It gets Incofpofated Into the bIomass.
Anothef appfoach we afe deveIopIng Is to sampIe IIfe as wIdeIy as possIbIe ffom the
oceans. In 2004, CfaIg Ventef, havIng heIped sequence the human genome, stunned the
scIentIfIc wofId once agaIn when he announced he had IsoIated a staggefIng 1.2 mIIIIon
new genes and 1,800 pfevIousIy unIdentIfIed mIcfobes In a sampIe of watef taken ffom
the appafentIy baffen Safgasso Sea. In a teIIIng comment, Ventef saId, 'We'fe IookIng
fof IIfe on Mafs, and we don't even know what's on Eafth.'
30
PfecIseIy. Most of what we
know about bIodIvefsIty In the mIcfobIaI domaIn comes ffom studyIng the tIny ffactIon
of ofganIsms that can be cuItIvated In the Iab. That Is obvIousIy hIghIy unfepfesentatIve.
Thefe afe ceftaIn to be an Immense numbef of fafe mIcfo-ofganIsms that have been
compIeteIy mIssed by standafd moIecuIaf methods, pefhaps IncIudIng weIfd mIcfobes
that wouId In any case faII to fespond to standafd technIques even at hIgh feIatIve
abundance. Ventef's so-caIIed shotgun anaIysIs, In whIch DNA ffom many ceII sampIes Is
shattefed fandomIy Into bIte-sIzed ffagments and then sequenced, enabIes scIentIsts to
measufe the genetIc dIvefsIty wIthIn the sampIes en masse, wIthout the need to
sepafateIy IdentIfy and cuItufe each IndIvIduaIIy captufed specIes. The chaIIenge Is to
extend those technIques to pIck up any non-standafd mIcfo-ofganIsms, too, that mIght
constItute paft of a shadow bIosphefe. IdeaIIy thIs shouId IncIude weIfd vIfuses, of othef
uItfa-smaII moIecuIaf pafasItes that mIght be totaIIy noveI.
SevefaI ocean sampIIng pfojects afe now undef way, pfovIdIng a goIden oppoftunIty
to dIscovef any weIfd IIfe that may be IufkIng In the sea. A thfee-yeaf IntefnatIonaI
pfoject caIIed Tafa-Oceans Is peffofmIng a gIobaI sampIIng exefcIse, pfImafIIy dIfected
at studyIng the Impact of cafbon dIoxIde accumuIatIon on mafIne bIodIvefsIty. The
pfoject wIII aIso Iook at deep-ocean ecosystems and sampIe mIcfobIoIogy ffom aII the
wofId's oceans. The pfoject's scIentIsts wIII be on the Iookout fof a shadow bIosphefe
too, depIoyIng a fange of technIques fof IdentIfyIng weIfd IIfe, and fetufnIng seIected
sampIes to the Beyond Centef fof Iabofatofy anaIysIs.
The dIscovefy of a fofm of IIfe that couId have afIsen onIy vIa a second genesIs wouId
be the most sensatIonaI event In the hIstofy of bIoIogy, wIth sweepIng consequences fof
scIence and technoIogy. It wouId aIso have ImmedIate ImpIIcatIons fof astfobIoIogy, as
we couId then be sufe that the unIvefse feaIIy Is teemIng wIth IIfe, as so many
commentatofs gIIbIy asseft. Howevef, the goaI of SETI Is to fInd not just IIfe, but
intelligent IIfe beyond Eafth. It couId be that IIfe Is common, but InteIIIgence Is fafe.
What afe the chances that, once IIfe gets goIng on a pIanet, InteIIIgence wIII soonef of
Iatef evoIve?
4
How Much InteIIIgence Is Out Thefe?
Sometimes I t/in/ t/e surest sign t/ut intelligent life exists elsew/ere in t/e universe is t/ut none of it /us trieJ to
contuct us.
BIII Wattefson, caftoonIst
PLANLT OI THL APLS FAIIACY
If you couId cIImb aboafd a tIme machIne and vIsIt Eafth 3.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago you
wouId fInd baffen contInents and desefted oceans. The onIy sIgn of IIfe wouId be some
unexceptIonaI Ieathefy mounds dotted about In tIdaI shaIIows. These dome-shaped
stfuctufes, caIIed stfomatoIItes, vafy In sIze ffom a few centImetfes to a metfe.
StfomatoIItes afe not themseIves IIvIng ofganIsms, fathef, they compfIse mInefaI Iayefs
deposIted by mIcfobes InhabItIng the stfuctufe's sufface. As faf as we know, thefe wasn't
much eIse goIng on 3.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago, bIoIogIcaIIy speakIng.
Today, ouf pIanet abounds wIth IIfe. Thefe afe mIIIIons of specIes of compIex
ofganIsms, fIyIng, cfawIIng, buffowIng, swImmIng and photosynthesIzIng. ThIs fIch and
eIabofate web of IIfe has evoIved, sometImes steadIIy, sometImes In fIts and stafts, ovef
the bIIIIons of yeafs sInce the age of stfomatoIItes. If a sIngIe wofd Is Invoked to descfIbe
thIs tfansfofmatIon It Is 'pfogfess'. Some peopIe mIght pfefef 'advancement'. The
ovefwheImIng ImpfessIon one gets ffom studyIng the evoIutIonafy fecofd Is one of
bIoIogIcaI exubefance, wIth IIfe spfeadIng aImost evefywhefe, ceaseIessIy expefImentIng
wIth new and bettef adaptatIons, and expIofIng evef mofe compIex body pIans. In
DafwIn's eIoquent pfose, 'WhIIst thIs pIanet has been cycIIng on accofdIng to the fIxed
Iaw of gfavIty, ffom so sImpIe a begInnIng, fofms most wondeffuI have been and afe
beIng evoIved.'
1
Many bIoIogIsts (IncIudIng DafwIn hImseIf) IooseIy endofsed thIs vIew of ovefaII
evoIutIonafy advancement a steady onwafd mafch ffom the pfImItIve to the
sophIstIcated, ffom the sImpIe to the compIex. And the pInnacIe of that advancement Is
you've guessed It Man. DIstInguIshed by hIs massIve bfaIn and supefIof InteIIIgence,
Homo supiens stands as the afchetypaI symboI of natufe stfIvIng towafds bettef, mofe
fefIned, fofms of IIfe. And (so the afgument goes) thIs feIentIess mafch of pfogfess Is
sufeIy not a mefe teffestfIaI abeffatIon, but must be a basIc pfopefty of the natufaI
ofdef of thIngs, so that we mIght expect It to be fepeated on aII pIanets that suppoft
bIoIogy. Seed a pIanet wIth IIfe, come back a few bIIIIon yeafs Iatef, and expect to fInd
cuItufe, Ianguage, technoIogy, scIence and wIth Iuck fadIo teIescopes. In othef
wofds, InteIIIgence, and Its manIfestatIon as technoIogIcaI socIety, Is somethIng aImost
bound to emefge soonef of Iatef, once IIfe gets goIng, and baffIng any unfoftunate
accIdents (IIke the host staf bIowIng up). It Is a wIdespfead vIew, and the one that CafI
Sagan, and most othef SETI feseafchefs, have taken. But Is It fIght?
The optImIstIc, of 'pfogfessIve', account of InteIIIgence Is boIstefed by a study of the
evoIutIon of bfaIns. AbsoIute bfaIn sIze Is not ItseIf a good measufe of InteIIIgence,
because a Iot of the bfaIn Is used fof funnIng the body: bIg bodIes demand bIg bfaIns.
Fof exampIe, a pussy cat, whIch has a bfaIn the sIze of a waInut, Is not obvIousIy mofe
stupId than a BengaI tIgef. The so-caIIed encephaIIzatIon quotIent (EQ) Is an attempt to
get afound thIs by compafIng the actuaI bfaIn sIze wIth an avefage of expected bfaIn
sIze fof the paftIcuIaf body sIze of the anImaI concefned.
2
The fefefence fatIo Is taken as
1, so that scofes hIghef than 1 afe 'bIg-bfaIned', Iowef than 1 'smaII-bfaIned'. We bfaIny
humans boast an EQ of about 7.5, chImpanzees (ouf neafest IIvIng feIatIves) 2.5 and
doIphIns 5.3. (Fof those who afe Intefested, pussy cats come In at a medIocfe 1.
3
)
NeandefthaIs, who wefe pfobabIy not ouf dIfect ancestofs, but a dIffefent bfanch of the
genus Homo, had an EQ of about 5.6. If you pIot how EQ has evoIved In ouf IIneage
ovef tIme fof the past few mIIIIon yeafs, It seems to show an acceIefatIng tfend. Some
even cIaIm an exponentIaI fate of gfowth.
4
It's aImost as If InteIIIgence 'took off' as a
gfeat evoIutIonafy Idea and sufged ahead, suggestIng that evoIutIon somehow 'favoufs'
It, and wIII pfesumabIy do so on any pIanet that has ofganIsms wIth somethIng IIke a
centfaI nefvous system.
If onIy It wefe that sImpIe. UnfoftunateIy, the popuIaf vIew of evoIutIon as pfogfess
Is at best a sefIous ovefsImpIIfIcatIon, at wofst just pIaIn wfong. It Is the essence of
DafwInIsm that IIfe cannot 'Iook ahead' and taIIof evoIutIonafy changes to a desIfabIe
goaI of futufe oppoftunIty. MutatIons occuf fandomIy and wIII be seIected sImpIy on the
basIs of what wofks best at the tIme. Natufe cannot fofesee the futufe any mofe than we
can, so the Idea that IIfe Is actIveIy stfIvIng fof, of channeIIed towafds, some pfe-
detefmIned end, Is wfong. ThIs poInt was much stfessed by the Iate Stephen Jay GouId,
who used the anaIogy of a dfunk IeanIng agaInst a waII, who Is Iatef found to be IyIng
In the guttef. DId the dfunk aIm fof the guttef? No, he just staggefed about at fandom,
but because the waII pfevented hIm movIng In the dIfectIon away ffom the guttef,
soonef of Iatef he was bound to encountef the kefb, and toppIe ovef. The pfocess
cfeates an IIIusIon of dIfectIonaIIty due to the asymmetfy of the set-up. In the same way,
saId GouId, IIfe Is not uiming fof compIexIty of 'advancement'. It stafts out sImpIe (of
necessIty), and thefe Is nowhefe to go but up.
5
IIfe becomes mofe compIex on avefage
ovef tIme, not because It Is subtIy dIfected towafds compIexIty, but mefeIy because It Is
fandomIy expIofIng the fange of possIbIIItIes, most of whIch afe mofe compIex than the
staftIng state. GouId beIIeved that the 'pfogfessIve' mIsconceptIon Is exacefbated by the
metaphof of the tfee of IIfe fIfst used by DafwIn, whIch has a cIeaf dIfectIon (up),
whefeas a bush wouId be a mofe fIttIng metaphof. SummafIzIng thIs vIewpoInt, one
mIght say that IIfe sImpIy 'makes It up as It goes aIong'. And InteIIIgence Is just one of
those thIngs It made up. What we want to know fof SETI, of coufse, Is just how li/ely It
Is that IIfe wIII bIIndIy 'bIundef Into' InteIIIgence (IIke the dfunk), aIong the
evoIutIonafy way. WIII It happen a IIttIe? A Iot? AImost nevef?
A key factof In addfessIng these questIons Is the phenomenon of evoIutIonafy
convefgence.
6
It occufs when the same bIoIogIcaI soIutIon Is dIscovefed fof a sImIIaf
pfobIem, but vIa dIffefent foutes and ffom dIffefent staftIng poInts. ExampIes abound.
WIngs have been Invented many tImes In Insects, bIfds, mammaIs and even fIsh. They
have afIsen IndependentIy because fIyIng of gIIdIng has obvIous evoIutIonafy
advantages In some cIfcumstances, and gfowIng wIngs by adaptIng dIffefent ofgans
(skIn between IImbs fof fIyIng foxes, fIns fof fIsh.) Is a feIatIveIy stfaIghtfofwafd step.
Eyes have afIsen many tImes too. In fact, thefe afe many dIffefent softs of eyes. SIght
aIso has gfeat advantages, and It Is no sufpfIse that evoIutIon has dIscovefed It,
IndependentIy, agaIn and agaIn.
An IntefestIng debate In bIoIogy concefns what genefaI pattefns of tfends afe
manIfested by evoIutIonafy convefgence, and whethef It Is IegItImate to descfIbe some
of them In tefms of 'avaIIabIe nIches'. Iet me gIve an exampIe. WIth the bfeakup of the
supefcontInents Gondwana and IaufasIa, anImaI evoIutIon dIvefged between the
sepafated contInents. What Is now AustfaIIa fInaIIy spIIt away ffom Gondwana about 50
mIIIIon yeafs ago and became domInated by mafsupIaIs, whefeas the othef contInents
became domInated by pIacentaI mammaIs. When the AbofIgInes feached AustfaIIa about
50,000 yeafs ago, they dIscovefed a fIefce cafnIvofous pfedatof, named T/ylucoleo.
SadIy, the T/ylucoleo Is now extInct, possIbIy ffom huntIng of cIImate change. ThIs
cfeatufe evoIved ffom pIant-eatIng mafsupIaIs, but ended up IookIng, eatIng and
behavIng vefy much IIke the sabfe-toothed tIgef of Nofth AmefIca, whIch descended
ffom mammaIIan pIacentaI cafnIvofes. Thus, the T/ylucoleo couId be saId to have
'occupIed the tIgef nIche' In the AustfaIIan ecosystem. ThIs bIunt way of puttIng It
ImpIIes that thefe actuaIIy Is a 'tIgef nIche' out thefe, waItIng to be fIIIed, just as thefe Is
a wIng nIche and an eye nIche.
Because evoIutIonafy convefgence Is so wIdespfead and poweffuI, the nIche metaphof
has some fofce. But It must be used wIth gfeat cafe. What we want to know fof SETI Is
whethef thefe Is an 'InteIIIgence nIche', whIch on Eafth humans obIIgIngIy fIIIed,
staftIng a few mIIIIon yeafs ago In AffIca when ouf ancestofs fIfst waIked upfIght and
began usIng tooIs a tfaIn of deveIopment that Ied aII the way to fadIo teIescopes. And
If that feasonIng Is sound, mIght we aIso expect ET to sImIIafIy put the 'I' In SETI fof us?
Thefe Is no consensus on the answef. ChafIey IIneweavef, an astfobIoIogIst at the
AustfaIIan NatIonaI UnIvefsIty, Is hIghIy sceptIcaI of the InteIIIgence nIche afgument.
7
He IIkes to compafe wIngs and eyes wIth tfunks. A Iafge AffIcan eIephant that
undefstood bIoIogy mIght effoneousIy concIude that 3.5 bIIIIon yeafs of evoIutIon was In
fact dIfected towafds Iongef and mofe vefsatIIe tfunks, afguIng that thefe Is a 'tfunk
nIche' whIch It, LoxoJontu ufricunu, has been caIIed upon by Mothef Natufe to fIII. In
examInIng Its evoIutIonafy IIneage, the eIephant mIght be moved to dweII on a
'nasaIIzatIon quotIent,' (fathef than an encephaIIzatIon quotIent). The fossII fecofd
wouId show an evoIutIonafy tfaII of smaIIef-tfunked pfedecessofs IeadIng (Inch by
tfunk-Inch) up to the modefn eIephant, a tfend that mIght pfompt a chauvInIstIc anImaI
to concIude that because the nasaIIzatIon quotIent had acceIefated wIth tIme, the
magnIfIcentIy tfunked AffIcan eIephant was tfuIy destIned to be.
The fIdIcuIous natufe of thIs IIne of feasonIng Is stafk when It comes to tfunks, but
stIII convInces many peopIe when appIIed to InteIIIgence. Tfunks afe, aftef aII, tfIvIaI
appendages that have had vefy IIttIe Impact on the wofId, whefeas human InteIIIgence
has feshaped the pIanet. Is hIgh InteIIIgence not mofe pfofound, bIoIogIcaIIy basIc, and
genefaIIy mofe sIgnIfIcant than Iong tfunks? WeII, we wouId say that, wouIdn't we,
fetofts IIneweavef. We vaIue bIg bfaIns because that's what we have. EIephants
(pfesumabIy) vaIue bIg tfunks because that's what they have. Thefe Is no objectIve
feason why one Is mofe Impoftant, of 'mofe pfedestIned' than the othef. We mIght just
as weII expect bIg-tfunked aIIens as InteIIIgent aIIens, he says. (AmusIngIy, a 1985 noveI
by Iaffy NIven and Jeffy PoufneIIe caIIed Iootfull does Indeed featufe eIephantesque
aIIens, who aIso have the benefIt of hIgh InteIIIgence, though not hIgh enough to wIn a
waf agaInst us wIIy humans.) IIneweavef IIkes to cIte the fathef dfeadfuI HoIIywood
movIe Plunet of t/e Apes, staffIng ChafIton Heston, as a cIassIc exampIe of the pufpofted
faIIacy. In the movIe, humanIty Is destfoyed by nucIeaf waf, but the apes afe waItIng In
the evoIutIonafy wIngs to occupy the suddenIy vacated 'InteIIIgence nIche'. WIthIn a few
centufIes they have 'taken ovef', and dIscovefed guns, jaIIs and hofseback fIdIng,
movIng a fung up the evoIutIonafy Iaddef ffom whIch Homo supiens has been abfuptIy
dIspIaced.
In the context of SETI, what It boIIs down to Is thIs: we can make a IIst of tfaIts, IIke
eyes, wIngs and pefhaps tIgefness, fof whIch thefe do seem to be 'nIches waItIng', and
othefs IIke peacock feathefs and eIephants' tfunks that seem to be IncIdentaI even
outIandIsh accIdents of evoIutIon, accIdents that afe so hIghIy specIaIIzed they afe
unIIkeIy to cfop up often. We need to know to whIch IIst InteIIIgence beIongs. One
appfoach Is to ask how Iong natufe took to dIscovef InteIIIgence. The answef Is, a vefy
Iong tIme compafed to eyes and wIngs. InteIIIgence couId have evoIved at any tIme In
the Iast 300 mIIIIon yeafs, sInce the fIse of anImaIs, but advanced InteIIIgence
(appfoachIng the fadIo-teIescope-buIIdIng vafIety) appeafed onIy wIthIn the Iast few
hundfed thousand yeafs. If thefe feaIIy Is 'an InteIIIgence nIche' out thefe It had Its
chance to be fIIIed wIth the dInosaufs othefwIse successfuI cfeatufes who famousIy
'fuIed the Eafth' fof 200 mIIIIon yeafs befofe beIng wIped out by a comet Impact, thus
'pavIng the way' fof mammaIs. Why dIdn't dInosaufs evoIve bIg bfaIns, buIId fockets
and fIy to the Moon? ChfIs McKay has addfessed thIs Issue: 'It Is now consIdefed that the
dInosaufs wefe not the IumbefIng cIods of ufban myth but that they wefe bIochemIcaIIy
and behavIofaIIy as sophIstIcated as pfesent mammaIs.'
8
If InteIIIgence has such good
sufvIvaI vaIue, why dIdn't dInosaufs evoIve It? They had pIenty of tIme to do so. McKay
poInts out that the smaII dInosauf Stenonyc/osuurus (now fedesIgnated TrooJon) had an
EQ compafabIe to that of an octopus (a vefy smaft anImaI), and was waIkIng the Eafth
12 mIIIIon yeafs befofe DInosauf Doomsday. That's Iongef than the tIme It has taken
human InteIIIgence to evoIve ffom a sImIIaf EQ staftIng poInt.
Many scIentIsts asseft that IIfe on Eafth Is a sIngIe expefIment, and one can't concIude
much ffom a soIItafy evoIutIonafy naffatIve. But the dInosauf exampIe suggests that
evoIutIon has actuaIIy had at Ieast two chances to do InteIIIgence. In fact, It can be
afgued that the InteIIIgence expefIment has been fun severul tImes on Eafth. IIneweavef
has poInted out that no InteIIIgent mafsupIaIs evoIved In AustfaIIa even aftef 50 mIIIIon
yeafs of physIcaI IsoIatIon. NeIthef dId InteIIIgence emefge In South of Nofth AmefIca,
of In Madagascaf, aII Iafge and fIchIy popuIated fegIons whIch wefe sepafated fof much
Iongef than the tIme It took to pfoduce the human bfaIn. If bIg bfaIns and InteIIIgence
wefe IIkeIy to evoIve, sufeIy It wouId have happened mofe than once on Eafth?
SometImes It Is cIaImed that InteIIIgence /us evoIved mofe than once In bIfds, fof
exampIe, and cetaceans.
9
AccofdIng to that vIew, humans afe just exceptIonaI outIIefs In
a contInuum of InteIIIgence, ouf amazIng mentaI pfowess the fesuIt of natufaI
evoIutIonafy ampIIfIcatIon ovef mIIIIons of yeafs. But thIs Is contentIous: humans afe
vefy bIased In seekIng human-IIke tfaIts In othef anImaIs and anthfopomofphIzIng theIf
sIgnIfIcance. BIfds and cetaceans afe ceftaInIy vefy cIevef In theIf own way, but the
onIy InteIIIgence that mattefs In the SETI game (as cuffentIy pIayed) Is the hIgh-
technoIogy soft, because It's based on the pfIncIpIe of 'by theIf Instfuments ye shaII
know them'. Thefe Isn't a shfed of evIdence that, Ieft to theIf own devIces, bIfds of
cetaceans wouId eventuaIIy wfIte down EInsteIn's genefaI theofy of feIatIvIty of Invent
Iasefs.
The upshot of these afguments Is that thefe Is wIde scope fof dIsagfeement. Thefe muy
be a deep Iaw of natufe that dfIves IIvIng systems towafds gfeatef compIexIty, wIth bIg
bfaIns and InteIIIgence beIng one consequence. But no such Iaw Is known to scIence, In
spIte of the wIdespfead beIIef that It may exIst. It Is aIso possIbIe that evoIutIonafy
convefgence Is so stfong, and advanced InteIIIgence has such good pefvasIve sufvIvaI
vaIue, that It wIII soonef of Iatef InevItabIy evoIve, baffIng majof caIamItIes. Howevef,
In the absence of a second sampIe of IIfe and a second evoIutIonafy hIstofy to compafe
wIth oufs, thIs Is mefe wIshfuI thInkIng.
IS SCIENCE INEVITABIE?
Suppose we gfant that hIgh InteIIIgence Is In fact common In the unIvefse. The next
questIon of Intefest to SETI feseafchefs Is what pfopoftIon of those InteIIIgent specIes
pfoceeds to dIscovef scIence, Invent hIgh technoIogy, and engage In Iong-fange
communIcatIon. It Is ceftaInIy fashIonabIe, paftIy fof feasons of poIItIcaI coffectness, to
asseft that, hefe on Eafth, uny human socIety wouId be bound to dIscovef scIence and
technoIogy In the fuIIness of tIme. To say othefwIse seems to be ImpIyIng the supefIofIty
of Eufopean cIvIIIzatIon, whefe scIence as we know It began, and thIs Is fegafded by
some peopIe as facIst and chauvInIstIc. PefsonaIIy, I have aIways been sceptIcaI of the
cIaIm that 'scIence Is InevItabIe'. The pfobIem Is that scIence wofks so weII, and Is so
much a paft of evefyday IIfe, that peopIe tend to take It fof gfanted. The scIentIfIc
method, taught (mostIy badIy) to evefy schooI student, comes acfoss as a thofoughIy
obvIous pfocedufe: expefIment, obsefvatIon, theofy what couId be a mofe natufaI way
to fInd out how the wofId wofks?
The 'obvIous' vIew of scIence Is seen to fest on fIImsy foundatIons when pIaced In a
hIstofIcaI context, howevef. ScIence pfopef emefged In RenaIssance Eufope undef the
twIn InfIuences of Gfeek phIIosophy and monotheIstIc feIIgIon. The Gfeek phIIosophefs
taught that humans couId come to undefstand the wofId by the exefcIse of feason, whIch
achIeved Its most dIscIpIIned fofm In the fuIes of IogIc and the mathematIcaI theofems
that foIIowed thefeffom. They assefted that the wofId wasn't afbItfafy of absufd, but
fatIonaI and InteIIIgIbIe, even If confusIng and compIIcated. Howevef, Gfeek phIIosophy
nevef spawned what today we wouId undefstand by the scIentIfIc method, In whIch
natufe Is 'Inteffogated' vIa expefIment and obsefvatIon, because of the Gfeek
phIIosophefs' touchIng beIIef that the answefs couId aII be deduced by pufe feason
aIone. The Gfeeks' femafkabIe advances In feason and mathematIcs wefe nuftufed fof
centufIes dufIng the Eufopean Dafk Ages by IsIamIc schoIafs, wIthout whom It Is vefy
doubtfuI that scIence and mathematIcs wouId have taken foot In Eufopean cuItufe In
medIevaI tImes. An echo of the IsIamIc phase sufvIves In modefn tefms IIke aIgebfa and
aIgofIthm, and In the names of famIIIaf stafs such as SIfIus and BeteIgeuse. In spIte of
the Impoftance of the IsIamIc phase In the Iead-up to scIence, fof some feason (possIbIy
poIItIcaI of socIaI) Afab schoIafs dId not go on to fofmuIate mathematIcaI Iaws of
motIon of caffy out Iabofatofy expefIments In the modefn sense of the tefm.
MeanwhIIe, monotheIsm IncfeasIngIy shaped the Westefn wofId vIew dufIng the
fofmatIve stages of scIence. JudaIsm fepfesented a decIsIve bfeak wIth aImost aII
contempofafy cuItufes by posItIng an unfoIdIng cosmIc naffatIve based on IIneaf tIme.
AccofdIng to the JudaIc account, the unIvefse was cfeated by God at a defInIte moment
In the past, and deveIoped In a unIdIfectIonaI sefIes (cfeatIon, faII, tfIaIs and
tfIbuIatIons, Afmageddon, saIvatIon, judgement, fedemptIon.). In othef wofds,
JudaIsm has a cosmIc stofy to teII, of a dIvIne pIan feveaIed thfough hIstofIcaI sequence.
ThIs was In shafp contfast to the pfevaIIIng vIew that the wofId Is cycIIc: the fotatIon of
good tImes and bad tImes, the fIse and faII of cIvIIIzatIons, the fevoIvIng wheeI of
foftune. Even today, the unIdIfectIonaI IIneaf-tIme wofId vIew of Westefn cIvIIIzatIon
fests uneasIIy wIth othef cuItufaI motIfs, such as the dfeamIng of the AustfaIIan
AbofIgInes of the cycIIcIty of HIndu and BuddhIst cosmoIogIes.
10
The concept of IIneaf tIme, and a unIvefse cfeated by a fatIonaI beIng and ofdefed
accofdIng to a set of ImmutabIe Iaws, was adopted by both ChfIstIanIty and IsIam, and
was the domInant InfIuence In Eufope at the tIme of GaIIIeo. The eafIy scIentIsts, who
wefe deepIy feIIgIous, fegafded theIf wofk as uncovefIng God's pIan fof the unIvefse, as
feveaIed thfough hIdden mathematIcaI feIatIonshIps. What we now caII the Iaws of
physIcs they saw as thoughts In the mInd of God. WIthout beIIef In a sIngIe omnIpotent
fatIonaI IawgIvef, It Is unIIkeIy that anyone wouId have assumed that natufe Is
InteIIIgIbIe In a systematIc quantItatIve way, mIffofed by etefnaI mathematIcaI fofms.
The scIentIfIc method ItseIf vefged on beIng an occuIt pfactIce at the tIme of Newton,
and was conducted aftef the fashIon of a secfet socIety. WfItIng coded symboIs on pIeces
of papef and subjectIng mattef to 'unnatufaI' expefImentatIon In the sanctum of specIaI
IabofatofIes Is an afcane pfocedufe by any standafds. So scIence, though consIdefed
natufaI enough today, was IIttIe dIffefent ffom magIc when It was fIfst estabIIshed.
Suppose an astefoId had hIt PafIs In 1300 and destfoyed Eufopean cuItufe. WouId
scIence ever have emefged on Eafth? I have nevef heafd a convIncIng afgument that It
wouId. It Is often femafked that In medIevaI tImes the ChInese wefe technoIogIcaIIy faf
mofe advanced than the Eufopeans, whIch Is tfue. So why dId the ChInese not go on to
become tfue scIentIsts? Paft of the feason Is that tfadItIonaI ChInese cuItufe was not
steeped In the monotheIstIc notIon of a tfanscendent Iawmakef.
11
OutsIde the
monotheIstIc wofId, natufe was pefceIved as fuIed by the compIex IntefpIay of
competIng InfIuences In the fofm of gods, agents and conceaIed mystIcaI tendencIes. In
medIevaI ChIna, no cIeaf dIstInctIon was dfawn between mofaI Iaws and Iaws of natufe.
Human affaIfs wefe InextfIcabIy bound up wIth the cosmos, fofmIng an IndIvIsIbIe
unIty. Fof the pagans of Eufope and the Neaf East, who wefe In competItIon wIth
ChfIstIanIty and IsIam at theIf fofmatIve stages, knowIedge of the cosmos was to be
gaIned thfough 'gnosIs', a mystIcaI communIon wIth the cfeatof, fathef than thfough
fatIonaI enquIfy. CouId gnosIs eventuaIIy Iead to scIence? I don't thInk so. UnIess you
expect thefe to be an InteIIIgIbIe ofdef hIdden In the pfocesses of natufe fIxed and
anaIysabIe by mathematIcs thefe wouId be no motIvatIon to embafk on the scIentIfIc
entefpfIse In the fIfst pIace.
Hefe we feach a key subtIety about the scIentIfIc method, whIch Is the foIe that theofy
pIays In physIcs. The powef of theofetIcaI physIcs stems ffom the fecognItIon that thefe
afe deep IntefconnectIng pfIncIpIes In natufe. When Newton saw the faIIIng appIe, he
dIdn't just see an appIe faII, he pefceIved a set of equatIons IInkIng the motIon of the
appIe to the motIon of the Moon. 'TheofetIcaI physIcs' Joes not mean 'havIng conjectufes
about physIcs'. It means estabIIshIng an eIabofate IntefIockIng system of specIfIc
mathematIcaI equatIons to captufe aspects of physIcaI feaIIty that on casuaI InspectIon
we wouId nevef guess afe feIated, and then modeIIIng those feIatIonshIps
quantItatIveIy. No othef scIence possesses thIs undefpInnIng. Thefe Is no 'theofetIcaI
bIoIogy', Iet aIone 'theofetIcaI socIoIogy' of 'theofetIcaI psychoIogy', In the physIcs sense
of the wofd theofy. Thefe afe Ideas, conjectufes, sImpIe mathematIcaI modeIs,
ofganIzIng pfIncIpIes, pafadIgms and so fofth, but no tfue Iaw-IIke mathematIcaI t/eory
(at Ieast, not yet). The spectacuIaf success of physIcaI scIence defIves ffom the feftIIe
IntefpIay of theofy and expefIment. WIthout mInds pfepafed by the cuItufaI antecedents
of Gfeek phIIosophy and monotheIsm (of somethIng sImIIaf) and In paftIcuIaf the
abstfact notIon of a system of hIdden mathematIcaI Iaws scIence as we know It may
nevef have emefged.
It Is sometImes cIaImed that, even wIthout a beIIef In a pefvasIve ImmutabIe Iaw-IIke
ofdef In natufe, any suffIcIentIy Iong-IIved socIety wouId stumbIe on scIence eventuaIIy,
sImpIy ffom tfIaI and effof. Aftef aII, the ChInese dIscovefed the compass wIthout a cIue
about how the Eafth's IntefnaI dynamo genefates a magnetIc fIeId of how that fIeId
Intefacts wIth eIectfons In the compass. Pefhaps, then, the use of IncfeasIngIy
sophIstIcated tooIs wouId soonef of Iatef Iead to nucIeaf powef and spacecfaft and fadIo
communIcatIon. Fof technoIogy, It's enough to know t/ut, wIthout knowIng /ow. WeII,
obvIousIy It's possIbIe In pfIncIpIe to dIscovef, step by step, that ceftaIn causes pfoduce
ceftaIn effects. The tfue powef of scIence, howevef, Is that It Ieads us to Jesign noveI
contfaptIons based on unJerstunJing the pfIncIpIes that govefn them. WIth tfIaI and
effof, one can peffect exIstIng tooIs and devIces, but wIthout a sound theofetIcaI basIs,
thefe Is no feason to even go IookIng fof most of the thIngs that now domInate modefn
scIence. Why wouId one expect thefe to exIst neutfInos of gfavItatIonaI waves, fof
exampIe, whIch aImost aII pass fIght thfough the Eafth wIthout havIng any measufabIe
effect at aII? Why Iook fof dafk mattef of dafk enefgy, whIch astfonomefs deduce ffom
vefy cafefuI obsefvatIons usIng sateIIItes and Iafge teIescopes, but whIch make sense
onIy when suItabIy Intefpfeted thfough Iayef upon Iayef of mathematIcaI theofy? Why
buIId a paftIcIe acceIefatof unIess you had feason to suspect that hIthefto unknown and
InvIsIbIe paftIcIes IIke W and Z had a good chance of being t/ere? Of coufse, thefe Is a
fInIte pfobabIIIty that a face of sentIent beIngs wIthout scIence may, by pufe accIdent
fueIIed by cufIosIty, put togethef a fadIo teIescope of a paftIcIe acceIefatof wIthout the
sIIghtest Idea of what they wefe doIng of what the outcome wouId be, and have no
actuaI undefstandIng of what they found when they found It. PossIbIe, yes, but the
scenafIo Is so fIdIcuIous It cannot be taken sefIousIy. It's as sIIIy as sayIng that someone
wIth no musIcaI appfecIatIon of abIIIty wIII one day accIdentaIIy wfIte a symphony.
I concede thefe may be some deep, as yet undIscovefed, pfIncIpIe of socIaI
ofganIzatIon that says, foughIy speakIng, gIven a face of cufIous beIngs (and cufIosIty Is
ceftaInIy a genefaI bIoIogIcaI tfaIt), then ovef tIme scIence Is InevItabIe. It mIght be the
case that human hIstofy has been channeIIed down the path of enIIghtenment and
dIscovefy by the unseen hand of such unknown Iaws of compIexIty and ofganIzatIon. (I
shaII have mofe to say about thIs conjectufe In Chaptef 8.) On the face of It, howevef,
thefe seem to have been many contIngent featufes poIItIcaI, feIIgIous, economIc and
socIaI that went Into the deveIopment of the modefn scIentIfIc method. It couId be that
hIstofy Is sImpIy a sefIes of fandom and unfofeseeabIe accIdents, one of them beIng the
feIIcItous conjunctIon of Gfeek phIIosophy and monotheIsm In medIevaI Eufope. If we
do dIscovef an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon that found scIence, It wouId be stfong evIdence that
thefe afe Indeed unIvefsaI Iaws of socIaI and InteIIectuaI ofganIzatIon, just as thefe afe
unIvefsaI Iaws of physIcs. But wIthout good feason to beIIeve In such Iaws, the
fashIonabIe cIaIm that 'scIence Is InevItabIe' stfIkes me as totaIIy wIthout foundatIon.
THE DRAKE EQUATION
A good way of summafIzIng the dIscussIon so faf Is to gathef togethef the vafIous factofs
that coIIectIveIy detefmIne the expected numbef of communIcatIng cIvIIIzatIons exIstIng
eIsewhefe In ouf gaIaxy at thIs tIme. The fesuIt Is known as 'the Dfake equatIon', and
was fIfst wfItten down by Ffank In 1961 (see FIg. 5). It Is not so much an equatIon In
the conventIonaI mathematIcaI sense, mofe of a way to quantIfy ouf Ignofance. I wIII
Ignofe the usuaI fuIe of popuIaf scIence wfItIng that says no mathematIcs othef than L
= mc
2
afe aIIowed undef any cIfcumstances, on the basIs that the Dfake equatIon Isn't a
feaI equatIon anyway. So hefe It Is:
N = R f
p
n
e
f
l
f
i
f
c
L
What do aII these symboIs mean? Iet me gIve the defInItIons one by one:
R = fate of fofmatIon of sun-IIke stafs In the gaIaxy
f
p
= ffactIon of those stafs wIth pIanets
n
e
= avefage numbef of Eafth-IIke pIanets In each pIanetafy system
f
l
= ffactIon of those pIanets on whIch IIfe emefges
f
i
= ffactIon of pIanets wIth IIfe on whIch InteIIIgence evoIves
f
c
= ffactIon of those pIanets on whIch technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIon and the abIIIty to
communIcate emefges
L = the avefage IIfetIme of a communIcatIng cIvIIIzatIon.
The numbef N on the Ieft-hand sIde of the equatIon fepfesents how many 'fadIo-
actIve' cIvIIIzatIons afe out thefe In the gaIaxy. Because tfadItIonaI SETI focuses on fadIo
sIgnaIIIng, what counts as a communIcatIng cIvIIIzatIon fof the pufpose of the Dfake
equatIon Is sImpIy one that possesses fadIo technoIogy. Thefe mIght be bettef ways to
send sIgnaIs acfoss space, of thefe mIght be advanced aIIen cIvIIIzatIons that pfefef not
to engage In Iong-fange communIcatIon, by fadIo of othefwIse. But If thefe afe, we
won't spot them usIng fadIo teIescopes.
The symboIs on the fIght-hand sIde of Dfake's equatIon afe quantItIes we need In
ofdef to estImate guesstImate wouId be mofe apt the numbef N. Iet me dIscuss each
of them In tufn.
FIg. 5. Ffank Dfake and hIs eponymous equatIon.
The fIfst tefm, R, Is the fate of sun-IIke stafs beIng bofn pef yeaf In ouf gaIaxy. Why
just In ouf gaIaxy? The feason Is that feceIvIng fadIo sIgnaIs ffom beyond the MIIky
Way Iooks extfemeIy unIIkeIy, gIven the gfeatef dIstances InvoIved, aIthough It Is
ceftaInIy not ImpossIbIe. Anyway, Iet's go wIth the festfIctIon fof now. The accumuIated
totul numbef of sun-IIke stafs In the gaIaxy today Is known quIte weII to astfonomefs (by
sImpIy poIntIng a teIescope and countIng, then scaIIng up usIng sImpIe statIstIcs). The
answef Is afound 10 bIIIIon, dependIng a bIt on just how 'sun-IIke' a staf feaIIy needs to
be to suppoft IIfe. But the numbef Isn't fIxed: stafs afe bofn and stafs dIe, and so It has
been sInce the MIIky Way began fofmIng about 13 bIIIIon yeafs ago. Fof exampIe, about
seven new stafs a yeaf afe cuffentIy beIng added to the MIIky Way on avefage, though
that numbef has changed somewhat ovef the coufse of gaIactIc hIstofy.
12
The specIfIcs
don't mattef. The poInt Is that the unceftaInty In the vaIue of R Is feIatIveIy smaII.
The next symboI, f
p
, Is the ffactIon of those stafs that have pIanets. Back In 1960 when
SETI began, thIs quantIty was uncIeaf because nobody couId be sufe how pIanets fofm.
One theofy suggested the soIaf system was made ffom matefIaI dfagged off the sun by a
passIng staf sufeIy a vefy fafe occuffence, ImpIyIng that f
p
wouId be exceedIngIy
smaII. Anothef theofy supposed that the pIanets wefe made ffom mattef concentfated In
a dIsk of nebuIa of gas and dust swIfIIng afound the pfoto-sun. Dfake evef the
optImIst went wIth the Iattef theofy, and estImated f
p
= 0.5, I.e. haIf of sun-IIke stafs
have pIanets. Fof decades thefe was IIttIe heIp ffom obsefvatIon, but today astfonomefs
afe abIe to detect pIanets goIng afound othef stafs, usIng technIques I dIscussed bfIefIy
In Chaptef 1. The obsefvatIons IndIcate that the nebuIa theofy Is fIght and that most
stafs have pIanets of some soft. In fact, Dfake mIght have sIIghtIy undefestImated the
numbef.
ActuaIIy, the ofIgInaI Dfake equatIon Ieft out of account an entIfe cIass of pIanets, the
Impoftance of whIch has onIy fecentIy been appfecIated. TheofetIcaI anaIysIs of
pIanetafy motIon suggests that ofbIts can be destabIIIzed by pIanets 'gangIng up',
fesuItIng In objects beIng fIung out of a staf system aItogethef. As a fesuIt, thefe couId
be many 'fogue pIanets' wandefIng the dafk IntefsteIIaf spaces, pefhaps accompanIed
by a fetInue of moons. QuIte possIbIy ouf soIaf system stafted out wIth mofe than the
eIght (of nIne) pIanets we see today, the fest beIng ejected. An endufIng memofy ffom
my chIIdhood Is of the foftnIghtIy BBC teIevIsIon fantasy T/e Lost Plunet, scfeened In
1954. It featufed a joufney In an atomIc-powefed spaceshIp to the wandefIng pIanet of
HesIkos, whIch tempofafIIy entefed the soIaf system ffom deep space. HesIkos tufned
out to be InhabIted by teIepathIc humanoIds. It was ceftaInIy a fIvetIng stofy fof an
eIght-yeaf oId, but the Idea of a pIanet meandefIng 'Iost' thfough the gaIaxy stfuck me
at the tIme as the weakest IInk In the naffatIve. Io and behoId, It seems not to be so daft
aftef aII. Some astfonomefs estImate that thefe couId be billions of fogue pIanets adfIft
In the MIIky Way, so the Dfake equatIon needs modIfIcatIon to take them Into account.
13
Anyway, addIng up both the tethefed and Ioose pIanets suggests a taIIy of somewhefe In
the fegIon of a tfIIIIon In ouf gaIaxy.
Fof IIfe as we know It to afIse, a pIanet has to be 'Eafth-IIke'. The factof n
e
In the
Dfake equatIon stands fof the numbef of pIanets In a staf system abIe to suppoft IIfe
(I.e. 'Eafth-IIke' pIanets hence the subscfIpt e). Dfake InItIaIIy pIcked 2 fof the vaIue of
n
e
, whIch Is to say, an avefage of two Eafth-IIke pIanets pef pIanetafy system. What do
the obsefvatIons show? In the case of the soIaf system, Eafth and Mafs wouId quaIIfy. As
faf as extfa-soIaf Eafth-IIke pIanets afe concefned, none has so faf been dIscovefed. But
that shouId soon change when the fesuIts of the KepIef mIssIon become avaIIabIe.
VafIous mofe ambItIous space-based pIanet-fIndIng Instfuments afe beIng pIanned, and
It Is possIbIe we shaII have acceptabIe Images of othef eafths out to, say, fIfty IIght
yeafs, wIthIn a decade of two. AImost ceftaInIy thefe ure many Eafth-IIke pIanets In the
gaIaxy, but puttIng a pfecIse numbef to It Is hafd. Somewhefe between 1 and 10 pef
cent Is my estImate of the ffactIon of pIanets In sun-IIke staf systems that at Ieast
fesembIe Eafth In theIf tempefatufe, atmosphefIc pfessufe and sufface gfavIty. That Is
Iowef than Dfake's ofIgInaI fIgufe, but not dfastIcaIIy so, and stIII amounts to bIIIIons of
Eafth-IIke pIanets.
Next comes the feaIIy hafd paft. The factof f
l
Is the numbef of Eafth-IIke pIanets on
whIch IIfe afIses. As I have been at paIns to poInt out, that numbef Is hugeIy unceftaIn.
SETI enthusIasts such as Ffank Dfake and CafI Sagan put f
l
= 1. In othef wofds, they
assumed that If a pIanet was IIke Eafth, then IIfe was bound to afIse In due coufse de
Duve's cosmIc ImpefatIve. On the othef hand, sceptIcs IIke Jacques Monod chose f
l
vefy
cIose to zefo. If we dIscovef a shadow bIosphefe, we mIght be abIe to settIe the mattef In
favouf of a numbef cIose to 1. But fof now, we afe IafgeIy In the dafk.
The factof f
l
beIng the ffactIon of pIanets wIth IIfe on whIch InteIIIgence evoIves I
dIscussed eafIIef In thIs chaptef. Sagan took the astonIshIngIy optImIstIc vaIue of 1,
ImpIyIng that InteIIIgence Is InevItabIe soonef of Iatef, once IIfe gets goIng. OfIgInaIIy,
Dfake assIgned the sIIghtIy mofe consefvatIve, yet stIII hopefuI, fIgufe of 0.01 fof f
l
.
Howevef, I have stfessed that thIs numbef Is aIso hIghIy unceftaIn, as Is f
c
, the ffactIon
of pIanets wIth InteIIIgent IIfe on whIch scIence and teIecommunIcatIons deveIop.
HOW IONG DO TECHNOIOGICAI CIVIIIZATIONS IAST?
The fInaI factof In the Dfake equatIon Is the avefage IIfetIme of a communIcatIng
cIvIIIzatIon. To appfecIate the sIgnIfIcance of thIs, ImagIne a town In whIch each
homeownef swItches hIs IIghts on and off fof ten seconds, just once, at a tIme of nIght
chosen fandomIy fof each dweIIIng. Now ask how IIkeIy It Is that two houses In the town
wIII be IIt up at the same tIme. If thefe afe onIy a hundfed houses In the town, chances
afe that no two houses wIII be IIIumInated togethef. IIghts wIII come on and go off,
fandomIy acfoss the town, but pfobabIy nevef sImuItaneousIy. If the IIghts get Ieft on
fof a mInute fathef than ten seconds, of If thefe afe 10,000 houses In the town fathef
than a mefe one hundfed, then thefe Is obvIousIy a bettef chance of sImuItaneous
IIIumInatIon. Now thInk of communIcatIng cIvIIIzatIons that way. They come and they
go, they 'IIght up', then fade away. RIght now, human cIvIIIzatIon Is 'IIt up'. We'd IIke to
know whethef anyone eIse In the gaIaxy Is goIng thfough theIf fadIo communIcatIon
phase now.
14
It's no heIp when pufsuIng SETI fadIo seafches to know that thousands of
communIcatIng cIvIIIzatIons may have come Into exIstence In the MIIky Way, but have
Iong ago vanIshed, theIf tfansmIssIons ceased, of that thousands mofe wIII afIse In the
faf futufe when humanIty may have gone. The goaI of tfadItIonaI SETI Is to acquIfe
some cosmIc company at t/is epoch. And the pfobabIIIty of success hInges on the tefm L
In the Dfake equatIon, the Iength of tIme an avefage aIIen cIvIIIzatIon bfoadcasts fadIo
sIgnaIs. The bIggef the vaIue fof L, the gfeatef the chance that anothef cIvIIIzatIon Is on
the aIf at thIs tIme.
Back In 1961, Dfake pIcked I = 10,000 yeafs. Sagan, who was depfessed about
human stupIdIty In feIatIon to nucIeaf waf and envIfonmentaI damage, thought 10,000
yeafs mIght be a bIt optImIstIc. MIchaeI Shefmef of the SkeptIcs SocIety estImated that
human cIvIIIzatIons afe InhefentIy unstabIe and typIcaIIy coIIapse aftef onIy a few
hundfed yeafs.
15
Some bIoIogIsts have afgued that the avefage IIfetIme of a mammaIIan
specIes Is a few mIIIIon yeafs, and thIs sets a quIte genefaI uppef IImIt on the expected
dufatIon of ouf cIvIIIzatIon. Of coufse, nobody feaIIy knows. PefsonaIIy, I thInk aII the
afguments concefnIng L afe nave and IffeIevant, especIaIIy the bIoIogIcaI one.
DafwInIan evoIutIon was aIfeady suspended wIth agfIcuItufe, and Is now compIeteIy
supefseded wIth the advent of modefn medIcIne, democfatIc fIghts, genetIc engIneefIng
and bIotechnoIogy. Human cIvIIIzatIon mIght yet succumb to a natufaI catastfophe, such
as an astefoId Impact of a specIes-jumpIng kIIIef pandemIc, of as a fesuIt of manmade
dIsastefs IIke nucIeaf waf. But thefe Is ceftaInIy no InevItabIIIty of such a thIng, and If
we make It thfough the next few centufIes, we couId be set faIf fof the IndefInIte futufe.
I see no feason why, once an advanced extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIon Is estabIIshed, It
shouIdn't endufe fof an extfaofdInafy Iength of tIme mIIIIons of tens of mIIIIons of
yeafs of mofe. So thIs Is one tefm In the Dfake equatIon whefe I am mofe optImIstIc
than the pundIts.
Of gfeatef feIevance to tfadItIonaI fadIo SETI Is the questIon of whethef the
eIectfomagnetIc footpfInt of a cIvIIIzatIon wIII aIso endufe fof an extfaofdInafy Iength
of tIme. HumanIty has been bfoadcastIng fadIo sIgnaIs fof about a centufy. Ouf most
poweffuI emIssIons come ffom mIIItafy fadaf. Aftef that, It's TV statIons. In the eafIy
days of SETI, scIentIsts pfedIcted a feIentIess fIse In fadIo tfaffIc, as weaIth and
technoIogy advanced. But what happened was quIte the fevefse. FIfst, poInt-to-poInt
communIcatIons became domInated by Iow-powef sateIIItes dIfectIng theIf sIgnaIs
eafthwafd. Second, the buIk of teIecommunIcatIons shIfted away ffom fadIo to bufIed
optIcaI fIbfes. If ET Is monItofIng ouf fadIo tfaffIc, It wIII seem to have fIsen to a peak
In the Iate twentIeth centufy and then begun to fade. In anothef hundfed yeafs, thefe
may be no substantIaI fadIo output ffom Eafth. (Radaf mIght stIII be used, pIus the
occasIonaI command to a space pfobe.) So unIess an aIIen communIty has a deIIbefate
poIIcy of tfansmIttIng poweffuI fadIo sIgnaIs, It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that the gaIaxy Is
bustIIng wIth advanced cIvIIIzatIons yet has no detectabIe aftIfIcIaI fadIo sIgnatufe. It
has been estImated that If we buIIt a fadIo teIescope 100 kIIometfes (60 mIIes) In
dIametef, It wouId be so sensItIve we couId detect a TV statIon as faf away as SIfIus, so
It wouIdn't mattef whethef ET wefe beamIng messages dIfectIy at us of not. But If SIfIus
TV Is deIIvefed vIa cabIe, we'd be out of Iuck. EavesdfoppIng on an extfateffestfIaI
cIvIIIzatIon on the pfemIse that the aIIens may stIII be usIng 1980s human technoIogy Is
a hafd seII. (I shaII fetufn to thIs topIc In Chaptef 5.)
Anyway, fof what It's wofth, If Dfake's fIgufe L = 10,000 Is adopted, togethef wIth hIs
estImates fof aII the othef factofs In hIs eponymous equatIon, one obtaIns the bottom
IIne fesuIt N = 10,000, that Is, thefe shouId be 10,000 cIvIIIzatIons In the gaIaxy at thIs
tIme capabIe of communIcatIng wIth each othef (and us) usIng fadIo technoIogy. WhIch
seems vefy excItIng. Ten thousand extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIons on the aIf fIght now! If
we knew that fof a fact, SETI wouId be an ufgent pfIofIty. 'Iet's fInd them!' evefyone
wouId say. But as I have expIaIned, aIthough many tefms In Ffank's equatIon afe known
fathef weII, and one at Ieast (L) was In my vIew sefIousIy undefestImated, the equatIon
Is uttefIy domInated by two factofs about whIch we know aImost nothIng f
l
, the
ffactIon of Eafth-IIke pIanets on whIch IIfe emefges, and f
i
, the ffactIon of those on
whIch InteIIIgence evoIves. In my vIew the fofmef Is much mofe pfobIematIc than the
Iattef. If IIfe gets goIng, InteIIIgence Is at Ieast In wIth a chance. It couId be that
InteIIIgence Is, aftef aII, wIng-IIke fathef than tfunk-IIke, It's not too IncfedIbIe. But It's
entIfeIy possIbIe that IIfe's ofIgIn Is so ffeakIsh It has happened onIy once, and we afe It.
At thIs tIme we have no scIentIfIc gfounds fof fefutIng thIs posItIon. Thefe Is to date not
a shfed of evIdence that 'natufe favoufs IIfe', that thefe Is a 'IIfe pfIncIpIe' dIfectIng
mufky chemIcaI soups towafds the gfandeuf of bIoIogy. And sInce we haven't a cIue
about /ow IIfe actuaIIy emefged, then unIess and untII we fInd eIthef a shadow
bIosphefe of stfong evIdence fof IIfe on an extfa-soIaf pIanet, we can't even bfacket f
l
by concoctIng optImIstIc and pessImIstIc numefIcaI estImates. At thIs stage of the game,
the ffactIon couId be anythIng at aII between 0 and 1.
THE PERIIS OF USING STATISTICS OF ONE
GIven that ouf gaIaxy contaIns about 400 bIIIIon stafs, a pIausIbIe guess at the numbef
of Eafth-IIke pIanets afound sun-IIke stafs mIght be a bIIIIon. If Monod Is fIght, onIy one
of these pIanets possesses IIfe. If de Duve Is fIght, most of them do. What about a mIddIe
posItIon? MIght ouf gaIaxy contaIn, say, a mIIIIon pIanets wIth IIfe?
Thefe Is a pefsuasIve afgument agaInst the mIddIe posItIon. The 'othef eafths' don't
just sIt thefe fof etefnIty waItIng fof bIoIogy to happen, thefe Is a fInIte wIndow of
oppoftunIty fof IIfe to emefge. IIfe as we know It fequIfes a stabIe staf IIke the sun to
pfovIde enefgy and maIntaIn habItabIe condItIons on a pIanet. But stafs can't shIne fof
evef, soonef of Iatef they fun out of fueI and dIe. At 4.5 bIIIIon yeafs of age, ouf sun Is
about haIf-way thfough Its compIete IIfe cycIe, havIng aIfeady consumed a Iafge ffactIon
of Its nucIeaf fueI. In anothef bIIIIon yeafs of so It wIII begIn to feeI the effects of fueI
stafvatIon, as a fesuIt of whIch It wIII sweII up and sIowIy IncInefate ouf home. (In
astfo-speak, It wIII staft tufnIng Into a fed gIant staf, a phase that pfesages death by
coIIapse Into a whIte dwaff.) A sImIIaf stofy Is pIayed out by stafs thfoughout the
gaIaxy. So If IIfe Is to emefge on a pIanet ofbItIng a gIven sun-IIke staf, It has to do so In
the 5- to 10-bIIIIon-yeaf tIme wIndow bfacketed by the fofmatIon of the staf and bufn-
out. AssumIng that bIogenesIs occufs fandomIy on habItabIe pIanets, thefe wIII be
statIstIcaI scattef, of a fange of vaIues fof the amount of tIme needed to make It
happen. But Iet's focus on the uveruge tIme. If the avefage tIme Is shoft If IIfe Is quIck
and easy to fofm thefe wIII be pIenty of oppoftunIty fof It to begIn on many pIanets
(de Duve's vIew). On the othef hand, If the expected tIme fof bIogenesIs Is much gfeatef
than 10 bIIIIon yeafs, IIfe may nevef get stafted at aII on a gIven Eafth-IIke pIanet. If It
dId, It wouId be agaInst the odds a Iucky fIuke. Expfessed mofe scIentIfIcaIIy, It wouId
be a vefy fafe fIuctuatIon, an outIIef In the statIstIcaI spfead. In that case It Is entIfeIy
possIbIe that It happened on onIy a sIngIe pIanet In the gaIaxy, whIch wouId be Eafth
(Monod's vIew).
TufnIng now to the IntefmedIate case of IIfe afIsIng on (say) a mIIIIon pIanets In a
gaIaxy IIke oufs, the expected tIme fof bIogenesIs to occuf wouId have to be neIthef
much shoftef nof much Iongef than the avefage habItabIIIty wIndow of a pIanet say
between one tenth and ten tImes. Is thIs feasonabIe? Iet's consIdef what It entaIIs. The
Iength of the habItabIIIty wIndow, whIch Is bfacketed by the dufatIon that a staf bufns
In a stabIe mannef (caII It T1), hInges on a vafIety of factofs, such as the fate of nucIeaf
feactIons In the staf's cofe, the effIcIency wIth whIch heat Is tfanspofted to Its sufface
and the ovefaII mass of the staf. Now consIdef how Iong It mIght take fof IIfe to afIse on
an Eafth-IIke pIanet (caII that T2). Fof the moment I am consIdefIng onIy sImpIe
mIcfobIaI IIfe, not InteIIIgent IIfe. Of coufse we don't know the numbef T2, but If the
mIddIe posItIon of a mIIIIon pIanets wIth IIfe Is coffect, then the tIme needed fof
bIogenesIs to occuf wouId have to be a few bIIIIon yeafs (I.e. compafabIe to T1, the
IIfetIme of the stabIe phase of an avefage staf): IIfe wouId then faII to staft In tIme on
some Eafth-IIke pIanets, on many It wouId fofm neaf the mIddIe of the wIndow of
oppoftunIty, whIIe on a few It wouId begIn just befofe the pIanet became unInhabItabIe.
Such a scenafIo, aIthough ceftaInIy possIbIe, wouId, howevef, fepfesent a vefy
ImpfobabIe coIncIdence. The tIme fequIfed fof IIfe to emefge ffom non-IIfe has, on the
face of It, nothIng to do wIth the factofs that detefmIne the IIfetIme of a staf, such as the
fate of nucIeaf feactIons. As faf as we can see, IIfe Is a pfoduct of physIcaI pfocesses
InvoIvIng atomIc and moIecuIaf physIcs, chemIstfy and geoIogy that afe aItogethef
dIffefent ffom those takIng pIace InsIde stafs. So why shouId the dufatIons T1 and T2
possess the foughIy equul vaIues that wouId be fequIfed fof a mIIIIon pIanets to genefate
IIfe, when the two tImescaIes have no causaI connectIon? Thefe Is no obvIous feason
why one numbef Isn't much Iafgef than the othef. It couId of coufse be that T1 and T2
afe compafabIe In vaIue mefeIy by chance, coIncIdences afe aIIowed In scIence, but they
shouId be the expIanatIon of Iast fesoft.
16
If coIncIdences afe fejected, then the
concIusIon must be that the expected dufatIon of tIme fof IIfe to emefge Is quIte IIkeIy to
be vefy much Iess than the IIfetIme of a staf, of vefy much mofe.
WhIch Is It to be? AII we have to go on Is IIfe on Eafth a sampIe of one. DfawIng
statIstIcaI concIusIons Is thefefofe fIsky, but that hasn't stopped peopIe ffom tfyIng. It
was poInted out by CafI Sagan that IIfe began on Eafth fathef quIckIy: 'the ofIgIn of IIfe
must be a hIghIy pfobabIe affaIf, as soon as condItIons pefmIt, up It pops!' he wfote.
17
Sagan was fefeffIng to the fact that Eafth suffefed sevefe bombafdment untII about 3.8
bIIIIon yeafs ago, and accofdIng to the fossII fecofd IIfe had become fIfmIy estabIIshed
wIthIn 300 mIIIIon yeafs (see FIg. 6). That suggested to Sagan that whatevef unknown
pfocess pfoduced IIfe, It was fast, and thefefofe IIfe mIght be expected to afIse wIth
compafabIe fapIdIty on othef Eafth-IIke pIanets.
Sagan may be fIght, but unfoftunateIy thefe Is a sefIous compIIcatIon. The feason that
IIfe on Eafth Is chosen fof ouf sIngIe statIstIcaI sampIe Is pfecIseIy because we oufseIves
afe a pfoduct of It. Eafth hafboufs not mefeIy IIfe, but intelligent IIfe, at any fate
InteIIIgent enough to concoct afguments about bIogenesIs. To attaIn that IeveI of
InteIIIgence, IIfe has to evoIve to a hIgh IeveI of compIexIty, and It must do thIs wIthIn
the few-bIIIIon-yeaf habItabIIIty wIndow dufIng whIch the sun bufns stabIy. CfucIaI steps
on that foad IncIuded the emefgence of muItIceIIuIaf ofganIsms (whIch took ovef two
bIIIIon yeafs), the evoIutIon of sex, the fofmatIon of nefvous systems and the
deveIopment of Iafge bfaIns. In between wefe myfIad smaIIef steps, some hafd, othefs
easy. ObvIousIy, unIess aII the steps had been compIeted wIthIn a few bIIIIon yeafs,
humans (of anImaIs of compafabIe InteIIIgence) wouId nevef have evoIved enough
compIexIty to deIIbefate on scIentIfIc mattefs. In othef wofds, IIfe on Eafth /uJ to get
goIng pfetty fast, of thefe wouIdn't have been enough tIme fof InteIIIgent obsefvefs IIke
us to hIt the scene befofe the sun became a fed gIant. So IIfe's pfompt appeafance on
Eafth may not aftef aII be IndIcatIve of the genefaI sItuatIon, It couId have been a hIghIy
atypIcaI set of events whIch has been seIected fof obsefvatIon and scfutIny by the vefy
obsefvefs It cfeated.
FIg. 6. IIfe estabIIshed ItseIf on Eafth fapIdIy once condItIons became suItabIe. Howevef, had It not done so, humans mIght
not have evoIved befofe the habItabIIIty wIndow cIoses In about 800 mIIIIon yeafs' tIme. Numbefs expfess bIIIIons of yeafs
befofe the pfesent.
THE GREAT FIITER
The fough-and-feady afgument I just outIIned was pIaced on a sound mathematIcaI
footIng In 1980 by the BfItIsh cosmoIogIst Bfandon Caftef,
18
and subsequentIy fefIned by
the economIst RobIn Hanson.
19
Caftef and Hanson ImagIned a Iafge ensembIe of
'expefIments' In whIch natufe has a chance to pfoduce InteIIIgent IIfe, and they noted
that If the expected tIme fof InteIIIgence to evoIve wefe much less than the IIfetIme of a
typIcaI staf (say, a mefe one mIIIIon yeafs), It wouId be hafd to see why It has taken
bIIIIons of yeafs fof It to fun Its coufse on Eafth. One wouId have to make a case that
aIthough InteIIIgent IIfe Is common In the unIvefse, fof some pecuIIaf feason the
evoIutIon of InteIIIgence on Eafth was atypIcaIIy deIayed. On the othef hand, suppose
the expected tIme fof the evoIutIon of InteIIIgence Is much longer than the IIfetIme of a
typIcaI staf, yet In spIte of the hIghIy advefse odds InteIIIgence Joes In fact evoIve (as It
dId on Eafth), then the tIme It wouId take to compIete thIs hIghIy ImpfobabIe pfocess
wouId most IIkeIy be cIose to the totaI pefmItted dufatIon, I.e. the Iength of the
habItabIIIty wIndow. And that Is Indeed what we obsefve: the evoIutIon of InteIIIgent
IIfe on Eafth has 'used up' about 4 bIIIIon yeafs of the foughIy 5-bIIIIon-yeaf wIndow of
oppoftunIty, befofe Eafth gets ffIed by the sweIIIng sun (see FIg. 6).
Caftef and Hanson wefe abIe to quantIfy thIs Idea pfecIseIy. Hefe Is the gIst of theIf
fesuIt, whIch foIIows In a stfaIghtfofwafd mannef ffom the equatIons of pfobabIIIty
theofy, but the cufIous feadef wIII have to consuIt the ofIgInaI papefs fof the actuaI
pfoof. Assume that sevefaI vItaI steps take pIace on the foad to InteIIIgence, and that
each step Is so ImpfobabIe It wouId take, on Its own, faf Iongef on avefage than the
IIfetIme of a typIcaI staf.
20
Hanson caIIs thIs obstacIe face fof IIfe 'The Gfeat FIItef'.
Suppose thefe afe N such steps, and that, uguinst t/e oJJs, InteIIIgent IIfe Joes in fuct
urise. Then the equatIons show that the expected tIme between each hIghIy unIIkeIy step
Is about 1,Nth of the habItabIIIty wIndow, wIth anothef 1,Nth Ieft befofe the wIndow
cIoses. I have depIcted thIs fesuIt In FIg. 7. CufIousIy, the gaps between the steps afe
Independent of just /ow hafd the steps mIght be, so Iong as they afe aII vefy hafd.
(IntuItIon mIght suggest that If step A had a one In a mIIIIon chance and step B a one In
a bIIIIon chance, then, In the event that both these steps actuaIIy dId happen, A wouId
happen about a thousand tImes fastef than B. But not so.)
What can we say about the numbef N If we appIy the CaftefHanson afgument to the
actuaI sItuatIon on Eafth? If ouf undefstandIng about the sun's evoIutIon Is coffect, then
(accofdIng to the best estImates) thefe's about 800 mIIIIon yeafs to go befofe ouf pIanet
Is too hot to suppoft InteIIIgent IIfe. That suggests N Is about 6 (thIs beIng the totaI
dufatIon of the wIndow 5 bIIIIon yeafs dIvIded by the expected tIme Ieft 800
mIIIIon yeafs). That Is to say, thefe wefe about sIx cfucIaI but hIghIy ImpfobabIe hufdIes
to sufmount en foute to InteIIIgent IIfe, each of whIch shouId have taken pIace foughIy
800 mIIIIon yeafs apaft. How does that compafe wIth the fossII fecofd? QuIte weII, In
fact. Majof unIIkeIy steps can be IdentIfIed wIth, fIfst, the ofIgIn of IIfe ItseIf, second, the
evoIutIon of photosynthesIs In bactefIa 3.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago, thIfd, the emefgence of
'eukafyotes' (Iafge, compIex ceIIs wIth nucIeI) about 2.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago, foufth, sexuaI
fepfoductIon about 1.2 bIIIIon yeafs ago, fIfth, the expIosIon of Iafge muItIceIIuIaf
ofganIsms 600 mIIIIon yeafs ago, and, fInaIIy, the affIvaI of bfaIny homInIds In the
fecent past. ThIs aII Iooks good, except fof the fIfst hufdIe. Even aIIowIng fof the cfude
appfoxImatIon, It seems to be a sefIous mIsmatch, because IIfe took nowhefe neaf 800
mIIIIon yeafs to get stafted on Eafth. Rathef, It had aIfeady emefged onIy 200300
mIIIIon yeafs aftef the end of the cosmIc bombafdment whIch was Sagan's poInt about
IIfe 'poppIng up' wIth aImost Indecent haste. So does thIs awkwafd fact demoIIsh
Caftef's afgument? Not quIte. Caftef has countefed that we cannot be sufe IIfe actuaIIy
began on Eafth, It mIght have stafted on Mafs and come to Eafth InsIde ejected MaftIan
focks, estabIIshIng Its fIfst toehoId on ouf pIanet onIy when the bombafdment dwIndIed.
If he Is fIght, then the wIndow of oppoftunIty fof IIfe to afIse couId be extended back
ffom 3.8 to 4 bIIIIon yeafs ago of even eafIIef, because Mafs was feady fof IIfe soonef.
AII the steps In the Gfeat FIItef, IncIudIng the fIfst, wouId then be spaced out by foughIy
the pfedIcted 800 mIIIIon yeafs.
21
FIg. 7. The Gfeat FIItef, In the case that thefe afe sIx extfemeIy ImpfobabIe steps on the foad to InteIIIgent IIfe, and
assumIng that InteIIIgence neveftheIess emefges, agaInst the hIghIy advefse odds, befofe the muItI-bIIIIon-yeaf habItabIIIty
wIndow cIoses. The key fesuIt, pfoved usIng pfobabIIIty theofy, Is that the dufatIons between gaps afe (foughIy) equaI,
and of the same dufatIon as the tIme Ieft befofe doomsday, when the habItabIIIty wIndow cIoses. KnowIng how Iong we
have got on Eafth befofe doomsday sefves to fIx the sIze of the gaps, and hence the numbef of steps. UsIng 800 mIIIIon
yeafs fof the tIme Ieft yIeIds sIx steps, as shown hefe. PIausIbIe unIIkeIy bIoIogIcaI tfansItIons can be found fof each step.
The data fIt bettef If the fIfst step occufs on Mafs and IIfe Is subsequentIy tfansfeffed to Eafth.
EafIIef I dIscussed how the InteIIIgence hufdIe wasn't sufmounted feadIIy on Eafth It
took ovef 200 mIIIIon yeafs of bfaIn evoIutIon among Iand anImaIs befofe homInIds
evoIved. That was bad enough. But Caftef's feasonIng suggests a faf mofe pessImIstIc
concIusIon. The pfedIcate of hIs afgument, femembef, Is that the avefage, of expected,
tIme fof InteIIIgent IIfe to afIse Is much Iongef even than the sevefaI-bIIIIon-yeaf
habItabIIIty wIndow offefed by a typIcaI staf IIke the sun. So the fact that InteIIIgence
took ovef 200 mIIIIon yeafs to evoIve on Eafth, sIow though that may seem to us, shouId
be fegafded (accofdIng to Caftef) as a fIuke, a statIstIcaI outIIef, an event Iucky to have
happened at aII In so shoft a wIndow. And the upshot of thIs 'Iucky Eafth' concIusIon Is
that the vast majofIty of othef sun-IIke stafs wIII not shafe ouf system's good foftune.
They wIII faII to possess pIanets wIth InteIIIgent IIfe. If Caftef Is fIght, then, Eafth Is a
very fafe exceptIon, and the emefgence of InteIIIgent beIngs IIke humans Is a ffeak
event, just as Monod maIntaIned.
22
Though Caftef's afgument seems to knock the stuffIng out of SETI, many of my
coIIeagues afe suspIcIous of the undefIyIng feasonIng. A popuIaf objectIon Is that we
can't use guesses about the futufe (fof exampIe, how Iong befofe Eafth becomes a
foasted cfIsp) to feason about the past. In fact, thIs Is a spufIous objectIon: pfobabIIIty
afguments afe peffectIy vaIId appIIed to both past and futufe events so Iong as aII othef
factofs femaIn unchanged thfough tIme. But suppose aII othef factofs do not femaIn
unchanged. Fof exampIe, what If gaIactIc-wIde cosmIc catastfophes ffustfate the
appeafance of InteIIIgent IIfe fof bIIIIons of yeafs, and then abate? One of the most
vIoIent events In the unIvefse Is a gamma fay bufst. These unpIeasant catacIysms afe
pfobabIy caused when massIve stafs ImpIode to fofm bIack hoIes, feIeasIng a huge spfay
of enefgy In the fofm of eIectfIcaIIy chafged paftIcIes dIfected aIong paIfs of opposIteIy
ofIented naffow beams. The chafged paftIcIes In tufn genefate Intense gamma fadIatIon
(hIgh-enefgy photons), that paInt the gaIaxy In afcs, IIke cosmIc death fays, as the bIack
hoIes fotate. If one of the gamma fay beams sweeps ovef a pIanet, It couId annIhIIate
aII compIex sufface IIfe. Gamma fay bufsts afe obsefved usIng a sateIIIte named SwIft,
whIch fegIstefs hundfeds of events pef yeaf. They wouId have been mofe common In the
past, and couId conceIvabIy have pfevented InteIIIgent IIfe ffom evoIvIng anywhefe In
the gaIaxy fof some bIIIIons of yeafs. If so, then maybe undef IdeaI condItIons (I.e. not
menaced by gamma fays) InteIIIgence Isn't aII that ImpfobabIe aftef aII. The fact that It
took a Iong tIme to evoIve on Eafth wouId have a feady physIcaI expIanatIon (Eafth
was zapped by gamma fays), and Caftef's concIusIon that InteIIIgence Is hIghIy unIIkeIy
even aftef tens of billions of yeafs wouId be weakened. So the jufy Is stIII out on just how
sefIous Caftef's IIne of feasonIng mIght uItImateIy tufn out to be, once we undefstand
aII the factofs that go Into detefmInIng what It takes fof InteIIIgent IIfe to afIse.
ARE WE DOOMED?
Befofe movIng on ffom the battIe of the pfobabIIItIes, thefe Is a fInaI twIst that needs to
be consIdefed. If the eefIe sIIence Is taken as primu fucie evIdence that we afe aIone (In
the sense that we afe the onIy InteIIIgent beIngs In the unIvefse) then It couId be that
the steps IeadIng up to InteIIIgent IIfe afe so unIIkeIy they have happened onIy once.
23
But thefe Is a second possIbIe expIanatIon fof the sIIence, one that I mentIoned In the
pfevIous chaptef. Pefhaps InteIIIgent IIfe and technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIons afe InhefentIy
unstabIe, and so do not sufvIve fof Iong enough to make contact wIth each othef. If t/ut
Is the coffect expIanatIon, then It Is bad news fof humanIty. It ImpIIes that, If Eafth Is
typIcaI, we can expect to go the same way as the aIIens, foIIowIng ouf cosmIc cousIns
Into obIIvIon faIfIy soon of at Ieast, befofe we get to bfoadcast to the gaIaxy. And of
coufse It's not hafd to IdentIfy potentIaIIy caIamItous hazafds that couId wIpe us aII out
nucIeaf waf, kIIIef pandemIcs, comet Impacts, socIaI and economIc dIsIntegfatIon.
24
How can we detefmIne whIch of the two expIanatIons fof the eefIe sIIence Is the mofe
IIkeIy: Iucky Eafth, of doom soon? In the absence of any evIdence eIthef way, both
scenafIos afe equaIIy pIausIbIe. But that state of Ignofance couId soon change. If the
sIIence Is feaI, and not just the fesuIt of bad Iuck of poof seafch stfategy, then
somethIng acts to fIItef out most advanced technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIons, eIthef by
pfeventIng theIf fofmatIon In the fIfst pIace of by annIhIIatIng them soon aftef they
become estabIIshed. In the fofmef case the Gfeat FIItef IIes In ouf past, and we Iucky
humans have evIdentIy passed thfough that paft of the fIItef. In the Iattef case, the fIItef
IIes In ouf futufe, whIch Is omInous: we may not be so Iucky goIng fofwafd, and mIght
weII get 'fIItefed out'. Suppose we uncovef evIdence fof IIfe beyond Eafth, ffom the
dIscovefy of mIcfobes eIsewhefe In the soIaf system, fof exampIe, of ffom oxygen In the
atmosphefe of an extfa-soIaf pIanet. It wouId then foIIow that the fIfst step on the path
to InteIIIgence and technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIon the genesIs of IIfe ffom non-IIfe Is not In
fact a huge and ImpfobabIe Ieap. We couId then concIude that the Gfeat FIItef must IIe
u/euJ of the fIfst step, a concIusIon that wouId sefve to tIp the baIance towafds It IyIng
In the futufe of the emefgence of InteIIIgence, and thus shoftenIng the odds fof an
ImpendIng human apocaIypse. The sItuatIon becomes even bIeakef If we dIscovef not
just pfImItIve IIfe, but mofe compIex fofms of IIfe beyond Eafth, because addItIonaI
steps on the path to InteIIIgence wouId then be feveaIed as IIkeIy, fathef than unIIkeIy.
It wouId have the effect of fufthef weakenIng the case fof the Gfeat FIItef IyIng In the
past of InteIIIgent IIfe, and stfengthenIng the IIkeIIhood of a dangefous futufe fof
InteIIIgence. In shoft, If IIfe is a cosmIc ImpefatIve, then the gfeat sIIence Is Indeed eefIe,
In fact, It Is posItIveIy sInIstef as faf as the fate of humanIty Is concefned. If ET Isn't out
thefe, we had bettef hope that no IIfe Is out thefe. NIck Bostfom, an Oxfofd UnIvefsIty
phIIosophef, sums It up bIuntIy: 'It wouId be good news If we fInd Mafs to be compIeteIy
stefIIe. Dead focks and IIfeIess sands wouId IIft my spIfIts. It pfomIses a potentIaIIy
gfeat futufe fof humanIty.'
25
In 1979 I was asked to wfIte a scfIpt fof the actof DudIey Moofe, who pIayed the foIe
of a bewIIdefed student In a BBC documentafy caIIed It's About Time. The naffatIve
began wIth the famous pafadox of the Gfeek phIIosophef Zeno, accofdIng to whIch an
affow couId nevef feach a fetfeatIng tafget, fof the foIIowIng feason. No soonef wIII the
affow affIve at the pIace the tafget occupIed when the affow was unIeashed than the
tafget wIII have moved on a bIt. And when the affow feaches that new posItIon, the
tafget wIII have moved on agaIn, and so on, ad InfInItum. The TV vefsIon showed
DudIey Moofe funnIng ffom the bowman, and then faIIIng fIat as the affow stfuck hIm
In the back, at whIch poInt the naffatof commented wfyIy, 'So much fof phIIosophy.'
The phIIosophIcaI afguments I have pfesented In thIs chaptef, IntfIguIng though they
may be, afe no substItute fof hafd data. They buIId gfandIose cosmIc concIusIons ffom
the sIendefest of facts, and afe onIy as good as the assumptIons on whIch they afe
based. So Iong as thefe Is no concfete scIentIfIc evIdence fof IIfe beyond Eafth, they afe
about aII we can do. But SETI Is fundamentaIIy an expefImentaI and obsefvatIonaI
pfogfamme, not an exefcIse In phIIosophy and statIstIcs. A sIngIe dIscovefy, IIke a sIngIe
bow shot, couId InstantIy oveftufn centufIes of phIIosophIcaI pfesupposItIon. An eefIe
sIIence Is no feason to abandon the seafch fof extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence. Rathef, It
pfovIdes a compeIIIng feason to wIden It.
5
New SETI: WIdenIng the Seafch
Vision is t/e urt of seeing w/ut is invisible to ot/ers.
Jonathan SwIft
THEY DON'T KNOW WE ARE HERE
The tfadItIonaI appfoach to SETI Is based on the beIIef that aIIen cIvIIIzatIons afe
tafgetIng Eafth wIth naffow-band fadIo messages. But In my opInIon, thIs 'centfaI
dogma' sImpIy Isn't cfedIbIe. The feason concefns the fInIte speed of IIght, and the fact
that no sIgnaI of physIcaI effect can pfopagate any fastef. ThIs absoIute speed IImIt Is a
fundamentaI Iaw of physIcs havIng to do wIth the natufe of space and tIme. UnIess ouf
undefstandIng of basIc physIcs Is badIy wfong (In whIch case, much of the dIscussIon
about SETI Is moot), we have to IIve wIth the festfIctIon. To appfecIate the ImpIIcatIons,
consIdef an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon sItuated 1,000 IIght yeafs away cIose even by the
standafds of SETI optImIsts and suppose that the aIIens possess technoIogy so poweffuI
that they can obsefve the Eafth In detaII. What wIII they see? WeII, they won't see us.
They won't see ouf fadIo teIescopes of ouf paftIcIe acceIefatofs of foads of fockets.
What they wIII see Is Eafth c. AD 1010. That date Is weII befofe the IndustfIaI RevoIutIon,
at a tIme when the pInnacIe of human technoIogy was the cIockwofk. The aIIens mIght
see the EgyptIan pyfamIds and the Gfeat WaII of ChIna. They wouId notIce cItIes and
sIgns of agfIcuItufe, but that Is a faf cfy ffom IntefsteIIaf teIecommunIcatIon technoIogy.
The fact that humans had deveIoped the use of buIIdIng and agfIcuItufe mIght be
pfomIsIng, but It wouId ceftaInIy not guafantee the appeafance of fadIo teIescopes
1,000 yeafs Iatef (as opposed to, say, 5,000 of 50,000 yeafs Iatef). Thefefofe, thefe
wouId be no feason fof the aIIens to begIn tfansmIttIng fadIo sIgnaIs ouf way In AD 1010.
Bettef fof them to waIt untII they know we actuaIIy have the means to feceIve the
sIgnaIs befofe goIng to the tfoubIe of sendIng them.
How, then, wIII the aIIens know when we afe feady fof theIf message? WeII, when our
fIfst fadIo sIgnaIs feach t/em. Human fadIo technoIogy Is about a centufy oId. In about
anothef 900 yeafs those fIfst weak sIgnaIs wIII feach thIs ImagInafy neafby cIvIIIzatIon,
and If the aIIens wefe contInuousIy monItofIng us wIth very sensItIve equIpment, and
wefe quIck off the mafk, we mIght get theIf fIfst message just befofe the staft of the fIfth
mIIIennIum. Thefe Is no gettIng afound the deIay. In 'theIf' unIvefse (that Is, ffom the
aIIens' deIayed-tIme pefspectIve) human fadIo astfonomefs sImpIy do not yet exIst.
UnIess they can see Into the futufe, thefe is no tafget technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIon on Eafth
fof them to sIgnaI at, and thefe won't be one fof anothef 900 yeafs. And If the aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon Is even fafthef away 10,000 IIght yeafs, say then the waIt Is that much
Iongef. The upshot Is that tfadItIonaI SETI pfobIng the skIes wIth fadIo teIescopes
IookIng fof a message ffom the aIIens may weII be a good Idea, but we afe doIng It a
few mIIIennIa too soon. The onIy Iet-out Is If an aIIen pfesence Is Iocated much cIosef
wIthIn fIfty IIght yeafs. That wouId be amazIng, but who knows? Howevef, SETI
astfonomefs have Iooked at evefy candIdate staf system out to that dIstance, and dfawn
a bIank.
The fofegoIng concIusIon, whIIe depfessIng, Isn't an afgument agaInst a bfoadef
stfategy fof SETI, It mefeIy poInts up the futIIIty of seafchIng fof messages that afe
deIIbefateIy dIfected at human cIvIIIzatIon ffom a fafaway soufce. A fadIo seafch of the
sky mIght conceIvabIy stumbIe acfoss aIIen fadIo messages Intended fof someone eIse
who happened to be Iocated aIong ouf IIne of sIght, a message coIncIdentaIIy
tfansmItted a Iong tIme ago that Is tfavefsIng ouf astfonomIcaI neIghboufhood at thIs
tIme. ObvIousIy that Is a dIstant hope. Anothef femote possIbIIIty Is that thefe afe aIIen
cIvIIIzatIons bfoadcastIng messages IndIscfImInateIy and contInuousIy to the entIfe
gaIaxy the gaIactIc equIvaIent of the BBC WofId SefvIce. But that wouId demand a
stupendousIy poweffuI tfansmIttef, and a IeveI of detefmInatIon and aItfuIsm we have
no fIght to expect.
Anothef Iong-shot Idea beIng touted by SETI feseafchefs Is the possIbIIIty of
eavesdfoppIng on foutIne domestIc fadIo tfaffIc IeakIng ffom anothef pIanet. Ouf own
fadIo and TV statIons bfoadcast at much Iowef ffequencIes than SETI seafches
typIcaIIy In the fange 50400 MHz. (SETI focuses on a wIde-ffequency band, but In the
12 GHz fange.) Howevef, a new cIass of fadIo Instfuments Is beIng buIIt that wIII covef
the MHz fange nIceIy, and wIth unpfecedented sensItIvIty. NeafIng compIetIon In
Eufope Is a system caIIed IOFAR, fof Iow Ffequency Affay. It consIsts of 25,000 metaI
fod antennas Iocated In sevefaI countfIes, IInked togethef eIectfonIcaIIy so the data can
be dIgItaIIy amaIgamated. Rathef than hoppIng ffom soufce to soufce, IOFAR has the
abIIIty to watch Iafge patches of the sky fof months at a tIme, thus IncfeasIng the
chances of spottIng a contInuous weak sIgnaI. The pfImafy pufpose of IOFAR Is to study
the end of the so-caIIed cosmoIogIcaI Dafk Age the pefIod ImmedIateIy pfIof to the
fofmatIon of the fIfst stafs. Because the unIvefse has expanded gfeatIy sInce that epoch
(whIch was about 13 bIIIIon yeafs ago), the waveIength of eIectfomagnetIc emIssIons
has been stfetched, so that at the feceIvIng end (Eafth) many IntefestIng soufces wIII
have ffequencIes shIfted down to the MHz fange. IOFAR Is not the onIy game In town.
A mofe ambItIous system wIth a sImIIaf concept and pufpose, caIIed the Squafe
KIIometfe Affay (SKA), Is sIated to be buIIt eIthef In fadIo-quIet Westefn AustfaIIa of
south-west AffIca. As the name ImpIIes, thIs coIIectIon of antennas wouId covef an afea
totaIIIng a squafe kIIometfe. WhIIe these hIghIy sensItIve Instfuments afe goIng about
theIf foutIne astfonomIcaI busIness, SETI feseafchefs can pIggy-back on them wIthout
dIstufbIng theIf pfImafy pufpose.
WeIcome though thIs new genefatIon of Instfuments may be fof SETI, It seems that
neIthef IOFAR nof SKA Is up to the aIIen-eavesdfoppIng job, unIess we get vefy Iucky.
In spIte of theIf Immense sIze, these Instfuments couIdn't detect an Eafth-stfength
teIevIsIon statIon even If It was Iocated on a pIanet goIng afound the neafest staf. But
thefe Is a gIImmef of hope. Abfaham Ioeb of Hafvafd UnIvefsIty has estImated that a
teffestfIaI-stfength TV tfansmIttef coulJ be detected by the SKA up to sevefaI IIght yeafs
away If obsefvatIons wefe accumuIated contInuousIy ovef a month, and assumIng a way
can be found to fIItef out teffestfIaI Inteffefence In the same waveband.
1
AIthough that
dIstance fange encompasses many stafs, It Is stIII wIthIn ouf IocaI neIghboufhood,
astfonomIcaIIy speakIng. Thefe Is no hope of pIckIng up a TV statIon at a dIstance of,
say, 1,000 IIght yeafs, unIess Its tfansmIssIons afe much mofe poweffuI than theIf
teffestfIaI countefpafts.
2
A bIggef pfobIem awaIts hefe too, one that I have aIfeady
mentIoned In Chaptef 4. HIgh-powefed fadIo emIssIons afe IIkeIy to be just a fIeetIng
cfaze among emefgIng cIvIIIzatIons, If human expefIence Is a guIde. AIfeady most of ouf
TV channeIs afe deIIvefed by optIcaI fIbfes. It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that wIthIn a few
decades Eafth wIII be aImost compIeteIy fadIo-sIIent, and ouf teIecommunIcatIons wIII
suffef aImost no Ieakage Into space. But a vefy oId aIIen cIvIIIzatIon mIght conceIvabIy
have Its own feasons fof contInuIng wIth domestIc fadIo bfoadcasts, so It stIII makes
sense fof SETI to use IOFAR and SKA to seafch.
BEYOND THE PHOTON
RadIo and Iasef sIgnaIs afe both eIectfomagnetIc they use photons to convey messages.
In pfIncIpIe, howevef, anythIng that goes ffom A to B couId be used to encode a sIgnaI,
so a bfoadef SETI stfategy shouId consIdef that aIIen sIgnaIs mIght be tfansmItted In
some othef way. A technIcaI pfobIem faced by any means of sIgnaIIIng Is that, If A and
B afe many IIght yeafs apaft, thefe mIght be obscufIng matefIaI In the way, such as gas
and dust. That Is especIaIIy tfue In the pIane of the gaIaxy, whefe dust Is conspIcuous In
the fofm of dafk Ianes stfeakIng acfoss the MIIky Way. RadIo and Iasef IIght both have
the advantage that, at ceftaIn waveIengths, thIs matefIaI Is feIatIveIy tfanspafent to
them. NeveftheIess, somethIng wIth a gfeatef penetfatIng powef than photons mIght
wofk bettef fof IntefsteIIaf messagIng. One possIbIIIty Is neutfInos, famous fof theIf
extfaofdInafy abIIIty to pass thfough mattef. The snag Is they tend to pass fIght thfough
feceIvefs, too. If ET Is usIng neutfIno beams to send messages, we have ouf wofk cut out
to spot them.
Fof many yeafs neutfInos femaIned pufeIy theofetIcaI, because thefe was no
equIpment sensItIve enough to fegIstef them. That changed In the 1950s when Intense
neutfIno fIuxes emanatIng ffom nucIeaf feactofs wefe fInaIIy detected. AIthough theIf
IntefactIon wIth mattef Is extfemeIy weak, a neutfIno wIII occasIonaIIy hIt a nucIeus and
bfIng about a detectabIe tfansmutatIon. But the pfobabIIIty Is exceedIngIy smaII:
tfIIIIons of neutfInos sweep by fof evefy one that fegIstefs a hIt. Today, neutfIno physIcs
Is vefy advanced. Fof exampIe, neutfIno beams afe made at paftIcIe acceIefatof
IabofatofIes and shot thfough the Eafth, to be pIcked up by Instfuments thousands of
mIIes away. Huge detectofs afe beIng buIIt consIstIng of kIIometfe-wIde voIumes of
uItfa-pufe watef (of Ice), ffom whIch tIny fIashes of IIght afe emItted when neutfInos
stfIke nucIeI and cfeate hIgh-speed chafged paftIcIes. The fIashes afe then ampIIfIed and
fegIstefed by sensItIve equIpment. PhysIcIsts afe constfuctIng detectofs In AntafctIca,
beneath the MedIteffanean Sea and In SIbefIa's Iake BaIkaI, to expIofe the unIvefse
thfough 'neutfIno eyes'. Bufsts of hIgh-enefgy neutfInos afe expected ffom supefnovae,
bIack hoIes and possIbIy dafk mattef pfocesses. So In spIte of the dIffIcuIty, humans do
possess detectofs that couId In pfIncIpIe pIck up an aIIen message encoded In a neutfIno
beam.
NeutfIno sIgnaIIIng has been studIed by Anthony Zee of the KavII InstItute of
TheofetIcaI PhysIcs at the UnIvefsIty of CaIIfofnIa Santa Bafbafa, and hIs coIIeagues,
3
who suggest that the aIIens wouId opt fof neutfIno enefgIes faf above those genefated
natufaIIy by the sun and stafs. Because thefe afe vefy few enefgetIc neutfInos comIng
ffom any specIfIc dIfectIon of space, a beam of hIgh-enefgy neutfInos that passed ouf
way wouId be hIghIy conspIcuous. Contfast thIs wIth enefgetIc fadIo waves, whIch afe
genefated by many compact astfonomIcaI soufces, usIng fadIo, ET Is In competItIon
wIth the entIfe cosmos. Zee thInks the aIIens couId use a paftIcIe acceIefatof to coIIIde
and annIhIIate eIectfons and theIf antIpaftIcIes (posItfons) to make a naffow beam of
neutfInos that can be aImed at wIII. ThIs Is a tfIed and tested technIque empIoyed by
teffestfIaI physIcIsts, but the aIIens need to do It at a much hIghef enefgy, a bonus beIng
that the gfeatef the enefgy, the easIef neutfInos afe to detect. Best of aII wouId be an
enefgy at whIch the tfansmItted neutfInos feact paftIcuIafIy stfongIy wIth atomIc nucIeI,
cfeatIng a spfay of paftIcIes known to physIcIsts as W bosons. (Fof the technIcaIIy
mInded, thIs enefgy Is 6.3 PeV.) If we saw W bosons beIng made that way, we wouId
ceftaInIy take notIce. To encode a message, aII ET needs to do Is use a type of Mofse
code. AdmIttedIy the data tfansfef fate wouId be pfetty pathetIc, but as I shaII now
afgue, that may not be so Impoftant.
BEACONS
Evefybody Is famIIIaf wIth the computef, but few peopIe know who Invented It.
AmazIngIy, the basIc desIgn of the unIvefsaI computIng machIne was wofked out as Iong
ago as the mIddIe of the nIneteenth centufy by an eccentfIc EngIIsh genIus named
ChafIes Babbage. SadIy hIs mechanIcaI caIcuIatIng engIne, of AnaIytIcaI EngIne, was
nevef compIeted. Howevef, a fepIIca of Its pfecufsof, the so-caIIed DIffefence EngIne,
was made and opefated by the ScIence Museum In Iondon In tIme fof Babbage's
bIcentenafy In 1991.
Among Babbage's many othef InventIons and accompIIshments Is the now famIIIaf
sIgnaIIIng system fof IIghthouses. The pfIncIpIe Is sImpIIcIty ItseIf: a beam of IIght
sweeps afound In a hofIzontaI pIane and ffom a fIxed poInt Is seen to fIash once of
twIce on each tfansIt. The sIgnaI Is not dIfected at anyone In paftIcuIaf, but whoevef Is
saIIIng wIthIn sIght of the IIghthouse wIII notIce It. The sIgnaI stands fof 'Dangef:
navIgate wIth cafe' and aIso 'Somebody Is hefe.' That's about It: Iow totaI InfofmatIon
content, but of enofmous sIgnIfIcance, at Ieast fof mafInefs.
4
CouId an advanced aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon have constfucted a sImIIaf beacon to sweep the gaIaxy?
HIstofIcaIIy, the Idea of sIgnaIIIng between pIanets usIng beacons pfedated fadIo SETI
by at Ieast a centufy. In 1802 the mathematIcaI genIus KafI FfIedfIch Gauss suggested
cfeatIng huge shapes In the SIbefIan fofest to attfact the MaftIans' attentIon and sIgnaI
ouf InteIIIgence. HIs Idea was to cIeaf the fofest and pIant the IntefIof wIth wheat, to
fofm a pattefn that sIgnIfIes Pythagofas' famous theofem of geometfy. Iatef, PefcIvaI
IoweII dfeamed up somethIng sImIIaf, usIng oII-fIIIed channeIs In the Sahafa, whIch
couId be IgnIted at nIght. A vafIant on the 'bIg-geometfy' theme was the pfoposaI by the
Inventof and teIescope makef Robeft Wood, who wfote to the New Yor/ Times pfoposIng
an enofmous bIack spot made ffom stfIps of cIoth, whIch couId be foIIed up and unfoIIed
pefIodIcaIIy, makIng the spot appeaf to wInk at ouf MaftIan neIghboufs! These eafIy
pfoposaIs aII Iacked the ampIIfIcatIon and fange to wofk beyond the confInes of a sIngIe
pIanetafy system. But wIth the deveIopment of hIgh-powef fadIo and Iasefs, the way Iay
open to make a beacon that couId sIgnaI acfoss not just IntefpIanetafy but IntefsteIIaf
space.
5
The possIbIIIty that aIIen cIvIIIzatIons mIght Iong ago have cfeated poweffuI fadIo
beacons, and that humans have the means to detect them, has been studIed In detaII by
Gfeg and JIm Benfofd, twIn physIcIsts wofkIng In CaIIfofnIa. Gfeg Is an astfophysIcIst
and aIso an awafd-wInnIng scIence fIctIon wfItef, whIIe JIm Is an expeft on hIgh-
IntensIty mIcfowave beam technoIogy. The way the Benfofds see It, ancIent cIvIIIzatIons
couId have many feasons to buIId a beacon, fof exampIe, It couId be a hIgh-tech
monument of pfIde to what may be a gIofIous but now Iong-vanIshed cIvIIIzatIon. A
beacon Is aIso a gfeat way to attfact attentIon and sImpIy make fIfst contact: anyone
detectIng It wouId fedoubIe theIf effofts at SETI. It couId conceIvabIy be an aftIstIc,
cuItufaI of feIIgIous symboI, of even the cosmIc equIvaIent of gfaffItI. It mIght be a cfy
fof heIp, of, as wIth the humbIe IIghthouse, a wafnIng.
The Benfofds have wofked out the powef fequIfements fof mIcfowave (fathef than
optIcaI) beacons that opefate by emIttIng Intense, shoft-dufatIon puIses pIngs, If you
IIke. ObvIousIy It fequIfes a Iot Iess powef to tfansmIt a spofadIc pIng than a contInuous
stfeam of messages. WhIIe puIses afe modefateIy hafdef to detect, they afe consIdefabIy
easIef to tfansmIt (aIthough a beacon wIth gaIactIc feach Is stIII weII beyond human
technoIogy). The staftIng assumptIon of the Benfofds' caIcuIatIon Is that the cost pef
pIng Is somethIng detefmIned by fundamentaI physIcs, to whIch the aIIen buIIdefs afe
just as constfaIned as we afe, pfesumabIy even a supef-cIvIIIzatIon wouIdn't deIIbefateIy
squandef fesoufces.
6
The Benfofds have thefefofe anaIysed the pfobIem 'ffom the poInt
of vIew of the guys payIng the bIII', as they put It, and came up wIth what they thInk the
chafactefIstIcs of a beacon puIse wouId be, takIng Into account the capItaI costs of
buIIdIng the antenna and the opefatIng costs of funnIng It.
7
EffIcIency favoufs hIghef
ffequencIes, so they suggest 10 GHz Is optImaI, go above thIs and the backgfound fadIo
noIse of the gaIaxy Inteffefes. Most SETI obsefvatIons have so faf concentfated on a
much Iowef band afound 1 of 2 GHz. Thefe Is a tfade-off between the dufatIon of each
pIng and the fevIsItIng tIme between pIngs. A good compfomIse wouId be a bufst of
about one second's dufatIon about once a yeaf.
In contfast to the cIassIc SETI tafget a contInuous naffow-band sIgnaI at a specIfIc
ffequency a beacon wouId show up spfead acfoss a fange of ffequencIes In the fofm of
a shoft bIIp, of pefhaps a mofe attentIon-gfabbIng bIIp-bIIp. As It happens, many bIIps
have been fecofded thfoughout the IIfetIme of SETI, but vefy IIttIe foIIow-up has
fesuIted, and fof good feason. As we've seen In Chaptef 1, the pfocedufe when a fadIo
teIescope pIcks up somethIng odd Is to move the antenna off tafget, to make sufe the
sIgnaI fades (thus eIImInatIng equIpment maIfunctIon), and then move It back on tafget
agaIn. If the sIgnaI Is stIII thefe the second tIme, a paftnef fadIo teIescope, pfefefabIy
faf away, Is bfought Into pIay to confIfm that the soufce Is In fact astfonomIcaI (and not
a IocaI mobIIe phone, fof exampIe). AII thIs assumes that the mystefy sIgnaI wIII
contInue fof Iong enough fof the checkIng pfocedufe to be compIeted, whIch In pfactIce
couId take sevefaI houfs. But If a teIescope detects a momentafy bIIp thefe one
moment, gone the next the checkIng pfocedufe Isn't possIbIe.
8
A famous mystefy puIse Is the aptIy named 'Wow!' sIgnaI, detected on 15 August 1977
by Jeffy Ehman usIng OhIo State UnIvefsIty's BIg Eaf fadIo teIescope. The sIgnaI Iasted
fof seventy-two seconds (fathef a Iong puIse), and has not been detected agaIn. Ehman
dIscovefed It whIIst pefusIng the antenna's computef pfIntout, and was so excIted he
wfote 'Wow!' In the mafgIn (see FIg. 8). The sIgnaI has nevef been satIsfactofIIy
accounted fof as eIthef a manmade of a natufaI phenomenon. Anothef much-dIscussed
tfansIent event Is an Intense haIf-a-mIIIIsecond bIIp known as IofImef's puIse, detected
neaf the SmaII MageIIanIc CIoud by the Pafkes fadIo teIescope In AustfaIIa (see PIate
12). It was found by DavId NafkevIc, an undefgfaduate student wofkIng fof DavId
IofImef of the UnIvefsIty of West VIfgInIa. IofImef wasn't IookIng fof ET, but fathef fof
astfonomIcaI objects caIIed puIsafs. The enIgmatIc puIse was dIscovefed Iong aftef It
was feceIved, bufIed In data fecofded ffom a foutIne seafch. NothIng sImIIaf has been
obsefved agaIn ffom that paft of the sky. Thefe Is no consensus about the soufce,
aIthough It does appeaf to have come ffom a vefy Iong way away, faf beyond the
confInes of ouf gaIaxy. The best guess Is that It was caused by a vIoIent bIack hoIe event
of some soft.
FIg. 8. PfIntout of the data showIng the 'Wow!' sIgnaI.
Anothef possIbIe soufce of fadIo puIses Is expIodIng bIack hoIes. In 1975, Stephen
HawkIng concIuded that bIack hoIes afe not actuaIIy bIack, but fadIate heat and, as a
fesuIt of the enefgy Ioss, shfInk In sIze, eventuaIIy evapofatIng away compIeteIy.
Because the tempefatufe of the bIack hoIe fIses as the object shfInks, the evapofatIon Is
a funaway pfocess, cuImInatIng In a ffenetIc fInaI bufst of hIgh-enefgy paftIcIes,
IncIudIng many that afe eIectfIcaIIy chafged. If thIs tefmInatIng expIosIon takes pIace In
an ambIent magnetIc fIeId, such as that of the gaIaxy, the chafged paftIcIes wIII cfeate a
shoft but poweffuI eIectfomagnetIc puIse.
9
DIfect seafches fof bIack-hoIe expIosIons
usIng fadIo teIescopes have yIeIded nothIng so faf.
The chaIIenge fof SETI Is to dIscfImInate between an aftIfIcIaI puIse and a natufaI
one. If an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon wanted to use puIses to attfact attentIon, It wouId need to
tag them wIth a sIgnatufe of InteIIIgence, such as a sImuItaneous tfansmIssIon centfed
on sevefaI fadIo channeIs at ffequencIes that beaf a notIceabIe afIthmetIc pattefn.
ExIstIng SETI systems afe not weII adapted to deaIIng wIth such sIgnaIs, because both
the hafdwafe and data anaIysIs afe maInIy desIgned fof contInuous naffow-band
soufces. But thefe Is no fundamentaI obstacIe to conductIng a seafch fof puIses, the Issue
boIIs down to fesoufces. IookIng fof tfansIent events fequIfes monItofIng a sIIce of sky
contInuousIy fof some tIme say one yeaf because even If we can make an InteIIIgent
guess w/ere In the sky the beacon mIght be Iocated we don't know w/en It wIII next
bIeep. A pIIot seafch fof mIIIIsecond puIses Is cuffentIy undef way at the AIIen TeIescope
Affay, usIng a system caIIed FIy's Eye, opefated by the UnIvefsIty of CaIIfofnIa at
BefkeIey. In the confIgufatIon empIoyed, each of the fofty-two cuffentIy opefatIonaI
dIshes Is poInted at a dIffefent patch of sky, gIvIng vefy wIde covefage In totaI.
UnfoftunateIy, as the apeftufe of the dIshes Is onIy 6 metfes, the sensItIvIty Is sevefeIy
IImIted. Anothef dedIcated seafch, known as AstfopuIse, Is takIng pIace at the wofId's
Iafgest fadIo teIescope at AfecIbo In Puefto RIco, a Iong-tIme SETI wofkhofse, made
famous by the movIes Contuct and GolJenLye (see PIate 13). AIthough thIs Instfument
has much gfeatef sensItIvIty, It has a vefy smaII fIeId of vIew. These pfojects afe a
begInnIng, but a thofough seafch fof aIIen beacons femaIns stuck at the pIannIng stage.
NARROWING THE SEARCH
I began thIs chaptef wIth a pIea to wIden the seafch fof extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence. But
a compIeteIy unfocused appfoach Is unIIkeIy to succeed, gIven the needIe-In-a-haystack
natufe of the entefpfIse. In the case of beacons, the task Is made Iess onefous by
concentfatIng on the fegIons of the gaIaxy whefe most stafs afe Iocated. The stfuctufe of
the MIIky Way fesembIes a fIat dIsk wIth spIfaI afms pfotfudIng: one of those afms
contaIns ouf soIaf system. The outef fegIons of the gaIaxy afe spafseIy popuIated and
poof In heavy eIements such as IIfe-gIvIng cafbon. It Is the Innef fegIons that have most
of the stafs, especIaIIy oIdef ones the ones most IIkeIy to have ancIent cIvIIIzatIons
neaf them so the best hope of spottIng a beacon Is to Iook In the dIfectIon of
SagIttafIus, whefe the gaIactIc centfe Is Iocated.
10
The fadIaI dIfectIon Is onIy haIf the stofy. What about habItabIIIty as a functIon of
dIstance 'up' and 'down' ffom the gaIactIc pIane? ThIs Is a mofe compIIcated topIc,
because stafs mIgfate up and down In the tfansvefse dIfectIon as they ofbIt the gaIaxy.
The sun, fof exampIe, peffofms such an oscIIIatIon once evefy 62 mIIIIon yeafs,
wandefIng some 230 IIght yeafs out of the pIane as a fesuIt. A few yeafs ago two
BefkeIey physIcIsts, RIchafd MuIIef and Robeft Rohde, made an astonIshIng dIscovefy
when IookIng at fossII evIdence fof mafIne IIfe ovef the past 542 mIIIIon yeafs.
11
It Is
weII known that the abundance of IIfe on Eafth undefgoes shafp vafIatIons owIng to
sudden mass extInctIons. Thefe afe many theofIes as to why these gfIsIy extefmInatIons
occuf: fof exampIe, cosmIc Impacts, supefnovae, funaway voIcanIsm. What MuIIef and
Rohde found was a dIstInct 62-mIIIIon-yeaf cycIe In the pattefn of mafIne extInctIons,
wIth the death fate hIghest when the soIaf system Is Iocated at a maxImum dIstance
ffom the gaIactIc pIane In the dIfectIon of (gaIactIc) nofth and Iowest when It Is down
south. TheIf anaIysIs suggests the pfesence of somethIng nasty beyond the nofthefn edge
of the gaIaxy. What mIght It be, and why Isn't It found on both the nofth and south
sIdes? (If It was, thefe wouId be a cycIe of 31, not 62, mIIIIon yeafs.)
An IntfIguIng expIanatIon has been pfovIded by two UnIvefsIty of Kansas
astfophysIcIsts, MIkhaII Medvedev and AdfIan MeIott.
12
They poInt out that aIthough the
bfIght dIsc of the MIIky Way Is symmetfIc between nofth and south, the gaIactIc haIo
Isn't. The gaIaxy emIts a wInd In the fofm of pfotons and othef chafged paftIcIes,
cfeatIng a tenuous cIoud that extends faf out Into IntefgaIactIc space In aII dIfectIons,
but confIgufed to be IopsIded towafds the south. Thefe Is a good feason fof thIs. The
MIIky Way, aIong wIth othef gaIaxIes In ouf neIghboufhood, Is huftIIng at 200
kIIometfes (125 mIIes) pef second In the dIfectIon of a massIve cIustef of gaIaxIes In the
dIfectIon of VIfgo whIch IIes due nofth, gaIactIcaIIy speakIng. The even mofe tenuous
IntefgaIactIc medIum (consIstIng mostIy of IonIzed hydfogen gas) sefves as a vIscous
ImpedIment, and thIs has defofmed the haIo towafds the south, cfeatIng an asymmetfy.
Whefe the haIo gas meets the IntefgaIactIc medIum, a bow shock Is cfeated. Ovef tIme,
the enefgy In thIs shock ffont gets tfansfeffed, vIa a magnetIc pfocess, to pfotons ffom
both the IntefgaIactIc medIum and the haIo, acceIefatIng them to vefy hIgh enefgIes. It
Is these pfotons (pIus othefs acceIefated In a sImIIaf mannef on the edge of the haIo)
that make up a Iafge ffactIon of the hIghef-enefgy cosmIc fays hIttIng the Eafth. Ouf
pIanet Is pfotected somewhat by Its own magnetIc fIeId, but aIso by the magnetIc fIeId
of the gaIaxy. What Medvedev and MeIott concIuded Is that the IntensIty of thIs cosmIc
fadIatIon as feceIved by Eafth Is sufpfIsIngIy sensItIve to the soIaf system's IocatIon.
When It Is 'up nofth', cIosef to the shock ffont, the hIgh-enefgy cosmIc fay fIux Is some
fIve tImes gfeatef than when It Is 'down south'.
CosmIc fays have Iong been ImpIIcated In specIes extInctIons. A hIgh cosmIc fay fIux
hIttIng the uppef atmosphefe cfeates chemIcaI changes that can Incfease cIoud covef
pefhaps tfIggefIng dfamatIc gIobaI cooIIng. It can aIso cfeate a faIn of damagIng
subatomIc paftIcIes caIIed muons that penetfate deep Into the oceans to menace mafIne
IIfe. On top of thIs, cosmIc fays attack the ozone Iayef, IettIng In deadIy uItfavIoIet
fadIatIon ffom the sun. The combIned effect Is to compfess the zone fof InteIIIgent IIfe to
a band away ffom the nofth sIde of the gaIactIc pIane. It Is unIIkeIy that a technoIogIcaI
cIvIIIzatIon wouId evoIve on an Eafth-IIke pIanet too faf on the nofth sIde, aIthough an
advanced cIvIIIzatIon that fofmed befofe the host staf system mIgfated nofth may have
the know-how to 'batten down the hatches' fof some mIIIIons of yeafs and fIde out the
cosmIc fay stofm.
13
Most Iong-IIved cIvIIIzatIons, howevef, wouId be expected to afIse
afound stafs that peffofm smaIIef-ampIItude oscIIIatIons and femaIn cIose to the safe
fegIon of the gaIactIc pIane. It wouId make sense fof an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon usIng beacons
to sIash costs by concentfatIng the beam In thIs 'IIfe pIane' of the gaIaxy, fathef than
bIastIng the ethef In aII dIfectIons IndIscfImInateIy. ConsequentIy, If beacons afe out
thefe, they shouId appeaf to us to be cIustefed In thIs pIane.
AIIen cIvIIIzatIons couId make use of natufaI beacons as mafkefs, In the expectatIon
that fadIo astfonomefs on othef pIanets wouId be studyIng these objects anyway, and
mIght notIce If thefe was somethIng odd about them. ZoomIng In on these objects
specIfIcaIIy wouId heIp us naffow the seafch stIII mofe. PuIsafs afe poweffuI fadIo
soufces famIIIaf to astfonomefs, and couId be used to attfact attentIon to an aftIfIcIaI
sIgnaI. A puIsaf Is a spInnIng neutfon staf
14
that spfays out chafged paftIcIes, whIch
then emIt an Intense naffow beam of fadIo waves. As the staf fotates, so the beam
sweeps afound just IIke a IIghthouse. Ffom Eafth, the phenomenon Is pefceIved as a
hIghIy feguIaf sefIes of fadIo puIses. Some neutfon stafs spIn so fast that the puIses afe
spaced by onIy a few mIIIIseconds. These objects afe of gfeat Intefest to astfonomefs
and much studIed. WIIIIam Edmonson and Ian Stevens of the UnIvefsIty of BIfmIngham
In the UK have suggested that aIIens mIght tfy tfansmIttIng aftIfIcIaI bIeeps In the
dIfectIon of habItabIe pIanets that IIe cIose to theIf IIne of sIght of a puIsaf, and do so
wIth the same puIse fate.
15
If Eafth was one of the tafget pIanets, we wouId pIck up
these dIstInctIve puIses ffom a dIfectIon In the sky opposite to that of the puIsaf, whIch Is
a dead gIveaway fof somethIng InteIIIgent and aftIfIcIaI. Edmonson and Stevens have
IdentIfIed a few dozen potentIaIIy IIfe-suppoftIng stafs that IIe wIthIn cones of 1 on the
sIde of Eafth facIng away ffom hIghIy stabIe, fapIdIy spInnIng puIsafs. They have aIso
compIIed a IIst of IIkeIy stafs In the fofwafd dIfectIon, I.e. cIoseIy aIIgned wIth the
puIsafs. Because the sIgnaI wouId consIst of feguIaf beats wIth a known pefIod (that of
the puIsaf), a much weakef sIgnaI couId be spotted amId the backgfound fadIo noIse, by
IntegfatIng the obsefvatIons ovef a Iong dufatIon. A mofe technoIogIcaIIy savvy
cIvIIIzatIon mIght tfy usIng the puIsaf emIssIon ItseIf to convey the message, by
moduIatIng the natufaI puIses In some way. That wouId neatIy soIve the powef pfobIem
puIsafs afe so poweffuI they can be detected acfoss the entIfe gaIaxy wIth a modest
fadIo teIescope. The sIgnaI wouId then show up as a pattefn In the ffequency, IntensIty
of poIafIzatIon of the fadIo puIses.
A beacon that just goes bIeep wouId of coufse be of IImIted vaIue to the tfansmIttIng
communIty, because a tfansIent puIse Is by Its vefy natufe unabIe to encode a Iafge
amount of InfofmatIon. It couId, howevef, sefve as a key, enabIIng access to a much
Iafgef database. The beacon couId, fof exampIe, IndIcate how to downIoad LncyclopeJiu
Gulucticu ffom a feposItofy. But whefe mIght the neafest feposItofy be? HaIf-way acfoss
the gaIaxy? Maybe. But thefe afe aIso feasons why It mIght be fIght on ouf own
astfonomIcaI doofstep.
A MESSAGE ON OUR DOORSTEP
The bIggest dfawback of conventIonaI SETI Is the Immense tIme fequIfed fof fadIo
sIgnaIs to pass between the stafs. If we dId dIscovef anothef cIvIIIzatIon 1,000 IIght
yeafs away, It wouId take at Ieast 2,000 yeafs fof us to feceIve a fepIy to any message
we mIght send them. As CafI Sagan once femafked, that hafdIy makes fof a snappy
convefsatIon. VIewed on a geoIogIcaI of evoIutIonafy tImescaIe, two mIIIennIa may be
the bIInk of an eye, but In human tefms It Is dIspIfItIngIy sIow. But thefe Is anothef,
mofe excItIng, possIbIIIty. Humans couId conduct a convefsatIon wIth an aIIen
InteIIIgence by pfoxy on a neafIy feaI-tIme basIs If the aIIens have sent a pfobe to the
soIaf system, whefe the tfaveI tIme fof sIgnaIs to Eafth Is measufed In mInutes of
houfs.
16
RonaId BfaceweII faIsed thIs possIbIIIty at the InceptIon of SETI, and It has been
a fecuffIng theme evef sInce.
17
Ffom the standpoInt of the aIIens, the bIg pIus of a pfobe Is Its 'set-and-fofget'
chafactef. WIth cafefuI desIgn, It mIght weII outIIve the cIvIIIzatIon that Iaunched It. It
doesn't need a massIve antenna, unIess fequIfed to fepoft back to HQ on the home
pIanet. RadIo teIescopes on Eafth had no tfoubIe pIckIng up the PIoneef 10 spacecfaft at
the edge of the soIaf system (befofe It fInaIIy bIInked off the aIf a few yeafs ago), and
Its tfansmIttef was no mofe poweffuI than a ChfIstmas tfee IIght buIb. An aIIen pfobe
couId stofe a huge amount of InfofmatIon In a tIny chIp, once In communIcatIon wIth
us, Its supefcomputef couId engage In an IntensIve educatIonaI and cuItufaI exchange.
In pfIncIpIe, the pfobe couId be any sIze at aII, but fof now I have In mInd somethIng
the sIze of a human communIcatIons sateIIIte.
WouId we know If thefe was an aIIen pfobe In ouf vIcInIty? Whefe shouId we Iook?
The easIest set-up ffom ouf poInt of vIew wouId be a pfobe In Iow ofbIt afound Eafth.
Howevef, thIs can be fuIed out: the pIethofa of ofbItIng matefIaI most of It human
space junk has been pfetty thofoughIy cataIogued, and thefe afe no unaccounted fof
objects cIfcIIng above ouf heads. What about fafthef out? A smaII pfobe In
geosynchfonous ofbIt
18
(whIch Is much hIghef), of cIfcIIng the Moon, wouId pfobabIy
have escaped ouf attentIon so faf. NewtonIan mechanIcs shows that Iong-tefm stabIe
ofbIts afe fafe and must be chosen wIth cafe to avoId the need fof ffequent ofbItaI
coffectIons. FoftunateIy, thefe afe two poInts In space whefe the gfavItatIonaI fIeIds of
the sun and Eafth conspIfe to cfeate stabIe ofbIts that keep step wIth Eafth as It goes
found the sun, these afe known technIcaIIy as I4 and I5 Iagfange poInts. SETI
scIentIsts afe on to thIs, sevefaI pfeIImInafy seafches of the Iagfange poInts have been
made, but have not thfown up anythIng unusuaI.
19
What hasn't been tfIed, as faf as I
know, Is beamIng stfong fadIo sIgnaIs ffom Eafth to I4 and I5 as a means of 'wakIng
up' a dofmant aIIen pfobe that mIght be pafked thefe.
The fest of the soIaf system Is so vast that a systematIc seafch fof a smaII pfobe Is
compIeteIy unfeaIIstIc. An aftIfIcIaI object In the astefoId beIt, whefe It wouId be
suffounded by focky debfIs of aII shapes and sIzes, wouId be aImost ImpossIbIe to spot,
especIaIIy If It was anchofed to an astefoId. A pfecIseIy sphefIcaI of conIcaI shape, of a
coIIectIon of objects connected by stfuts, wouId obvIousIy make us sIt up, but If the
aIIens wanted to deIIbefateIy conceaI a pfobe, It wouId be easy enough to do. CIeafIy,
thefe couId be a Iafge numbef of aIIen pfobes In the soIaf system, and we wouId be
compIeteIy unawafe of them unIess they sIgnaIIed us.
Thefe Is no feason why a pfobe shouId have affIved In the soIaf system onIy fecentIy.
It couId have been dIspatched mIIIIons of yeafs ago by a cIvIIIzatIon that had
detefmIned, usIng femote obsefvatIon, that thefe was IIfe on Eafth. The pfobe wouId
femaIn passIve, quIetIy monItofIng ouf pIanet and bIdIng Its tIme untII a technoIogIcaI
socIety emefged. At that poInt If the pfobe's computef thought It pfudent It couId
InItIate contact. How wouId that happen? The obvIous method wouId be fof the pfobe to
send us a fadIo sIgnaI. Fof us to fecognIze Its exceptIonaI natufe, the sIgnaI wouId have
to gfab ouf attentIon as somethIng vefy much out of the ofdInafy. One suggestIon (used
by CafI Sagan In Contuct) Is that the pfobe beams back to us an eafIy fadIo of TV
bfoadcast. It wouId ceftaInIy stfIke us as baffIIng If a fadIo teIescope detected a
bfoadcast of I Love Lucy comIng ffom deep space. (Fof the fecofd, the fIfst epIsode of I
Love Lucy was bfoadcast on 15 Octobef 1951.) On the othef hand, If such a show wefe
pIcked up by domestIc TV sets, vIewefs wouIdn't thInk It at aII odd the show wouId just
be dIsmIssed as anothef netwofk fepeat.
20
A mofe faf-out pfoposaI Is that the pfobe mIght make use of the Intefnet to
communIcate wIth us. The pfobe's on-boafd computef wouId doubtIess be pfogfammed
to fIfst assess the IeveI of deveIopment and the genefaI chafactef of human socIety
befofe decIdIng to dIscIose Its pfesence. What bettef way to buIId up a pIctufe of
humanIty than by monItofIng websItes, e-maII messages, chat fooms, YouTube, etc.
Aftef aII, that Is exactIy what govefnment spyIng agencIes aIfeady do. When the tIme Is
fIpe, the pfobe wouId then Iog on to an appfopfIate websIte vIa a mIcfowave IInk and
pubIIcIy announce Its exIstence.
A gfoup of SETI enthusIasts Ied by a CanadIan feseafchef, AIIen Tough, have taken
the Idea sefIousIy enough to set up a dedIcated websIte InvItIng ET to Iog on
(http:,,www.IetI.ofg,). The feadef who takes the tfoubIe to Iook wIII fInd my name as
one of the sIgnatofIes suppoftIng thIs admIttedIy eccentfIc but deIIghtfuIIy ImagInatIve
pfoject. UndefstandabIy the websIte attfacts a steady stfeam of cIevef hoaxefs, but, aIas,
no extfateffestfIaI pfobes so faf at Ieast. The exIstence of the websIte does, howevef,
faIse the thought-pfovokIng questIon of just how one couId be sufe that a contactee
feaIIy Is an aIIen entIty fathef than a human pfankstef. It wouId be teffIbIe If ET caIIed
and we fesponded by sayIng 'puII the othef one'. A few yeafs ago, AIIen teIephoned me
about an IntfIguIng contendef who had swIftIy passed a numbef of basIc tests desIgned
to fIItef out cfude hoaxes. He asked me to suggest a sufe-fIfe way of spottIng a fake. I
suggested that he send back a hundfed-dIgIt numbef composed of the pfoduct of two
pfImes, and ask the contendef to factof It back to the ofIgInaI. The poInt hefe Is that
muItIpIyIng numbefs Is easy, but goIng the othef way factofIng Is much hafdef. By
way of IIIustfatIon, most peopIe wouId take Iess than a mInute to wofk out, say,
14179 = 11,139, but If you afe asked to fInd two pfIme numbefs whIch, when
muItIpIIed, yIeId 11,139, It wIII take faf Iongef. In effect, you have to fun thfough aII the
possIbIIItIes and eIImInate them one by one untII you hIt on the fIght answef. A
computef faces the same obstacIe, and fof sefIousIy Iafge numbefs even the fastest
supefcomputef In the wofId Is fIummoxed. Fof that feason, the pfoduct of pfIme
numbefs fofms the basIs of most encfyptIon technIques. AIIen duIy came up wIth some
numbefs and, to ouf sufpfIse, the contactee deIIvefed the coffect answef In pfetty shoft
ofdef! So we tfIed a 200 dIgIt numbef, whIch we knew to be (at that tIme) beyond the
peffofmance capabIIIty of any known human supefcomputef. At thIs poInt the hoaxef, a
bofed computef opefatof In BIfmIngham, UK, thfew In the toweI. The pfobIem wIth the
pfIme-numbef test Is that It couId be defeated by a quantum computef, shouId one evef
be buIIt (see Chaptef 8). So faf, In spIte of mIIIIons of feseafch doIIafs, quantum
computatIon femaIns In Its Infancy. But If a functIonIng quantum computef Is made one
day by humans, we shaII have Iost a vefy usefuI dIscfImInatof of extfateffestfIaI
technoIogy.
Anothef popuIaf Idea Is that an aIIen aftIfact may have been pIaced on Eafth ItseIf. If
so, wouId we have found It? Thefe afe pIenty of pIaces such an object couId IIe
undetected the bottom of the ocean, say, of bufIed deep In the GfeenIand Icecap. It
couId IIe just beIow the gfound on aImost any pIace on Eafth wIthout havIng been
spotted. AII these scenafIos have been used In scIence fIctIon, but It's not cIeaf why an
extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIon wouId deIIbefateIy conceaI an aftIfact In thIs way.
If aIIens sent a pfobe hefe entIfeIy on spec, wIthout knowIng whethef Eafth has, of
mIght one day have, a technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIon, then thefe Is a hIgh pfobabIIIty that It
affIved a Iong tIme ago say 10 mIIIIon yeafs, of even mofe. A majof pfobIem facIng
the pfobe's dIspatchefs wouId be to cfeate an aftIfact that couId femaIn Intact and
functIonIng fof such an enofmous Iength of tIme. (Ouf own technoIogy femaIns
functIonaI fof onIy a few decades.) Ffom the poInt of vIew of dufabIIIty, the sufface of
the Eafth Is an unpfomIsIng IocatIon to pafk a pfobe, because of geoIogIcaI upheavaIs
such as gIacIatIon, comet Impacts, voIcanIc efuptIons, eafthquakes, etc. A Iess vafIabIe
IocatIon Is the Moon, If the object wefe bufIed deep enough to avoId smaII meteof
Impacts. That scenafIo was expIofed by Afthuf C. CIafke and StanIey KubfIck In the
famous stofy 2001. A Spuce OJyssey, whefe the aIIen aftIfact Is depIcted as a gIant
obeIIsk. AIthough the Moon's sufface has been photogfaphed pfetty thofoughIy, If the
pfobe wefe smaII, of bufIed, we wouIdn't yet know about It.
NANOPROBES, VIRAI MESSENGERS AND GERRYMANDERED GENOMES
One objectIon to 'spfeadIng the wofd' wIth hIgh-speed pfobes as opposed to fadIo
sIgnaIs Is cost. Fof exampIe, a one-ton spacecfaft tfaveIIIng at a modest one-tenth of the
speed of IIght, wouId fequIfe haIf a bIIIIon bIIIIon jouIes of enefgy to Iaunch, equIvaIent
to the Eafth's entIfe powef output fof sevefaI houfs. And thIs Ignofes the need fof the
pfobe to somehow! sIow down on affIvaI, whIch mIght fequIfe the same of even
mofe enefgy. Thefe wouId have to be vefy stfong motIvatIon to embafk on such a
pfoject out of aItfuIsm of cufIosIty (as opposed to despefatIon, e.g. to pfesefve
somethIng befofe Afmageddon stfuck), especIaIIy If It entaIIed dIspatchIng an entIfe
fIeet of pfobes to covef a wIde swathe of the gaIaxy.
FoftunateIy thefe Is a way to cut the enefgy factof dfamatIcaIIy, by buIIdIng smaft
pfobes that can seIf-fepaIf and fepfoduce themseIves as they go. Then Instead of ET
sendIng a pfobe IndIvIduaIIy to evefy pfomIsIng staf system, a sIngIe pfobe couId be
dIspatched and Ieft to muItIpIy. The concept of a seIf-fepfoducIng machIne was fIfst
expIofed by the HungafIan mathematIcaI physIcIst John von Neumann, who, aIong wIth
the EngIIsh mathematIcIan and Second WofId Waf code-bfeakef AIan TufIng, Is cfedIted
wIth the InventIon of the modefn eIectfonIc computef (thus fInaIIy feaIIzIng Babbage's
nIneteenth-centufy conceptIon). A computef Is a unIvefsaI machIne, In the sense that a
sIngIe devIce can be pfogfammed to soIve aII computabIe pfobIems. The concept of a
unIvefsaI computef Ieads vefy natufaIIy to that of a unIvefsaI constfuctof a machIne
abIe to make othef machInes accofdIng to an IntefnaI pfogfam. SuItabIy pfogfammed, a
von Neumann machIne couId aIso make copIes of itself (IncIudIng the copyIng
InstfuctIons), and wouId thefefofe constItute a seIf-fepfoducIng machIne.
21
It Is easy to ImagIne an advanced cIvIIIzatIon sendIng out von Neumann pfobes to
expIofe the gaIaxy. On affIvaI In a staf system, one such machIne wouId mIne faw
matefIaIs ffom astefoIds of comets In ofdef to fepIIcate. Some of the pfogeny mIght then
study the pIanets, and pefhaps tfy to contact any InteIIIgent IIfe, beamIng back
InfofmatIon to the home pIanet. They mIght even stay on IndefInIteIy In the staf system
to sefve as beacons, of as sIIent pfobes, whIIe othefs tfaveI to the next staf system. The
pfocess couId contInue ad InfInItum, wIth the totaI numbef of machInes fIsIng
exponentIaIIy. In thIs way, the buIIdIng costs of the expIofatIon pfogfamme wouId not
aII faII on the ofIgInatIng cIvIIIzatIon.
Thefe Is scope fof fufthef dfamatIc Impfovement In cost by mInIatufIzatIon,
dIspensIng wIth fancy equIpment and fadIo tfansmIttefs. If the pufpose of the pfobes Is
mefeIy to dIssemInate a message, of basIc InfofmatIon about the dIspatchef, then thefe
Is a much easIef way to go about It, whIch Is to use nanotechnoIogy. In 1959, the same
yeaf as CocconI and MoffIson pubIIshed theIf vIsIonafy papef about SETI, a no Iess
vIsIonafy Iectufe was deIIvefed by RIchafd Feynman, the bfIIIIant and cfeatIve
theofetIcaI physIcIst. EntItIed 'Thefe Is pIenty of foom at the bottom', the Iectufe
fofeshadowed moIecuIaf-scaIe engIneefIng decades befofe It came to ffuItIon. Today,
nanotechnoIogy Is advancIng fapIdIy. FIfst thefe was the IncfedIbIe shfInkIng mIcfochIp,
then the scannIng tunneIIIng mIcfoscope capabIe of movIng IndIvIduaI atoms In a
contfoIIed way, then cafbon nanotubes and quantum dots. NanotechnoIogy Is IIkeIy to
have a spectacuIaf Impact on InfofmatIon stofage. In a Januafy 2000 addfess on scIence
and technoIogy, PfesIdent CIInton dIscussed the US NatIonaI NanotechnoIogy InItIatIve
and fefeffed to some of the possIbIIItIes, such as 'shfInkIng aII of the InfofmatIon housed
In the IIbfafy of Congfess Into a devIce the sIze of a sugaf cube'.
22
It has been estImated
that the contents of a substantIaI encycIopedIa couId be packed Into a voIume smaIIef
than a bactefIum. Pfogfess Is so fapId that aIafmIsts afe pfedIctIng the end of the wofId
as we know It, wIth funaway nanomachInes tfansfofmIng the sufface of the pIanet Into
'gfay goo'.
23
StfIctIy speakIng, 'nano' fefefs to a scaIe of sIze one bIIIIonth of a metfe,
coffespondIng to a Iafge moIecuIe, but the tefm Is used mofe IooseIy to fefef to aII uItfa-
smaII-scaIe engIneefIng.
In the not too dIstant futufe, when humans wIII be abIe to buIId mIcfo- of
nanomachInes that stofe pfodIgIous amounts of InfofmatIon, they couId be used as space
pfobes. Because of theIf tIny sIze they couId be acceIefated to hIgh speeds (say 0.01 pef
cent of the speed of IIght) vefy cheapIy, pefhaps wIthout the need fof fockets. It may
stIII take a few mIIIIon yeafs fof them to feach the tafget stafs, but haste Is not an Issue
In the scenafIo I am expIofIng. We can feadIIy ImagIne an advanced aIIen cIvIIIzatIon
packagIng mInI-databanks In mIcfoscopIc capsuIes and spewIng them afound the gaIaxy
In the mIIIIons.
A nanopfobe dIffefs ffom the BfaceweII-type pfobe I dIscussed eafIIef, In that It
couIdn't send out fadIo sIgnaIs to attfact attentIon. How, then, wouId It make an
Impact? ThIs Is whefe von Neumann's Idea comes In. If the nanopfobe wefe a seIf-
fepfoducIng von Neumann machIne, then on affIvaI It couId fepIIcate IIke cfazy untII Its
pfogeny fofmed a conspIcuous scum that a cufIous scIentIst mIght anaIyse undef a
poweffuI mIcfoscope. Thefe Is a mofe eIegant stfategy howevef. Natufe has aIfeady
Invented neatIy packaged data-fIch nanomachInes: we caII them vIfuses.
24
A typIcaI
vIfus contaIns thousands of bIts of InfofmatIon encoded In eIthef RNA of DNA enough
fof a decent message. So why not engIneef tfIIIIons of vIfuses, package them In pea-
sIzed mIcfopfobes, and spew them afound the gaIaxy? Each vIfus wouId convey a
message fof any futufe InteIIIgent IIfe on the destInatIon pIanet,
25
the space age
equIvaIent of a message In a bottIe. The beauty of the scheme Is that the message can be
fepIIcated ad InfInItum shouId It encountef IIfe on a destInatIon pIanet, by the sImpIe
expedIent of pfogfammIng the vIfuses to 'Infect' any DNA-based ceIIs wIth whIch they
come Into contact. The vIfus Insefts Its message Into the genetIc matefIaI of the host
ofganIsm's gefm ceIIs (that's what so-caIIed endogenous fetfovIfuses do), and the ceII
obIIgIngIy fepIIcates It and passes the message on to aII futufe genefatIons. In thIs way
the vIfus wouId spfead IIke wIIdfIfe thfough the host ecosystem, Its InfofmatIon
pfesefved fof mIIIIons of yeafs untII some futufe CfaIg Ventef begIns sequencIng
genomes and stumbIes acfoss the message. CeftaInIy DNA does get Insefted Into IIvIng
ceIIs In thIs mannef, whoIe chunks of human DNA afe the genomIc detfItus of ancIent
vIfuses that Infected ouf ancestofs.
The way I've descfIbed It makes It sound sImpIe, but In feaIIty some majof technIcaI
hufdIes stand In the way. Most obvIous Is that DNA may be onIy one of many ways that
bIoIogIcaI InfofmatIon Is encoded, and It Is hafd to see how the aIIens wouId know In
advance what teffestfIaI IIfe uses. A second pfobIem has to do wIth physIcs. IntefsteIIaf
space Is a dangefous envIfonment. CosmIc fays In paftIcuIaf can cause sefIous damage
to nanostfuctufes, and In tIme they wouId bfeak up the moIecuIaf message. ShIeIdIng
wouId ameIIofate thIs pfobIem, but at the expense of addIng mass. In addItIon, the
pfojectIIe has to be sIowed on affIvaI to entef the atmosphefe of the tafget pIanet
wIthout IncInefatIng ItseIf. CaffyIng fueI to deceIefate wouId aIso add vefy
substantIaIIy to the payIoad mass. These fefInements wouId scuppef the smaII, fast
and cheap phIIosophy behInd the Idea of mIcfopfobes. PossIbIy the technIcaI pfobIems
couId be soIved wIthout addIng Iots of extfa mass fof exampIe, by usIng aefo-bfakIng
fof deceIefatIon but even If they couId, the engIneefed vIfuses wouId face sefIous
bIoIogIcaI Issues on affIvaI. VIfuses afe hIghIy attuned to theIf hosts, whIch Is why you
can swIm In the sea vIfus soup, femembef and not get sIck (mostIy). So even If ET
guessed that Eafth was fepIete wIth DNA-based IIfe, wIthout knowIng the specIfIcs of the
host genomes It's not cIeaf how a vIfus couId be desIgned to wofk feIIabIy. Pefhaps
unIvefsaI, of genefaI-pufpose, vIfuses can be made, whIch Infect a fange of ofganIsms
wIthout kIIIIng them.
A second pfobIem concefns mutatIons. Once the message has been Insefted, It needs
to femaIn unchanged fof as Iong as possIbIe to stand a good chance of beIng dIscovefed
one day. But natufaI mutatIons occuf aII the tIme dufIng the DNA copyIng pfocess, and
a mutated message Is a scfambIed message sense degenefatIng Into nonsense. NatufaI
seIectIon can sefve to stabIIIze genetIc InfofmatIon, but onIy If thefe Is seIectIon
pfessufe, In othef wofds, If the mutatIon has detfImentaI consequences fof the sufvIvaI
of the ofganIsm, and gets weeded out of the gene pooI. If the Insefted segment the
message Is bIoIogIcaIIy InactIve (I.e. If It's just beIng caffIed aIong fof the DNA fIde)
It's hafd to see how natufaI seIectIon wouId opefate to consefve It. A Iot of DNA seems
to be 'junk' gfeat sectIons that don't code fof anythIng, and so mutates fapIdIy and
hafmIessIy ovef the genefatIons, unchecked by seIectIon. AssumIng the vIfaI DNA Is
tfeated by the host ofganIsm as just mofe junk, the message fIsks beIng gafbIed by
mutatIons aftef a few thousand genefatIons. RecentIy, howevef, some doubt has been
cast on thIs sImpIe pIctufe. SubstantIaI sectIons of what appeaf to be IdentIcaI sequences
of junk DNA have been found In both human and mouse genomes, suggestIng that these
sequences have been consefved sInce pfe-mIce and pfe-humans pafted genetIc company
40 mIIIIon yeafs ago. Now maybe these sequences fuIfII some vItaI foIe In a subtIe way,
but It's not obvIous: when they afe deIeted ffom the mouse genome, the mIce seem
peffectIy happy. So It's possIbIe that sectIons of junk can be accufateIy fepIIcated and
consefved fof mIIIIons of yeafs, pefhaps by somehow chemIcaIIy pIggy-backIng on key
genes that afe undef stfong seIectIon pfessufe, and so consefved. Anyway, If an aIIen
vIfus InsInuated ItseIf Into the host genome In such a pIggy-back mannef, the message
couId be good fof tens of mIIIIons of yeafs.
26
Thefe Is an aItefnatIve way to deIIvef a bIoIogIcaI message that avoIds some of the
pfobIems wIth vIfuses. Rathef than tfyIng to hIjack IndIgenous IIfe, the aIIens couId tfy
to cfeate an aftIfIcIaI shadow bIosphefe ub initio. A cIvIIIzatIon a few thousand IIght
yeafs away couId, even ffom that dIstance, know enough about Eafth's geoIogy,
atmosphefe and chemIcaI composItIon to deduce somethIng about ouf bIoIogy and
envIfonmentaI condItIons. Afmed wIth that InfofmatIon, they couId desIgn noveI
mIcfobes customIzed to fIoufIsh In the teffestfIaI envIfonment, IIvIng peacefuIIy
aIongsIde IndIgenous ofganIsms. The synthetIc ceIIs need use neIthef DNA nof pfoteIns,
and couId be desIgned to thfIve In condItIons too extfeme fof Eafth's IndIgenous IIfe,
thus avoIdIng dIfect competItIon. By usIng moIecuIaf stfuctufes wIth stfongef bonds than
DNA the ceIIs wouId suffef Iess cosmIc fay damage en foute. The aII-Impoftant message
sequences wouId be cafefuIIy engIneefed so as to mutate onIy vefy sIowIy, possess In-
buIIt fedundancy and enjoy effof-coffectIng mechanIsms of the soft empIoyed by
teffestfIaI ofganIsms. The package of mIcfobes wouId be tafgeted at Eafth specIfIcaIIy,
of any othef pIanet IIkeIy to spawn InteIIIgent IIfe one day. On affIvaI, the mIcfobes
wouId take up fesIdence, spfead acfoss the pIanet, possIbIy adaptIng to changIng
condItIons, and hang out InnocuousIy fof tens of mIIIIons of yeafs awaItIng dIscovefy. If
we evef do detect a shadow bIosphefe, It wouId be a mofe pIausIbIe pIace to Iook fof an
aIIen message than In the genomes of IIfe as we know It.
The feasIbIIIty of usIng mIcfobIaI ceIIs to send messages between the stafs hInges on
whethef they can be deIIvefed effIcIentIy. MIchaeI Mautnef, a New ZeaIand chemIst who
aIso funs somethIng caIIed the PanspefmIa SocIety, has done some caIcuIatIons to fInd
out. He beIIeves It wouId wofk. In fact, he thInks humans couId do It wIth fofeseeabIe
technoIogy. The key Is to mIcfomInIatufIze the payIoad. Mautnef envIsages centImetfe-
sIzed membfanes wIth tIny peIIets embedded. The mIcfobes fIde InsIde the peIIets, aIong
wIth a staftef kIt of nutfIents. The membfanes fefIect the soIaf wInd and the IIght of the
sun, thefeby feceIvIng a smaII but pefsIstent pfopuIsIon fofce. AccumuIated ovef yeafs,
thIs tIny effect couId gentIy acceIefate the capsuIe to 0.01 pef cent of the speed of IIght.
Once the dImInutIve spacecfaft feaches cfuIsIng speed, the soIaf saII couId detach, of
foId up afound the peIIet fof added pfotectIon agaInst cosmIc fays. Fof most of the
joufney not much wouId happen. The mIcfobes wouId sImpIy IIe dofmant, the peIIet
wouId cooI to a few degfees above absoIute zefo and the IIttIe bag of tfIcks wouId whIz
unobtfusIveIy acfoss the IntefsteIIaf voId. On appfoach to the tafget pIanetafy system,
the peIIet wouId ffagment, tufnIng a speedIng buIIet Into spfeadIng buckshot. Mautnef
has caIcuIated that a speck 60 mIcfometfes acfoss couId sufvIve aefo-bfakIng Into a
pIanet's atmosphefe wIthout IncInefatIng Its cafgo.
A dIffefent stfategy wouId be fof the aIIens to use comets as deIIvefy vehIcIes.
FoIIowIng a sefIes of cIevef gfavItatIonaI defIectIons, a comet couId be fIung out of the
aIIens' pIanetafy system towafds oufs. Thefe Is good evIdence that dofmant mIcfobes of
vIfuses couId sufvIve InsIde a comet fof many mIIIIons of yeafs, whIch Is ceftaInIy Iong
enough to tfavefse IIght yeafs of space at typIcaI ejectIon veIocItIes. When a comet
comes cIose enough to the sun, It begIns to evapofate, spfoutIng a chafactefIstIc taII as
gas, watef and mIcfoscopIc paftIcIes stfeam off. If the comet wefe Iaden wIth
engIneefed bactefIa, vIfuses of some othef type of mIcfobIoIogIcaI entIty, they wouId
spew fofth too, fofmIng a Iong, dIffuse InfectIous cIoud. ShouId It happen that the Eafth
sweeps thfough such a cIoud, It wouId acquIfe a dose of vIabIe bIoIogIcaI agents.
27
Howevef specuIatIve the Idea of 'genomIc SETI' mIght be, It makes sense to take a
Iook fof geffymandefed genomes. And that just what HIfomItsu Yokoo and TaIfo
OshIma of the KyofIn UnIvefsIty HachIojI MedIcaI SchooI In Japan dId as Iong ago as
1979. They seafched the DNA of X174, a bactefIa-InfectIng vIfus known as a phage, to
see If It contaIned anythIng fIshy.
28
It dIdn't, but that was In the eafIy days of
bIoInfofmatIcs. Today, genome sequencIng Is a majof Industfy, wIth many ofganIsms,
ffom mIcfobes to humans, havIng theIf DNA fead and posted on the Intefnet. The tIme Is
fIpe to do a systematIc seafch of these genomes to Iook fof affestIng oddItIes. The
sequencIng Is beIng done anyway, so It costs aImost nothIng to fun the data thfough a
computef to Iook fof suspIcIous pattefns. In fact, the hIghIy successfuI SETI@home
pfoject was emuIated by genome@home, now sadIy suspended. It wouId be sImpIe
enough to mefge the two. Who knows what mIght come out of It? The pfoject couId
pafaphfase the X Iiles and be pfomoted wIth the catchy sIogan: 'The Tfuth Is In Thefe'.
6
EvIdence fof a GaIactIc DIaspofa
W/en you /uve eliminuteJ t/e impossible, w/utever remuins, /owever improbuble, must be t/e trut/.
ShefIock HoImes
1
WHERE IS EVERYBODY?
In the summef of 1950 the ItaIIan physIcIst EnfIco FefmI was wofkIng at Ios AIamos In
New MexIco, at the feseafch Iabofatofy whefe the atomIc bomb was desIgned dufIng the
Second WofId Waf. FefmI was by then a Iegendafy fIgufe In theofetIcaI physIcs, havIng
soIved many pfobIems In quantum mechanIcs, paftIcIe physIcs and astfophysIcs, as weII
as pIayIng a centfaI foIe In the Manhattan Pfoject. He was fegafded, In fact, as the
afchetypaI genIus (see FIg. 9). One day FefmI was stfoIIIng to Iunch wIth some
coIIeagues, IncIudIng Edwafd TeIIef, often caIIed the fathef of the H-bomb, and John
von Neumann (whom I mentIoned In the pfevIous chaptef In connectIon wIth seIf-
fepfoducIng machInes) when the convefsatIon tufned to UFOs, of 'fIyIng saucefs' as the
pfess had dubbed them, whIch wefe beIng fepofted In Iafge numbefs at that tIme. ThIs
natufaIIy Ied to a IIveIy dIscussIon about the pfobabIIIty of extfateffestfIaI IIfe and the
IIkeIIhood that fIyIng saucefs wefe In fact aIIen spacecfaft. In the mIdst of the debate,
FefmI suddenIy asked, 'Whefe Is evefybody?', fefeffIng, of coufse, to the putatIve aIIen
beIngs. If the gaIaxy feaIIy Is teemIng wIth IIfe, he expIaIned, then Eafth shouId have
been coIonIzed In the faf past. The aIIens ought to have been hefe aII aIong, and we
wouId be weII awafe of It.
FefmI's basIc afgument Is sImpIe enough. IIfe on Eafth has taken 3 of 4 bIIIIon yeafs
to evoIve to the IeveI of InteIIIgence and technoIogy. If IIfe stafted on anothef pIanet,
say X, at the same tIme as It dId on Eafth, the pfobabIIIty that IIfe on X wouId attaIn the
same IeveI of technoIogy as humans at thIs paftIcuIaf tIme, even to wIthIn a few
thousand yeafs eIthef way, Is exceedIngIy smaII. ConsIdef the many chance events that
have occuffed ovef bIIIIons of yeafs of evoIutIon, such as the dInosauf-destfoyIng Impact
65 mIIIIon yeafs ago. What afe the odds that a sImIIaf Impact wouId have occuffed and
wfought a sImIIaf tfansfofmatIon on pIanet X, at foughIy the same tIme? NegIIgIbIe. If X
evoIved InteIIIgent IIfe and technoIogy by some othef evoIutIonafy pathway, then It
mIght feach the IeveI of human technoIogy tens of even hundfeds of mIIIIons of yeafs
eafIIef. Of Iatef. If Eafth wefe typIcaI, and If thefe afe Iots of PIanet Xs out thefe, then
IIfe on some of them wIII evoIve InteIIIgence mofe sIowIy than hefe, those pIanets wIII
not attaIn technoIogy fof a vefy Iong tIme yet. On othefs, the evoIutIon of InteIIIgence
and technoIogy wIII pfoceed mofe fapIdIy, so that they wIII have feached ouf IeveI Iong
ago, pefhaps 100 mIIIIon yeafs of mofe. Now add the fact that thefe wefe Eafth-IIke
pIanets befofe ouf soIaf system even exIsted: on those pIanets, IIfe wouId have a huge
head staft ovef Eafth. PuttIng aII thIs togethef, the concIusIon Is cIeaf: If IIfe Is
wIdespfead and Eafth Is typIcaI, thefe shouId have been many pIanets wIth advanced
spacefafIng cIvIIIzatIons Iong, Iong ago. So why haven't the aIIens come hefe aIfeady?
ThIs, In a nutsheII, Is what has become known as 'FefmI's pafadox'. StfIctIy speakIng It
Is not a pafadox In the phIIosophef's meanIng of the tefm, but sImpIy an unavoIdabIe
consequence of some faIfIy pIausIbIe assumptIons. So what Is the answef?
FIg. 9. ItaIIan genIus EnfIco FefmI.
The most obvIous expIanatIon fof the absence of aIIens on Eafth Is that aIIens don't
exIst that Is, we afe aIone In the unIvefse. That was pfesumabIy FefmI's own posItIon,
and the poInt of hIs afgument was to pooh-pooh the fIyIng-saucef stofIes. If that Is the
coffect answef, then SETI Is a waste of tIme and money. But we mustn't be too hasty In
dfawIng thIs pessImIstIc concIusIon. Thefe couId be any numbef of feasons why aIIen
cIvIIIzatIons afe out thefe, but not hefe. An enteftaInIng book by Stephen Webb IIsts no
fewef than fIfty expIanatIons fof ET's conspIcuous absence,
2
fangIng ffom the 'zoo
hypothesIs' (we afe beIng watched, but not contacted) to the 'pafaIIeI unIvefse'
hypothesIs (the aIIens afe havIng too much fun expIofIng othef unIvefses to bothef wIth
us). Take youf pIck.
By way of IIIustfatIon, consIdef the foIIowIng fesoIutIon. Suppose thefe afe many
cIvIIIzatIons In the MIIky Way, and they Iong ago estabIIshed a gaIactIc netwofk of
InfofmatIon exchange. ThIs Is an Idea datIng back to 1974, when the Stanfofd
UnIvefsIty astfonomef RonaId BfaceweII envIsaged a 'GaIactIc CIub' of communIcatIng
cIvIIIzatIons, shafIng news, InfofmatIon and gossIp, wIth data zIppIng ffom staf to staf
IIke e-maIIs ovef a cosmIc Intefnet.
3
The cIub mIght even have been estabIIshed befofe
the soIaf system fofmed, 4.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago (the gaIaxy Is ovef 12 bIIIIon yeafs oId).
Some membefs wouId dfop out as theIf cIvIIIzatIons faded of wefe destfoyed by a
catastfophe, othefs wouId sIgn up as they attaIned fadIo technoIogy and dIscovefed that
thefe was a netwofk of InfofmatIon exchange aIfeady opefatIonaI. BfaceweII fegafded
humanIty as on the vefge of joInIng thIs GaIactIc CIub as Its newest membef a step
that wouId bfIng us untoId benefIts, but wouId aIso sefve as a stfong dIsIncentIve to
embafk on IntefsteIIaf tfaveI. If the motIvatIon to expIofe Is cufIosIty and InfofmatIon-
gathefIng, It Is faf easIef to sImpIy Iog on to the GWW (GaIactIc WIde Web) and obtaIn
the InfofmatIon fof ffee. It Is, aftef aII, much fastef and cheapef to send fadIo waves
acfoss IntefsteIIaf space than bIg metaI machInes. If thefe Is somebody at the destInatIon
pIanet aIfeady, then why bothef to make the tfIp? If the pufpose of space tfaveI Is
expIofatIon, weII, the aIIens can send us the content of theIf Iatest DVD. On the othef
hand, If It Is conquest, then the fact that the tafget pIanet aIfeady has a faf mofe
advanced cIvIIIzatIon ensconced wouId constItute a pfetty stfong deteffent. AII In aII, It
wouId make mofe sense fof the newcomef cIvIIIzatIon to stay put and sImpIy joIn the
GaIactIc CIub. But If nobody Is tfaveIIIng, thefe Is no feason why the aIIens shouId be
hefe, of shouId evef have passed thIs way. It doesn't mean thefe Isn't anybody out thefe,
onIy that space tfaveI Is not an Idea wIth endufIng appeaI. I beIIeve thIs afgument has
some fofce, but It Is convIncIng onIy If thefe Is a vefy Iafge numbef of pIanets wIth
IndIgenous technoIogIcaI communItIes. If thefe Is pIenty of untouched pIanetafy feaI
estate to go found, then a cIvIIIzatIon mIght weII move to occupy It, even whIIe
femaInIng In 'the CIub'. AIso, It Is Impoftant to guafd, as aIways, agaInst
anthfopocentfIsm. Humans have been keen to mIgfate fof feasons of cufIosIty, matefIaI
gaIn of conquest. But thefe mIght be many motIves fof an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon to expand
Into space, some of whIch wouId mean IIttIe to us.
One Issue that Isn't feIevant Is the enofmous dIstances between the stafs. It's tfue that
It wouId take a Iong tIme by human standafds to compIete the joufney ffom one staf
system to anothef, even fof a vefy hIgh-speed cfaft. Howevef, at a tenth of the speed of
IIght, onIy a mIIIIon yeafs Is needed fof a spacecfaft to cfoss the gaIaxy. If thefe wefe an
aIIen cIvIIIzatIon anywhefe In the gaIaxy dufIng the past, say, one bIIIIon yeafs, the
mIIIIon-yeaf joufney Is weII wIthIn Its tIme ffame. Of coufse, It may not want to make
the tfIp In one gfeat Ieap. Most IIkeIy It wouId go ffom one pIanet to a neafby one,
pefhaps In Iafge space afks that take many genefatIons to compIete the tfIp, and take
up fesIdence on each. EventuaIIy a settIement wouId matufe, and the coIonIsts wouId
ventufe on to the next suItabIe pIanet, and so on. ThIs cfeepIng coIonIzatIon Is sIowef
than an expedItIon tafgetIng a specIfIc destInatIon pIanet, but not by much on an
astfonomIcaI tImescaIe. If It took 1,000 yeafs fof the coIony to matufe, and suItabIe
pIanets wefe sItuated, say, an avefage of ten IIght yeafs apaft, then the accumuIated
pIanetafy sojoufn tIme wouId add onIy about 3 mIIIIon yeafs to the totaI tIme needed to
feach Eafth ffom the Innef fegIon of the gaIaxy, whefe the oIdef stafs fesIde and whefe
the most advanced cIvIIIzatIons wouId pfesumabIy be Iocated. So that's Iess than 4
mIIIIon yeafs to get hefe, aII toId. Of coufse, one wouIdn't expect the aIIens to make a
beeIIne fof Eafth, gIven the fIch pIckIngs of aII those othef habItabIe pIanets on the way.
Rathef, we can ImagIne the seed cIvIIIzatIon spfeadIng out Its coIonIzIng tentacIes In aII
pfomIsIng dIfectIons, pefhaps to enguIf the entIfe gaIaxy eventuaIIy. A dIffusIon pfocess
IIke that wouId take Iongef, but It wouId stIII constItute onIy a smaII ffactIon of the age
of the gaIaxy. ObvIousIy not evefy spacefafIng cIvIIIzatIon wouId choose to coIonIze the
gaIaxy In a gfand ImpefIaI mannef, and It had bettef not, of thefe wouId be unpIeasant
cIashes aII the tIme. But It takes onIy one such communIty somewhefe In the gaIaxy to
pfesent us wIth FefmI's awkwafd conundfum.
When FefmI stated hIs ofIgInaI 'pafadox', he had In mInd fIesh-and-bIood aIIens
comIng to Eafth, but the same feasonIng aIso appIIes to aIIen aftIfacts, especIaIIy If they
afe capabIe of muItIpIyIng and spfeadIng, IIke von Neumann machInes. When It comes
to space expIofatIon and coIonIzatIon, seIf-fepfoducIng machInes offef many
advantages ovef bIoIogIcaI pIoneefs In cost, dufabIIIty and sufvIvabIIIty. If
extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIons afe common, sufeIy the gaIaxy shouId aIfeady be oveffun
wIth von Neumann machInes, because they couId coIonIze the entIfe MIIky Way In a
tIme much Iess than the age of the soIaf system. As no evIdence has (yet) been found fof
von Neumann machInes In ouf astfonomIcaI neIghboufhood, theIf absence couId be
taken as tIppIng the scaIes agaInst the hypothesIs that extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIons afe
commonpIace.
The physIcIst Ffank TIpIef has afgued fofcefuIIy that the appafent absence of von
Neumann machInes In the soIaf system aII but pfoves we afe aIone In the unIvefse. He
estImated It wouId take onIy 300 mIIIIon yeafs fof the gaIaxy to be fIooded wIth these
devIces, so thefe has been pIenty of tIme fof a gaIactIc takeovef to happen. TIpIef
feasons that von Neumann pfobes afe a hIghIy effectIve fofm of IntefsteIIaf mIgfatIon,
on both IogIstIcaI and economIc gfounds, and thefefofe theIf absence fepfesents a mofe
potent vefsIon of the FefmI pafadox. It Is easy to thInk up feasons why IIvIng beIngs
mIght avoId tfaveIIIng between the stafs (It's a Iong way aftef aII), It's Iess easy to
undefstand why aIIen von Neumann pfobes wouIdn't do It.
TIpIef's afgument wofks onIy If we accept hIs majof pfemIse, whIch Is that thefe ure
no von Neumann machInes In the soIaf system. Can we be sufe of that? ObvIousIy we
can fuIe out the scenafIo In whIch aIIen von Neumann machInes just go on muItIpIyIng
untII they oveffun the soIaf system. But fof a Iess aggfessIve stfategy, the sItuatIon Is
not so cIeaf-cut. As I expIaIned In the pfevIous chaptef, thefe afe countIess pIaces that a
smaII Ineft machIne couId be skuIkIng, unbeknownst to us. StIII, It's hafd to undefstand
the pufpose of such a pfogfamme, If It Is not to estabIIsh contact wIth IndIgenous
InteIIIgent IIfe. In whIch case, why the eefIe sIIence?
AND WHERE ARE AII THE TIME TOURISTS?
Thefe Is a cufIous tempofaI vefsIon of the FefmI pafadox, aftIcuIated most famousIy by
Stephen HawkIng In 1992, when he asked 'Whefe afe aII the tIme toufIsts ffom the
futufe?'
4
HawkIng concIuded ffom theIf absence that tfaveIIIng ffom futufe to past Isn't
on. It must be admItted that tIme tfaveI IIes on the bofdefIIne between scIence fact and
scIence fIctIon a tantaIIzIng dfeam fof whIch the best one can say Is that It hasn't yet
been pfoved ImpossIbIe. Ouf best undefstandIng of the natufe of tIme comes ffom
EInsteIn's genefaI theofy of feIatIvIty, whIch does seem to pefmIt joufneys both fofwafd
and backwafd In tIme. In fact, tfaveI Into the futufe Is aIfeady a done deaI. It goes by
the name of the tIme dIIatIon effect, and Is feadIIy demonstfated by accufate cIocks. AII
you need to do to feach the futufe soonef Is to move as fast as possIbIe. Fof exampIe,
at 99 pef cent of the speed of IIght, If you set off now you couId feach Eafth yeaf 2100
In Iess than thIfteen yeafs. Howevef, gIven that ouf best fockets achIeve Iess than 0.002
pef cent of the speed of IIght, human tIme tfaveI Is so faf IImIted to pItIfuI amounts
(mIcfoseconds onIy).
GettIng back ffom the futufe Is a much toughef chaIIenge. AIthough not stfIctIy
fofbIdden by the genefaI theofy of feIatIvIty, joufneyIng backwafds In tIme InvoIves
exotIc supef-technoIogy such as wofmhoIes In space. WofmhoIes fesembIe bIack hoIes
Inasmuch as they both use gfavItatIon to wafp tIme, but whefeas entefIng a bIack hoIe
Is a one-way joufney to nowhefe, a wofmhoIe has an exIt as weII as an entfance,
pefmIttIng the tfaveIIef to faII thfough It and come out somewhefe eIse. Now fof a
feaIIty check: whefeas bIack hoIes feaIIy exIst, thefe Is no evIdence whatevef fof
wofmhoIes.
5
To tufn a wofmhoIe Into a tIme machIne fequIfes ImpfIntIng a tIme dIffefence
between the two mouths of the hoIe, whIch entaIIs some tfIcky manIpuIatIons. It tufns
out that the tIme fequIfed to compIete the ImpfIntIng pfocess Is aIways Iongef than the
dufatIon of the tIme dIffefence achIeved. Fof exampIe, It wouId take mofe than a
hundfed yeafs to cfeate a tIme machIne that can access a hundfed yeafs of the past.
ObvIousIy, then, you can't use a wofmhoIe to vIsIt a tIme befofe the date of compIetIon
of the machIne's manufactufe. In thIs fespect 'feaI' tIme machInes dIffef ffom H. G.
WeIIs's fIctIonaI vefsIon. The absence In 2010 of human tIme toufIsts ffom Eafth's futufe
Is then pefhaps no sufpfIse. Howevef, what If thefe afe aIIens wIth supef-technoIogy
who aIfeady possess tIme machInes? TheIf descendants couId vIsIt us now ffom the
futufe, of they couId Iend the tIme machInes to futufe eafthIIngs and pefmIt them to do
'feaIIty hIstofy'. Does the absence of tIme toufIsts teII us thefe afe no advanced aIIens, of
that tfaveI back In tIme Is ImpossIbIe aftef aII, of that It Is theofetIcaIIy possIbIe, but
pfohIbItIveIy expensIve of dangefous? AII we can concIude wIth ceftaInty Is that the
possIbIIIty of tIme tfaveI onIy makes the FefmI pafadox wofse, because It opens up
Eafth to vIsIts (of InvasIon) not onIy ffom ouf aIIen contempofafIes, but aIso ffom theIf
(and ouf) descendants. And wIth tIme tfaveI, the Iong joufney tIme between the stafs Is
IffeIevant: ET couId feach Eafth before settIng out! Fof those feadefs Intefested In
IeafnIng mofe about tIme tfaveI, I fefef you to my IIttIe book How to BuilJ u Time
Muc/ine. FascInatIng though the subject may be, I wIII not consIdef It fufthef In thIs
book specuIatIng about space tfaveI Is aIfeady dIffIcuIt enough.
A COSMIC FOOTPRINT
When contempIatIng the pfospects fof human space tfaveI, futufoIogIsts spIIt Into two
camps. One of them pfedIcts a fosy futufe In whIch new pfopuIsIon systems and
economIes of scaIe feInvIgofate ouf push Into space. CoIonIes wIII be set up on the
Moon, then on Mafs, pefhaps on some astefoIds, and new IndustfIes wIII spfIng up wIth
them, dfIven by commefcIaI Intefests.
6
Ovef the comIng centufIes, humans wIII spfead
acfoss the soIaf system and beyond, duIy fuIfIIIIng theIf cosmIc destIny.
The pessImIsts wIII have none of thIs. They see space expIofatIon as an IdIosyncfatIc
and tfansItofy dIvefsIon footed In the poIItIcs of the CoId Waf and the ufge to seIze the
'hIgh ffontIef'. WIth Iaunch costs so pfohIbItIve and commefcIaI fetufns on space fIIght
negIIgIbIe, the taxpayef wIII InevItabIy tIfe of footIng the bIII, and the entIfe space
pfogfamme wIII dwIndIe and petef out. No mattef that the scIentIfIc pay-off of space
expIofatIon Is Immense, It Is an open secfet that the US space pfogfamme wouId be
scaIed back dfastIcaIIy If thefe wefen't substantIaI mIIItafy advantages dfIvIng It. It's
possIbIe to hope, and even expect, a 'new wofId ofdef' In a centufy of two that wouId
aboIIsh the mIIItafy thfeat ffom space. If that happens, manned space expIofatIon wouId
be an InevItabIe vIctIm of the concomItant 'peace dIvIdend'. SIgns of wanIng Intefest afe
aIfeady evIdent In staIIed budgets fof NASA and othef space agencIes. It Isn't hafd to
convInce oneseIf that no Iafge-scaIe human pfesence In space wIII endufe beyond the
next decade of so.
I keep dIthefIng ovef whIch of the two scenafIos optImIstIc of pessImIstIc I beIIeve.
Each Is pIausIbIe. In tefms of the FefmI pafadox, howevef, It boIIs down to thIs. FefmI
IIved at the dawn of the space age, when It was natufaI to beIIeve that space
expIofatIon wouId be a seamIess extensIon of teffestfIaI expIofatIon, and wouId gfow
exponentIaIIy aIong wIth scIence, technoIogy and the gIobaI economy. Aftef aII, FefmI
and hIs coIIeagues had just fInIshed buIIdIng the fIfst atomIc bomb. NucIeaf-powefed
fockets seemed a smaII step away.
7
FIash Gofdon, the comIc stfIp hefo, fuIed the
unIvefse. Today, aImost fIve decades aftef the Iast Moon IandIng, space tfaveI doesn't
seem quIte so InevItabIe. When fefIectIng on aIIen cIvIIIzatIons, It wouId be fash to
concIude on the basIs of a few decades of ouf own space pfogfamme that a mofe
advanced cIvIIIzatIon wIII InevItabIy be spacefafIng. Howevef, It wouId be equaIIy fash
to suppose that no aIIen cIvIIIzatIon has evef expanded Into the gaIaxy. Remembef that
In fefIectIng on the potentIaI fof aIIen technoIogy, we need to adopt a pefspectIve that
encompasses a vastIy gfeatef span of tIme than aII of human hIstofy.
Fof fIfty yeafs SETI has been motIvated by the hope that advanced extfateffestfIaI
cIvIIIzatIons wIII manIfest themseIves thfough theIf fadIo emIssIons. But the eefIe sIIence
pfompts us to fe-evaIuate that expectatIon, and consIdef othef ways an aIIen
InteIIIgence mIght Ieave IdentIfIabIe tfaces. As evefy fofensIc scIentIst knows, InteIIIgent
behavIouf can betfay ItseIf In many IndIfect and subtIe ways, even when the subjects
make a deIIbefate attempt to conceaI theIf actIvIty. The unIvefse Is a fIch and compIex
afena In whIch sIgns of aIIen InteIIIgence mIght be bufIed amId a weItef of data ffom
natufaI pfocesses, and uneafthed onIy aftef some IngenIous sIftIng. Even If we nevef
detect a deIIbefate sIgnaI of beacon ffom an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon, we mIght stIII accumuIate
enough cIfcumstantIaI evIdence to convInce oufseIves that we afe not aIone In the
unIvefse.
In ofdef to make pfogfess It Is essentIaI to devIse stfategIes that go weII beyond
tfadItIonaI SETI. And SETI feseafchefs agfee: 'Ouf expefIments afe stIII IookIng fof the
type of extfateffestfIaI that wouId have appeaIed to PefcIvaI IoweII,' admIts Seth
Shostak.
8
A compfehensIve seafch fof aIIen technoIogy shouId InvoIve mofe than the use
of fadIo teIescopes, and pfefefabIy encompass the fuII panopIy of modefn scIence, ffom
paftIcIe physIcs, thfough mIcfobIoIogy to astfophysIcs. In the bfoadest sense, aIIen
technoIogy wouId betfay ItseIf thfough some soft of anomaIy, somethIng that 'Iooks
fIshy' out of pIace of out of context. It mIght be smaII, pefhaps onIy a mInof
peftufbatIon, easIIy ovefIooked, but beafIng a dIstInctIve haIImafk of aftIfIcIaIIty. As we
don't quIte know what It wIII be, It pays to be as open-mInded and ImagInatIve as
possIbIe.
Even If we don't know what to Iook fof, we can make some educated guesses about
w/ere a footpfInt of aIIen technoIogy mIght be found. FefmI fuIed out the exIstence of
aIIens on the basIs of a sImpIe modeI of mIgfatIon, In whIch aIIens Ieave theIf home
pIanet and spfead out unIfofmIy acfoss the gaIaxy. A mofe feaIIstIc pIctufe of how
IntefsteIIaf mIgfatIon mIght pIay out Is to ImagIne new technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIons
emefgIng fandomIy hefe and thefe In the gaIaxy, some fadIng away, othefs endufIng,
othefs expandIng, the whoIe pfocess contInuIng ovef bIIIIons of yeafs. What pattefn
wouId emefge? How quIckIy wouId the gaIaxy fIII up wIth mIgfants? How often wouId
neIghboufIng cIvIIIzatIons cIash of mefge? FefmI based hIs ofIgInaI pafadox on an
anaIogy wIth human mIgfatIon. Modefn humans Ieft theIf AffIcan homeIand a IIttIe ovef
100,000 yeafs ago, and quIckIy spfead acfoss the pIanet, feachIng as faf as TasmanIa,
TIeffa deI Fuego, the PacIfIc IsIands and the AfctIc wasteIands. The InItIaI step was the
coIonIzatIon of vIfgIn teffItofy. That was foIIowed by a pefIod of consoIIdatIon, aftef
whIch fenewed emIgfatIon began ffom the coIony In seafch of mofe unoccupIed Iand.
Step by step thIs dIspefsaI contInued, untII aII the accessIbIe pIaces on Eafth wefe
InhabIted. Because the successfuI foamefs IIved to spfead theIf genes, DafwInIan
evoIutIon fIxed the wandefIust habIt In the gene pooI, whIch Is why human beIngs stIII
feeI the ufge to cIImb the next mountaIn, fIy to the Moon of set up coIonIes on Mafs (at
Ieast, some of us do), even though fof the vast majofIty of peopIe thefe Is no Iongef any
need to keep movIng on In ofdef to sufvIve. Many scIence fIctIon wfItefs have
extfapoIated ffom hIstofy, poftfayIng ouf descendants feachIng fof the stafs, pefhaps
estabIIshIng a mIghty empIfe, dfIven to the faf feaches of the gaIaxy by those ancIent
wandefIust genes and theIf sIIent ImpefatIve that 'the gfass Is gfeenef on the othef sIde
of the hIII.'
But the human expefIence may be of mafgInaI feIevance to aIIen gaIactIc mIgfatIon.
The motIvatIons of InteIIIgent aIIens afe a cIosed book to us. Whatevef mIght Induce
them to spfead out, It Is unIIkeIy to be the pfoduct of pfImItIve ufges that confef IIttIe
Iong-tefm sufvIvaI vaIue the feIevant genes wouId, I beIIeve, Iong ago have been
engIneefed out of the gene pooI. When It comes to machIne InteIIIgence, we afe totaIIy
In the dafk. Who couId guess the stfategIes that mIght be pfogfammed Into von
Neumann pfobes by an aIIen mInd, of how those stfategIes wouId evoIve If the seIf-
fepIIcatIng machInes possessed autonomy? AII of whIch makes It hafd to fIgufe out
undef what cIfcumstances an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon wouId spfead Into space, and If It dId,
then In what mannef, and how faf. Even If the dIaspofa Isn't dfIven by bIoIogIcaI ufges
('We gotta get outa thIs pIace') It may stIII be favoufed on fatIonaI gfounds ('A
settIement on PIanet X wouId compIement ouf own socIety nIceIy'). To modeI aIIen
mIgfatIon we have to staft somewhefe. A good pIace to begIn Is wIth the sImpIe dIctum
that If somethIng Is good, mofe Is bettef. If a cIvIIIzatIon cfeates somethIng of vaIue on
Its home pIanet a cuItufe, a technoIogIcaI tfIumph, a gfand vIsIon we don't need to
decIde what It Is then It seems feasonabIe that the communIty wouId act to fepIIcate It
eIsewhefe. And wIth that modest Investment In assumptIons, a sufpfIsIng amount can be
deduced usIng mathematIcaI modeIIIng.
RIDING THE WAVE
Few wouId suspect that the humbIe coffee pefcoIatof couId InspIfe an entIfe bfanch of
mathematIcs. But pefcoIatIon theofy so named by anaIogy wIth the way that watef
mIgfates thfough coffee gfaIns has been appIIed to feaI-wofId pfobIems as dIvefse as
hydfoIogy, epIdemIoIogy and matefIaIs scIence. It has aIso been appIIed to aIIen
mIgfatIon. The aefospace scIentIst Geofffey IandIs pfoduced one of the fIfst quantItatIve
pefcoIatIon modeIs to pfedIct how an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon mIght spfead acfoss the gaIaxy.
9
IandIs made the feasonabIe assumptIons that tfaveI between stafs (whethef by
InteIIIgent ofganIsms, fobots of cybofgs) Is dIffIcuIt and expensIve, and the numbef of
unoccupIed pIanets suIted to coIonIzatIon Is IIkeIy to be smaII. He sensIbIy fejected the
notIon of a gaIactIc empIfe undef centfaI contfoI: It takes 100,000 yeafs fof a sIgnaI to
cfoss the gaIaxy, so the concept of a unItafy gaIactIc cuItufe Is fIdIcuIous, howevef
popuIaf It may be wIth scIence fIctIon fans. A mofe feaIIstIc pattefn Is a patchwofk quIIt
of dIvefse IocaI cuItufes emefgIng as the coIonIzatIon evoIves. Some coIonIes wIII be
content to consoIIdate, othefs wIII choose to expand fapIdIy. Each may have Its own
dIstInctIve agendas and pfIofItIes about whIch we afe compIeteIy Ignofant. IandIs aIso
assumed that vIoIent cIashes and InvasIons of the Stur Wurs vafIety afe exceedIngIy
unIIkeIy. That assumptIon Is of coufse contestabIe. A technoIogIcaIIy supefIof
communIty may have no scfupIes about dIspIacIng an InfefIof one, In much the same
way that Eufopeans dIspIaced NatIve AmefIcans and AustfaIIans ffom theIf Iands. But If
one fuIes out IntefsteIIaf GhengIs Khans (of FefmI's pafadox comes back to bIte us), then
some IntefestIng fesuIts fIow ffom IandIs's computatIons. It tufns out that the pattefn of
dIspefsaI depends sensItIveIy on the actuaI stfength of expansIonafy zeaI. If motIvatIon
faIIs beIow a ceftaIn cfItIcaI vaIue, fenewed coIonIzatIon stafts to sputtef and eventuaIIy
funs out of steam. In that case, the fInaI confIgufatIon consIsts of compact cIustefs of
coIonIes suffounded by Iafge unoccupIed teffItofy. Above the cfItIcaI thfeshoId, thIs
mafbIed pattefn gIves way to a mofe pefvasIve demogfaphy. The expansIon stops onIy
when the gaIaxy becomes satufated wIth coIonIsts, but even then some smaII patches
femaIn untouched. At the cfItIcaI vaIue, the fInaI state assumes a so-caIIed ffactaI
stfuctufe, wIth both coIonIzed and uncoIonIzed fegIons appafent on aII scaIes of sIze
(see FIg. 10).
One unfeaIIstIc aspect of IandIs's anaIysIs was any eIement of competItIveness.
RecentIy RobIn Hanson fedfessed thIs shoftcomIng by adaptIng an economIc modeI to
the pfobIem of gaIactIc coIonIzatIon dynamIcs. The basIs of the modeI Is that
competItIon InevItabIy shapes the pattefn of gfowth. Hanson poInts out that whatevef
the motIves a communIty may have fof spfeadIng, and whatevef the pafametefs such as
tfaveI speed, Iength of sojoufn at new coIonIes, ofdef of pfIofItIes and IeveI of IncentIve
to contInue, thefe wIII aIways be a fustest wave of mIgfatIon. GIven a suffIcIentIy fIch
pIethofa of dIvefse cuItufes vyIng fof pIanetafy pastufes new, the IeadIng edge of thIs
wave wIII be detefmIned pufeIy by competItIve seIectIon effects. The wave wIII spfead
out ffom the soufce communIty to Invade neafby teffItofy (whIch may aIfeady be
occupIed by othef, Iess advanced of Iess expansIonafy cIvIIIzatIons), and move on. That
Is, the wave wIII move on. IndIvIduaIs of communItIes may stay behInd, and secondafy,
sIowef waves may foIIow the fIfst, even as the ffontIef expands apace. In thIs fespect,
the mIgfatIon wave Is mofe akIn to a fashIon wave than a stampede. If an
extfateffestfIaI communIty chooses to embafk on such a pfoject of expansIon, and has
the technoIogy and fesoufces to do so, It's hafd to see what wouId stop It, apaft ffom the
coIonIsts funnIng Into anothef communIty doIng the same, sInce thefe Is (pfesumabIy)
no wfIt that funs gaIaxy-wIde. The fastest ffontIef wave Is stIII of coufse IImIted by the
speed of IIght, but thefe Is no scIentIfIc ImpedIment (as opposed to pfactIcaI engIneefIng
obstacIes) to appfoachIng that IImItIng speed afbItfafIIy cIoseIy.
FIg. 10. Computef-genefated ffactaI stfuctufe, based on pefcoIatIon theofy. The fIIIed afeas fepfesent coIonIzatIon sItes.
Note the exIstence of voIds (unoccupIed teffItofy) on aII Iength scaIes.
Hanson fInds ffom hIs mathematIcaI modeI that IIfe at the ffontIef Is tough, as Indeed
It was In the AmefIcan WIId West. RapId gfowth at coIonIzatIon 'oases' Is matched by
fapId death between oases: on avefage, onIy one 'seed' sent out ffom an oasIs sufvIves
to cfeate the next oasIs. The 'seeds' hefe mIght be, fof exampIe, space afks wIth IIve
coIonIsts, von Neumann machInes of smaII pfobes wIth ceIIs to be Incubated on affIvaI.
Whatevef they afe, Hanson dfaws a stafk concIusIon: It's aII down to stayIng powef. 'A
tfIIIIon pIaIn seeds afe wofth as much as a mIIIIon seeds that afe twIce as penetfatIng,'
Hanson concIudes.
10
Thefe wIII be a tfade-off between seed speed and seed sufvIvaI, fof
exampIe, a hIgh-speed seed may suffef mofe devastatIng Impacts wIth space dust than a
sIowef competItof. CufIousIy, coIonIes wIth hIgh gfowth fates fafe bettef If they waIt
Iongef befofe IaunchIng new seeds. By contfast, In economIcaIIy stagnatIng coIonIes
thefe wIII be mofe pfessufe to move on and 'fIde the wave', because that Is whefe the
fIch pIckIngs afe (whatevef those pIckIngs mIght be the beauty of Hanson's modeI Is
that It doesn't mattef). Thus thefe may be fewef stfaggIefs Ieft faf behInd the wave than
we mIght IntuItIveIy ImagIne. As a fesuIt of the IntefsteIIaf goId fush, some potentIaI
oases wIII be bypassed agaIn, fathef mofe than we mIght expect by anaIogy wIth the
human expefIence of teffestfIaI coIonIzatIon, but In confofmIty wIth IandIs's anaIysIs.
Ouf soIaf system mIght be Iocated In one such bypassed oasIs, whIch pfovIdes anothef
possIbIe fesoIutIon of FefmI's pafadox.
If the aIIen mIgfants wefe bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms fathef than machInes, thefe may be a
mofe specIfIc feason why ouf pIanet was shunned. Eafth has hosted IIfe sInce vefy eafIy
In Its hIstofy, so thefe Is a hIgh chance that If ET stopped by, ouf pIanet was aIfeady
seethIng wIth mIcfo-ofganIsms, and possIbIy macfo-ofganIsms too. In scIence fIctIon,
when humans step out of a spaceshIp on to a vefdant pIanet, they sImpIy take up
fesIdence as If It's a dupIIcate Eafth. But thIs Is fIdIcuIous. The chances of aIIen bIoIogy
matchIng the teffestfIaI vafIety afe vefy Iow Indeed. Even If DNA Is the onIy vIabIe
genetIc moIecuIe, thefe Is no feason why the same amIno acIds In sImIIaf combInatIons
wouId be used as enzymes by aII IIfe. AIIen and teffestfIaI IIfe fofms sImpIy wouIdn't
mesh, so the aIIens couIdn't eat ouf pIants and anImaIs. (So much fof the Iowbfow
scIence fIctIon pIot that the aIIens want us as a soufce of food.) ConvefseIy, aIIens wouId
be unIIkeIy to succumb to teffestfIaI gefms (as they dId In H. G. WeIIs's noveI T/e Wur of
t/e WorlJs). Rathef than offefIng an IncentIve to Invade, the bIosphefe couId actuaIIy be
an InconvenIence to the aIIens, apaft pefhaps ffom the oxygen It has feIeased Into the
atmosphefe. SuccessfuI coIonIzatIon of Eafth wouId pfobabIy entaII buIIdIng huge and
expensIve aftIfIcIaI habItats, of eIImInatIng the IndIgenous bIosphefe aItogethef and
fepIacIng It wIth an aIIen one teffafofmIng Eafth ItseIf In fact. So contfafy to popuIaf
Iofe, ouf pIanet's fIch and entfenched bIoIogy couId expIaIn why ET Is not hefe.
11
Absent ffom Hanson's computatIons afe Iess savoufy scenafIos: fof exampIe, that
uncoopefatIve coIonIsts may be fofcIbIy exIIed In seeds shot Into the gaIactIc badIands,
of ejected ffom a coIony agaInst theIf wIII In the space age equIvaIent of waIkIng the
pIank. These fejects may foam the gaIaxy as 'pIfates' of skuIk unobtfusIveIy In
astfonomIcaI backwatefs. Wofse stIII, they mIght mutate and evoIve Into wantonIy
destfuctIve kIIIefs that fun amok thfough space, wfeakIng havoc entItIes known to scI-
fI afIcIonados as 'befsefkefs'. The appIIcatIon of game theofy to such 'good guy, bad
guy' competItIon In a gaIactIc context mIght yIeId IntefestIng vafIatIons on the sImpIe
pefcoIatIon theofy fesuIts.
DID THE WAVE PASS THIS WAY?
If an aIIen coIonIzatIon,expIofatIon ffont swept thfough ouf fegIon of the gaIaxy Iong,
Iong ago, wouId It have Ieft any tfaces? ObvIousIy If thefe was an expandIng wave, the
aIIens (who may have been bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms, machInes, hybfIds, mIxtufes, of some
othef entItIes entIfeIy see p. 161) wIII by defInItIon be seekIng to achIeve somethIng
pfecIseIy what, we cannot know. Whatevef It Is, If It exIsts In fInIte quantIty (whIch
must be so, of the aIIens couId get aII they need at home), then thIs DesIfed ThIng wIII
eventuaIIy become exhausted, at whIch poInt the coIony mIght vefy weII be abandoned.
The wave ffont ItseIf wIII by then have Iong moved on. We have no Idea when the wave
may have passed, It couId, fof exampIe, have been befofe the soIaf system fofmed 4.5
bIIIIon yeafs ago. In thIs subject It pays to thInk on astfonomIcaI, not human,
tImescaIes, and that means anythIng ffom 10 mIIIIon to bIIIIons of yeafs. Why? WeII, the
technIcaI way of expfessIng It Is that we don't know the pfobabIIIty dIstfIbutIon fof
aIIen vIsItatIon as a functIon of tIme, so a feasonabIe fIfst appfoxImatIon Is to assume It
Is unIfofm. What thIs jafgon means Is that, In the absence of any good feason to the
contfafy, thefe Is nothIng specIaI about the pfesent epoch, so thefe Is the same chance
that aIIens wIII affIve In ouf paft of the gaIaxy In, say, the next 1,000 yeafs as In any
othef thousand-yeaf wIndow ovef a muItI-bIIIIon-yeaf fange of gaIactIc hIstofy.
12
So If
aIIens dId vIsIt, It wouId In aII pfobabIIIty have been a very Iong tIme ago. CIeafIy the
chances of them stoppIng by wIthIn the Iast few thousand yeafs, and IeavIng bottIes,
wIfes and pIastIc cups fof us to fInd, afe InfInItesImaI.
Suppose Instead that a feIatIveIy sIow-movIng wave passed thfough ouf fegIon Iong
ago, It may stIII be out thefe somewhefe, spfeadIng acfoss the gaIaxy tens of thousands
of IIght yeafs away. CouId we see the IeadIng edge of the wave ffom Eafth? We mIght,
but It's not cIeaf what to Iook fof. Any soft of anomaIy of physIcaI dIscontInuIty wIth the
shape of a waII wouId be a good candIdate. To take a sImpIe but pfobabIy sIIIy exampIe,
suppose the ffontIef coIonIsts powef theIf actIvItIes usIng nucIeaf fIssIon, and dIspose of
the waste (vefy effectIveIy) by dumpIng It Into the host staf. Thefe wouId then be a tfaII
of shoft-IIved fadIoIsotopes In stafs cIose to the movIng ffont, wIth an abfupt jump
ahead of the IeadIng edge, and a systematIcaIIy decIInIng IntensIty to the feaf (on
account of the fInIte haIf-IIves of the fadIoactIve nucIeI). ThIs dIstInctIve pattefn wouId
show up In the spectfa of the stafs In that fegIon of the gaIaxy. Anothef (equaIIy
specuIatIve) possIbIIIty Is that the aIIens mIght hafvest matefIaI ffom hIgh-mass stafs
befofe they bIow up, thefeby fofestaIIIng theIf demIse. If so, supefnovae wouId be
dIstfIbuted IffeguIafIy acfoss the gaIaxy, suppfessed fof no appafent feason In some
fegIons, and nofmaI In othefs. If thIs pattefn showed up In combInatIon wIth weIfd
spectfa ffom stafs behInd the IeadIng edge, It couId be evIdence fof aIIen tampefIng.
UnfoftunateIy supefnovae afe so fafe that It may take sevefaI mIIIennIa to buIId up the
necessafy statIstIcaI evIdence.
13
Rathef than IookIng fof the edge, we couId hunt fof evIdence that the wave had
passed thfough, of neaf, the soIaf system In the past. Pefhaps the aIIens took somethIng
that shouId be hefe, of Ieft somethIng that shouIdn't. In bIunt tefms, that tfansIates Into
'They pIundefed commodIty X, and dumped commodIty Y.' Humans have Ieft many
defeIIct and poIIuted IndustfIaI sItes, stfIpped of faw matefIaIs and abandoned as
wasteIands. MIght we IdentIfy an aIIen X and Y?
Thefe afe no obvIous sIgns of ancIent IndustfIaI actIvIty on Eafth ItseIf: no 10-mIIIIon-
yeaf-oId mInes of quaffIes of scfapyafds. Of coufse, the scafs of Industfy wouIdn't Iast
Iong on ouf pIanet,
14
so It's not cIeaf how conspIcuous such evIdence mIght be, of how
dIstInctIveIy aftIfIcIaI It wouId appeaf. If we found a tfIanguIaf cfatef, fof exampIe,
even though It was now bufIed, It wouId be stfIkIng evIdence of aftIfIcIaIIty. GeoIogIsts
have dIscovefed hundfeds of cfatefs, both on the sufface of Eafth and bufIed, but so faf
they afe aII appfoxImateIy found, that beIng the natufaI shape cfeated by both cosmIc
Impacts and voIcanIc efuptIons. Thefe is a weIfd geoIogIcaI anomaIy In Gabon, AffIca,
known as the OkIo natufaI nucIeaf feactof. It Is a substantIaI fock fofmatIon wIth an
unusuaIIy hIgh ufanIum content that appafentIy 'went cfItIcaI' about 2 bIIIIon yeafs ago,
cfeatIng a seIf-sustaInIng chaIn feactIon and genefatIng a Iot of heat and fadIatIon In
the pfocess, the pfoducts of whIch afe detectabIe today. OkIo Is ceftaInIy an unusuaI
geoIogIcaI feIIc, aIthough InvokIng aIIen nucIeaf engIneefIng Is a bIt of a stfetch. It
does, howevef, IIIustfate the soft of anomaIy we mIght watch out fof.
PIutonIum offefs a mofe pfomIsIng possIbIIIty. ThIs fadIoactIve eIement Is
manufactufed In nucIeaf feactIons, and Is pfesent In the waste ffom nucIeaf powef
pIants and In the faIIout ffom nucIeaf expIosIons. It wIII femaIn In the envIfonment In
decIInIng concentfatIon fof mIIIIons of yeafs. If we evef found an ancIent pIutonIum
deposIt (on Eafth, of anywhefe eIse In the soIaf system), It wouId constItute stfong
evIdence fof aIIen nucIeaf technoIogy.
15
UsIng fadIoactIve datIng we couId even wofk
out when the nucIeaf engIneefIng took pIace. Anothef potentIaIIy suspIcIous geoIogIcaI
featufe wouId be a mInefaI deposIt of pecuIIaf sIze, shape, IocatIon of composItIon that
mIght poInt to an ancIent waste dump, especIaIIy If bufIed In an 'unnatufaI' settIng. AII
these suggestIons afe extfemeIy faf-out guesses of coufse, but the poInt I want to make
Is that nobody (as faf as I know) has made a systematIc seafch of geoIogIcaI fecofds fof
anomaIIes that mIght hInt at aIIen tampefIng.
Away ffom Eafth, the possIbIIItIes muItIpIy. Moons, comets and astefoIds wouId aII
pfovIde an IdeaI soufce of faw matefIaIs fof aIIen technoIogy wIth the added attfactIon
of beIng Iocated In Iow sufface gfavIty envIfonments. PfecIsIon-fofmed tunneIs of
bfIdges on one of those bodIes wouId be a dead gIveaway. Iess dfamatIc oddItIes mIght
pfovIde evIdence fof mInIng actIvIty, such as spoII heaps of (agaIn) odd-shaped cfatefs.
AmazIngIy, Efos, one of the fIfst astefoIds to be studIed In detaII, has some squafe
cfatefs! The spacecfaft NEAR Shoemakef photogfaphed them In 2000. Thefe Is a natufaI
expIanatIon In thIs case, though. StfaIght fauIt IInes afe common geoIogIcaI featufes,
and whefe they Intefsect appfoxImateIy at fIght angIes, a foughIy squafe depfessIon can
fofm. A bettef bet wouId be to Iook fof spIfaI cfatefs, of the kInd that mIght be made by
open-cast mInIng when a vehIcIe goes found and found. On Eafth, spIfaI cfatefs wouId
soon efode to appeaf found, but on an astefoId of on the Moon the spIfaI fofm wouId
sufvIve fof much Iongef.
A mofe subtIe sIgnatufe of mInIng, of fesoufce-hafvestIng, couId be Ieft In the
chemIstfy and mofphoIogy of the debfIs. Fof exampIe, If nucIeaf expIosIves wefe used to
bIow an astefoId to bIts, the ffagments mIght caffy evIdence In the fofm of dIstInctIveIy
fused suffaces, IIke the pIece of tfInItIte I have, saIvaged ffom the fIfst atomIc bomb test
at AIamogofdo In New MexIco. If a meteofIte wefe evef dIscovefed wIth tfaces of
unusuaI fadIoactIve Isotopes, that couId aIso constItute evIdence fof the fock havIng
been bIasted by a nucIeaf expIosIon.
ONE OF OUR PIANETS IS MISSING
Iet me now focus on scenafIo X the anomaIous absence of somethIng. How about thIs:
aIIens passed thfough ouf paft of the gaIaxy a Iong tIme ago hafvestIng comets fof theIf
watef and ofganIc matefIaI? It Is a pIausIbIe enough stfategy, one In fact beIng
consIdefed by ouf own space futufoIogIsts. A comet's watef can be eIectfoIysed and the
hydfogen used fof a nucIeaf fusIon feactof. As a bonus, comets afe enfIched In
deutefIum heavy hydfogen an especIaIIy good nucIeaf fusIon fueI. The hydfocafbons
that make up paft of the dIft of the 'dIfty snowbaII', as comets afe often descfIbed, can
be used to pfoduce a fange of synthetIc matefIaIs, and as a food soufce. Most comets afe
beIIeved to ofIgInate In the so-caIIed Ooft cIoud (aftef Jan Ooft, the astfonomef who
pfoposed the Idea), whIch consIsts of a tfIIIIon smaII Icy bodIes Iocated about a IIght
yeaf ffom the sun. It Is IIkeIy that othef stafs have theIf own comet cIouds at sImIIaf
dIstances. Because these faf-fIung 'dofmant' comets afe onIy IooseIy bound to theIf
pafent stafs, they wouId make IdeaI soufces of faw matefIaI fof IntefsteIIaf tfaveI,
obvIatIng the need fof a spacecfaft to entef the deep gfavIty weII of the staf and then
cIImb back out.
Ffom tIme to tIme gfavItatIonaI dIsfuptIon sends one of the comets ffom the Ooft
cIoud pIungIng sunwafd on an eIongated eIIIptIcaI tfajectofy, whefeupon It bIazes In the
nIght sky In famIIIaf spectacuIaf fashIon. But thefe Is aIso a good chance that the
gfavItatIonaI dIstufbance wIII kIck a comet the othef way pfopeIIIng It Into IntefsteIIaf
space. If the soIaf system Is typIcaI, and othef stafs have comet cIouds too, then the
comets ejected ffom them shouId sometImes come ouf way and entef the soIaf system. If
an extfa-soIaf comet paId us a vIsIt, It wouId be seen tfaveIIIng on a hypefboIIc fathef
than eIIIptIcaI ofbIt, I.e. movIng too fast to be ffom the Ooft cIoud. So faf no such comet
has been seen, whIch Is a bIt puzzIIng. Pefhaps ouf neIghbouf stafs afe IIght on comets
fof some feason. DId ET steaI them aII? If futufe astfonomIcaI seafches feveaI a
systemutic depIetIon of comets In some staf systems but not othefs, It couId suggest
hafvestIng. SImIIafIy, If a popuIatIon of comets stfongIy depIeted In deutefIum Is found
(somethIng that can be detefmIned ffom the comet's spectfum) It mIght hInt at them
beIng mIned fof nucIeaf fueI.
CouId an aIIen technoIogy commandeef entIfe pIanets and puII them apaft fof faw
matefIaI? Thefe Is a fange of masses ffom comets up thfough Icy pIanetesImaIs, mInof
pIanets IIke PIuto and moons IIke TItan, to teffestfIaI and gIant pIanets. If ET can hIjack
comets, why not one of these Iafgef bodIes? The PfInceton physIcIst and futufoIogIst
Ffeeman Dyson specuIated on thIs possIbIIIty wIth hIs pfoposaI fof 'Dyson sphefes'
(mofe on that soon). But how do you puII a pIanet apaft? It's ceftaInIy not easy. The
totaI enefgy needed to bIast Eafth to smIthefeens, fof exampIe, Is equIvaIent to the totaI
powef output of the sun fof sevefaI days. SIammIng anothef pIanet Into It wouIdn't
wofk In fact, that's what aIfeady happened when the pfoto-Eafth was stfuck by a
Mafs-sIzed body about 4.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago. The outef Iayef was stfIpped off (and
became the Moon), but the fest of the matefIaI mefged to make a bigger pIanet. A neat
Idea fof dIsassembIIng pIanets was put fofwafd by the wfItef Gfeg Beaf In hIs
apocaIyptIc scIence fIctIon noveI T/e Iorge of GoJ.
16
Beaf teIIs the stofy of an aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon feIeasIng seIf-fepIIcatIng von Neumann machInes that fun amok, sweepIng
thfough the gaIaxy, fIppIng pIanets to bIts. The cIevef tfIck the souIIess pIundefefs use Is
to dfop a massIve sIug of 'neutfonIum' (a hypothetIcaI baII of neutfons possessIng
nucIeaf densIty) Into Eafth, foIIowed by an equIvaIent mass of antIneutfonIum (Its
antImattef countefpaft). The two sIugs spIfaI In togethef towafds the Eafth's cofe,
whefe they eventuaIIy annIhIIate each othef, feIeasIng enough enefgy to bIow the
pIanet apaft and hufI Its hapIess InhabItants Into space.
AII of whIch bfIngs me to a pefsIstent space age stofy, whIch Is that the astefoId beIt
between Mafs and JupItef mIght be the femnants of a pIanet that somehow got ItseIf
bIown up. It's tfue that thefe Is a cufIous 'gap' thefe whefe a pIanet mIght have been,
but the totaI mass of the astefoIds Isn't enough to constItute an entIfe pIanet. The
conventIonaI expIanatIon Is that most of the debfIs In thIs fegIon of the soIaf system was
dfawn away by the poweffuI gfavItatIonaI puII of JupItef, thus pfeventIng a pIanet
fofmIng, but we couId specuIate that an ancIent supef-technoIogy puIIed the pIanet
apaft, took whatevef It needed, and then moved on, IeavIng the fubbIe to fofm the
astefoId beIt.
Rathef than go to the tfoubIe of fendIng aIfeady-fofmed pIanets asundef, fapacIous
aIIens mIght fInd It easIef to sImpIy Intefcede befofe the pIanets fuIIy aggfegate In the
fIfst pIace and make off wIth aII the good stuff, IeavIng the dfoss. EvIdence fof such
seIectIve hafvestIng couId be obtaIned ffom the dIscovefy of pIanetafy systems wIth
anomaIous chemIcaI and,of physIcaI composItIon. At thIs stage, astfonomefs do not
have a suffIcIent undefstandIng of the pfocess of pIanet fofmatIon to IdentIfy such
anomaIIes, but wIth the IncfeasIng taIIy of extfa-soIaf pIanets beIng dIscovefed, that
shoftcomIng shouId soon be fectIfIed. A numbef of staf systems afe known In whIch the
pfocess of pIanet fofmatIon Is undef way at thIs tIme, they wouId be a good pIace to
Iook fof sIgns of Iafge-scaIe aIIen astfo-engIneefIng.
In pfIncIpIe, It wouId be possIbIe fof a supef-technoIogy to caffy off an entIfe Intact
pIanet by manIpuIatIng the chaotIc natufe of some pIanetafy ofbIts. BegInnIng wIth a
nucIeaf expIosIon to defIect a smaII astefoId and bfIng It Into coIIIsIon wIth a Iafgef
body, a sefIes of cafefuIIy contfoIIed manoeuvfes couId have an accumuIatIng and
ampIIfyIng gfavItatIonaI effect ovef an extended pefIod. EventuaIIy a pIanet's ofbIt
couId be destabIIIzed enough fof It to be fIung out of the pIanetafy system aItogethef.
Subsequent encountefs wIth othef stafs wouId pfovIde the oppoftunIty fof addItIonaI
gfavItatIonaI sIIngshot boosts to Incfease speed. The hIjacked pIanet couId then be used
as a handy space afk fof tfavefsIng the gaIaxy, an Idea fofeshadowed by OIaf StapIedon
In hIs 1937 scIence fIctIon cIassIc Stur Mu/er.
17
ABSENT EXOTICA
PIanets afe not the onIy thIngs that couId go mIssIng. TheofetIcaI physIcIsts afe mastefs
at pfedIctIng thIngs that mIght exIst, but don't seem to be thefe. ExotIc subatomIc
paftIcIes wIth whImsIcaI names such as neutfaIInos, shadow mattef and axIons gface the
theofIsts' IexIcon, but haven't yet shown up In the Iab. At the othef end of the mass
fange afe mInI-bIack hoIes, quafk stafs and cosmIc textufe, to name but a few. DId ET
make off wIth them? CIeafIy, extfeme cautIon Is needed befofe consIdefIng aIIen
cuIpabIIIty. Remembef Bayes' fuIe: the hypothesIs that aIIens afe the coffect expIanatIon
fof the anomaIous absence of somethIng Is onIy as good as the pfIof pfobabIIIty of an
aIIen supef-cIvIIIzatIon In the fIfst pIace. That may be vefy Iow. By contfast, the pfIof
pfobabIIIty that Pfofessof A's theofy of the so-and-so paftIcIe, of Df B's pfedIctIon of
such-and-such an astfonomIcaI object, Is sImpIy wfong couId be a Iot hIghef.
Some of the 'mIssIng' paftIcIes may yet show up, they may, fof exampIe, constItute the
famous dafk mattef that pefvades the cosmos but has yet to be IdentIfIed. It Is aIso
possIbIe that the theofIsts got caffIed away. Set agaInst thIs, some unconfIfmed
pfedIctIons afe faIfIy fobust. A good case In poInt concefns paftIcIes known as magnetIc
monopoIes, about whIch some expIanatIon Is In ofdef. FamIIIaf magnets aIways come as
'dIpoIes', wIth a nofth poIe at one end and a south poIe at the othef. A magnetIc
monopoIe, If It exIsts, wIII be an IsoIated N of S. You can't make a magnetIc monopoIe
by choppIng a baf magnet In two, you just make two dIpoIes, wIth a new N and S
fespectIveIy appeafIng on opposIte sIdes of the cut. But physIcs has a neat pIace In Its
mathematIcaI cIoset just waItIng fof magnetIc monopoIes to fIII It. Aftef aII, eIectfIc
chafges come as monopoIes ( and -), and eIectfomagnetIsm Is othefwIse compIeteIy
symmetfIc between eIectfIcIty and magnetIsm. The BfItIsh physIcIst PauI DIfac
deveIoped a theofy of magnetIc monopoIes In the 1930s, and even fIgufed out what
theIf magnetIc 'chafge' shouId be. Then In the 1970s theofetIcaI physIcIsts fedIscovefed
the concept of magnetIc monopoIes whIIe attemptIng to fofmuIate a unIfIed descfIptIon
of eIectfomagnetIsm and the two nucIeaf fofces, theofIes known coIIectIveIy by the
pIthy acfonym of GUTs (fof 'gfand unIfIed theofIes'). DIfect seafches fof magnetIc
monopoIes have been made ovef the yeafs, by scoufIng Ifon deposIts, the sea fIoof,
cosmIc fays, and even Moon fock. No Iuck. Thefe was a memofabIe faIse aIafm In 1982
when a Stanfofd UnIvefsIty physIcIst, BIas Cabfefa, thought he'd found a monopoIe
usIng a cIevef technIque. Cabfefa had a wIfe fIng that he made supefconductIng by
cooIIng It to neaf absoIute zefo. If a magnetIc monopoIe by chance passes thfough the
hoIe In the mIddIe of the fIng, It wIII abfuptIy genefate an eIectfIc cuffent. What's mofe,
DIfac's theofy teIIs us exactIy how much thIs cuffent shouId be, and that's the vaIue
Cabfefa cIaImed he saw. AIas, hIs fesuIts wefe not confIfmed, and wefe dIsmIssed as a
gIItch In the equIpment.
A dIstInctIve featufe of GUT magnetIc monopoIes Is theIf huge mass, pfedIcted to be a
thousand tfIIIIon tImes gfeatef than a pfoton, makIng them heavIef than a bactefIum.
WIth a mass IIke that, It's no wondef they haven't been made In the Iab the enefgy
fequIfements afe stupendous. But what about In the bIg bang that gave bIfth to the
unIvefse 13.7 bIIIIon yeafs ago? PIenty of enefgy to spafe thefe. In the Iate 1970s
cosmoIogIsts began to feaIIze that the unIvefse shouId be bufstIng wIth pfImofdIaI
magnetIc monopoIes made by the seafIng heat a spIIt second aftef the unIvefse feceIved
Its staftIng ofdefs. TheIf puzzIIng absence pfompted AIan Guth of MIT to pfopose a
dfastIc soIutIon. Maybe, saId Guth, the unIvefse abfuptIy Ieapt In sIze by a factof of
tfIIIIons and tfIIIIons just aftef the monopoIes got made, thus dIIutIng theIf densIty to
unobsefvabIe IeveIs. He caIIed thIs expIanatIon of the mIssIng monopoIes 'InfIatIon' (to
dIstInguIsh It ffom the famIIIaf Iess ffenetIc cosmoIogIcaI expansIon). It was soon found
that InfIatIon expIaIned a Iot of othef cosmoIogIcaI mystefIes too, and today It fofms
paft of the standafd modeI of the eafIy unIvefse. But the InfIatIon theofy has been
chaIIenged by some cosmoIogIsts. AIthough It has a Iot of suppoftefs and thefe Is good
obsefvatIonaI evIdence In Its favouf, It Is faf ffom secufe. So the mystefy of the mIssIng
monopoIes hasn't gone away yet.
We can't be sufe that the Iack of monopoIes Is unIvefsaI maybe It's just ouf fegIon of
the gaIaxy that Is affected. Afe the aIIens to bIame? Why wouId magnetIc monopoIes be
of use to them? WeII, It tufns out that monopoIes wouId be t/e powef soufce of choIce
fof any seIf-fespectIng supef-cIvIIIzatIon. That's because an N and an S afe not just
opposIteIy chafged, magnetIcaIIy speakIng. They afe aIso antIpaftIcIes of each othef,
whIch means If they come togethef they neutfaIIze theIf magnetIsm and annIhIIate,
feIeasIng theIf mass as enefgy (L = mc
2
agaIn). You couId have a jaf of nofths on one
sIde of youf Iab and a jaf of souths on the othef sIde, and when you afe feady just mIx
them togethef and. poof! The bIast wouId be some bIIIIon bIIIIon tImes gfeatef pef
gfam of matefIaI than thefmonucIeaf fusIon (as empIoyed In hydfogen bombs).
18
If the absence of magnetIc monopoIes Is expIaIned by aIIen sequestfatIon (fathef than
InfIatIon), mIght we see evIdence fof some of the 'poof' events descfIbed above? WeII,
possIbIy. The IIbefated enefgy wouId be feIeased In the fofm of IIghtef subatomIc
paftIcIes, IncIudIng the humbIe eIectfon and Its antImattef opposIte numbef, the
posItfon. RecentIy, hIgh-enefgy eIectfons and posItfons have been detected comIng ffom
space, usIng an Instfument sIung beneath a baIIoon and fIown 37 kIIometfes (23 mIIes)
above AntafctIca.
19
The ofIgIn of these paftIcIes has caused a ceftaIn amount of head-
scfatchIng among astfophysIcIsts. They mIght be comIng ffom a hIthefto ovefIooked
puIsaf, of ffom somethIng mofe obscufe, such as the annIhIIatIon of dafk mattef. As yet,
nobody has suggested exhaust ffom a monopoIe-powefed aIIen factofy..
Anothef exampIe of a IongstandIng theofetIcaI pfedIctIon, as yet unvefIfIed, Is the so-
caIIed cosmIc stfIng an uItfa-thIn tube packed fuII of enefgy at such concentfatIon that
a mefe kIIometfe Iength wouId outweIgh the Moon. As wIth magnetIc monopoIes, cosmIc
stfIngs mIght have been made In the bIg bang. They afe so heavy theIf gfavIty wouId
bend IIght fays ffom dIstant gaIaxIes, cfeatIng dIstInctIve doubIe Images. Ffom tIme to
tIme astfonomefs cIaIm to have dIscovefed cosmIc stfIngs, but then the evIdence goes
away, whethef of not they feaIIy exIst femaIns an open questIon. A cosmIc stfIng wouId
pack even mofe punch than a paIf of magnetIc monopoIes. In effect, the stfIng Is a
nanotube that tfaps the coIossaI pfImofdIaI enefgy the unIvefse had at a tfIIIIon tfIIIIon
tfIIIIonth of a second aftef the bIg bang. If that enefgy couId somehow be extfacted In a
contfoIIed way fof exampIe, by shfInkIng a cIosed Ioop of stfIng to zefo sIze the
aIIens wouIdn't need to woffy about theIf eIectfIcIty bIIIs fof a Iong tIme. CosmIc stfIngs
afe taken sefIousIy by many physIcIsts and cosmoIogIsts,
20
and theIf appafent absence Is
a soufce of dIsappoIntment, If not outfIght puzzIement, to some. MagnetIc monopoIes
afe mofe fIfmIy estabIIshed by theofy than cosmIc stfIngs (aIthough they ofIgInate ffom
sImIIaf concepts), so theIf pecuIIaf absence Is mofe demandIng of an expIanatIon.
In thIs chaptef I have festfIcted the dIscussIon to gaIactIc expIofatIon and
coIonIzatIon, but a suffIcIentIy advanced and motIvated technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIon couId
spfead to neIghboufIng gaIaxIes, and uItImateIy acfoss the entIfe obsefvabIe cosmos.
Even If the unIvefse we obsefve at thIs tIme has not been 'taken ovef' by one of mofe
supef-cIvIIIzatIons, thefe Is pIenty of tIme In the futufe fof It to happen. And who
knows, maybe ouf own descendants wIII be paft of thIs gIofIous cosmIc adventufe.
7
AIIen MagIc
Any sufficiently uJvunceJ tec/nology woulJ be inJistinguis/uble from mugic.
Afthuf C. CIafke
SIGNATURES OF DISTANT SUPER-TECHNOIOGY
If we wefe to encountef aIIen technoIogy faf supefIof to ouf own, wouId we even feaIIze
what It was? ThInk how a Iasef of a fadIo wouId seem to a tfIbe of faInfofest dweIIefs
who have nevef been In contact wIth the outsIde wofId. Now ImagIne a technoIogy a
million of mofe yeafs In advance of oufs: It mIght weII appeaf mIfacuIous to us. AII of
whIch pfesents new SETI wIth a sefIous pfobIem. How can we Iook fof sIgnatufes of
aIIen technoIogy when we have no Idea how It wouId be manIfested? In the pfevIous
chaptef I suggested some ways In whIch an advanced cIvIIIzatIon spfeadIng acfoss the
gaIaxy mIght Ieave tfaces of Its actIvIty. But aII the exampIes I gave wefe based on
extfapoIatIons of twenty-fIfst-centufy human physIcs, and so afe taInted by
anthfopocentfIsm. Suppose that aIIen technoIogy Is based on pfIncIpIes that afe
compIeteIy beyond the ken of ouf best scIentIsts?
One way to tackIe the pfobIem Is to consIdef vefy genefaI physIcaI effects effects
that mIght be expected even ffom 'magIcaI' technoIogy. In 1964 the RussIan astfonomef
NIkoIaI Kafdashev pfoposed a measufe of aIIen technoIogIcaI advancement based sImpIy
on enefgy consumptIon. Now It's tfue that thIs SovIet-efa heavy-Industfy cfItefIon Is yet
anothef exampIe of SETI pafochIaIIsm. Today we mIght attach mofe sIgnIfIcance to
tefabytes than megawatts, tomoffow, who knows? Howevef, thefe Is a good feason to
stay wIth Kafdashev's cIassIfIcatIon scheme when consIdefIng aIIen technoIogy that
mIght be vefy dIstant ffom Eafth. GIven the cuffent IImItatIons of ouf Instfuments, we
wouId pfobabIy be abIe to detect aIIen Industfy onIy If It pfoduced a vefy Iafge enefgy
footpfInt.
Kafdashev defIned a Type I cIvIIIzatIon as one that uses aII the enefgy fesoufces of Its
home pIanet to powef Its Industfy. A Type II cIvIIIzatIon Is one that fequIfes the totaI
enefgy output of Its pafent staf, whIIe a Type III cIvIIIzatIon wouId need a whoIe gaIaxy
to fun Its pfojects. To thIs we mIght add Type IV: a cIvIIIzatIon that commandeefs the
entIfe cosmos. To date, thefe Is no evIdence fof Kafdashev cIvIIIzatIons of any numefIcaI
status, aIthough Type I wouId be hafd to spot. Type II Is an IntefestIng case, because
utIIIzIng the totaI powef output of a staf no mean feat wouId defInIteIy Ieave teII-
taIe sIgns. One way a cIvIIIzatIon mIght accompIIsh It was suggested In 1959 by
Ffeeman Dyson.
1
InspIfed by StapIedon's noveI Stur Mu/er, Dyson envIsaged the
constfuctIon afound a staf of a sphefIcaI sheII of mattef wIth a fadIus sImIIaf to that of a
pIanet's ofbIt, made ffom a dense swafm of paftIcIes desIgned to coIIect aII the staf's
heat and IIght fof as Iong as It keeps shInIng. Compafe thIs enefgy bonanza to the
paItfy one bIIIIonth of the sun's output Intefcepted by the Eafth. The constfuctIon
matefIaI wouId come ffom pIanets and astefoIds, aftef puIIIng them apaft to buIId the
necessafy stfuctufes. The constfuctIon wouId, of coufse, be a gafgantuan undeftakIng,
but It's theofetIcaIIy possIbIe. A Dyson sphefe wouId dfamatIcaIIy aItef the IIght
spectfum of the entombed staf, cfeatIng a notIceabIe Inffafed gIow that couId be
IdentIfIed by InquIsItIve astfonomefs, even on the faf sIde of the gaIaxy. Seafches fof
Dyson sphefes have actuaIIy been made, by anaIysIng the database of the Inffafed
AstfonomIcaI SateIIIte (IRAS), so faf wIthout success.
2
A Type II cIvIIIzatIon capabIe of feconfIgufIng a pIanetafy system mIght consIdef a
mofe attfactIve optIon, fIfst mooted by John WheeIef, the physIcIst who coIned the tefm
bluc/ /ole. WheeIef envIsaged buIIdIng a sheII of mattef afound a spInnIng bIack hoIe, a
stfategy offefIng dIstInct advantages ovef Dyson sphefes. FIfst, bIack hoIes don't
InconvenIentIy bufn out aftef a few bIIIIon yeafs (they afe, aftef aII, the femnants of
stafs that have aIfeady bufned out). Second, they afe IdeaI dumps fof unwanted fubbIsh:
anythIng that faIIs Into a bIack hoIe Is IffevefsIbIy swaIIowed and pefmanentIy
obIItefated. ThIfd, they can be used to Iaunch spacecfaft at a sIgnIfIcant ffactIon of the
speed of IIght (see beIow). FInaIIy, a bIack hoIe can feIease faf mofe enefgy than a staf
evef can thfough nucIeaf fusIon. The secfet of a bIack hoIe's pfodIgIous powef IIes wIth
Its fotatIon. AII stafs spIn, and when the cofe of a staf coIIapses to fofm a bIack hoIe the
spIn dfamatIcaIIy Incfeases, a fesuIt of the Iaw of consefvatIon of anguIaf momentum.
Young neutfon stafs, whIch afe bIack hoIe neaf mIsses, have been obsefved spInnIng as
fast as hundfeds of fevoIutIons pef second. A spInnIng body contaIns mofe enefgy than
a statIc one, and because enefgy and mass afe equIvaIent, one may expfess the enefgy
of fotatIon as a ffactIon of the totaI mass. In the case of a bIack hoIe, up to 29 pef cent
of the totaI mass can be In the fofm of fotatIonaI enefgy, and In theofy thIs entIfe
ffactIon can be extfacted and used. Compafe 29 pef cent wIth the mIsefabIe 1 pef cent
of Its mass that a staf typIcaIIy fadIates as heat and IIght accumuIated ovef Its muItI-
bIIIIon-yeaf IIfetIme. ObvIousIy, spInnIng bIack hoIes fepfesent an enefgy cofnucopIa. If
faw powef Is what you want, bIack hoIes afe It.
Based on caIcuIatIons by Rogef Penfose, WheeIef dfeamed up the amusIng scenafIo
depIcted In FIg. 11, In whIch tfucks contaInIng IndustfIaI waste afe dfopped on a
cafefuIIy caIcuIated tfajectofy towafds the spInnIng bIack hoIe. When they entef a
fegIon cIose to the sufface of the hoIe (known technIcaIIy as the efgosphefe), a
femafkabIe tfansfofmatIon becomes possIbIe. The tfucks spIII out theIf contents In such
a way that the waste Is devoufed by the bIack hoIe. Fof ceftaIn tfajectofIes, the empty
tfucks get pfopeIIed away ffom the efgosphefe at hIgh speed, zoomIng off wIth mofe
mass-enefgy than the Iaden tfucks ofIgInaIIy had goIng In. UItImateIy the addItIonaI
enefgy has to come ffom somewhefe, and In fact It comes ffom the fotatIonaI enefgy of
the hoIe, evefy tIme the tfIck wIth the tfucks Is peffofmed, the bIack hoIe's anguIaf
speed dfops a bIt. The good tImes wIII not Iast fof evef eventuaIIy aII the fotatIonaI
enefgy wIII be extfacted and the cIvIIIzatIon wIII be obIIged to decamp eIsewhefe. But at
pfesent human IeveIs of enefgy consumptIon, a bIack hoIe couId meet ouf enefgy needs
fof at Ieast a tfIIIIon tfIIIIon yeafs. To the best of my knowIedge, no SETI seafches have
tafgeted bIack hoIes, pefhaps because they afe hafd to detect.
FIg. 11. WhImsIcaI depIctIon of enefgy extfactIon ffom a fotatIng bIack hoIe.
TECHNOIOGY AS 'NATURE-PIUS'
To go beyond cfude IdentIfIefs of aIIen technoIogIcaI actIvIty, such as enefgy and
fesoufce usage, Ieaves us gfopIng fof a famIIIaf fefefence poInt, wIth the InevItabIe
temptatIon to faII back on human expefIence. Even scIence fIctIon tends to poftfay aIIen
engIneefIng as cIoseIy anaIogous to ouf own. In the 1980 movIe Hungur 1S, fof exampIe,
a fIyIng saucef Is InvestIgated by the sImpIe expedIent of pfessIng a few buttons to see
what happens. The gIant spacecfaft In InJepenJence uy, despIte beIng the pfoduct of a
mIIIIon-yeaf-pIus technoIogy, comes equIpped wIth 1990s computef consoIes, sans
fIfewaIIs. Even In mofe cafefuIIy cfafted scIence fIctIon, aIIen aftIfacts appeaf
fecognIzabIy as muc/ines, In the twentIeth-centufy undefstandIng of the tefm: feguIaf In
geometfIcaI shape, made of metaI of some supefIof substItute, often Ineft except In
fesponse to a deIIbefate pfod, and buIIt on an evefyday scaIe of sIze. But advanced aIIen
technoIogy mIght be nothIng IIke that at aII. In fact, In contempIatIng the actIvItIes of a
supef-InteIIIgence It pays to cIeaf youf mInd of aII pfeconceptIons. To heIp thIs pfocess,
consIdef a hypothetIcaI aIIen technoIogy that:
Is not made of mattef.
Has no fIxed sIze of shape.
Has no weII-defIned boundafIes of topoIogy.
Is dynamIcaI on aII scaIes of space and tIme.
Of, convefseIy, does not appeaf to do anythIng at aII that we can dIscefn.
Does not consIst of dIscfete, sepafate thIngs, fathef It Is a system, of a subtIe
hIghef-IeveI coffeIatIon of thIngs.
We afe so wedded to the human concept of a machIne as, fof exampIe, chunks of
metaI wIth buttons and knobs, of as InfofmatIon beIng pfocessed (as In softwafe), that
we fInd It hafd to conceptuaIIze technoIogy InvoIvIng IeveIs of manIpuIatIon above
these. What do I mean by thIs? A conventIonaI machIne such as a caf moves mattef
afound In an ofganIzed way. InfofmatIon technoIogy on the othef hand moves
informution afound In an ofganIzed way. Fof exampIe, Photoshop on my computef can
fotate an Image. When that happens, mattef moves too, nameIy eIectfons In the
computef's cIfcuItfy, but we wouIdn't fecognIze the technoIogy In actIon by obsefvIng
the eIectfons we see It vIa the compIete Image.
One way to thInk about InfofmatIon Is as a 'hIghef IeveI' concept than mattef. The
hIghef IeveI buIIds on, but tfanscends, the Iowef IeveI. Thus softwafe an abstfact
concept InvafIabIy fequIfes physIcaI hafdwafe to suppoft It: swIfIIng bIts of
InfofmatIon InsIde a computef, of sense data In the bfaIn, need swItches of neufons.
Now, I ask, afe these two conceptuaI IeveIs mattef and InfofmatIon aII thefe Is? FIve
hundfed yeafs ago the vefy concept of a devIce manIpuIatIng InfofmatIon, of softwafe,
wouId have been IncompfehensIbIe. MIght thefe be a stIII /ig/er IeveI, as yet outsIde aII
human expefIence, that ofganIzes InfofmatIon In the same way that InfofmatIon-
pfocessIng ofganIzes eIectfons? If so, thIs 'thIfd IeveI' wouId nevef be manIfest thfough
obsefvatIons made at the InfofmatIonaI IeveI, stIII Iess the mattef IeveI. Thefe Is no
vocabuIafy to descfIbe the thIfd IeveI, but that doesn't mean It Is non-exIstent, and we
need to be open to the possIbIIIty that aIIen technoIogy may opefate at the thIfd IeveI,
of maybe the foufth, fIfth. IeveIs.
To thInk cfeatIveIy on thIs topIc, we must even be wafy of notIons IIke 'contfoI' and
'manIpuIatIon' and 'desIgn', fof these afe aIso human categofIes that may tufn out to be
shoft-IIved. The afbItfafy sepafatIon of objects Into 'natufaI' and 'aftIfIcIaI' Is somethIng
that we take fof gfanted, but as I shaII afgue In the next chaptef, It Is a pufeIy cuItufaI
dIstInctIon. TechnoIogy Is, In the bfoadest sense, mInd of InteIIIgence of pufpose
bIendIng wIth natufe. ImpoftantIy, technoIogIcaI devIces don't subjugate natufe, the
devIces stIII obey the Iaws of physIcs. TechnoIogy /urnesses the Iaws, It does not oveffIde
them. So to say that a fadIo of a Iasef of an obeIIsk on the Moon Is 'unnatufaI' doesn't
mean It Isn't paft of natufe. The best way I can thInk to expfess It Is to say that
technoIogy Is natufe-pIus. (Aft Is aIso natufe-pIus.) The vaIue that Is added by
technoIogy Is a vefy specIfIc amaIgam of constfaInt and IIbefatIon, most obvIousIy
assocIated wIth pufposefuI goaIs. A washIng machIne can't bake bfead, but It can do
what unmodIfIed natufe can't, nameIy, wash and fInse and spIn-dfy cIothes, whIch Is
what It Is desIgned to do. A computef can't fIy, but It can pfove the fouf-coIouf theofem,
whIch Is not on Mothef Natufe's agenda, anywhefe, as faf as I know. Howevef and
thIs Is the key poInt I want to make technoIogy of t/ut soft ouf soft may be onIy
one way that natufe becomes natufe-pIus. And we may uttefIy faII to fecognIze of
appfecIate the sIgnIfIcance of a mofe sophIstIcated fofm of natufe-pIus, even If It wefe
stafIng us In the face.
A machIne Is chafactefIzed by possessIng a ceftaIn feIatIonshIp between the pafts and
the whoIe: the components coopefate In an systematIc way to fuIfII a gIobaI functIon.
WIIIIam PaIey famousIy dfew an anaIogy between a watch and a IIvIng ofganIsm,
notIng that both consIst of a cohefent ovefaII system of mutuaIIy suppoftIve pafts,
3
a
concofdance that Is today expIaIned by DafwInIan evoIutIon. But machIne and
bIoIogIcaI functIonaIIty fepfesent onIy one way that pafts and whoIes mIght InteffeIate
In a specIaI and unusuaI mannef. In fact, we know of anothef exampIe aIfeady:
quantum systems. Quantum mechanIcs Is the cfownIng achIevement of twentIeth-
centufy physIcs, and Its successfuI pfedIctIons and expIanatIons fange ffom paftIcIe and
nucIeaf physIcs to cosmoIogy and much In between. Quantum mechanIcaI pfIncIpIes
undefIIe the Iasef, the tfansIstof, supefconductIng magnets and many othef Items of
human technoIogy. The theofy expIaIns neafIy evefythIng ffom the bIg bang to nucIeaf
powef to chemIstfy to eIectfIcIty. So we have to take Its pfedIctIons sefIousIy.
One pfedIctIon made by quantum mechanIcs Is that a paft Is pfopefIy defIned onIy In
feIatIon to the state of the whoIe of whIch It Is In tufn a paft. ThIs Zen-IIke descfIptIon
can best be undefstood wIth an exampIe. An atom can behave eIthef as a wave of as a
paftIcIe. In IsoIatIon It Is neIthef of these specIfIcaIIy, Its status Is undecIded. But pIaced
In the context of a Iafgef system, Its InhefentIy ambIguous natufe may be fesoIved. Hefe
Is how. We can constfuct a type of mIcfoscope that wIII detefmIne the posItIon of a
paftIcuIaf atom, caII It A. Aftef the measufement, A wIII be 'an atom-at-a-pIace'.
AItefnatIveIy, we can constfuct an appafatus that wIII bfIng out the wave-IIke natufe of
the atom, In whIch case A wIII then be 'an atom-wIth-a-speed' (a quantum wave
descfIbes the atom as havIng a specIfIc momentum). The cfucIaI poInt Is that, accofdIng
to quantum theofy, A cannot be bot/ 'at a weII-defIned pIace' and 'possessIng a weII-
defIned speed' ut t/e sume time. WhIch aspect of A's duaI IdentIty Is manIfested, wave of
paftIcIe, depends on whIch type of appafatus A Intefacts wIth, that Is, on the
affangement of the whoIe envIfonment. Now the system 'atom A pIus appafatus' Is ItseIf
a coIIectIon of atoms, so the paftIcuIaf confIgufatIon and state of aII the atoms taken
togethef sefves to defIne the natufe of the IndIvIduaI atom A. And thIs Is tfue In genefaI:
aII atoms that Intefact wIth Iafgef systems afe defIned In paft by the totaIIty of atoms,
whIIe In tufn that totaIIty Is made up of the pafts. Thefe have been many attempts to
captufe thIs 'up-and-down' whoIepaft Intefdependence of quantum systems. NIeIs Bohf
IIkened It to yIn and yang. DavId Bohm descfIbed It as 'ImpIIcate ofdef'.
4
In fecent yeafs
It has been dubbed 'quantum weIfdness'.
Quantum weIfdness, IIvIng ofganIsms, mInds and desIgned machInes aII pfovIde
exampIes In whIch whoIes and pafts InteffeIate In dIffefent ways. It wouId be nave to
suppose that the fofegoIng IIst Is exhaustIve. Thefe couId be many ways that whoIepaft
feIatIonshIps couId dIffef ffom anythIng In ouf expefIence. Aftef aII, a hundfed yeafs
ago, who wouId have suspected that atoms behave IIke t/ut? TfuIy advanced aIIen
technoIogy mIght manIfest ItseIf by an entIfeIy new fofm of whoIepaft
InteffeIatIonshIp. And just as quantum weIfdness Is uncovefed onIy wIth vefy specIaI
appafatus, so aIIen technoIogy mIght go unobsefved and unsuspected, because we afe
not vIewIng It wIth the equIvaIent of. weII, a BoseEInsteIn condensate beam-spIIttIng
Inteffefometef.
FANTASTIC SUPER-SCIENCE
New SETI demands an uneasy compfomIse between the need to thInk about aIIen
technoIogy as cfeatIveIy and ImagInatIveIy as possIbIe, whIIe at the same tIme takIng
cafe not to stfay acfoss the sometImes bIuffed IIne between IegItImate scIence and
scIence fIctIon. ScIence fIctIon wfItefs afe genefaIIy happy to pIay fast and Ioose wIth
the Iaws of physIcs, mIngIIng scIence, specuIatIon Infofmed by scIence, and outfIght
fantasy. That's okay: they have IItefafy IIcence on theIf sIde. But a scIentIfIc appfaIsaI of
SETI needs to do bettef.
Take that oId bugbeaf of space tfaveI the fInIte speed of IIght whIch has stood In
the way of many a good scI-fI dfama. As I have expIaIned, EInsteIn's theofy of feIatIvIty
fofbIds anythIng ffom bfeakIng the IIght baffIef, so If we undefstand the Iaws of physIcs
coffectIy, neIthef spacecfaft nof messages can go fastef than IIght. The dIstances
between stafs afe measufed In IIght yeurs (the dIstance IIght tfaveIs In a yeaf), whIch
means IntefsteIIaf tfaveI Is compIeteIy unfeaIIstIc In a human IIfetIme, unIess speeds
appfoachIng that of IIght afe attaInabIe. Even then, thefe afe pfobIems. At, say, haIf the
speed of IIght, a spacecfaft wouId face numefous hazafds, such as Impact wIth
mIcfometeofItes that wouId expIode IIke bombs on Its sufface. Such compIIcatIons may
tufn out to be so dauntIng that IntefsteIIaf hIgh-speed tfaveI Is fof evef unattaInabIe In
pfactIce. Howevef, It's aIso possIbIe that an advanced technoIogIcaI communIty wIII
eventuaIIy soIve the pfactIcaI pfobIems: fof exampIe, by detectIng oncomIng
mIcfometeofItes and zappIng them wIth a Iasef befofe Impact. So whIIe It may of may
not be a feaIIstIc pfoposItIon, tfaveI at cIose to the speed of IIght Is IegItImate
specuIatIon because It does not confIIct wIth basIc physIcs. But tfaveI fastef than IIght Is
not.
Anothef way to cfoss space quIckIy, and much beIoved of scIence fIctIon, Is
teIepoftatIon. You just scan somethIng a human beIng say and 'beam' the
InfofmatIon to the destInatIon, whefe the object Is feconstfucted. ThIs tfIck Is peffofmed
In Stur Tre/ as a cheap way to get the astfonauts down to pIanetafy suffaces and up
agaIn (It aIso speeds the stofy IIne aIong). Is teIepoftatIon vaIId scIence? WeII, up to a
poInt. So Iong as the beamIng doesn't happen fastef than IIght, some soft of InfofmatIon
tfansfef mIght be possIbIe. As a mattef of fact, physIcIsts have aIfeady achIeved a
IImIted soft of teIepoftatIon, In whIch InfofmatIon about the state of a quantum paftIcIe
Is beamed between fIeId statIons usIng Iasefs. But, as poInted out by Iawfence Kfauss In
hIs book T/e P/ysics of Stur Tre/, thefe afe fundamentaI feasons why scannIng evefy
atom In youf body and feassembIIng the whoIe thIng at the othef end wouId InvoIve
ovefwheImIng technoIogIcaI obstacIes.
5
Fof a staft, stofIng the totaI InfofmatIon content
of a body scan wouId fequIfe a stack of dIsks that wouId feach a thIfd of the way to the
centfe of the gaIaxy. Not physIcaIIy ImpossIbIe, maybe, but pfobabIy too expensIve even
fof a gaIactIc supef-cIvIIIzatIon. Too bad, Scotty.
In Contuct, CafI Sagan pfoposes a wofmhoIe as a way of movIng hIs hefoes thfough
space In next to no tIme. WofmhoIes, whIch afe IooseIy IIke stafgates, afe aIso a popuIaf
pfoposaI fof tIme tfaveI (see p. 121). They don't seem to vIoIate any Iaws of physIcs so
faf known, but the exIstence of a wofmhoIe wouId fequIfe pfodIgIous quantItIes of a
type of exotIc mattef known to exIst onIy In uItfa-mIcfoscopIc quantItIes.
6
UnIess we
dIscovef a new soufce of thIs exotIc mattef, then Iafge tfavefsabIe wofmhoIes wIII
pfobabIy femaIn fof evef fIctIonaI.
7
Readefs who thInk I am beIng a pafty poopef shouId take heaft. Even If we femaIn
constfaIned by the accepted Iaws of physIcs, It's stIII possIbIe to conceIve of aII mannef
of mInd-bendIng scenafIos. How about techno-savvy aIIen engIneefs takIng up fesIdence
InsIde hoIIowed-out wofIds of fIng-shaped tubes? Of hIve socIetIes composed of tangIed
magnetIc thfeads constfuctIng compIex pIasma pattefns spannIng IntefsteIIaf space, IIke
cosmIc tefmIte mounds made of IonIzed gas? Of beIngs made ffom pufe gfavItatIonaI
enefgy that feconfIgufe spacetIme Into weIfd shapes? Such feats of astfo-engIneefIng
don't seem to vIoIate any Iaws. (It's aIways hafd to know fof sufe. Thefe may be hIdden
assumptIons that, on cIosef InspectIon, faII fouI of some Iaw.) That doesn't mean they
afe goIng to become a feaIIty, of coufse. The aIIens mIght not be Intefested, of may be
pfevented by poIItIcaI of fInancIaI of even ethIcaI consIdefatIons ffom embafkIng on
ambItIous pfojects of thIs soft. But we can stIII contempIate these fantastIc undeftakIngs,
and wondef If they wouId pfesent a sIgnatufe detectabIe ffom Eafth.
FIAWS IN THE IAWS
The exampIes I dIscussed In the pfevIous sectIon faII Into the categofy of specuIatIons
whIch, on the sufface, appeaf to confofm to ouf best undefstandIng of scIence, but may
pfesent such fofmIdabIe pfactIcaI chaIIenges that they may nevef be ImpIemented.
PushIng the boundafIes of IegItImate physIcs that faf InevItabIy comes up agaInst the
questIon of whethef twenty-fIfst-centufy human scIence Is so feIIabIe It can be appIIed to
an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon faf In advance of ouf own. Suppose thefe afe fIaws In the Iaws as
we cuffentIy undefstand them? Can we be ubsolutely sufe about the speed of IIght, say?
Now, It's tfue that thefe afe Iaws and thefe afe Iaws. In secondafy schooI chIIdfen
Ieafn Ohm's Iaw of eIectfIcIty, whIch says that the cuffent thfough a fesIstof fIses In
pfopoftIon to the appIIed voItage. But Ohm's Iaw Is not feaIIy a basIc Iaw at aII, In fact,
thefe afe matefIaIs nevef envIsaged by Ohm fof whIch It goes wfong. On the othef
hand, the no-fastef-than-IIght Iaw is basIc and unIvefsaI, and may weII be fof evef non-
negotIabIe. The tfoubIe Is, at any gIven tIme scIentIsts can onIy state the Iaws of physIcs
to the best of theIf cuffent undefstandIng. Who knows whethef a futufe advance wIII
show one of the chefIshed Iaws to faII undef ceftaIn cIfcumstances? In scIence, the Iast
wofd Is nevef saId, thefe Is aIways foom fof fevIsIon In the IIght of new evIdence. AII
one can cIaIm Is that some Iaws afe mofe deepIy entfenched than othefs.
A case In poInt Is the second Iaw of thefmodynamIcs, whIch may weII be the most
fundamentaI Iaw In the unIvefse. It appIIes to absoIuteIy evefythIng, no exceptIons. Put
sImpIy, It says that In cIosed systems the totaI entfopy (foughIy speakIng, dIsofdef) can
nevef decfease. TfansIated Into a sImpIe exampIe, the second Iaw fofbIds heat ffom
fIowIng spontaneousIy (that Is, wIthout the expendItufe of enefgy) ffom coId to hot
bodIes. The BfItIsh astfophysIcIst Afthuf EddIngton once expfessed the sacfosanct natufe
of the second Iaw dfamatIcaIIy:
8
'If youf theofy Is found to be agaInst the second Iaw of
thefmodynamIcs I can gIve you no hope, thefe Is nothIng fof It but to coIIapse In deepest
humIIIatIon.' In specuIatIng about aIIen supef-scIence, then, the second Iaw of
thefmodynamIcs shouId be the Iast one to go. And that knocks on the head anothef
popuIaf Idea: powefIng a spacecfaft by 'mInIng the quantum vacuum' fof enefgy. Iet
me expIaIn. When quantum mechanIcs Is appIIed to the eIectfomagnetIc fIeId, In
addItIon to expIaInIng how IIght and mattef Intefact, the theofy pfedIcts somethIng tfuIy
femafkabIe: that a fegIon of space devoId of aII mattef and aII IIght Indeed, aII
paftIcIes of any soft wIII neveftheIess stIII possess some enefgy. The IffeducIbIe enefgy
of empty space Is caIIed 'the enefgy of the quantum vacuum'. And It feaIIy exIsts. You
can detect It as a tIny fofce of attfactIon between metaI suffaces. Astfonomefs have aIso
measufed what Iooks to be the same thIng on a cosmoIogIcaI scaIe, aIthough they have
gIven It a mofe mystefIous name 'dafk enefgy'. It's the stuff fesponsIbIe fof makIng
the unIvefse expand fastef and fastef.
9
Vacuum,dafk enefgy Is thefe aII fIght, wIth a
densIty of a IIttIe Iess than a jouIe pef cubIc kIIometfe. CouId It thefefofe be 'mIned' to
powef a stafshIp, say, by usIng a bIg scoop to hafvest the vacuum,dafk enefgy, and
then conveftIng It Into eIectfIcIty fof a pIasma dfIve? ThIs stfategy wouId eIImInate the
need fof focket fueI, sInce In space thefe Is pIenty of vacuum avaIIabIe.
UnfoftunateIy the quantum vacuum dfIve won't wofk, fof the same feason that
nIneteenth-centufy pefpetuaI motIon machInes wefe aII non-staftefs: they vIoIate the
second Iaw of thefmodynamIcs. In the 1800s Inventofs specuIated about powefIng a shIp
ffom the heat of the ocean. Aftef aII, seawatef contaIns ovef haIf a mIIIIon jouIes of heat
pef IItfe, mefeIy by havIng a tempefatufe a few hundfed degfees above absoIute zefo.
Can't aII that heat enefgy be used to fun a tufbIne? The answef Is yes, but onIy If thefe
Is a sInk of heat at a Iowef tempefatufe than the soufce. Heat pumps afe powefed by
tfansfeffIng heat ffom a hot to a coId fesefvoIf and extfactIng enefgy on the way. The
poInt Is, thefe has to be a tempefatufe dIffefentIaI In thefe somewhefe. SImIIafIy wIth
the quantum vacuum: If thefe Is a Iowef-enefgy vacuum state Into whIch one can dump
the dafk enefgy, then you'd be In busIness wIth youf IntefsteIIaf dfIve. But as faf as we
know thefe Isn't a Iowef-enefgy state, of fathef, If thefe wefe, natufe wouId aIfeady
have shoft-cIfcuIted It, wIth dIfe consequences fof the unIvefse.
10
ConcIusIon: In the
absence of a sInk of enefgy, you can't use the quantum vacuum to powef a spacecfaft.
IevItatIon Is anothef popuIaf fIctIonaI devIce. It captufed my ImagInatIon ffom the
moment I fead about Df Cavof's handy gfavIty-scfeenIng substance 'cavofIte' In H. G.
WeIIs's noveI T/e Iirst Men in t/e Moon. WouIdn't It be nIce to dIspense wIth aII those
noIsy poIIutIng fockets by sImpIy pfessIng a button and fIoatIng sefeneIy to the stafs!
SadIy, that pfoposaI Is anothef no-hopef. The snag thIs tIme Is that cavofIte vIoIates a
foundIng tenet of the Iaw of gfavItatIon, whIch fequIfes aII fofms of mattef and enefgy
to faII equaIIy fast, and In the same dIfectIon (I.e. down Instead of up). GaIIIeo fIfst
dIscovefed thIs, and EInsteIn Incofpofated It Into hIs genefaI theofy of feIatIvIty as a
fundamentaI pfIncIpIe. WIthout It, ouf undefstandIng of space, tIme, astfophysIcs and
cosmoIogy wouId faII apaft, so scIentIsts afe not about to feIInquIsh thIs pfIncIpIe In a
huffy. TheofetIcaIIy, IevItatIon couId be achIeved usIng the same quantum vacuum
enefgy I just dIscussed, but In pfactIcaI expefIments thIs enefgy comes In such tIny
amounts It can't ovefcome the much bIggef gfavItatIng effect of mattef.
11
SpecuIatIon about aIIen supef-cIvIIIzatIons doIng supef-scIence and depIoyIng supef-
technoIogy Is ceftaInIy gfeat fun, but It needs to be tempefed wIth a heaIthy sceptIcIsm.
Thefe Is no doubt that twenty-fIfst-centufy scIence Is IncompIete and pfovIsIonaI, yet It
stIII fepfesents the most feIIabIe appfoach to knowIedge, wIth a weaIth of
undefstandIng and expefIence accumuIated ovef sevefaI centufIes of cafefuI
InvestIgatIon. In the seafch fof aIIen InteIIIgence, It Is as weII to adopt a pfagmatIc vIew
and go wIth ouf cuffent pIctufe of scIence as the best thefe Is so faf on offef to guIde us,
whIIe beIng open-mInded about the possIbIIIty of sufpfIses ahead. The futufe may weII
pfove some of ouf basIc scIence to be wfong, but If we take an anythIng-goes appfoach
to contempIatIng aIIen technoIogy, then aII we get Is specuIatIve anafchy wIth no usefuI
pfedIctIve powef. The aIIens may be abIe to tfaveI fastef than IIght, of beam each othef
acfoss space, of IevItate, of (though pfobabIy not) make heat fIow backwafds ffom coId
to hot. But In that case we afe off In fantasyIand, and we mIght as weII gIve up thInkIng
about SETI aItogethef.
8
Post-BIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
T/e muc/ines ure guining grounJ upon us, Juy by Juy we ure becoming more subservient to t/em.
SamueI ButIef (1863)
1
If grunteJ full rig/ts, stutes will be obliguteJ to proviJe full sociul benefits to t/em incluJing income support,
/ousing unJ possibly robo-/eult/cure to fix t/e muc/ines over time.
Robo-rig/ts, UK Depaftment of Tfade and Industfy fepoft
2
CIOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE ABSURD KIND
FIfty yeafs ago I was a teenagef and knew nothIng about SETI. My mentaI Image of an
aIIen owed much to the Mekon, Ieadef of the Tfeens of Nofth Venus, nemesIs of the
cIean-cut hefo Dan Dafe of the Eafth AIIIance. At Ieast, that's how T/e Lugle comIc
depIcted It. I assumed that If the fIyIng saucef stofIes wefe tfue, theIf occupants wouId,
IIke the Mekon, be humanoIds wIth a Iafge head (ImpIyIng a bIg bfaIn), and a shfunken,
atfophIed body (no Iongef Impoftant). EvIdentIy I was not aIone In thIs beIIef, because
accounts of ufonauts often descfIbed them as haIfIess dwaffs wIth bIg heads and Iafge,
stafIng eyes, an Image now so entfenched It Is a cIIche (see FIg. 12). Steven SpIeIbefg
feInfofced that fepfesentatIon In the movIes Close Lncounters of t/e T/irJ KinJ and L.T.,
In whIch the aIIens fesembIe bIg-bfaIned chIIdfen.
It's absufd. Many faIIacIes undefIIe the popuIaf fepfesentatIon of aIIens, and sefve to
undefmIne the cfedIbIIIty of the cIose-encountef fepofts. The fIfst Is to suppose that
evoIutIon on anothef pIanet wouId pafaIIeI Eafth's so cIoseIy that InteIIIgent beIngs
wouId assume a humanoId fofm. InteIIIgent aIIens mIght just as weII fesembIe whaIes of
octopuses of gIant bIfds of none of these: they mIght have a body pIan that sImpIy does
not exIst on Eafth and wouId stfIke us as uttefIy bIzaffe. Anothef faIIacy Is a mIspIaced
extfapoIatIon of DafwInIan evoIutIon. The usuaI afgument funs thus. If bfaInpowef Is
what counts and the fest of the body becomes an encumbfance, then natufaI seIectIon
wIII opefate to pfoduce Mekons and ETs. But thIs feasonIng Is fIawed. Once technoIogy
advances to the poInt whefe a communIty can exefcIse choIce ovef who sufvIves and
who doesn't, pufe natufaI seIectIon bfeaks down. When actIve genetIc modIfIcatIon
becomes possIbIe, then the fufthef coufse of evoIutIon can be detefmIned by desIgn.
Whethef an aIIen specIes wouId In fact choose to use genetIc enhancement to pfoduce
bIggef bfaIns and smaIIef bodIes Is anothef mattef. They may have ethIcaI of othef
feasons to desIst. On Eafth, thefe Is stfong fesIstance to the pfospect of GM humans, just
as thefe was to GM cfops. Howevef, aIthough expefImentIng wIth human genetIcs Is
consIdefed anathema In many socIetIes, and Is IIIegaI In most, that pfohIbItIon Is a
cuItufaI taboo specIfIc to ouf paftIcuIaf tIme and cIfcumstances. AgaIn, we must avoId
anthfopocentfIsm by attfIbutIng the same fesefvatIons to aIIen socIetIes.
FIg. 12. PopuIaf Image of what an aIIen Iooks IIke.
Once a specIes embafks on enhancement technoIogy, vefy fapId changes can be
expected. We can gIImpse the possIbIIItIes by fefIectIng on what may IIe In stofe fof
humans, If the cuItufaI taboos afe eventuaIIy IIfted.
3
AIfeady many futufIsts afe
fofecastIng the onset of tfanshumanIsm, InvoIvIng a combInatIon of genetIc
Impfovement, pfosthetIcs, IIfe pfoIongatIon and neufoIogIcaI augmentatIon. Much of
thIs Is aIfeady happenIng. Avefage IIfe expectancy has been IncfeasIng at an IncfedIbIe
thfee months pef yeaf fof ovef a centufy, mefeIy as a fesuIt of basIc pubIIc heaIth and
medIcaI advances. Pfostheses wIII soon appfoach and even exceed the quaIIty of the
natufaI Items, fof exampIe, aftIfIcIaI IImbs, then eyes, wIII soon be wIfed dIfectIy Into
the bfaIn. ImpIanted mIcfochIps wIII opefate eIectfonIc systems In ouf envIfonment.
These devIces wIII be augmented by ofganIc body pafts gfown ffom stem ceIIs, In some
cases deIIbefateIy engIneefed fof Impfovement. HybfId 'natufaI-aftIfIcIaI' of 'ofganIc-
mechanIstIc' systems wIII be deveIoped, openIng up a much bIggef space of possIbIIItIes
than exIsts In the bIoIogIcaI feaIm aIone, and tufnIng the fIctIonaI concept of the cybofg
Into a feaIIty. It Is feasonabIe to expect that any InteIIIgent specIes that dIscovefs
bIotechnoIogy, nanotechnoIogy and InfofmatIon technoIogy wIII eventuaIIy empIoy
them to boost Its physIcaI and mentaI capabIIItIes. At that poInt, thefe couId emefge a
UtopIa In whIch computef-desIgned beIngs enjoy the best of bIoIogIcaI quaIItIes wIthout
the InconvenIence of IIIness of eafIy death, fIawed memofy and poof feasonIng. It Is
easy to ImagIne an aIIen socIety attaInIng thIs IdyII aftef onIy a few centufIes of scIence
and technoIogy.
4
Howevef, even aftef aII the above-mentIoned Impfovements, the enhanced beIngs
wouId stIII be fecognIzabIy bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms whIch bfIngs me to what Is pfobabIy
the gfeatest faIIacy of aII In expectIng Mekon-IIke extfateffestfIaIs, of Indeed any 'fIesh-
and-bIood' aIIens. When contempIatIng aIIen cIvIIIzatIons we have to consIdef much
Iongef tIme ffames than just the few centufIes It may take fof the above-mentIoned
technoIogIcaI advances, In whIch case an even mofe fadIcaI possIbIIIty must be
conffonted. 'InteIIIgence' on Eafth Is nofmaIIy assocIated wIth homInIds, and pefhaps In
a mofe IImIted way wIth cats, dogs, doIphIns, whaIes, cephaIopods and bIfds. It Is cIeaf,
howevef, that InteIIIgent decIsIon-makIng and behavIouf need not be the excIusIve
pfesefve of anImaIs. Indeed, It need not be festfIcted to bIoIogy at aII.
ARTIFICIAI INTEIIIGENCE
In 1950, AIan TufIng pubIIshed a gfoundbfeakIng papef In the joufnaI MinJ wIth the
pfovocatIve tItIe 'Can machInes thInk?'
5
TufIng extfapoIated ffom fIfst-hand expefIence
of the fIedgIIng computef Industfy to envIsage a tIme when a manmade eIectfonIc
devIce couId mImIc human fesponses so convIncIngIy that we wouId attfIbute
conscIousness to It. A few yeafs Iatef, Isaac AsImov deveIoped thIs theme In hIs cIassIc
noveI I, Robot. By the 1960s the subject of aftIfIcIaI InteIIIgence, of AI, was appeafIng on
the agendas of commefcIaI and unIvefsIty feseafch, and was aIso seepIng Into popuIaf
cuItufe. In StanIey KubfIck's fIIm 2001. A Spuce OJyssey, the supefcomputef HAI Is
poftfayed as an InteIIIgent beIng In competItIon wIth humans. By the tIme Stur Wurs was
feIeased, vIewefs had become accustomed to the Idea of InteIIIgent fobots fIghtIng and
wofkIng aIongsIde humans as equaIs, of even as supefIofs. Today, we have IIttIe
dIffIcuIty acceptIng that computefs can outpeffofm humans In many mentaI tasks. It
doesn't fequIfe too much stfetch of the ImagInatIon to beIIeve that, wIthIn a few
decades, they wIII outsmaft us In every way. Vefy soon InteIIIgent machInes, computefs
and fobots wIII take ovef many functIons now beIng peffofmed by peopIe. The same
couId be tfue of any InteIIIgent aIIen specIes.
To guess how thIs mIght pIay out on an aIIen pIanet, we can consIdef some of the
deveIopments In aftIfIcIaI InteIIIgence takIng pIace on Eafth. The aduIt human bfaIn
contaIns about a hundfed bIIIIon neufons, netwofked so denseIy that the avefage neufon
has ovef 1,000 synaptIc connectIons, some much mofe. TypIcaIIy a neufon wIII fIfe up
to 500 tImes a second, so If the whoIe bfaIn wefe fIfIng fIat out (a pufeIy ImagInafy
pfospect I mIght say), thefe wouId be 40 tfIIIIon synaptIc fIfIngs pef cubIc centImetfe of
gfey mattef that's 40 tefafIops In computef jafgon. How do computefs compafe?
CoIncIdentaIIy, today's supefcomputefs couId aIso achIeve about 40 tefafIops pef cubIc
centImetfe If evefy swItch fIfed at once. The bIg dIffefence Is that the computef wouId
consume sevefaI megawatts to do It, whefeas the bfaIn gets by on thfee meaIs a day.
TakIng the bfaIn as a whoIe, It executes about 10,000 tfIIIIon opefatIons pef second (the
numbef Is a bIt III-defIned). The fastest supefcomputef achIeves 360 tfIIIIon, so Mothef
Natufe Is stIII ahead. But not fof Iong. If Moofe's Iaw hoIds up, the computef Industfy
couId be toutIng exafIops (that's a mIIIIon tfIIIIon opefatIons pef second) by 2020 and
zetafIops (a bIIIIon tfIIIIon fIops) a decade Iatef. CIeafIy, measufed In tefms of cfude
pfocessIng powef, hIgh-peffofmance computIng Is set to soon oveftake the human bfaIn.
Once that IIne has been cfossed then, In pfIncIpIe, aftIfIcIaI InteIIIgence couId fIvaI
human InteIIIgence. But thefe afe huge caveats. Fof a staft, the neufaI afchItectufe of a
bfaIn Is totaIIy dIffefent ffom the wIfIng Iayout of a computef. Mofeovef, the softwafe
fof managIng aII those ffenetIc fIops In such a way as to mImIc human-IIke InteIIect Is
not at aII undefstood. And then thefe Is the questIon of aII that sensofy Input and motof
contfoI.
Rathef than ImpIementIng AI by tfyIng to buIId a cIevefIy pfogfammed sIIIcon bfaIn
ffom scfatch, anothef appfoach suggests ItseIf. Why not use aII that amazIng computIng
powef to simulute a bfaIn? The dIstInctIon hefe Is cfucIaI. Instead of usIng a computef to
mimic a bfaIn, the computef Is pfogfammed to modeI the actuaI goIngs-on InsIde a reul
bfaIn, ffom the bottom up. In effect, the computef becomes a vIftuaI bfaIn (as opposed
to an aftIfIcIaI fIvaI to the bfaIn). It Is a tantaIIzIng pfospect.
WouId It be possIbIe In the neaf futufe to effectIveIy modeI the entire human bfaIn on
a supefcomputef? Yes, accofdIng to computatIonaI neufoscIentIst Henfy Mafkfam, who
heads the so-caIIed BIue BfaIn Pfoject In Iausanne, SwItzefIand. In hIs ambItIous
scheme, each neufon Is modeIIed mathematIcaIIy by equatIons wIth up to 500 vafIabIes,
IeadIng to accufate pfedIctIons of the behavIouf of sIngIe neufons undefgoIng eIectfo-
chemIcaI stImuII. ReaI neufaI afchItectufe Is then adopted as a bIuepfInt fof vIftuaIIy
'wIfIng togethef' the sImuIated neufons, thus cfeatIng a neufaI netwofk in silico. If the
job Is done pfopefIy, the pattefns fIowIng afound the netwofk In the computef
sImuIatIon shouId accufateIy mIffof the pattefns fIowIng afound a feaI bfaIn. In a pIIot
study, 10,000 neufons wefe dIgItaIIy IInked and used to modeI a component of a
mammaIIan coftex, wIth convIncIng fesuIts. ThIs was the tfIggef that Ied Mafkfam to
scaIe up and tackIe the entIfe mouse bfaIn as the fIfst step on the foad to the human
vefsIon. HIs goaI Is to captufe a hundfed tfIIIIon synaptIc connectIons In the computef
sImuIatIon! That Is cuffentIy weII beyond the computatIonaI fesoufces of the pfoject, but
wIth the advances In computIng expected ovef the comIng decades, Mafkfam's dfeam
couId be feaIIzed by the mIddIe of the centufy, If not befofe.
The BIue BfaIn Pfoject faIses a fascInatIng phIIosophIcaI questIon. One of the deepest
scIentIfIc mystefIes Is the natufe of conscIousness: specIfIcaIIy, how does the bfaIn cfeate
It? What does It take In the way of swIfIIng eIectfIcaI pattefns to make a thought of a
feeIIng of a sense of seIf-awafeness? Nobody has the sIIghtest Idea. But If Mafkfam's
sImuIatIon Is accufate enough then, by Jefinition, hIs computatIonaI system wIII not onIy
be InteIIIgent, It wIII be a conscIous, feeIIng, sentIent being. In shoft, just what TufIng
had In mInd. Of coufse, we may stIII be no neafef to soIvIng how the bfaIn actuaIIy does
It, that Is, we may not be abIe to dIscefn pfecIseIy w/ut featufes of neufaI cIfcuItfy afe
fesponsIbIe fof conscIousness, aIthough It Is vefy IIkeIy that we wouId Ieafn a Iot ffom
beIng abIe to sImuIate the phenomenon step by step. Thefe Is an obvIous ethIcaI Issue
hefe. If Mafkfam's sIIIcon supef-bfaIn Is a conscIous agent, It wIII sufeIy desefve some
fIghts. FIddIIng wIth the pfogfammIng to fIgufe out what makes 'It' tIck may fIghtIy be
consIdefed ImmofaI. I shouId stfess that the BIue BfaIn Pfoject Is not some ghouIIsh
attempt to fashIon a vIftuaI FfankensteIn's cfeatufe. Rathef, the pfIme motIvatIon Is to
pfovIde InsIghts Into pfecIseIy what goes wfong at the neufonaI IeveI In maIfunctIonIng
bfaIns, such as those wIth AIzheImef's of PafkInson's dIsease.
When combIned wIth genome anaIysIs, feaI bfaIn sImuIatIon wIII open up astoundIng
possIbIIItIes fof desIgnIng, modIfyIng and cfeatIng thInkIng entItIes wIth poweffuIIy
ampIIfIed capabIIItIes of feasonIng, aftIstIc appfecIatIon, ethIcaI standafds, pfobIem-
soIvIng abIIIty you name It. If stem ceII feseafch matches the advances In genomIcs
and computIng, It wIII one day be possIbIe to gfow In the pfovefbIaI vat not just spafe
kIdneys and IIvefs but entIfe bfaIns, enhanced by genetIc modIfIcatIon, and desIgned In
advance by computatIonaI neufoscIentIsts to meet ceftaIn peffofmance cfItefIa. The
next step wIII be to mefge these desIgnef bfaIns wIth non-bIoIogIcaI matefIaIs and
cIfcuIts, thus augmentIng what can be achIeved by bIoIogy aIone. As In the case of
nanotechnoIogy and bIotechnoIogy, a fusIon of bIoIogIcaI and non-bIoIogIcaI
neufoscIence wIII soon eIImInate the dIstInctIon between what Is a bfaIn and what Is a
computef. These systems may be deIIbefateIy cfeated to omIt ceftaIn human-IIke
quaIItIes fof exampIe, moodIness of ImpatIence of jeaIousy but they wIII attaIn such
a hIgh IeveI of expeftIse and competence that we wIII come to tfust theIf judgement on
an evef wIdef fange of decIsIons.
It Is InevItabIe that at some stage these desIgned and fabfIcated agents wouId have to
be gIven a measufe of autonomy to functIon at maxImum effIcIency, because we mefe
humans wouId not be abIe to keep up wIth them InteIIectuaIIy. In scIence fIctIon, thIs
step Is often poftfayed as the machInes 'takIng ovef' ffom humans, wIth the ImpIIed
thfeat that the machInes may then tufn on us and even annIhIIate us. But thIs Is to faII
Into the tfap of anthfopomofphIzIng machIne InteIIIgence. Thefe Is no paftIcuIaf feason
why human and computef agendas couId not be hafmonIzed. Ffee of pfImItIve
DafwInIan ufges such as fIght-and-fIIght, dIsgust and the need fof pfocfeatIon,
autonomous computefs afe unIIkeIy to see humans as thfeatenIng of In competItIon wIth
them (unIess, of coufse, we tfy to swItch them off).
6
What mIght the computefs',fobots' agenda be? Because we afe now Into extfemeIy
specuIatIve teffItofy, thIs questIon Is aImost ImpossIbIe to answef. InItIaIIy, humans
wouId cfeate these machInes to assIst theIf own endeavoufs, and thIs the machInes may
contInue to do, but In due coufse they wouId fInd bettef thIngs to occupy theIf tIme,
about whIch we can onIy guess. AssumIng the machInes at Ieast wIsh to secufe theIf own
sufvIvaI (as IndIvIduaIs, not thfough pfocfeatIon) and extend theIf feach In some way,
they wIII need theIf own tooIs. IIke humans befofe them, the computefs wIII make
machInes to caffy out a vafIety of tasks. Some of these machInes mIght be sImIIaf to
oufs motofs to move hafdwafe about, dynamos to make eIectfIcIty, teIescopes to
sufvey the heavens and seafch fof thfeats such as IncomIng astefoIds. Othefs, howevef,
wouId be bIoIogIcaI. MIcfobes to sequestef and pfocess mInefaIs needed fof constfuctIon
Is an obvIous exampIe. Othef mIcfobes mIght be desIgned to change the physIcaI
condItIons of the machInes' envIfonment. The machInes mIght aIso desIgn and
manufactufe mesoscopIc (smaII, but not mIcfoscopIc) of even macfoscopIc ofganIsms to
fuIfII specIaIIst functIons such as maIntenance, expIofatIon and obsefvatIon. If the
machInes,computefs wefe sedentafy, these compIex ofganIsms couId be theIf fovIng
eyes and eafs, foamIng the pIanet of beIng dIspatched to othef pIanets to gathef
InfofmatIon.
Fof hundfeds of thousands of yeafs humans manIpuIated theIf wofId usIng sImpIe
tooIs to Impfove theIf chances of sufvIvaI. At fIfst pfogfess was vefy sIow, and the tooIs
wefe IImIted to cIubs and speafs. WIth the deveIopment of Ianguage, settIed
communItIes and agfIcuItufe, the pace acceIefated, IeadIng to the bow and affow, the
use of metaIs, the pIough and the wheeI. Befofe Iong, the IndustfIaI RevoIutIon
happened, foIIowed by the atomIc age, the space age and the computef age. Thfoughout
thIs gfeat span of hIstofy, humans used technoIogy to Impfove theIf weII-beIng. But we
can now fofesee a tIppIng poInt when thIs IongstandIng feIatIonshIp between the
bIoIogIcaI and non-bIoIogIcaI feaIms wIII become Invefted. Instead of IIfe fofms such as
humans desIgnIng and makIng specIaIIzed machInes, machInes wIII desIgn and make
specIaIIzed IIfe fofms. The baton of InteIIIgence the aII-Impoftant 'I' In SETI wIII have
been weII and tfuIy passed to the machIne feaIm. InteIIIgent bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms wouId
hencefofth exIst In a pufeIy subofdInate foIe. Because of the gfeatef fobustness of
machIne InteIIIgence, Its sufvIvaI pfospects afe faf supefIof to that of humans, of of any
othef fIesh-and-bIood entIty. MachInes can easIIy be made ImmoftaI, by fepIacIng theIf
pafts wIth spafes when they weaf out. They can aIso be mefged to make bIggef and
bettef machInes, and can functIon undef a wIde fange of physIcaI condItIons. AII In aII,
machInes offef a faf safef and mofe dufabIe feposItofy fof InteIIIgence than bfaIns.
My concIusIon Is a staftIIng one. I thInk It vefy IIkeIy In fact InevItabIe that
bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence Is onIy a tfansItofy phenomenon, a fIeetIng phase In the
evoIutIon of InteIIIgence In the unIvefse. If we evef encountef extfateffestfIaI
InteIIIgence, I beIIeve It Is ovefwheImIngIy IIkeIy to be post-bIoIogIcaI In natufe, a
concIusIon that has obvIous and faf-feachIng famIfIcatIons fof SETI.
I'VE SEEN ET, AND IT'S AN ATS
Human InteIIIgence Is no mofe than a few hundfed thousand yeafs oId, dependIng
somewhat on defInItIon. In a mIIIIon yeafs, If humanIty Isn't wIped out befofe that,
bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence wIII be vIewed as mefeIy the mIdwIfe of 'feaI' InteIIIgence the
poweffuI, scaIabIe, adaptabIe, ImmoftaI soft that Is chafactefIstIc of the machIne feaIm.
Thefeaftef, machIne InteIIIgence wIII acceIefate In powef and capabIIIty untII It hIts
fundamentaI bounds Imposed by the physIcaI envIfonment, whatevef they mIght be.
And at that stage, the seIf-cfeated godIIke mega-bfaIns wIII seek to spfead acfoss the
unIvefse. By the same token, we can expect any advanced extfateffestfIaI bIoIogIcaI
InteIIIgence to Iong ago have tfansItIoned to machIne fofm. ShouId we evef make
contact wIth ET, we wouId not be communIcatIng wIth Mekon-IIke humanoIds, but wIth
a vastIy supefIof pufpose-desIgned InfofmatIon-pfocessIng system.
7
I have, unfoftunateIy, Iapsed Into sIoppy tefmInoIogy ovef the Iast few pages. As I
descfIbed eafIIef In thIs chaptef, the dIstInctIon between IIvIng and non-IIvIng, ofganIsm
and machIne, natufaI and aftIfIcIaI, Is set to evapofate soon. To caII the aIIen entItIes
'computefs' and 'machInes' Is mIsIeadIng. They mIght, fof exampIe, be hybfIds wIth
ofganIc and InofganIc components IntefmIngIed, so they wouId not be IIvIng ofganIsms
In the usuaI sense of the wofd, but they wouId not be InanImate eIthef, because they
couId gfow and fegenefate components bIoIogIcaIIy. It's hafd to know what to caII such
entItIes, because they afe beyond human expefIence. TheIf chafactefIstIc pfopefty Is that
they afe the pfoduct of desIgn, ofIgInaIIy (In the case of futufe Eafth) by humans of (In
the case of an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon) theIf extfateffestfIaI countefpafts. Iatef they wouId be
seIf-desIgned and fedesIgned. They wouId be systems that gfow, Impfove and adapt, not
by some Iong-wInded DafwInIan mechanIsm, but thfough theIf own InteIIectuaI
cfeatIvIty. The best tefm I can come up wIth Is the hoffendous-soundIng 'auto-
teIeoIogIcaI supef-systems' (ATS), the adjectIve ImpIIes the pfopefty of goaI-ofIented
seIf-desIgn. Because manIpuIatIon by desIgn Is so much mofe effIcIent than DafwInIsm,
the seIf-desIgn pfocess, once tfIggefed, Is thefefofe IIkeIy to be vefy fast, gfeatIy
IncfeasIng the IIkeIIhood that the 'I' In SETI Is domInated by ATSs.
As I wfIte these outIandIsh specuIatIons, I fInd myseIf cufIousIy depfessed, nostaIgIc-
In-advance fof the pefsonaI IdentIty that Is so much a chafactefIstIc of human
expefIence. Each of us has a unIque sense of seIf, a feeIIng of beIng paft of, but sepafate
ffom, a communIty of othef sentIent beIngs, and the wIdef unIvefse. How the human
bfaIn genefates the ImpfessIon of sepafate seIf-IdentIty, and the subjectIve expefIences
that go wIth It, Is stIII a compIete mystefy, as Is the evoIutIonafy pathway that Ied to It.
Howevef, thefe Is no good feason fof an ATS to possess a pefsonaI IdentIty In anythIng
IIke the same way.
8
The powef of computefs Is that they can be IInked togethef, wIthout
much pfotest, to shafe tasks and pooI fesoufces. UnIIke bfaIns, whIch afe dIscfete
entItIes, computefs can be netwofked, mefged, feconfIgufed and expanded seemIngIy
IndefInIteIy. ThInk of a seafch engIne IIke GoogIe, whIch has a gIobaI feach vIa the
Intefnet and dIstfIbutes Its opefatIons to computef cIustefs Iocated In many pIaces
afound the wofId. A poweffuI computef netwofk wIth no sense of seIf wouId have an
enofmous advantage ovef human InteIIIgence because It couId fedesIgn 'ItseIf', feafIessIy
make changes, mefge wIth othef systems and gfow. 'FeeIIng pefsonaI' about It wouId be
a dIstInct ImpedIment to pfogfess.
It Isn't hafd to envIsage the entIfe sufface of a pIanet beIng covefed wIth a sIngIe,
Integfated InfofmatIon-pfocessIng system. In fact, some futufoIogIsts pIctufe the entIfe
sufface of a Dyson sphefe beIng devoted to a gIgantIc puIsIng mega-bfaIn (IIke PIate 14
pefhaps). Robeft Bfadbufy has coIned the tefm 'MatfIoshka bfaIns' fof these awesome
entItIes.
9
Even If someone couId wofk out how to IInk and mefge human bfaIns and
expefIences Into a soft of WofId WIde Web of WIsdom, most of us (at Ieast In Westefn
cuItufe) wouId be appaIIed by the pfospect of IosIng ouf seIves In a vast amofphous
mentaI space. The consIdefabIe IItefatufe on 'upIoadIng', a fantasy In whIch the
contents of ageIng bfaIns, and by ImpIIcatIon theIf assocIated conscIous seIves, afe
tfansfeffed to a computef, Iatef to be downIoaded Into new bfaIns, Is appeaIIng
pfecIseIy because of the ImpIIed contInuIty of the seIf and the pfomIse of ImmoftaIIty.
If bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence Is destIned to 'hand ovef' to ATS InteIIIgence, whefe wIII It aII
end? WeII, even these mInd-boggIIng mega-bfaIns afe stIII subject to the Iaws of physIcs,
such as the fInIte speed of IIght. A computef that enveIoped the Eafth, of a MatfIoshka
bfaIn, mIght have some wondeffuI thoughts, but Its tfaIn of thought wouId necessafIIy
be shackIed by the sIgnIfIcant ffactIon of a second It takes fof InfofmatIon to be shunted
ffom one fegIon of the system to anothef. In effect, a monstef ATS wouId be dazzIIngIy
bfIIIIant but feIatIveIy sIow-wItted. The same IImItatIon Is even mofe sevefe fof a Iafgef-
scaIe system, such as a gaIactIc GoogIe, whefe deIay tImes of 100,000 yeafs wouId
Impose a stfIngent IImIt on data fecovefy and hence on the speed of thought.
So Is that It? A unIvefse domInated
10
by enofmous but pIoddIng InteIIects? Pefhaps
that Is as faf as machIne InteIIIgence can go. But If ceftaIn fecent deveIopments In
InfofmatIon-pfocessIng afe fIght, thefe mIght be a way to go fufthef, a way that wouId
cfeate a type of InteIIIgence that Is aIIen even by the standafds of an ATS.
QUANTUM COMPUTERS AND QUANTUM MINDS
The basIs of aII dIgItaI computatIon Is the bInafy swItch, a devIce that can be eIthef on
of off. It needn't be a mechanIcaI swItch: nofmaIIy It Is an eIectfonIc component that
has two states. If off stands fof 0 and on fof 1, a netwofk of swItches can pfocess dIgItaI
InfofmatIon sImpIy by fIIppIng en masse to conveft Input sequences of 0s and 1s to
output sequences. The detaIIs afe unImpoftant fof the pufpose of thIs dIscussIon. The
speed of computefs Is IImIted by the fate that the swItches can fIIp and by how fast the
eIectfIcaI (of optIcaI) sIgnaIs encodIng the 0s and 1s can pass ffom swItch to swItch.
UItImateIy the speed of IIght Imposes an absoIute IImIt, but by makIng the system
smaIIef It can fun fastef. The IIght tfaveI tIme acfoss a typIcaI pefsonaI computef
mIcfochIp Is Iess than a pIcosecond (a tfIIIIonth of a second), If the chIp wefe mofe
compact, the pfocessIng speed couId be hIghef. But shfInkIng the chIp bfIngs Its own
pfobIems. One of these Is heat. Evefy tIme a swItch fIIps, even a non-mechanIcaI one,
heat Is genefated, and thIs has to be dIssIpated somehow of the chIp wIII meIt. PhysIcIsts
know that the heat pfoduced by today's mIcfochIps can In theofy be vefy substantIaIIy
feduced, so In the Iong tefm heat may not be the domInant Issue. But a toughef pfobIem
awaIts, one that Is not so easIIy evaded. As the basIc swItch sIze appfoaches atomIc
dImensIons, the physIcaI pfopeftIes of the cIfcuIts afe mofe and mofe subject to the
peftufbIng effects of quantum fIuctuatIons.
Quantum mechanIcs Is the theofy that descfIbes the weIfd behavIouf of atoms and
subatomIc paftIcIes, I touched on It In Chaptef 7. It dIffefs fadIcaIIy ffom Newton's
mechanIcs, whIch appIy to evefyday-sIzed objects IIke bIIIIafd baIIs and buIIets. The key
chafactefIstIc of quantum systems Is unceftaInty. Iet me gIve a sImpIe exampIe. If a gun
Is fIfed at a tafget, the buIIet foIIows a weII-defIned tfajectofy thfough space. Repeat the
expefIment, undef IdentIcaI condItIons, and the second buIIet wIII foIIow the same
tfajectofy as the fIfst. In such cases, natufe Is detefmInIstIc, knowIng the InItIaI
condItIons pIus the Iaws of mechanIcs enabIes one to coffectIy compute the tfajectofy In
advance. SImpIy put, the system Is pfedIctabIe. Quantum mechanIcs Is a vefy dIffefent
kettIe of fIsh, howevef. An eIectfon of atom fIfed at a tafget may foIIow many dIffefent
tfajectofIes and hIt the tafget at many poInts. If the expefIment Is fepeated, even unJer
iJenticul conJitions, It wIII not nofmaIIy pfoduce the same outcome.
Not aII evefyday phenomena afe pfedIctabIe. TossIng a faIf coIn pfoduces heads of
taIIs wIth 50 pef cent pfobabIIIty, but It's ImpossIbIe to know the outcome of an
IndIvIduaI toss because the fesuIt Is so sensItIve to unknown fofces actIng on the coIn.
Quantum unceftaInty Is quIte unIIke that. It afIses not because we afe Ignofant of aII the
fofces detefmInIng the outcome, but because the system Is intrinsicully IndetefmInIstIc.
Expfessed mofe gfaphIcaIIy, even natufe doesn't know what wIII happen case by case.
Ffom the poInt of vIew of computatIon, unpfedIctabIIIty Is a dIsastef. What good Is It If
1 1 = 2 on the fIfst attempt and 3 on the second? If the components In a computef
chIp afe shfunk towafds atomIc sIze, quantum unceftaInty IIes In waIt to compfomIse
the peffofmance.
WhIIe these weIfd quantum effects seem to scuppef aII hope of feIIabIy computIng at
the atomIc IeveI, It tufns out the convefse mIght be tfue. When a tossed coIn has faIIen,
even If we don't Iook at the outcome thefe Is no doubt that the uptufned face Is eit/er
heads or taIIs. By contfast, quantum mechanIcs pefmIts an atom to be In the equIvaIent
of bot/ heads unJ taIIs at once, a ghostIy hybfId state that Is pfojected Into concfete
feaIIty onIy aftef an obsefvatIon Is made! Fufthefmofe, thIs admIxtufe can vafy
contInuousIy ffom aII heads, thfough mostIy heads pIus a bIt of taIIs, to mofe of taIIs
than heads, and so on, as faf as aII taIIs.
11
TfansIated Into the context of a computef
chIp, quantum mechanIcs says a gIven swItch Isn't genefaIIy eit/er on or off, but a bIt of
both. The cIosef the swItch gets to atomIc dImensIons, the mofe thIs 'supefposItIon'
pfopefty Is manIfested. And thefeIn IIes the secfet of the much-sought-aftef quantum
computef, a devIce I mentIon In Chaptef 5 as a test of aIIen technoIogy. PhysIcIsts
beIIeve they can tufn a sIn Into a vIftue by hafnessIng supefposItIons to caffy out
computatIons, and If It Is done fIght, the fesuIts can be compIeteIy ffee of unceftaInty.
12
The Idea of a quantum computef has captIvated the ImagInatIon of scIentIsts and the
computIng Industfy aIIke, and Is now the subject of a majof IntefnatIonaI feseafch
effoft.
13
The feason fof the sufge In actIvIty Is the dIscovefy that a quantum computef
couId soIve ceftaIn pfobIems not mefeIy a Iot fastef than a conventIonaI computef, but
exponentiully fastef, fepfesentIng an advance ovef cuffent supefcomputefs as gfeat as
that of the eIectfonIc computef ovef the abacus. A quantum computef that fuIIy contfoIs
a mefe 300 atoms couId In pfIncIpIe stofe mofe bIts of InfofmatIon than thefe afe
paftIcIes In the entIfe obsefvabIe unIvefse. That doesn't mean we couId buIId a computef
as poweffuI as the unIvefse wIth onIy 300 atoms, though. Stofage Is one thIng,
pfocessIng Is anothef. Quantum states afe IncfedIbIy ffagIIe, and any extfaneous
dIstufbance degfades theIf peffofmance. The secfet to successfuI quantum computatIon
Is to aIIow the system to evoIve wIth tIme whIIe IsoIatIng It as much as possIbIe ffom Its
suffoundIngs, and to compensate fof accumuIatIng dIstufbances wIth effof coffectIon
technIques and fedundancy. AII thIs Is a mattef of engIneefIng, and a vafIety of tfIcks Is
cuffentIy beIng InvestIgated, such as tfappIng IndIvIduaI atoms In magnetIc fIeIds at
uItfa-Iow tempefatufes. What nobody knows at thIs stage Is whethef effof coffectIon
can evef be made peffect, of whethef thefe afe deep pfIncIpIes of physIcs that Impose a
dImInIshIng-fetufns penaIty, ImpIyIng a fundamentaI IImIt on the powef of quantum
computatIon. The expefts say that doesn't seem to be the case, but so faf they have
managed to hafness onIy a dozen of so atoms In conceft. An advanced aIIen technoIogy
mIght be abIe to manufactufe a neaf-peffect quantum computef that wouId be
physIcaIIy vefy compact (say, the sIze of a caf) yet have staggefIng InfofmatIon-
pfocessIng powef, pefhaps cfeatIng In a sIngIe Iab a supef-InteIIIgent machIne
possessIng the same capabIIIty as a conventIonaI computef that covefs an entIfe pIanet.
If quantum computefs afe as feasIbIe as theIf pfoponents cIaIm, then we mIght vefy
weII expect ET to be a quantum computef. If so, whefe mIght It be Iocated? It seems
unIIkeIy that an EQC (extfateffestfIaI quantum computef) wouId fesIde on a pIanet.
Random dIstufbances the enemy of quantum computatIon defIve ffom heat, so
IocatIng the EQC In the coIdest possIbIe envIfonment avaIIabIe makes sense. IntefsteIIaf
of IntefgaIactIc space wouId be IdeaI. In any case, pIanets afe dangefous pIaces In the
Iongef tefm, because of comet Impacts, supefnova expIosIons, InstabIIIty of the host
staf, ofbItaI IffeguIafItIes and so fofth. A dafk quIescent voId wouId be much bettef, so
Iong as an enefgy suppIy and some faw matefIaI afe avaIIabIe. An astefoId pfopeIIed
Into IntefgaIactIc space may suffIce fof the Iattef, the fofmef mIght be met by cosmIc
fays.
MuIIIng ovef these fantastIc Ideas about the outef feaches of InteIIIgence, I keep
comIng back to the same thofny Issue. Why wouId such an entIty bothef to contact us?
What couId we possIbIy say to It? In fact, It Is not at aII cIeaf to me that an InteIIIgent
quantum computef wouId have much Intefest In the physIcaI unIvefse at aII. So what
wouId an EQC do fof thfIIIs? By defInItIon, thIs entIty fesIdes not onIy In physIcaI space
but In cybefspace. Even supposIng It possesses emotIons, It wouId be much mofe IIkeIy
to expefIence gfatIfIcatIon In Its own wofId of vIftuaI feaIIty, expIofIng an Innef
InteIIectuaI Iandscape that couId be IncompafabIy fIchef than the physIcaI Iandscape (of
spacescape) that suffounds It. But by fetfeatIng Into cybefspace, the EQC wouId
effectIveIy dIsconnect ffom the unIvefse that humans InhabIt, apaft ffom the mInImaI
fequIfement of maIntaInIng Its own exIstence (such as payIng the eIectfIcIty bIIIs and
fepIacIng fauIty pafts). Once It had secufed safety, stabIIIty and an extfeme degfee of
IsoIatIon, Its own futufe wouId be guafanteed fof tfIIIIons of yeafs, baffIng unfofeseen
accIdents that couIdn't be deaIt wIth by automatIc fepaIf mechanIsms. QuIte what It
wouId choose to do wIth ItseIf Is uttefIy beyond us, aIthough some commentatofs have
suggested that supef-advanced InteIIects of thIs soft wouId spend most of theIf tIme
pfovIng evef mofe subtIe mathematIcaI theofems. I confess thIs seems to me a fathef
naffow vIsIon of thfIII-seekIng, but It may be that an EQC wouId fapIdIy exhaust aII
othef possIbIe expefIences. It Is known that mathematIcs possesses unIImIted dIvefsIty
and InfInIteIy many sufpfIses, so no mattef how Iong the EQC extends Its InteIIectuaI
adventufe, thefe wIII aIways be one mofe mathematIcaI feIatIonshIp fof It to pfove and
admIfe.
Retfeat Into cybefspace Is pfobabIy the most dIspIfItIng fesoIutIon of the FefmI
pafadox. I hope It Is wfong, fof It wouId mean not onIy that bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence Is a
tfansItofy phase, but aIso that engagement wIth the feaI physIcaI unIvefse Is tfansItofy.
Ffom the poInt of vIew of SETI, howevef, what mattefs Is whethef an EQC pfoduces an
obsefvabIe footpfInt In the feaI, physIcaI unIvefse. AccofdIng to the basIc physIcs of
quantum computatIon, the cofe InfofmatIon-pfocessIng uses essentIaIIy no enefgy. But
to maIntaIn the deIIcateIy contfoIIed condItIons fof that pfocessIng to wofk wouId entaII
eIabofate equIpment and a powef soufce. If, as I suggested, the powef fequIfements
couId be met ffom cosmIc fays In IntefgaIactIc space, It Is hafd to ImagIne an EQC
wouId evef be detectabIe ffom Eafth. But If fof some feason the pefIphefaI equIpment
fof quantum computatIon demands vefy much gfeatef powef, then thefe may even be
quantum MatfIoshka bfaIns out thefe somewhefe, enveIopIng stafs of fotatIng bIack
hoIes. AIthough we wouId nevef expect to feceIve messages ffom these quantum cybef-
mInds, theIf pfesence mIght neveftheIess have a notIceabIe Impact on the physIcaI
unIvefse that suppofts them.
The new SETI pfogfamme I have outIIned shIfts the emphasIs away ffom seekIng
messages fof mankInd usIng fadIo teIescopes to the Iess ambItIous goaI of sImpIy tfyIng
to IdentIfy sIgnatufes of InteIIIgence thfough the Impact that aIIen technoIogy makes on
the astfonomIcaI envIfonment. To guess what to Iook fof, I have used ouf best
undefstandIng of modefn scIence and extfapoIated Into the futufe. But that stfategy Is
open to the fecuffIng chafge of anthfopocentfIsm. It Is entIfeIy possIbIe that aIIen
technoIogy wouId InvoIve thIngs we haven't even dfeamed of, and wouId pfoduce
physIcaI effects that have yet to make It to anyone's IIst of thIngs to watch out fof. In
pufsuIng new SETI, It Is Impoftant to femembef the adage: expect the unexpected.
New SETI Is not Intended to fepIace tfadItIonaI SETI but to compIement It. Even If my
wIId specuIatIons about quantum MatfIoshka bfaIns and othef exotIca afe coffect, not
aII extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence wIII have attaIned, of evef wIII attaIn, such an advanced
state. Thefe Is mofe IIkeIy to be a spectfum of InteIIIgence, ffom aIIen communItIes not
yet entefIng the age of technoIogy, thfough bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms wIth the capabIIIty of
sIgnaIIIng usIng fadIo, computef-domInated socIetIes that fetaIn (and maIntaIn)
bIoIogIcaI communItIes, to fuII-bIown cybef-InteIIects. It wouId be unwaffanted to
suppose that none of these hypothetIcaI communItIes, at any IeveI of advancement, wIII
evef tfansmIt messages, of buIId beacons of monuments Intended to make a statement
to theIf cosmIc cousIns. And whIIe thefe Is even a femote chance that someone,
somewhefe, wants to attfact ouf attentIon, we shouId go on IookIng, fof the
consequences of success wouId be tfuIy momentous.
9
FIfst Contact
T/e societul unJ culturul impuct mig/t be more u/in to t/e consequences of u religious revelution.
Stephen Baxtef
1
THE POST-DETECTION TASKGROUP
In 2004, Ray NoffIs, a fadIo astfonomef In Sydney, AustfaIIa, asked If I'd consIdef
takIng ovef ffom hIm as ChaIf of the SETI Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup. ThIs cufIous body
was constItuted by the SETI Pefmanent Study Gfoup of the IntefnatIonaI Academy of
AstfonautIcs (IAA), a scIentIfIc InstItutIon devoted to fostefIng the deveIopment of
astfonautIcs fof peacefuI pufposes, wIth paftIcIpatIon by ovef sIxty countfIes. The bfIef
of the Taskgfoup, In a nutsheII, Is to pfepafe fof the BIg Day. Even If the chance of
humankInd beIng contacted any tIme soon by an extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIon Is femote, It
makes sense to thInk thfough some of the ImpIIcatIons shouId It happen. We don't want
to be caught on the hop. I agfeed to sefve, and aftef beIng duIy eIected I convened a
meetIng In Febfuafy 2008 at the Beyond Centef, AfIzona State UnIvefsIty.
The Taskgfoup Is onIy a thInk tank, It has no IegaI status and no teeth to Impose Its
poIIcy fecommendatIons on anybody. Its membefs afe nomInated, and eIected to the
Pefmanent Study Gfoup. They IncIude IeadIng SETI scIentIsts and actIvIsts,
fepfesentatIves of the medIa, two Iawyefs, a phIIosophef, a theoIogIan and two scIence
fIctIon wfItefs. The Deputy ChaIf, CafoI OIIvef, bfIdges the two cuItufes by havIng a
backgfound In pfInt joufnaIIsm as weII as many yeafs' expefIence as a SETI feseafchef
In AustfaIIa. The pfImafy pufpose of the Taskgfoup Is to pfovIde a fesoufce fof
astfonomefs genefaIIy, and SETI feseafchefs In paftIcuIaf, about post-detectIon Issues.
The Taskgfoup's pfotocoI was constfucted In 1996 by the astfonomef John BIIIIngham,
and Is avaIIabIe on the web.
2
In the event that a putatIve sIgnaI Is detected, It wouId be the Taskgfoup's job to
counseI the paftIes concefned. If the pfotocoI wofks as adveftIsed, then the fIfst task
wouId be to ufge the dIscovefef to subject the data to cafefuI checkIng and evaIuatIon. If
the sIgnaI eventuaIIy pfoves genuIne, then ouf advIce wouId be fof fuII detaIIs to be
dIscIosed to the astfonomIcaI communIty fIfst, especIaIIy the IntefnatIonaI AstfonomIcaI
UnIon (IAU), the pfemIef InstItutIon In the fIeId of astfonomy, whIch enjoys good IInks
wIth many othef scIentIfIc and govefnment ofganIzatIons afound the wofId. The IAU
wouId then be abIe to dIssemInate the news to the UnIted NatIons and othef key bodIes.
In the eafIy days thIs was to be by teIegfam a quaInt touch. Today It wouId be done
eIectfonIcaIIy. The dIscovefef wouId aIso be advIsed to Infofm the govefnment of the
countfy In whIch the fadIo teIescope Is sItuated. FoIIowIng that, she of he wouId be ffee
to caII a pfess confefence of make a pubIIc announcement In some othef way, shouId
they so choose. In pfactIce of coufse, It mIght be messIef than thIs. The dIscovefef may
be deIIbefateIy uncoopefatIve of ovefawed and dIsofIented by the magnItude of the
events. Thefe may be mofe than one pefson and one countfy InvoIved. The news mIght
Ieak out ahead of the fofmaI dIpIomatIc steps (I shaII have mofe to say on that beIow).
AIso, thefe Is nothIng to stop an astfonomef who detects a sIgnaI out of the bIue ffom
goIng stfaIght to the pfess of to hef of hIs govefnment, of any othef ofganIzatIon,
bypassIng ouf Taskgfoup aItogethef. Howevef, the most IIkeIy scenafIo Is that a
detectIon event comes ffom wIthIn the SETI communIty, and In that case the
Taskgfoup's pfotocoI Is IIkeIy to be adhefed to, and Its advIce heeded. Anyway, that's
the theofy.
As a fesuIt of my eIevated status In the SETI wofId, I began to thInk mofe cafefuIIy
about post-detectIon. What wouId happen If, suddenIy, we found we wefe not aIone In
the unIvefse? How wouId the dIscovefy pIay out? Aftef aII, thIs wouId be a scIentIfIc
fIndIng wIthout pafaIIeI, wIth famIfIcatIons goIng faf beyond astfonomy. I IIke to
enIIven my aftef-dInnef speeches wIth the quIp that If ET caIIs on my watch, I wIII be
among the fIfst to know fof sufe that thefe afe aIIens out thefe. I wouId be standIng at a
pIvotaI poInt In hIstofy, abIe to pIay an actIve paft In the outcome. It gIves me and my
feIIow Taskgfoupefs an awesome fesponsIbIIIty.
RefIectIng on the subject of fIfst contact, I feaIIzed that my pfeconceptIons had been
shaped IafgeIy by scIence fIctIon, In whIch the aIIens afe usuaIIy the bad guys. Ffom T/e
Wur of t/e WorlJs thfough Quutermuss to InJepenJence uy, extfateffestfIaIs afe
poftfayed as a sInIstef thfeat to humanIty. OnIy a handfuI of stofIes, IIke Close
Lncounters of t/e T/irJ KinJ and Contuct, buck the tfend. Even when the aIIens don't
show up In the fIesh, contact stofIes fafeIy end happIIy fof humanIty. In Ffed HoyIe's A
for AnJromeJu, fof exampIe, a fadIo message feceIved ffom a vefy dIstant staf system
contaIns InfofmatIon needed to feconstfuct an aIIen, wIth potentIaIIy dIfe consequences.
HoyIe's thesIs, pfesented In 1961 In the fofm of a BfItIsh TV dfama, hoIds a chIIIIng
wafnIng fof the Taskgfoup: can we tfust ET not to dupe us? An aIIen cIvIIIzatIon mIght
not be expIIcItIy hostIIe to humans. It couId fegafd us as mIIdIy usefuI, but uItImateIy 'In
the way' and of IIttIe feIevance to theIf gfand scheme. They mIght enIIst ouf heIp, then
eIbow us asIde. HoyIe's bfIIIIant pIot, wfItten just aftef the InceptIon of Pfoject Ozma,
demonstfated that It Isn't necessafy fof aIIens to tfaveI acfoss space physIcaIIy In ofdef
to coIonIze anothef wofId. AII they need Is to beam the fequIfed bIoIogIcaI InfofmatIon
to tfustIng scIentIsts, and pefsuade them to Incubate copIes of the extfateffestfIaIs In a
soft of Iong-fange vefsIon of Jurussic Pur/. To wofk weII, the fabfIcated beIngs wouId
fequIfe some adaptatIons to the IocaI bIoIogy, whIch In the case of A for AnJromeJu took
the fofm of the actfess JuIIe ChfIstIe.
So much fof the feafs. What about the hopes? SETI feseafchefs afe buoyed by the
expectatIon that contact wIth an advanced aIIen cIvIIIzatIon has the potentIaI to bfIng
untoId benefIts to mankInd. BeIng In touch wIth ET wouId expose ouf cIvIIIzatIon to
accumuIated cosmIc wIsdom, and open the way to technoIogIcaI mafveIs, deep scIentIfIc
InsIghts and entfy to the GaIactIc CIub. Those who take a fosy vIew of aIIens dIsmIss the
scafy HoIIywood Image as ovefIy anthfopocentfIc, and poInt out that any beIngs that
have ovefcome theIf own pfobIems and sufvIved fof eons afe unIIkeIy to be InnateIy
aggfessIve. An aIIen cIvIIIzatIon that goes to the tfoubIe and expense of actIveIy tfyIng
to contact us wouId pfobabIy be hIghIy aItfuIstIc. They wouId pfesumabIy be awafe of
the dangef posed when a technoIogIcaIIy advanced cuItufe comes Into contact wIth a
Iess advanced one, and manage the Intefchange wIth sensItIvIty. WeII, maybe. It Is the
Taskgfoup's fesponsIbIIIty to weIgh up aII the pfos and cons about fIfst contact, and to
fofmuIate a pIan of actIon, so thefe Is some measufe of consensus on what to do.
MEDIA FRENZY
Iet me focus on the fIfst step foIIowIng the detectIon of a putatIve sIgnaI checkIng the
authentIcIty. In the case of tfadItIonaI fadIo SETI thefe Is a tfIed-and-tested pfotocoI fof
a feaI tIme 'detectIon event' (as opposed to somethIng uncovefed Iatef In fecofded
data), whIch Is desIgned to eIImInate faIse aIafms such as equIpment maIfunctIon and
manmade sIgnaIs. As I expIaIned In Chaptef 1, a key check Is to obtaIn vefIfIcatIon ffom
an Independent fadIo obsefvatofy. That takes tIme, and thIngs don't aIways fun
smoothIy. On one occasIon In 1997, a stfong naffow-band sIgnaI ffom space was
detected at Gfeen Bank, West VIfgInIa, dufIng a SETI fun. A check of aII known
sateIIItes dId not fInd a match, and by bad Iuck the back-up teIescope at Woodbufy,
GeofgIa, was down. Thefe was consIdefabIe excItement at Gfeen Bank fof a day of so
befofe the sIgnaI was eventuaIIy IdentIfIed as comIng ffom a feseafch sateIIIte caIIed
SOHO. The IntefpfetatIon was compIIcated by the fact that the fadIo teIescope was not
actuaIIy poIntIng at SOHO (whIch Is ofbItIng neaf the sun). By a quIfk of fadIo physIcs,
Its sIgnaI had been pIcked up In weakened fofm edge on, In the so-caIIed 'sIde Iobe' of
the dIsh.
3
The fact that It may take days to be sufe that a sIgnaI Is not manmade faIses a vefy
sefIous pfobIem fof managIng the post-detectIon agenda. A message ffom an aIIen
soufce wouId be an event of unpfecedented sIgnIfIcance. Any hInt of a posItIve fesuIt
ffom a SETI pfoject couId ImmedIateIy tfIggef medIa ffenzy, and events mIght soon
spIfaI out of contfoI. AII It takes Is one Intempefate femafk by an obsefvatofy janItof,
and the stofy wIII spfead IIke wIIdfIfe. Even If nobody actIveIy spIIIs the beans, a tIght-
IIpped sIIence In the face of a foutIne pfess enquIfy mIght weII be Intefpfeted as some
soft of covef-up. In the case of the SOHO sateIIIte detectIon, the pfess got hoId of the
stofy even befofe the IdentIfIcatIon was made.
4
FoftunateIy the fepoftef concefned
acted fesponsIbIy and waIted fof mofe data befofe fushIng Into pfInt. But not aII
membefs of the medIa can be feIIed upon to be so festfaIned, gIven the chance of the
scoop of a IIfetIme.
The Taskgfoup has deIIbefated In depth ovef how to manage the sItuatIon foIIowIng a
putatIve sIgnaI, especIaIIy In the IIght of the fevoIutIonafy changes In communIcatIons
and medIa that afe occuffIng, ffom the use of the Web and Web 2.0 technoIogy, mobIIe
phones, TwIttef, Facebook, etc., aII of whIch afe tfansfofmIng the speed and mannef In
whIch InfofmatIon, dIscovefIes and opInIon afe dIssemInated. Two membefs of the
Taskgfoup, Seth Shostak and CafoI OIIvef, have dfawn up an ImmedIate ReactIon PIan
to mInImIze the amount of mIsInfofmatIon pfomuIgated In the wake of cIaImed ETI
detectIons.
5
They note that because SETI Is caffIed out openIy and wIth no poIIcy of
secfecy, wofd can Ieak out vefy fast. The medIa wIII In aII IIkeIIhood fun wIth the stofy
even befofe the InItIaI scIentIfIc checks have been compIeted. 'The stofy wIII bfeak
befofe It's a stofy' Is the way they put It.
6
As a fesuIt of theIf fepoft, the Taskgfoup has
set up a passwofd-pfotected websIte so that membefs can confef and post InfofmatIon,
at a tIme when pubIIcIy accessIbIe SETI websItes afe IIkeIy to be pafaIysed by hIts.
The fundamentaI pfobIem concefnIng medIa management defIves ffom a deep
cuItufaI fIft between the wofId of scIence and the wofId of news and commentafy.
Because SETI astfonomefs afe pfofessIonaI scIentIsts, fIgofous checkIng Is an essentIaI
paft of theIf tfaInIng, and they want to be sufe of theIf gfound befofe makIng a
defInItIve statement. HIstofy has shown that when scIentIsts fun to the pfess wIth
sensatIonaI cIaIms that haven't been pfopefIy checked, the outcome Is vefy damagIng to
the cfedIbIIIty of scIence ItseIf, not to mentIon the feputatIons of the scIentIsts InvoIved.
A saIutafy Iesson In how not to handIe the medIa comes ffom the now IafgeIy dIscfedIted
cIaIm fof coId nucIeaf fusIon. ThIs stofy bfoke In 1989 when two physIcIsts saId they
couId pfoduce nucIeaf fusIon feactIons In what was basIcaIIy a test tube on a bench top,
by dopIng the metaI paIIadIum wIth deutefIum. Had they been fIght, aII the wofId's
enefgy pfobIems wouId have been soIved at a stfoke. They heId a hasty pfess
confefence, and the medIa undefstandabIy had a fIeId day. CoId fusIon became the bIg
scIence stofy of the yeaf.
7
It took many months fof IabofatofIes afound the wofId to test
the cIaIm, and fInd It wantIng. The two scIentIsts themseIves wefe hounded by the pfess
and went Into hIdIng. Today, a handfuI of Iabs contInue to wofk on coId fusIon out of
cufIosIty, but vefy few physIcIsts beIIeve It wIII evef amount to much. The Iesson ffom
that debacIe Is that It Is wIse to exefcIse festfaInt when deaIIng wIth the medIa about
dIscovefIes that caffy sweepIng ImpIIcatIons fof socIety.
In the case of SETI, the pfobIem Is faf mofe acute. The scIentIsts mIght be sIttIng on
the bIggest stofy In hIstofy. Once wofd got out, mayhem couId ensue. The astfonomefs
mIght show up fof wofk onIy to fInd theIf obsefvatofy besIeged by joufnaIIsts, fIIm
cfews and membefs of the pubIIc, some of them excIted and othefs ffIghtened. Thefe
wouId have to be a poIIce bIockade, and pfotectIon fof both the scIentIfIc and the
technIcaI staff hafdIy an envIfonment conducIve to dIspassIonate anaIysIs. Even
nofmaI modes of communIcatIon afe IIkeIy to be dIsfupted as IInes become jammed by
caIIefs eagef to check the fumoufs, computef sefvefs become ovefIoaded and hackefs tfy
to bfeak Into the system to get a sneak pfevIew of ET's message.
It Is In the natufe of thIs type of InvestIgatIon that faIse aIafms gfeatIy outnumbef the
feaI thIng, so the above scenafIo mIght be pIayed out many tImes, wIth the huIIabaIoo
eventuaIIy subsIdIng as the stofy evapofates. A cIose anaIogy Is the aII too ffequent
announcement that cIvIIIzatIon Is menaced by an oncomIng astefoId of comet.
Thousands of smaII objects afe on Eafth-cfossIng ofbIts, and ffom tIme to tIme one of
them scofes a hIt, the scafs of theIf Impacts can be seen scattefed acfoss the pIanet ffom
Meteof Cfatef In AfIzona to WoIfe Cfeek In AustfaIIa. The damage ffom an Impact
depends on the sIze and speed of the coIIIdIng object. A feIatIveIy fafe Impact of the
powef that wIped out the dInosaufs wouId pfobabIy annIhIIate humanIty too, but these
happen on avefage onIy once evefy 30 mIIIIon yeafs of mofe. SmaIIef events afe mofe
IIkeIy, but stIII have gfeat destfuctIve potentIaI. Fof exampIe, an astefoId one kIIometfe
wIde hIttIng Eafth at 30 kIIometfes (20 mIIes) pef second mIght kIII a bIIIIon peopIe,
ffom both the coIIIsIon ItseIf and the unpIeasant aftefmath (whIch IncIudes wIIdfIfes,
acId faIn, sun-obIItefatIng dust and a host of othef nasty effects). Thefe Is foughIy a one-
In-a-mIIIIon chance that such an event wIII happen next yeaf.
Fof the past coupIe of decades, astfonomefs have been paInstakIngIy cataIoguIng the
ofbIts of the mofe dangefous astefoIds, so that we at Ieast have some wafnIng of the
next bIg Impact. When a new astefoId of comet seems to be movIng on an Eafth-
cfossIng tfajectofy, It Is cafefuIIy monItofed so Its ofbIt can be detefmIned pfecIseIy. As
wIth SETI, cafefuI checkIng takes tIme. In the eafIy days foIIowIng the dIscovefy, the
pfojected ofbIts afe unceftaIn because of nofmaI measufement effofs. Aftef the object
has been foIIowed fof sevefaI days of weeks, the effofs shfInk enough that the
astfonomefs can then wofk out whethef It wIII of won't hIt Eafth. The most sensIbIe
stfategy Is to waIt untII the ofbIt has been pfopefIy detefmIned, and onIy then, If thefe
Is stIII a cIeaf and pfesent dangef, 'wake the PfesIdent'.
8
But usuaIIy It doesn't happen
IIke that. Mofe often than not, the pfess get wInd that a new object has been found that
mig/t stfIke ouf pIanet on the next ofbItaI pass. It makes a wondeffuI scafe stofy: 'KIIIef
astefoId may wIpe out IIfe as we know It!' HeadIInes IIke that attfact a Iot of feadefs,
paftIcuIafIy when Afmageddon comes wIth a specIfIed date. But thefe Is a wofId of
dIffefence between pfedIctIng that an object will hIt, and beIng unabIe to fuIe out that It
won't. The known unceftaInty In the measufements Iets astfonomefs wofk out the
pfobabIIIty of a coIIIsIon typIcaIIy It Is about one In 10,000 when the object Is fIfst
IdentIfIed. Those odds can stIII seem ffIghtenIng fof such a majof caIamIty, but anothef
way of IookIng at It Is that thefe wIII be thousands of apocaIyptIc scafe stofIes
appeafIng In the pfess befofe the one case when a coIIIsIon will fesuIt.
THE BIANKET OF SIIENCE FAIIACY
UnfoftunateIy, waItIng to be sufe has Its own dfawbacks. If scIentIsts fespond to a quefy
about an astefoId Impact of a SETI fumouf wIth a sImpIe 'no comment', the pfess and
the pubIIc afe aII too feady to suspect a conspIfacy of sIIence. PeopIe justIfIabIy beIIeve
In a fIght to know, and afe suspIcIous when scIentIsts seem to be hushIng up theIf
fIndIngs, even If the motIve Is nofmaI scIentIfIc pfudence fathef than a deIIbefate news
bIackout. Most membefs of the pubIIc just don't buy the 'tfust us, we'fe scIentIsts' IIne.
ConvefseIy scIentIsts, concefned fof theIf feputatIons and fundIng, can be fIefceIy
cfItIcaI of the medIa, whom they see as aII too pfone to scafemongefIng. The BBC
scIence coffespondent DavId WhItehouse was accused of cfyIng woIf when, In 2002, he
fan a pfematufe news stofy about a possIbIe cosmIc Impact on 1 Febfuafy 2019. In
fesponse, WhItehouse hIt back on the subject of scIentIsts keepIng mum: 'Who gIves
them the fIght to make such a decIsIon? Who actuaIIy wouId make the decIsIon? What
wouId be theIf quaIIfIcatIons, theIf accountabIIIty?. The ethIcs of such a stance afe
unsuppoftabIe. Thefe afe othef afeas of scIence whefe the they don't need to know"
afgument has been debated and dIscounted as unethIcaI.'
9
I pefsonaIIy beIIeve the pubIIc does have a fIght to know, even If the news Is bad as
soon as the sItuatIon Is pfopefIy undefstood. I have yet to meet a SETI scIentIst who
doesn't agfee wIth thIs basIc pfIncIpIe. Thefe Is no 'code of secfecy' In SETI, and
ceftaInIy not among the Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup's membefs, onIy a shafed fecognItIon
of the need fof cautIon when assessIng any putatIve sIgnaI. The IAA ItseIf Is expIIcIt (If a
IIttIe tufgId) about dIscIosufe In Items 3, 4 and 5 of the SETI Pefmanent Study Gfoup's
1997 'DecIafatIon of PfIncIpIes ConcefnIng ActIvItIes FoIIowIng the DetectIon of
ExtfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence':
10
3. Aftef concIudIng that the dIscovefy appeafs to be cfedIbIe evIdence of extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence, and aftef InfofmIng
othef paftIes to thIs decIafatIon, the dIscovefef shouId Infofm obsefvefs thfoughout the wofId thfough the CentfaI Bufeau
fof AstfonomIcaI TeIegfams of the IntefnatIonaI AstfonomIcaI UnIon, and shouId Infofm the Secfetafy GenefaI of the
UnIted NatIons In accofdance wIth AftIcIe XI of the Tfeaty on PfIncIpIes GovefnIng the ActIvItIes of States In the
ExpIofatIon and Use of Outef Space, IncIudIng the Moon and Othef BodIes. Because of theIf demonstfated Intefest In and
expeftIse concefnIng the questIon of the exIstence of extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence, the dIscovefef shouId sImuItaneousIy
Infofm the foIIowIng IntefnatIonaI InstItutIons of the dIscovefy and shouId pfovIde them wIth aII peftInent data and
fecofded InfofmatIon concefnIng the evIdence: the IntefnatIonaI TeIecommunIcatIon UnIon, the CommIttee on Space
Reseafch of the IntefnatIonaI CouncII of ScIentIfIc UnIons, the IntefnatIonaI AstfonautIcaI FedefatIon, the IntefnatIonaI
Academy of AstfonautIcs, the IntefnatIonaI InstItute of Space Iaw, CommIssIon 51 of the IntefnatIonaI AstfonomIcaI UnIon
and CommIssIon J of the IntefnatIonaI RadIo ScIence UnIon.
4. A confIfmed detectIon of extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence shouId be dIssemInated pfomptIy, openIy, and wIdeIy thfough
scIentIfIc channeIs and pubIIc medIa, obsefvIng the pfocedufes In thIs decIafatIon. The dIscovefef shouId have the
pfIvIIege of makIng the fIfst pubIIc announcement.
5. AII data necessafy fof confIfmatIon of detectIon shouId be made avaIIabIe to the IntefnatIonaI scIentIfIc communIty
thfough pubIIcatIons, meetIngs, confefences, and othef appfopfIate means.
Even If the scIentIsts afe pfepafed to be open about theIf fIndIngs, can we tfust
govefnments to act In the same way? In a typIcaI scIence fIctIon stofy featufIng aIIen
contact, govefnment secufIty sefvIces InstantIy spfIng Into actIon, take contfoI of the
pfoject, and Impose a cIoak of secfecy. The cIampdown Is justIfIed fof feasons of
excessIve patefnaIIsm ('PeopIe afen't feady fof thIs yet'), of to gaIn advantage ('We
mIght Ieafn somethIng amazIng that wIII enhance ouf powef'), of to pfepafe a defence
('We must buIId mofe nukes'). WeII, If thefe ure govefnment pIans to seIze contfoI of
SETI foIIowIng a posItIve fesuIt, they haven't yet come to the attentIon of the SETI
communIty, In spIte of sevefaI hIgh-pfofIIe hoaxes and faIse aIafms.
11
In fact, faf ffom
takIng an unheaIthy Intefest In the subject, govefnments wofIdwIde seem to be
compIeteIy IndIffefent. A membef of the BfItIsh House of Iofds once asked me about
SETI, but pufeIy out of pefsonaI cufIosIty. In the US, Congfess canceIIed pubIIc fundIng
fof SETI In 1993, on the basIs that It was a waste of money. That Is hafdIy the actIon of
a govefnment that has a sefIous Intefest In 'contact'. As fof secfet govefnment post-
detectIon contIngency pIans, I have no doubt they afe non-exIstent. When It comes to
post-detectIon poIIcymakIng, the Taskgfoup Is It. In fact, we wouId actuaIIy welcome
some Input ffom poIItIcIans, of at Ieast ffom a few eIdef statesmen.
'IT'S OFFICIAI WE ARE NOT AIONE!'
Suppose the authentIcIty-checkIng pfocess Is compIete, and the dIscovefy hoIds up at,
say, 99 pef cent confIdence IeveI (scIentIsts nevef cIaIm 100 pef cent ceftaInty about
any dIscovefy). The next step Is fof some soft of offIcIaI announcement to be made. How
shouId that be done? The mannef wIII depend cfItIcaIIy on the pfecIse natufe of the
dIscovefy. In my mInd, thefe Is a wofId of dIffefence between the HoIy GfaII of SETI
pIckIng up a dIfected message ffom an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon and the Iess dfamatIc but faf
mofe IIkeIy case of ouf sImpIy obtaInIng IncontfoveftIbIe evIdence fof some soft of aIIen
technoIogy. The Iattef case wouId be faf easIef to handIe. If an astfonomef wefe to spot
somethIng weIfd, whIch on cIosef InspectIon bofe aII the haIImafks of aftIfIcIaIIty, then I
beIIeve It shouId be announced just IIke any othef majof astfonomIcaI dIscovefy. DufIng
my cafeef, astfonomefs have found a fange of extfaofdInafy new objects quasafs,
puIsafs, bIack hoIes and gamma fay bufstefs, to name just a few. FIndIng an
'InteIIIgentIy modIfIed object' In space wouId extend thIs IIst of mInd-expandIng
fIndIngs. It couId be a beacon (see Chaptef 5), a sIgn of astfo-engIneefIng (Chaptef 6),
of sImpIy a fadIo of IIght soufce IackIng a pIausIbIe natufaI IntefpfetatIon. AII one couId
concIude wIth confIdence ffom such an obsefvatIon Is that some fofm of InteIIIgence had
been at wofk eIsewhefe In the unIvefse. IdeaIIy a pfess confefence wouId be affanged to
coIncIde wIth the pubIIcatIon of a peef-fevIewed papef In a feputabIe scIentIfIc joufnaI,
a pfocess that typIcaIIy takes some months.
Thefe Is no doubt that an announcement of an InteIIIgentIy modIfIed object In space
wouId cause a sensatIon. When PfesIdent CIInton stood on the WhIte House Iawn and
saId that NASA scIentIsts had evIdence fof IIfe In a Mafs meteofIte (see p. 61), the
wofId's joufnaIIsts wefe eIectfIfIed by the news. PfesentIng evIdence fof intelligent IIfe
wouId be an ofdef of magnItude mofe staftIIng. Fof a few weeks, the stofy wouId fun
and fun. ScIentIsts wouId be pufsued fof IntefvIews, commentatofs wouId offef
Impfomptu assessments, and the bIogosphefe wouId buzz wIth haIf-baked theofIes. But
aftef a whIIe the newswofthIness wouId begIn to fade, and the medIa wouId fetufn to
theIf usuaI fafe of poIItIcs, spofts and ceIebfIty tfIvIa. IIfe wouId caffy on as befofe. The
vast majofIty of peopIe wouId go about theIf daIIy affaIfs wIth onIy a fesIduaI Intefest.
It wouId, aftef aII, make no dIffefence to the pfIce of beef of the outcome of the next bIg
game: It wouId mefeIy be a scIentIfIc cufIosIty.
Ovef the Iongef tefm, howevef, the dIscovefy wouId have dIsfuptIve effects at many
IeveIs. HIstofy teaches us a Iesson hefe. When CopefnIcus deduced that Eafth goes
afound the sun It was consIdefed a dangefousIy fevoIutIonafy dIscovefy, In both the
IItefaI and metaphofIcaI sense of the tefm. At that tIme, the contfoIIIng powef wus
Intefested In suppfessIng scIentIfIc tfuth. That powef was not a natIonaI govefnment,
but the Roman CathoIIc Chufch, whIch feguIated aImost evefy facet of Eufopean socIety,
IncIudIng InfofmatIon and educatIon. What the Chufch feafed was not fIots of panIc In
the stfeets as a fesuIt of CopefnIcus' cosmIc feveIatIon, fathef they fofesaw the
weakenIng effect It wouId have on theIf vefsIon of ChfIstIanIty. Of coufse, they faIIed,
and the heIIocentfIc modeI of the soIaf system soon became accepted. And IIfe contInued
nofmaIIy, peasants stIII coIIected the hafvest, nobIemen stIII hunted and made waf, and
schoIafs (IncIudIng wIthIn the Chufch) quIetIy assImIIated the new cosmoIogy. Fouf
centufIes Iatef, what can we say about CopefnIcus' theofy? Thefe Is no doubt that It
fundamentaIIy changed the way human beIngs thInk about themseIves and theIf pIace In
the unIvefse. Each succeedIng genefatIon buIIt on It and expanded humanIty's vIew of
the cosmos to encompass not mefeIy ouf soIaf system, but a voIume a thousand tfIIIIon
tfIIIIon tfIIIIon tImes gfeatef. Even today, fof most pfactIcaI pufposes Eafth mIght as
weII be at the centfe of the unIvefse. But the knowIedge that ouf pIanet Is a ffagIIe,
paIe-bIue dot In the vastness of space pefmeates ouf wofId vIew and exefts a subtIe
InfIuence on ouf IIves In a thousand dIffefent ways.
12
A sImIIaf feceptIon gfeeted the pubIIcatIon of DafwIn's theofy of evoIutIon. The cIaIm
that humans had 'descended ffom apes' (a popuIaf but vefy Inaccufate descfIptIon of the
theofy) caused shock and outfage In some quaftefs. It was ceftaInIy a 'bIg stofy' by
VIctofIan standafds. The Chufch was no Iongef poweffuI enough to suppfess the tfuth,
but It dId put up a spIfIted fesIstance In some quaftefs befofe concedIng defeat. Yet,
once agaIn, the vast majofIty of peopIe went about theIf daIIy IIves as befofe,
assImIIatIng the Ideas at theIf own pace. Thefe was no cIvII unfest, no pubIIc outpoufIng
of despaIf, and no euphofIa. One hundfed and fIfty yeafs Iatef, howevef, few wouId
deny the poweffuI sIgnIfIcance of DafwIn's theofy. KnowIng that humans afe a pfoduct
of bIIIIons of yeafs of natufaI seIectIon that you and I afe an IntegfaI paft of natufe
and not the pfoduct of specIaI cfeatIon coIoufs ouf attItudes to ouf feIIow human
beIngs and anImaIs. Today, when we addfess the questIon 'What does It mean to be
human?' and fefIect on ouf pIace In natufe, ouf bIoIogIcaI pedIgfee fofms an
IndIspensabIe backdfop to ouf thInkIng.
If we evef do dIscovef unmIstakabIe sIgns of aIIen InteIIIgence, the knowIedge that we
afe not aIone In the unIvefse wIII eventuaIIy seep Into evefy facet of human enquIfy. It
wIII IffevefsIbIy aItef how we feeI about oufseIves and ouf IocatIon on pIanet Eafth. The
dIscovefy wouId fank aIongsIde those of CopefnIcus and DafwIn as one of the gfeat
tfansfofmatIve events In human hIstofy. But It wouId take many decades fof peopIe to
adjust and fof the fuII Impoft to sInk In, just as It dId fof heIIocentfIc cosmoIogy and
bIoIogIcaI evoIutIon.
INTERCEPTING INTERSTEIIAR E-MAII
When Ffank Dfake embafked on Pfoject Ozma, hIs aspIfatIon was not mefeIy to answef
the questIon 'Afe we aIone?' but to estabIIsh actuaI contact wIth extfateffestfIaIs. In
spIte of the bIg effof bafs In hIs eponymous equatIon, Ffank femaIns upbeat. It's
temptIng to suppose that If an aIIen IntefsteIIaf fadIo tfansmIttef Is on the aIf, Ffank
and hIs team of astfonomefs wIII fInd It wIthIn a few decades. If he Is fIght (and you
have to be an optImIst In thIs subject), then we mIght soon be conffonted by an aIIen
message wit/ content. Fof feasons I expIaIned In Chaptef 5, the fadIo sIgnaIs afe unIIkeIy
to be dIfected at eafthIIngs specIfIcaIIy. Rathef, they wouId be somethIng comIng ouf
way by chance, we wouId In effect be eavesdfoppIng on someone eIse's convefsatIon, of
IntefceptIng theIf e-maII. AIthough It's hafd to see how we couId possIbIy decode the
content, a gfeat deaI couId be Ieafned just ffom the stfuctufe of the sIgnaI. Fof exampIe,
we couId Iocate the tfansmIttef. If It tufned out to be feIatIveIy cIose, we wouId have
antennas poweffuI enough to send a decent-stfength sIgnaI to 'them'. We couId aIso Iook
fof the Intended fecIpIent cIvIIIzatIon (pfesumabIy In a paft of the sky antIpodaI to the
tfansmIttef), and tafget that fegIon too In ouf seafch fof sIgnaIs.
It mIght even be possIbIe to detefmIne the InfofmatIonaI fIchness of the message
wIthout decodIng the actuaI content. ThIs Is because data-fIch messages satIsfy ceftaIn
statIstIcaI cfItefIa IffespectIve of the meanIng beIng conveyed. A sImpIe exampIe
IIIustfates thIs. If I send a message and then fepeat It, the fedundancy feduces the totaI
content by a factof of two (because haIf the data bIts afe 'wasted'). GenefaIIy speakIng,
the mofe pattefns that a message contaIns, the mofe fedundancy thefe Is buIIt Into It,
and the Iowef the totaI InfofmatIon tfansfef fate. Of coufse, fedundancy may be
desIfabIe, and Is usuaIIy deIIbefateIy buIIt Into human messages, because the
tfansmIssIon pfocess may Intfoduce effofs. But the optImaI data tfansmIssIon fate Is one
that has no pattefns whatsoevef, and Is thefefofe fandom. Randomness does not mean
nonsense. If one has the key to decode the message, the InfofmatIon Is optImaIIy
packaged. WIthout the key, howevef, the message wouId just come acfoss as a fofm of
noIse.
Thefe Is an obvIous tensIon between beIng conspIcuous and optImaI data packagIng.
NoIse In a fadIo teIescope may not pfesent ItseIf to us as an InteIIIgent sIgnaI. We afe
suffounded by fandom noIse ffom quantum fIuctuatIons In atomIc systems to the hIss
ffom the sky pfoduced by the pfImofdIaI cosmIc mIcfowave backgfound fadIatIon.
WouId we know whethef some of the cacophony of the unIvefse Is In fact optImaIIy
encoded messages ffom dIstant cIvIIIzatIons, and not natufaI scfambIIng? The shoft
answef Is that, wIthout the code, we wouIdn't know. We couId be In the mIdst of a
gafgantuan aIIen data exchange, and bIIssfuIIy unawafe of It. In Contuct, Sagan had the
aIIens send a sequence of pfIme numbefs as the 'HI, guys!' paft of theIf message to
attfact attentIon. To a mathematIcIan, pfIme numbefs afe not fandom. To take a
humbIef exampIe, smoke fIsIng haphazafdIy ffom a hIIIsIde mIght be eIthef a natufaI
bushfIfe of a campfIfe, but a pattefned sequence of dIscfete smoky puffs wouId IndIcate
that a campfIfe Is beIng used to send a sIgnaI. The same pfIncIpIe appIIes to a IIghthouse
of any othef beacon. So the 'hook' paft of an aIIen sIgnaI Intended fof stfangefs shouId
be conspIcuousIy non-fandom, but the content of an InfofmatIon exchange between
consentIng fadIo paIs wouId most IIkeIy be fandom (assumIng the aIIens cafe about
tfansmIssIon effIcIency). Fof an astfonomef to twIg on that a soufce Is aftIfIcIaI, It
wouId need some soft of sIgnatufe of InteIIIgence of technoIogy. If the sIgnaI Is not
dIfected at us specIfIcaIIy then It may Iack any attentIon-gfabbIng hook, but othef
featufes mIght gIve the game away. Fof exampIe, If the sIgnaI was bfIght enough to fIse
above the backgfound noIse, was naffow band In ffequency, and emanated ffom a
neafby staf wIth a known Eafth-IIke pIanet, we wouId defInIteIy take notIce.
Suppose, then, astfonomefs pIck up a sIgnaI that Iooks aftIfIcIaI In some way, but
Iacks any IndIcatIon that It Is eIthef Intended fof humanIty specIfIcaIIy, of Is beIng
bfoadcast fof genefaI cosmIc consumptIon (as In the case of a beacon). In tefms of an
offIcIaI statement, the sItuatIon wouId be IIttIe dIffefent ffom the scenafIo I consIdefed
In the pfevIous sectIon, and the dIscovefy shouId be made pubIIc In the conventIonaI
mannef. So Iet me move on to the Ieast IIkeIy, but easIIy the most momentous, scenafIo:
the feceIpt of a message deIIbefateIy cfafted fof mankInd.
SECRETS FROM THE STARS
If an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon wefe to send us a customIzed message then aII bets afe off. RIght
ffom the outset some extfemeIy hafd choIces wouId need to be made, choIces that the
Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup has pondefed. The fIfst decIsIon wouId be whom to teII and
how. In thIs scenafIo, the pubIIshed PfotocoI wouId aImost ceftaInIy bfeak down. I
pefsonaIIy feeI that the ImpIIcatIons of sImpIy feceIvIng such a message wouId be so
staftIIng and so dIsfuptIve that, aIthough eventuaI dIscIosufe Is essentIaI, evefy effoft
shouId be made to deIay a pubIIc announcement untII a thofough evaIuatIon of the
content had been conducted, and the fuII consequences of feIeasIng the news cafefuIIy
assessed In IIght of the Taskgfoup's fecommendatIons. IdeaIIy, InfofmatIon about the
astfonomIcaI coofdInates of the tfansmIttef shouId be festfIcted to the astfonomefs
InvoIved, fof feasons I wIII come to shoftIy. As we've seen, howevef, keepIng the IId on
such a dIscovefy wouId pfesent enofmous obstacIes. Even govefnments whIch have so
faf shown IIttIe Intefest In SETI wouId pfesumabIy at Iast take notIce, and no doubt
wouId aIso want to take chafge. In my vIew, howevef, the Iess govefnment InvoIvement
at the evaIuatIon stage, the bettef. Any attempt to contfoI as opposed to facIIItate the
scIentIfIc assessment wouId In aII pfobabIIIty be countef-pfoductIve.
The way In whIch events unfoId wouId depend on the actuaI content of the message.
Fofemost Is the questIon of decodIng It. PfesumabIy ET won't speak EngIIsh, of any
othef human Ianguage, unIess the aIIen InteIIIgence has been monItofIng ouf bfoadcasts.
By common consent, mathematIcs, beIng cuItufaIIy neutfaI and fofmIng the basIs of the
unIvefsaI Iaws of natufe, wouId be the IIngua ffanca of IntefsteIIaf dIscoufse. Sagan's
Contuct had a message In the fofm of pIctufes, wIth pfIme numbefs used to stfuctufe a
pIxIIated affay. Remembef that thIs wIII be a one-way communIcatIon ffom a tfuIy aIIen
specIes, not a feaI-tIme dIaIogue wIth smIIes, ffowns, fIngef-poIntIng and othef gestufes
that humans use to get theIf meanIng acfoss even to totaI stfangefs. The aIIens can
shafe wIth us mofe than just mathematIcs, howevef. Thefe Is cosmogfaphy too. We IIve
In the same unIvefse and vefy IIkeIy the same gaIactIc neck of the woods, so symboIs to
denote stafs and othef astfonomIcaI objects wouId be feadIIy undefstood by us. By
extensIon, Ideas about shafed basIc scIence couId be communIcated In pIctufes and
coffeIated wIth symboIs. BIt by bIt we mIght buIId up mofe abstfact notIons and begIn to
Ieafn theIf Ianguage. ObvIousIy thIs makes huge assumptIons about the mentaI
afchItectufe of an aIIen mInd. The vefy notIon of Ianguage and Its symboIIc
fepfesentatIon has emefged ffom the study of human beIngs. Who can say whethef
aIIens wouId thInk of attempt to communIcate In the same way?
It wouId be a huge undeftakIng to make sense of the message, hampefed by the fact
that It mIght be IncompIete of dIstofted by noIse. DecodIng It couId take a vefy Iong
tIme, pefhaps InvoIvIng yeafs of metIcuIous wofk and computef anaIysIs befofe we had
any Idea of what we wefe deaIIng wIth. I cannot ImagIne how the scIentIsts InvoIved
wouId be Ieft to wofk In peace to do thIs. NeveftheIess, a dfawn-out pfocess of anaIysIs
wouId do much to feduce the cuItufaI shock that wouId foIIow the InItIaI announcement.
As Sagan expfessed It, 'the decodIng of the message, the undefstandIng of the contents,
and the extfemeIy cautIous appIIcatIon of what we afe taught mIght take decades of
even centufIes. A message that wIII take a Iong tIme to decode and undefstand wIII not
be vefy. dIsofIentIng to the avefage man.'
13
Iet us assume that, soonef of Iatef, the gIst of the content begIns to emefge. What
then? Now we feaIIy afe In guesswofk teffItofy. What wouId ET want to say to us? The
sImpIest message wouId be aIong the IInes of 'We afe hefe and you afe thefe, and we
just caIIed to say heIIo.' Mofe thought-pfovokIng wouId be 'We InvIte you to joIn the
GaIactIc CIub and exchange InfofmatIon wIth youf cosmIc neIghboufs.' We can aIso
ImagIne communIcatIons wIth aIafmIng content, such as 'Youf cIvIIIzatIon Is In gfave
dangef. We have spotted a gIant comet headIng youf way.' Then thefe afe mofaI
mIssIves: 'Ouf Instfuments have detected nucIeaf expIosIons on youf pIanet and we
stfongIy advIse you to soft out youf pfobIems pfevIous cIvIIIzatIons we know that have
expIoded nucIeaf weapons dIdn't sufvIve Iong.' ThIs Iast one Is unIIkeIy to come soon,
gIven that InfofmatIon about the fIfst nucIeaf expIosIon has feached Iess than seventy
IIght yeafs Into space. EvIdence fof the eafIy buIId-up of human-genefated cafbon
dIoxIde wouId have penetfated fafthef, howevef. Maybe that wouId eIIcIt a wafnIng
aIong the IInes of 'Stop bufnIng fossII fueIs, you fooIIsh beIngs.'
Hafdef to fathom Is the Impact of a message that Impafts Impoftant scIentIfIc of
technoIogIcaI InfofmatIon. Most woffyIng of aII wouId be one that mefeIy handed us on
a pIate a fevoIutIonafy Item of technoIogy, e.g. a new soufce of enefgy, of a technIque
fof engIneefIng desIgnef IIfe fofms feIIabIy. The pfobIem hefe Is that the gfoup that
possessed the knowIedge fIfst wouId be In a posItIon of IncompafabIe powef. NatIons,
scIentIfIc ofganIzatIons, companIes and othef specIaI-Intefest gfoups wouId fIght tooth
and naII to gaIn access to, and contfoI ovef, gems of aIIen know-how. OutfIght waffafe
mIght foIIow the scfambIe to gfab the InfofmatIon. One can onIy hope that the aIIens
wouId fecognIze the dangefs and feffaIn ffom handIng out scIentIfIc secfets IIke sweets.
A Iess fIsky way fof a benevoIent aIIen cIvIIIzatIon to offef technoIogIcaI heIp wouId
be to Issue an InvItatIon fof us to downIoad scIentIfIc data at some poInt In the futufe,
subject to safeguafds and pfovIsIons to aveft an unseemIy squabbIe ovef who gets fIfst
peek, pIus some cIeaf assufances about how we wouId use the InfofmatIon aftefwafds.
Fof exampIe, a IongstandIng hope fof soIvIng the wofId's enefgy cfIsIs Is contfoIIed
nucIeaf fusIon the pfocess that powefs the sun. ExpefIments wefe begun In the 1950s,
wIth the expectatIon that fusIon powef wouId be a commefcIaI feaIIty wIthIn thIfty
yeafs. Today, expefIments wIth nucIeaf fusIon contInue, but the pfomIse of unIImIted
cheap enefgy femaIns a dIstant dfeam. The maIn technIcaI obstacIe Is fIndIng a way to
confIne the uItfa-hot hydfogen gas, whIch has a tendency to become unstabIe (thIs
pfocess Is hot fusIon, not the dubIous 'coId fusIon' I dIscussed on p.173). A heIpfuI tIp
ffom ET couId enabIe scIentIsts to soIve the stabIIIty pfobIems. Howevef, the sudden
tfansfofmatIon of ouf Industfy to aImost-ffee fusIon powef wouId sefIousIy fock the
economIc boat and change the geopoIItIcaI Iandscape ovefnIght. Fofwafd pIannIng of
some decades wouId be hIghIy advIsabIe.
IMPACT ON SCIENCE, PHIIOSOPHY AND POIITICS
The mefe knowIedge that anothef technoIogIcaI communIty exIsts wouId ImpIy that
thefe afe, have been and wIII be vefy many such communItIes, the pfobabIIIty that thefe
afe two, but onIy two, cIvIIIzatIons In the gaIaxy Is vefy Iow. We couId stfaIghtaway
concIude that f
l
and f
i
In the Dfake equatIon afe not, aftef aII, cIose to zefo. The hunt
wouId then begIn In eafnest fof othef aIIen cIvIIIzatIons, possIbIy cIosef, and a sefIous
attempt wouId be made to fInd aIIen aftIfacts on of neaf Eafth. AstfobIoIogy as a whoIe
wouId feceIve a massIve fIIIIp, because to know that f
l
Is not a tIny numbef means we
can expect to fInd at Ieast mIcfobIaI IIfe In many Eafth-IIke settIngs, pefhaps even
wIthIn ouf own soIaf system.
Thefe wouId aIso be a majof pafadIgm shIft among scIentIsts. AccofdIng to the
ofthodox scIentIfIc wofId vIew the gfeat sweep of cosmoIogIcaI hIstofy Is ofganIzed
afound two fundamentaI pfIncIpIes: the CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe and the second Iaw of
thefmodynamIcs. The Iattef, whIch I touched on In Chaptef 7, concefns the unfemIttIng
fIse In entfopy In aII physIcaI systems and the fesuItIng one-way sIIde of the unIvefse
ffom ofdef to chaos, tendIng towafds what physIcIsts caII Its 'heat death'. The most
conspIcuous manIfestatIon of the second Iaw at wofk Is the way stafs eventuaIIy exhaust
theIf stock of nucIeaf fueI and bufn out. In the vefy faf futufe, not just stafIIght, but aII
fofms of usefuI enefgy, wIII be compIeteIy dIssIpated. To a thefmodynamIcIst, the
hIstofy of the unIvefse Is one of InexofabIe degenefatIon and decay. 'We afe the chIIdfen
of chaos,' wfItes the chemIst Petef AtkIns, 'and the deep stfuctufe of change Is decay. At
foot, thefe Is onIy coffuptIon, and the unstemmabIe tIde of chaos. Gone Is pufpose, aII
that Is Ieft Is dIfectIon. ThIs Is the bIeakness we have to accept as we peef deepIy and
dIspassIonateIy Into the heaft of the UnIvefse.'
14
VIewed thfough the eyes of a cosmoIogIst, howevef, the same facts couId take on a
dIffefent hue. The unIvefse began In a fathef bIand state a hot unIfofm soup of
subatomIc paftIcIes. Ovef tIme, thfough a sequence of seIf-ofganIzIng pfocesses, It has
Incfeased enofmousIy In fIchness and compIexIty. Mattef aggfegated Into gaIaxIes,
whIch then dIffefentIated Into stafs. Heavy eIements wefe made, IeadIng to the
fofmatIon of pIanets. PIanets pfoduced focks and cIouds and huffIcanes and, In at Ieast
one case, IIfe. StaftIng wIth a handfuI of humbIe mIcfobes, IIfe on Eafth has dIvefsIfIed
ovef bIIIIons of yeafs Into the astonIshIng vafIety of eIabofate fofms we see today. A
cosmoIogIst mIght pfefef to descfIbe the hIstofy of the unIvefse as one of contInuaI
enfIchment fathef than feIentIess degenefatIon and decay. Howevef, the two accounts
thefmodynamIc and cosmoIogIcaI afe not contfadIctofy. They sImpIy emphasIze
dIffefent aspects of change. They afe consIstent because evefy seIf-ofganIzIng pfocess,
evefy new specIes of IIfe, comes wIth a thefmodynamIc pfIce In the fofm of Incfeased
entfopy, whIch sefves to hasten the cosmIc heat death.
Now we feach the poInt I want to make. Thefe Is a stfong temptatIon to descfIbe the
cumuIatIve enfIchment of the unIvefse as 'pfogfessIve'. It Iooks as If thefe Is some soft of
ovefafchIng pfIncIpIe at wofk a pfIncIpIe of advancIng compIexIty and ofganIzatIon
whIch appIIes to evefythIng ffom the fofmatIon of gaIaxIes to the evoIutIon of
muItIceIIed IIfe. Onwafd and upwafd the mafch seems to go to bfaIns, cognItIon,
InteIIIgence and technoIogIcaI socIety. SETI sIts at the pInnacIe of that hypothesIzed
swoop, pfedIcated on the assumptIon that thefe Is Indeed a pfIncIpIe of advancIng
compIexIty, pIayIng out acfoss the gaIaxy and the wIdef unIvefse, facIIItatIng the
emefgence of IIfe, InteIIIgence and technoIogy whefevef they have an oppoftunIty to
fIoufIsh. It Is an InspIfIng vIsIon. But Is It cfedIbIe? The majofIty of scIentIsts wouId say
no, dIsmIssIng such Ideas as quasI-feIIgIous. In Chaptef 4, I expIaIned how the notIon of
'pfogfess' Is a hIghIy contentIous and sensItIve Issue among bIoIogIsts. It fests
uncomfoftabIy wIthIn the feIgnIng pafadIgm of DafwInIsm, whIch fejects any suggestIon
that natufe can 'Iook ahead' and IegIsIate a systematIc ovefaII dIfectIonaIIty In
evoIutIon. As fof physIcs and chemIstfy, decades of feseafch Into compIex systems have
so faf faIIed to uneafth any genefaI 'Iaw of pfogfess', onIy vague tfends and specIfIc
exampIes InvoIvIng specIaI cIfcumstances. The dIscovefy of aIIen technoIogy wouId
settIe thIs mattef In shoft ofdef, and demonstfate, agaInst the pfevaIIIng ofthodox
scIentIfIc sentIment, that the cosmos Is Indeed subject to some soft of unIvefsaI pfIncIpIe
of advancIng ofganIzed compIexIty.
15
The Impact on phIIosophy wouId be equaIIy pfofound. The thefmodynamIc vIew of
natufe, In stfessIng the femofseIess decay and Impefmanence of aII physIcaI systems,
has Iong boIstefed a nIhIIIstIc phIIosophy, of at best stoIc acquIescence, In the face of a
poIntIess, aImIess unIvefse endufIng a IIngefIng heat death. A centufy ago the hugeIy
InfIuentIaI BfItIsh phIIosophef Beftfand RusseII wfote gIoomIIy about the 'unyIeIdIng
despaIf' It InvItes one to accept when contempIatIng 'the vast death of the soIaf
system'.
16
The contfastIng vIew that the unIvefse Is pfegnant wIth hope and potentIaI,
and Is fIdIng an escaIatof of gfowth to gIofIes new undefpInned the countefvaIIIng
vIsIons of pfogfess towafds UtopIa espoused by RusseII's ContInentaI contempofafIes,
17
whIch contfIbuted to the fIse of Eufopean socIaIIst thought. The same dIvefgence of
opInIon pfevaIIs today. MankInd In the twenty-fIfst centufy faces an unceftaIn futufe,
and many dIstInguIshed scIentIsts afe pessImIstIc that we have any Iong-tefm futufe at
aII.
18
Yet set agaInst thIs afe pfedIctIons of acceIefatIng technoIogIcaI pfogfess,
pfomIsIng the eIImInatIon of aII socIety's IIIs, as expounded fof exampIe by Ffeeman
Dyson
19
and the futufIst Ray KufzweII.
20
The knowIedge that an aIIen communIty had endufed fof eons and ovefcome the
muItIpIe pfobIems that mankInd cuffentIy faces wouId fekIndIe human UtopIan dfeams
and become a stfong unIfyIng fofce on ouf pIanet. To gIImpse a tfajectofy of human
pfogfess mIffofed In the stafs wouId have a gaIvanIzIng effect faf gfeatef than any
poIItIcaI fhetofIc. In ouf pfesent state of Ignofance It Is possIbIe to beIIeve eIthef
account of the futufe: pessImIstIc of optImIstIc. But to know we afe not the onIy sentIent
beIngs In a mystefIous and sometImes ffIghtenIng unIvefse wouId pfovIde a dfamatIc
message of hope fof mankInd.
IMPACT ON REIIGION
UndoubtedIy the most ImmedIate Impact of an aIIen message wouId be to shake up the
wofId's faIths. The dIscovefy of uny sIgn that we afe not aIone In the unIvefse couId
pfove deepIy pfobIematIc fof the maIn ofganIzed feIIgIons, whIch wefe founded In the
pfe-scIentIfIc efa and afe based on a vIew of the cosmos that beIongs to a bygone age.
AIthough the cosmoIogIcaI dIscovefIes of CopefnIcus, GaIIIeo, EInsteIn and HubbIe
pfoved dIscomfoftIng fof feIIgIon, they wefe eventuaIIy accommodated because most
feIIgIons make no sefIous attempt to descfIbe the physIcaI unIvefse In a scIentIfIc
mannef. TheIf cfeatIon myths afe poetIcaI and symboIIc, fathef than factuaI. Two
thousand yeafs ago, few peopIe had any InkIIng that a vast unIvefse Iay beyond the sky:
Eafth's sufface and Its IIfe were cfeatIon. The feason that scIentIfIc cosmoIogy, wIth Its
bIIIIons of gaIaxIes scattefed acfoss the chasms of space, faIIed to demoIIsh estabIIshed
feIIgIon Is because feIIgIous faIth Is pfImafIIy concefned wIth people, not the unIvefse.
Indeed, most feIIgIons focus on one paftIcuIaf specIes that has exIsted on one pIanet In
one gaIaxy fof a mefe one hundfed thousandth of the age of the unIvefse, a specIes that
neveftheIess Is saId to enjoy a specIaI feIatIonshIp wIth the vefy AfchItect of the cosmos.
The dangef posed by SETI Is that feIIgIon pfImafIIy concefns not the vastness and
majesty of the cosmos, but t/e uffuirs of sentient beings.
ChfIstIanIty Is the feIIgIon most chaIIenged by the concept of extfateffestfIaI beIngs,
because ChfIstIans beIIeve that God became a human beIng (specIfIcaIIy, a JewIsh
poIItIcaI dIssIdent). Jesus ChfIst Is caIIed the SavIouf pfecIseIy because he took on
human fIesh to save humankInd. He dId not come to save the whaIes of the doIphIns of
the gofIIIas of the chImpanzees, of even the NeandefthaIs, howevef nobIe of desefvIng
those cfeatufes may be (of wefe). Jesus ChfIst was the savIouf of Homo supiens,
specIfIcaIIy: one pIanet and one specIes. The pIausIbIIIty of such an extfaofdInafIIy
focused dIvIne mIssIon was much easIef to accept when most peopIe beIIeved as they
dId two mIIIennIa ago that thefe was onIy one Eafth and one InteIIIgent specIes, when
nothIng was known of the now vanIshed NeandefthaIs, and IIttIe thought had been
gIven to the possIbIIIty of aIIen beIngs on othef wofIds.
The pfobIem fof ChfIstIanIty Is thfown Into shafp feIIef when account Is taken of the
feIatIve state of advancement of aIIen cIvIIIzatIons. As I have stfessed, If InteIIIgence Is
wIdespfead In the unIvefse, thefe wIII be communItIes of beIngs who may have feached
ouf stage of deveIopment mIIIIons of yeafs ago. Those beIngs afe IIkeIy to be faf ahead
of us not onIy scIentIfIcaIIy and technoIogIcaIIy, but ethIcaIIy too. QuIte possIbIy they
wIII have used genetIc engIneefIng to eIImInate gfossIy cfImInaI of antIsocIaI behavIouf.
By ouf standafds they wouId be tfuIy saIntIy.
21
And hefeIn IIes the feaI cfIsIs fof
ChfIstIanIty. If we mIsefabIe humans get to be saved, sufeIy the saIntIy aIIens desefve a
chance too?
WeII, what does the Chufch have to say on the mattef? The pfobIem of extfateffestfIaI
IIfe, whIIe hafdIy a PfemIef Ieague Issue, has not been totaIIy Ignofed by theoIogIans. A
seafch of the IItefatufe feveaIs two escape cIauses whefeby aIIens couId be saved. The
fIfst appeaIs to muItIpIe IncafnatIons: one savIouf fof each desefvIng specIes 'God
takIng on IIttIe gfeen fIesh to save IIttIe gfeen men' was the feffeshIngIy bIunt way an
AngIIcan pfIest once expfessed It to me. The pfobIem wIth thIs Idea Is that the
IncafnatIon (meanIng 'God becomIng fIesh') Is supposed to be a unIque event: the BIbIe
says that Jesus Is God's only begotten son. IncafnatIons on bIIIIons of pIanets Is fegafded
as a hefesy by many ChfIstIans. The othef fesoIutIon Is to suppose that thefe Is onIy one
IncafnatIon and one savIouf, In the fofm of the teffestfIaI Jesus ChfIst, and that It Is the
God-gIven destIny of mankInd to 'spfead the wofd' afound the unIvefse. Humans thus
assume the fesponsIbIIIty fof a soft of cosmIc cfusade, pfesumabIy at fIfst by fadIo,
faIsIng the amusIng pfospect that If we evef make contact wIth ET, ChfIstIans may
pfesent themseIves as the aIIens' foute to saIvatIon fathef than vIce vefsa!
22
Both the above-mentIoned scenafIos have been muIIed ovef by theoIogIans, usuaIIy
wIth the feassufIng concIusIon that ET Is In fact no thfeat to ChfIstIanIty. ConsIdef, fof
exampIe, the fecent statement by the Revefend Jose GabfIeI Funes, head of the VatIcan
Obsefvatofy and a scIentIfIc advIsef to Pope BenedIct XVI, who Is dIstInctIy sanguIne
about extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence. 'How can we excIude that IIfe has deveIoped
eIsewhefe?' he femafked In a newspapef IntefvIew. 'Just as thefe Is a muItIpIIcIty of
cfeatufes on eafth, thefe can be othef beIngs, even InteIIIgent, cfeated by God.' But Is
ChfIstIanIty thefeby ImpefIIIed? Not at aII, accofdIng to Ff Funes: 'The extfateffestfIaI Is
my bfothef.'
23
ShoftIy aftef thIs comment was made, a sufvey was pubIIshed In whIch 1,135 peopIe
of sevefaI faIths wefe asked whethef the dIscovefy of extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence wouId
have a negatIve Impact on specIfIc feIIgIons. The study was conducted by the Iuthefan
theoIogIan Ted Petefs, who has a IongstandIng Intefest In the theoIogIcaI ImpIIcatIons of
aIIens.
24
RemafkabIy, vefy few feIIgIous adhefents thought thefe was a pfobIem. Most
saId theIf faIth couId feadIIy accommodate the exIstence of advanced aIIen beIngs
wIthout too much dIsfuptIon to theIf cofe beIIefs. Many fespondents, echoIng Ff Funes,
even weIcomed the Idea of ET, and thought It paInted a fIchef pIctufe of God's cfeatIon.
Howevef, most of the comments had an aIf of sweepIng the pfobIem undef the cafpet.
Vefy few of the ChfIstIan fespondents tackIed the theoIogIcaI mInefIeId of the
unIqueness of the IncafnatIon and the specIes-specIfIc natufe of saIvatIon. A handfuI dId
IdentIfy the conundfum, but no noveI soIutIons wefe pfoffefed.
ChfIstIans haven't aIways been so IaId-back about the mattef. When Bfuno pfoposed
that thefe wefe many InhabIted wofIds, he was condemned to death In 1600 fof
hefesy.
25
Bfuno's dfeadfuI fate dId IIttIe to dampen enthusIasm fof debate about
extfateffestfIaI IIfe, and beIIef In aIIen beIngs became wIdespfead In ChfIstIan Eufope.
But the stubbofn pfobIem of the IncafnatIon aIways Iufked In the backgfound. WIIIIam
WheweII was an eafIy-nIneteenth-centufy CambfIdge UnIvefsIty phIIosophef, famous fof
coInIng the tefm 'scIentIst', and, IIke Isaac Newton befofe hIm, was Mastef of TfInIty
CoIIege. HIs academIc posItIon heId the gfand tItIe of Pfofessof of MofaI TheoIogy and
CasuIstIcaI DIvInIty. AftIcuIatIng the pfevaIIIng vIew, WheweII InItIaIIy afgued In favouf
of extfateffestfIaI beIngs, but by 1850 doubts began to cfeep In, fueIIed pfecIseIy by
theoIogIcaI concefns about the IncafnatIon and the saIvatIon of mankInd. In an
unpubIIshed manuscfIpt entItIed Astronomy unJ Religion he wfote:
God has Intefposed In the hIstofy of mankInd In a specIaI and pefsonaI mannef. what afe we to suppose concefnIng the
othef wofIds whIch scIence dIscIoses to us? Is thefe a IIke scheme of saIvatIon pfovIded fof aII of them? Ouf vIew of the
savIouf of man wIII not aIIow us to suppose that thefe can be mofe than one savIouf. And the savIouf comIng as a man to
men Is so essentIaI a paft of the scheme. that to endeavouf to tfansfef It to othef wofIds and to ImagIne thefe somethIng
anaIogous as exIstIng, Is mofe fepugnant to ouf feeIIng than to ImagIne those othef wofIds not to be pfovIded wIth any
dIvIne scheme of saIvatIon.
26
In othef wofds, saId WheweII, thefe afe no extfateffestfIaIs wofthy of beIng saved. HIs
stefn deIIbefatIons cuImInated In a book, pubIIshed anonymousIy In 1854, entItIed Of
t/e Plurulity of WorlJs, In whIch he attempted to depIoy scIentIfIc afguments to boIstef
what was pfImafIIy a ChfIstIan objectIon to the exIstence of aIIens.
27
NeveftheIess, the contfafy vIew that thefe afe countIess pIanets hostIng posItIveIy
saIntIy beIngs has pfoved popuIaf among ChfIstIans too. In 1758, EmanueI
Swedenbofg, a SwedIsh scIentIst, phIIosophef and mystIc, who stIII commands a cuIt
foIIowIng today, offefed a way out of the theoIogIcaI quagmIfe In a cufIous IIttIe book
entItIed Lurt/s in t/e Universe.
28
IIke many eIghteenth-centufy schoIafs, Swedenbofg was
convInced aIso on theoIogIcaI gfounds! that othef pIanets, IncIudIng those In ouf
soIaf system, wefe InhabIted. He even went as faf as to descfIbe the appeafance,
cIothIng, famIIy stfuctufe, feIIgIous pfactIces, houses and othef mundane aspects of the
aIIens' IIves, InfofmatIon he cIaImed to have accessed thfough mystIcaI feveIatIon. Some
aIIen socIetIes, Swedenbofg decIafed, wefe posItIveIy IdyIIIc. On Mafs, fof exampIe, the
InhabItants wefe of a much ffIendIIef dIsposItIon than eafthIIngs, when stfangefs meet
'they afe InstantIy ffIends.' Fufthefmofe, 'evefyone thefe IIves content wIth hIs own
goods', and pfecautIons afe taken agaInst 'the Iust of gaIn' Iest anyone 'shouId depfIve
othefs of theIf goods'.
29
In spIte of thIs aIIeged MaftIan UtopIa, Swedenbofg InsIsted that
Eafth aIone hosted an IncafnatIon. HIs chaptef 'The feasons why the Iofd wIIIed to be
bofn on ouf Eafth, and not on any othef' expIaIns hIs feasonIng. God seIected Eafth In
ofdef to deIIvef 'the Wofd. the DIvIne Tfuth', wIth the expfess pufpose that It shouId
fIfst be communIcated acfoss ouf pIanet, and then passed to othef pIanets.
30
How, you
mIght wondef? IackIng knowIedge about the possIbIIIty of fadIo, Swedenbofg Invoked
'spIfIts and angeIs' as the mode of communIcatIon to the extfateffestfIaIs. On the
pfobIem of the specIes-specIfIc natufe of the IncafnatIon, Swedenbofg had a quaInt
soIutIon. The extfateffestfIaIs wefe, he saId, /umuns too: 'thefe afe eafths In Immense
numbefs, InhabIted by human beIngs, not onIy In thIs soIaf system, but In the staffy
heaven beyond It.'
31
Thus, when Jesus ChfIst dIed to save mankInd, the defInItIon
convenIentIy extended to embface the aIIens.
Swedenbofg's concept of a theoIogIcaIIy pfIvIIeged Eafth, wIth 'the Wofd' spfeadIng
out Into space IIke fIppIes ffom a stone thfown Into a pond, was adopted In the
twentIeth centufy by none othef than E. A. MIIne, a BfItIsh mathematIcaI physIcIst and
cosmoIogIst of some dIstInctIon, who was a pfofessof at Oxfofd UnIvefsIty. In hIs book
MoJern Cosmology unJ t/e C/ristiun IJeu of GoJ, pubIIshed In 1952, MIIne wfote:
God's most notabIe IntefventIon In the actuaI hIstofIcaI pfocess, accofdIng to the ChfIstIan outIook, was the IncafnatIon.
Was thIs a unIque event, of has It been fe-enacted on each of the countIess numbef of pIanets? The ChfIstIan wouId fecoII
In hoffof ffom such a concIusIon. We cannot ImagIne the Son of God suffefIng vIcafIousIy on each of a myfIad of pIanets.
The ChfIstIan wouId avoId thIs concIusIon by the defInIte supposItIon that ouf pIanet Is In fact unIque. What then of the
possIbIe denIzens of othef pIanets, If the IncafnatIon occuffed onIy on ouf own?
32
QuIte. MIIne got It pfecIseIy. He went on to suggest that the theoIogIcaI pfobIem
wouId be cIfcumvented If the Wofd couId be spfead ffom Eafth usIng fadIo teIescopes,
whIch Is at Ieast an Impfovement on the 'spIfIts and angeIs' of Swedenbofg.
33
It wIII be evIdent ffom these seIected quotatIons that ChfIstIan theoIogy Is In a
ffIghtfuI muddIe when It comes to extfateffestfIaI beIngs, and that a posItIve fesuIt ffom
SETI wouId ImmedIateIy open up a hoffIbIe can of wofms, whatevef bIand assufances
have been gIven by feIIgIous Ieadefs so faf.
34
In fact, I wouId go so faf as to say that the
dIscovefy of aIIens wouId deaI a sevefe bIow not onIy to ChfIstIanIty, but to aII
maInstfeam feIIgIons. I am not sayIng that what we may IooseIy caII the spIfItuaI
dImensIon of human IIfe wouId be ecIIpsed of beIIef In some soft of wIdef meanIng of
pufpose In the unIvefse negated. BuddhIsts wouId doubtIess contInue to seek the path of
enIIghtenment thfough Innef fefIectIon, even when afmed wIth the knowIedge of
InteIIIgent IIfe beyond Eafth. What is cIeaf, howevef, Is that any theoIogy wIth an
InsIstence on human unIqueness wouId be doomed. How thIs wouId actuaIIy pIay out In
tefms of socIaI and poIItIcaI dIsfuptIon acfoss the wofId Is dIffIcuIt to pfedIct. AIthough
sIow to change, feIIgIon Is vefy adaptabIe. Ovef the centufIes It has managed to come to
tefms wIth CopefnIcan cosmoIogy, DafwInIan evoIutIon, genome sequencIng and othef
unsettIIng scIentIfIc deveIopments. Of these, evoIutIon was the hafdest to swaIIow,
because of Its ImpIIed thfeat to the unIque status of Homo supiens. The dIscovefy of
advanced extfateffestfIaI beIngs wouId fepfesent a faf mofe expIIcIt thfeat of the same
natufe, and pfove that much hafdef to assImIIate.
OF GODS AND MEN. IS SETI ITSEIF A REIIGION?
Humans have a basIc need to pefceIve themseIves as paft of a gfand scheme, of a
natufaI ofdef that has a deepef sIgnIfIcance and gfeatef endufance than the petty
affaIfs of daIIy IIfe. The Incongfuous mIsmatch between the futIIIty of the human
condItIon and the bfoodIng majesty of the cosmos compeIs peopIe to seek a
tfanscendent meanIng to undefpIn theIf ffagIIe exIstence. Fof thousands of yeafs thIs
bfoadef context was pfovIded by tfIbaI mythoIogy and stofyteIIIng. The tfanspoftIng
quaIItIes of those naffatIves gave human beIngs a cfucIaI spIfItuaI anchof. AII cuItufes
Iay cIaIm to hauntIng myths of othefwofIdIIness: ffom the DfeamIng of the AustfaIIan
AbofIgInes to the C/ronicles of Nurniu, ffom the NIfvana of BuddhIsm to the ChfIstIan
KIngdom of Heaven. Ovef tIme, the humbIe campfIfe stofIes mofphed Into the spIendouf
and fItuaI of ofganIzed feIIgIon and the gfeat wofks of dfama and IItefatufe. Even In
ouf secuIaf age, whefe many socIetIes have evoIved to a post-feIIgIous phase, peopIe
stIII have unfuIfIIIed spIfItuaI yeafnIngs. A pfoject wIth the scope and pfofundIty of SETI
cannot be dIvofced ffom thIs wIdef cuItufaI context, fof It too offefs us the vIsIon of a
wofId tfansfofmed, and hoIds the compeIIIng pfomIse that thIs couId happen any day
soon. As the wfItef DavId BfIn has poInted out, 'contact wIth advanced aIIen
cIvIIIzatIons may caffy much the same tfanscendentaI of hopefuI sIgnIfIcance as any
mofe tfadItIonaI notIon of saIvatIon ffom above".'
35
I have afgued that If we dId make
contact wIth an advanced extfateffestfIaI communIty, the entItIes wIth whIch we wouId
be deaIIng wouId appfoach godIIke status In ouf eyes. CeftaInIy they wouId be mofe
godIIke than human-IIke, Indeed, theIf powefs wouId be gfeatef than those attfIbuted to
most gods In human hIstofy.
So Is SETI ItseIf In dangef of becomIng a Iattef-day feIIgIon? The scIence fIctIon wfItef
MIchaeI CfIchton thought so. 'SETI Is unquestIonabIy a feIIgIon,' he saId bIuntIy, In a
2003 speech at the CaIIfofnIa InstItute of TechnoIogy.
36
CfIchton was objectIng to the
wIdespfead use of the Dfake equatIon when many of the tefms It IncIudes afe pufe
guesses. 'FaIth Is defIned as the fIfm beIIef In somethIng fof whIch thefe Is no pfoof,' he
expIaIned. 'The beIIef that thefe afe othef IIfe fofms In the unIvefse Is a mattef of faIth.
Thefe Is not a sIngIe shfed of evIdence fof any othef IIfe fofms, and In fofty yeafs of
seafchIng, none has been dIscovefed. Thefe Is absoIuteIy no evIdentIafy feason to
maIntaIn thIs beIIef.' In sImIIaf veIn, Geofge BasaIIa, a UnIvefsIty of DeIawafe hIstofIan,
afgues that doggedIy pufsuIng contact wIth aIIens In the face of fIfty yeafs of sIIence
betfays a kInd of feIIgIous fefvouf, boIstefed by a vestIge of the beIIef that the heavens
afe popuIated by supefIof beIngs.
37
The wfItef Mafgafet WeftheIm has studIed how the
concept of space and Its InhabItants has evoIved ovef sevefaI centufIes. She tfaces the
modefn notIon of aIIens to RenaIssance wfItefs such as the Roman CathoIIc CafdInaI
NIchoIas of Cusa (140164), who consIdefed the status of man In the unIvefse In
feIatIon to ceIestIaI beIngs such as angeIs. 'HIstofIcaIIy, thIs may be seen as the fIfst step
In a pfocess that wouId cuImInate In the modefn Idea of aIIens,' wfItes WeftheIm. 'What
afe ET and hIs IIk, aftef aII, If not Incafnated angeIs beIngs ffom the stafs made
manIfest In fIesh?'
38
WIth the affIvaI of the scIentIfIc age, specuIatIons about aIIen beIngs passed ffom
theoIogIans to scIence fIctIon wfItefs, but the spIfItuaI dImensIon femaIned just beIow
the sufface. OccasIonaIIy It Is made expIIcIt, as In OIaf StapIedon's Stur Mu/er, DavId
IIndsay's A Voyuge to Arcturus, of Steven SpIeIbefg's Close Lncounters of t/e T/irJ KinJ,
whIch Is stfongIy femInIscent of John Bunyan's A Pilgim's Progress.
39
These afe IconIc
Images that fesonate deepIy wIth the human psyche, and shadow the scIentIfIc quest to
dIscovef InteIIIgent IIfe beyond Eafth. Most SETI astfonomefs vehementIy feject the
cIaIm that thefe Is a feIIgIous dImensIon to theIf wofk, they fegafd the exIstence of
aIIens as sImpIy a hypothesIs to be tested. But fof many non-scIentIsts, the fascInatIon of
SETI Is pfecIseIy Its quasI-feIIgIous quaIIty, and Its tantaIIzIng pfomIse of ceIestIaI
wIsdom and unbounded fIches In the sky just a fadIo sIgnaI away.
10
Who Speaks fof Eafth?
Tu/e me to your leuJer!
PIea of a thousand caftoon aIIens
SHOUTING AT THE HEAVENS
ImagIne that the day has affIved. HumanIty has feceIved a message ffom an aIIen
cIvIIIzatIon, dIfected at Eafth. The message has been decoded and the aIIens afe askIng
fof contact. ShouId we fespond? If so, what do we say? Above aII, who speaks fof Eafth?
The SETI Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup has aIfeady begun to wfestIe wIth these thofny
pfobIems, fof the sImpIe feason that some peopIe have jumped the gun and begun
tfansmIttIng messages anyway, a pfactIce known as actIve SETI of METI (MessagIng to
ExtfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence). RadIo METI began In eafnest In 1974, when the AfecIbo
fadIo teIescope was empIoyed to tfansmIt a message to the M13 gIobuIaf cIustef of stafs
25,000 IIght yeafs away. A mofe fecent attempt was made In 2009 when a Iafge fadIo
teIescope In UkfaIne was used to beam fIfty photos, dfawIngs and text messages at the
pIanet GIeIse 581C, Iocated twenty IIght yeafs away. The tafget Is one of a handfuI of
newIy dIscovefed extfa-soIaf pIanets thought to be capabIe of suppoftIng IIfe.
Some peopIe afe ImpIacabIy opposed to METI on the gfounds that bfoadcastIng wIIIy-
nIIIy Into space, deIIbefateIy attfactIng attentIon to oufseIves, Is feckIess. An obvIous
feaf Is that adveftIsIng the exIstence of ouf wondeffuI IIfe-suppoftIng pIanet mIght
InvIte an aIIen InvasIon. A IeadIng cfItIc of METI Is the wfItef and commentatof DavId
BfIn, who coIned the phfase 'shoutIng at the cosmos'. He Is dIsmayed by the happy-go-
Iucky attItude of a new genefatIon of SETI fans, especIaIIy those ffom the fofmef SovIet
UnIon, who advocate gfeatIy expandIng the METI pfogfamme In an ad hoc mannef
wIthout much fofethought of attempt at debatIng the Issue. And It's tfue that METI
attfacts faf mofe attentIon than SETI, pfImafIIy because somethIng actuaIIy happens a
message Is sent! By contfast, aII SETI astfonomefs do Is passIveIy IIsten. METI Is popuIaf
wIth young peopIe when the content of the message Is opened up to the pubIIc, the
fecent UkfaIne tfansmIssIon foIIowed a competItIon Iaunched vIa a socIaI netwofkIng
sIte caIIed Bebo, whIch boasts 12 mIIIIon usefs. BfIn's posItIon Is that pfudence shouId
pfevaII ovef popuIafIty. He has caIIed fof an IntefnatIonaI pfotocoI that asks fof aII of
those peopIe contfoIIIng fadIo teIescopes to 'forbeur from significuntly increusing Lurt/'s
visibility wIth deIIbefate skywafd emanatIons, untII theIf pIans wefe fIfst dIscussed befofe
open and wIdeIy accepted IntefnatIonaI fofa ]hIs ItaIIcs|'.
1
HIs sentIments have been
stfongIy endofsed by DavId WhItehouse. 'If we don't know what's out thefe,' wfItes
WhItehouse, 'why on Eafth afe we deIIbefateIy beamIng messages Into space, to tfy and
contact these cIvIIIzatIons about whIch we know pfecIseIy nothIng?'
2
ChampIons of METI, such as AIexandef ZaItsev of the RussIan Academy of ScIences,
dIsmIss BfIn's concefns. They poInt out that we afe aIfeady bfoadcastIng. Ouf fadIo and
teIevIsIon pfogfammes afe sweepIng acfoss the gaIaxy at the speed of IIght: we can't get
them back. A suffIcIentIy sensItIve antenna couId detect them, and ouf covef wouId be
bIown. Howevef, as I mentIoned eafIIef, ouf TV tfansmIssIons afe actuaIIy exceedIngIy
weak. MIIItafy fadafs pack much mofe punch, as do the occasIonaI fadaf puIses dIfected
at pIanets and astefoIds fof scIentIfIc pufposes. But these beams afe spofadIc and
naffow, ET couId easIIy mIss them. So aII In aII, thefe Is a good chance we have so faf
escaped detectIon (by fadIo at Ieast) even If the gaIaxy has IegIons of aIIen cIvIIIzatIons
afmed wIth enofmous fadIo antennas. No doubt thIs debate wIII fage fof a whIIe yet, but
It seems to me IafgeIy IffeIevant, because whatevef scIentIsts and commentatofs may
thInk, the feaIIty Is that a motIvated mIIIIonaIfe can buIId a fadIo teIescope and bIast
the heavens to hIs heaft's content, and thefe's vefy IIttIe anyone can do about It.
3
METI
cannot feaIIstIcaIIy be poIIced at Ieast, no IntefnatIonaI agency abIe to do so has the
sIIghtest Intefest In the subject one way of the othef.
I am cIeaf In my own mInd that the dangef ffom METI Is mInuscuIe. Feaf of the
unknown Is undefstandabIe, but If we aIways waIt untII we afe sufe thefe afe no
demons IufkIng In the dafk we wouId nevef do any scIence and nevef expIofe ouf wofId.
Pfudence Is wIse, but pfudence shouId not mean pafaIysIs. We need to ask why aIIens
wouId be Intefested In hafmIng us of InvadIng. If Eafth Is attfactIve as a potentIaI aIIen
habItat, the aIIens wIII know thIs aIfeady wIthout ouf heIp. EvIdence fof oxygen, watef
and pIant IIfe can be obtaIned spectfoscopIcaIIy ffom a gfeat dIstance, even wIth
fofeseeabIe human technoIogy. So we afe fIght back to the FefmI pafadox: If they wefe
goIng to come hefe fof ouf pIanet as opposed to us they wouId have showed up Iong
ago. In any case, ouf fadIo messages afe IffeIevant If the pIanet Is what they want. The
onIy addItIonaI InfofmatIon to be gIeaned ffom fadIo communIcatIons Is that Eafth aIso
hosts InteIIIgent IIfe capabIe of buIIdIng fadIo tfansmIttefs. Some peopIe woffy about
ensIavement, but that Is fooIIsh. A technoIogIcaI communIty advanced enough fof
IntefsteIIaf tfaveI Is hafdIy goIng to have a Iabouf shoftage. It couId mofe easIIy buIId
fobots of bIo-machInes to do the necessafy gfunt wofk. We mIght conceIvabIy be
fegafded as a cuItufaI fesoufce of a bIoIogIcaI cufIosIty, and thefefofe wofth pfesefvIng.
If so, thefe Is no dangef. The concefn I voIced In Chaptef 8, that humans mIght be duped
Into buIIdIng a hostIIe aIIen ffom genetIc InstfuctIons, Is not feIevant to METI. That
scenafIo wouId need cafefuI consIdefatIon onIy If we feceIve a meanIngfuI message
ffom t/em.
The gfeatest dangef to humanIty Is If a neafby aIIen communIty judges us to be a
thfeat. GIven ouf wafIIke hIstofy, that Is not an unfeasonabIe concIusIon. The aIIens
mIght decIde to mount a pfe-emptIve stfIke fof the gfeatef good of the wIdef gaIactIc
communIty. And couId we bIame them, gIven that some of ouf own govefnments have
used pfecIseIy the same IogIc agaInst pefceIved teffestfIaI enemIes? If twenty-fIfst-
centufy human democfacy Is anythIng to go by, It may fequIfe no mofe than a thIn
pfetext fof extfateffestfIaIs to 'take out ouf weapons of mass destfuctIon'. But even If
thIs gIoomy assessment Is coffect, METI wouId not Incfease the fIsk of bfIngIng fIfe and
bfImstone down on us. In fact, It may sefve a usefuI pufpose If we couId sIgnaI ouf best
IntentIons to ET, In spIte of ouf penchant fof wafmongefIng at home. Just how we couId
convInce aIIens that we wouIdn't tfy to bIow them away wIth ouf mIssIIes and nucIeaf
wafheads Is anothef mattef. Such a message wouId In any case be a IIe. Humans have
fought each othef fof mIIIennIa ovef tIny dIffefences In face, feIIgIon of cuItufe. ImagIne
how most peopIe wouId feact to beIngs that wefe truly aIIen not onIy a dIffefent
specIes, but a dIffefent IIfe fofm aItogethef, wIth unknown motIves and non-human
feeIIngs. Feaf and fevuIsIon couId weII pfovoke a shoot-fIfst-ask-questIons-Iatef
fesponse. My pefsonaI message to ET Is to 'Keep weII cIeaf and defend youfseIf', befofe
steppIng Into the hofnets' nest of ouf mIIItafIstIc socIety. I hope such a wafnIng wouId
be fegafded In ItseIf as suffIcIentIy aItfuIstIc to aveft a pfe-emptIve stfIke.
I am In favouf of METI, not just because I thInk thefe Isn't a snowbaII's chance In heII
of anyone out thefe pIckIng up the sIgnaIs, but because the act of desIgnIng and
tfansmIttIng messages to the stafs sefves many nobIe pufposes, such as faIsIng Intefest
In scIence In genefaI and SETI In paftIcuIaf, and In encoufagIng peopIe especIaIIy
young peopIe to thInk about the sIgnIfIcance of humanIty and the vastness of the
unIvefse, and to fefIect on the common factofs among ouf dIspafate cuItufes that we
wIsh to pfesefve fof postefIty. METI Is good fof humanIty and aImost ceftaInIy
compIeteIy hafmIess, gIven the InfInItesImaI chance that fandomIy beamed sIgnaIs wIII
evef be detected by a maIevoIent aIIen cIvIIIzatIon.
WHAT SHOUID WE SAY?
In the pfesent context, METI Is IIttIe mofe than a hafmIess stunt. The sItuatIon wouId be
dfamatIcaIIy dIffefent, howevef, If we had actuaIIy Iocated an extfateffestfIaI
cIvIIIzatIon. In that case, It Is essentIaI that wIsef counseIs pfevaII. Item 7 of the IAA's
'DecIafatIon of PfIncIpIes ConcefnIng ActIvItIes FoIIowIng the DetectIon of
ExtfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence' enshfInes the need fof cautIon:
No tfansmIssIon In fesponse to a sIgnaI of othef evIdence of extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence shouId be sent untII appfopfIate
IntefnatIonaI consuItatIons have taken pIace.
4
UnfoftunateIy hIstofy gIves me vefy IIttIe confIdence In the effIcacy of 'IntefnatIonaI
consuItatIons'.
On the mattef of who gets to fespond 'offIcIaIIy', I fofesee aII softs of pfobIems. A
message concocted by a commIttee wouId be a fecIpe fof the Iowest common
denomInatof, and Is IIkeIy to consIst of banaIItIes. A statement soIeIy by a poIItIcIan of
feIIgIous Ieadef Is too hoffIbIe to contempIate. A potpouffI of comments, whefe each
cuItufaI gfoup has Its say In the Intefests of equIty of democfacy wouId most IIkeIy be
judged an Incohefent muddIe. ThIs soft of poIntIess gImmIck was tfIed In 1977, when the
two Voyagef spacecfaft, whIch afe goIng fast enough to Ieave the soIaf system, caffIed
IdentIcaI phonogfaphs. The fecofds convey gfeetIngs In fIfty-fIve Ianguages, bIfd and
anImaI sounds, a seIectIon of musIc fangIng ffom stfIng quaftets to fock and foII, and
sombfe wfItten statements ffom PfesIdent JImmy Caftef and UN Secfetafy-GenefaI Kuft
WaIdheIm. If evef aIIens wefe to chance upon Voyagef dfIftIng In IntefsteIIaf space, I
dfead to thInk what they wouId make of It aII.
CouId scIentIsts Impfove on thIs? On my offIce waII hangs a fIne pIaque, pfesented to
me by NASA. It Is a fepIIca of the ones conveyed aboafd the spacecfaft PIoneef 10 and
11 (FIg. 13). PIoneef 10 was the fIfst manmade object to Ieave the soIaf system, so NASA
thought It wouId be a nIce, aIbeIt futIIe, gestufe to convey a message to aIIens. As a
symboIIc act, It Is a gfeat Idea, and I am pfoud to possess a fepIIca. My beef Is not wIth
the gestufe ItseIf, but the content. The pIaque was desIgned by CafI Sagan, IInda
SaIzman Sagan and Ffank Dfake, and shows a pIctufe of a maIe and femaIe fofm, one
wIth a hand faIsed In gfeetIng, togethef wIth an Image of the spacecfaft and some
technIcaI data. A IIne symboIIzes the tfajectofy of the spacecfaft showIng It ofIgInatIng
on the thIfd pIanet ffom the sun. Ouf gaIactIc coofdInates afe encoded In a cIevef way,
by showIng the IocatIons and ffequencIes of a set of puIsafs, ffom whIch the sun's
posItIon In the gaIaxy couId be feconstfucted by a dIstant cIvIIIzatIon usIng eIementafy
geometfy.
ThIs pIaque may be wofthIess as faf as sIgnaIIIng the aIIens Is concefned, but It speaks
voIumes about humans. A bfIef message to an unknown aIIen communIty shouId
pfesumabIy fefIect the thIngs that we consIdef most sIgnIfIcant about oufseIves. The
pIctufe Is domInated by the human shapes, yet ouf physIcaI fofm Is pfobabIy the leust
sIgnIfIcant thIng we can say. It Is aImost compIeteIy IffeIevant both scIentIfIcaIIy and
cuItufaIIy. To put It bIuntIy, who gIves a damn what we loo/ IIke?
5
The faIsed hand paft
Is the heIght of absufdIty: such a cuItufaIIy specIfIc mannefIsm wouId be uttefIy
IncompfehensIbIe to anothef specIes, especIaIIy one that mIght not have IImbs. ShowIng
the pfovenance of the spacecfaft wIthIn the soIaf system Is of IIttIe feIevance. If the
sun's IocatIon Is estabIIshed, It wouIdn't take a genIus to fIgufe out whIch pIanet had
InteIIIgent IIfe. The pIaque aIso conveys the InfofmatIon that humans afe cafbon-based.
But we hafdIy need to teach ET chemIstfy and bIoIogy. Cafbon Is pfobabIy the onIy IIfe-
gIvIng eIement, but If the aIIens feaIIy wanted to know, they couId scouf the spacecfaft
fof femnants of teffestfIaI mIcfobes. ThIfdIy, and mofe sefIousIy, a pfeoccupatIon wIth
what we afe made of Is aImost as pafochIaI as concefn ovef ouf physIcaI fofm. SufeIy
the essence of humanIty Is what we do and thInk, not the chemIcaI make-up of ouf
bodIes.
6
FIg. 13. PIoneef pIaque.
ThIs haIf-heafted attempt to put ouf stamp on the cosmIc communIty Is dIstInctIve In
Its naffow-mIndedness and pfeoccupatIon wIth twentIeth-centufy scIence and human
affaIfs. In fact, It addfesses the soft of topIcs that appeaf on the agenda of SETI
confefences, but afe exceedIngIy unIIkeIy to be on the agendas of confefences In a 10-
mIIIIon-yeaf-oId aIIen cIvIIIzatIon, especIaIIy one In whIch machInes,computefs afe
doIng the InteIIectuaI heavy IIftIng. As caIIIng cafds they afe effectIveIy useIess.
WeII, can I come up wIth anythIng bettef? I hope so. One way to appfoach the topIc Is
to ImagIne that ouf specIes Is about to be annIhIIated, and we wIsh to Ieave a fecofd of
ouf efstwhIIe exIstence, pefhaps fof a futufe InteIIIgent specIes that may evoIve on Eafth
In the fuIIness of tIme. What wouId we want to say about oufseIves? What do we most
vaIue? WhIch pfoducts of ouf cuItufe afe quIntessentIaIIy human? We mIght take gfeat
pfIde In ouf technoIogIcaI accompIIshments, such as the Moon IandIngs, of paftIcIe
acceIefatofs, of genome sequencIng, but then agaIn, maybe not. My gfandmothef's
fesponse to the ApoIIo pfogfamme was 'Why do they want to go to the Moon?' She
couIdn't see the poInt. In the gfand cosmIc scheme of thIngs, technoIogIcaI pfoducts may
cut IIttIe Ice, especIaIIy among a specIes that has no Ieft-bfaIn,fIght-bfaIn dIchotomy, no
aftscIence schIsm.
When It comes to cuItufaI achIevements, we afe In even mufkIef watefs. ReIIgIon I
have aIfeady deaIt wIth: most feIIgIons afe hIghIy geocentfIc and anthfopocentfIc (even
ethnocentfIc), deepIy footed In evoIutIonafy psychoIogy and fecent human hIstofy. They
wouId be totaIIy meanIngIess to an aIIen mInd. Gfeat wofks of IItefatufe of poetfy afe
equaIIy pafochIaI, because they ceIebfate and anaIyse the feaIm of human affaIfs and
feIatIonshIps. Aft may have mofe wIdespfead appeaI, aIthough beauty Is vefy much In
the eye of the behoIdef. It Is not InconceIvabIe that thefe afe unIvefsaI aesthetIc
pfIncIpIes, havIng to do wIth symmetfy fof exampIe.
7
Even an aIIen mInd may fecognIze
ceftaIn fofms of vIsuaI aft to be makIng a statement to whIch It couId feIate In a genefaI
soft of way. But thefe Is no accepted theofy of aft that Isn't IntImateIy tIed to the human
cognItIve system. The same goes fof musIc and humouf: they wofk weII fof humans
because we shafe most of ouf neufaI afchItectufe. An aIIen bfaIn wIII be wIfed
dIffefentIy, so aIIens wIII fInd dIffefent thIngs pIeasIng, thIngs that afe pfobabIy
IncompfehensIbIe to us. I have Ieft out spoft, economIcs and stamp-coIIectIng fof
feasons that hafdIy need to be speIIed out.
In the tfade-off between content and compfehensIbIIIty, we wouId be wIse to eff on
the sIde of the Iattef. Thefe Is IIttIe poInt In sendIng obscufe phIIosophIcaI thoughts
about emefgence, post-modefnIsm of mofaI feIatIvIsm wIthout a IIbfafy of defInItIons
and backgfound InfofmatIon. Even bIoIogy Is pfobIematIc: apaft ffom the pfIncIpIe of
DafwInIan evoIutIon, we don't feaIIy know any unIvefsaI bIoIogIcaI Iaws, so
communIcatIng detaIIs of pfoteIn assembIy of gene netwofks mIght be of IIttIe vaIue.
(That may change as ouf undefstandIng of bIo-systems Impfoves.)
WhIch Ieaves us wIth mathematIcs and physIcs. The deepest pfoducts of the human
mInd afe afguabIy the mathematIcaI theofems that have been constfucted by some of
the wofId's most bfIIIIant thInkefs. GdeI's IncompIeteness theofem, fof exampIe, Is so
pfofound that It Is possIbIe that no theofem In the unIvefse can tfump It.
8
(I make thIs
boId cIaIm because GdeI's theofem Is a vefy genefaI statement about what cunnot be
known of pfoved evef, In pfIncIpIe fathef than about somethIng specIfIc whIch Is
known.) MathematIcs occupIes an unusuaI pIace In ouf cuItufe In that It Is a pfoduct of
the human mInd, and yet It tfanscends the mInd. Any suffIcIentIy advanced beIng
eIsewhefe In the unIvefse couId pfove the same theofems based on the same IogIcaI
pfIncIpIes. GIven that the unIvefsaI Iaws of physIcs afe manIfested In the fofm of
eIegant mathematIcaI feguIafItIes, It Is cIeaf that mathematIcs Is the key to bfIdgIng the
guIf between human and aIIen cuItufes. If aIIens know any scIence, of have deveIoped
any advanced technoIogy at aII, then they wIII be famIIIaf wIth mathematIcs. They wIII
even be famIIIaf wIth the sume mathematIcs as we know. To take an exampIe,
MaxweII's Iaws of eIectfomagnetIsm afe obsefved to appIy evefywhefe In the unIvefse,
so If the aIIens undefstand the pfIncIpIes of fadIo whIch we afe assumIng Is a
pfefequIsIte fof fadIo contact at Ieast then they wIII know MaxweII's equatIons. What
eIse? EInsteIn's genefaI theofy of feIatIvIty has been descfIbed as the pInnacIe of human
InteIIectuaI achIevement It Is ceftaInIy an ImpfessIve accompIIshment. Then thefe Is
the quantum theofy of fIeIds and othef esotefIc pfoducts of theofetIcaI physIcs that
accofd weII wIth expefIment. If the aIIens have gone beyond fadIo, they wIII pfesumabIy
know whefe the genefaI theofy of feIatIvIty and quantum fIeId theofy fIt Into the sum
totaI of knowIedge about the unIvefse. If we Infofm them that we have attaIned that
degfee of undefstandIng, It wIII be a benchmafk of softs fof them to judge ouf IeveI of
advancement.
The feadef mIght be thInkIng, 'WeII, he wouId say that, wouIdn't he? It's just what
you'd expect ffom a theofetIcaI physIcIst. DavIes Is as pafochIaI as the fest of us.' But Iet
me defend my choIce. Paft of the feason I became a theofetIcaI physIcIst Is pfecIseIy
because mathematIcs and physIcs have unIvefsaI sIgnIfIcance. I was attfacted to these
subjects because they do seem to tfanscend human affaIfs, to put us In touch wIth the
deepest wofkIngs of natufe. If, weafIng my hat as ChaIf of the SETI Post-DetectIon
Taskgfoup, I get to fepIy to ET, I wIII choose MaxweII's equatIons, the fIeId equatIons of
genefaI feIatIvIty, DIfac's equatIon of feIatIvIstIc quantum mechanIcs and a seIectIon of
mathematIcaI theofems. It wouId be IIke sayIng, 'Hey, thIs Is what we can do so faf.'
And ET wouId know whefe we have feached In the Iong quest to unfaveI the secfets of
natufe. If evef we got Into a pfotfacted dIaIogue and found oufseIves on the same
InteIIectuaI waveIength, weII, then humans couId foIIow up wIth cathedfaIs and PIcassos
and Beethoven symphonIes, In the spIfIt of 'ThIs Is what we IIke. How about you?'
WHY DO SETI?
At Its fIftIeth annIvefsafy, SETI femaIns a gfand, upIIftIng entefpfIse. Its astfonomefs
afe as dedIcated and posItIve as evef. The eefIe sIIence has not bIunted theIf zeaI of
subdued theIf motIvatIon, fof thefe Is aIways a chance that the next obsefvIng fun wIII
fInaIIy detect somethIng tfuIy convIncIng. MeanwhIIe, the foutIne data anaIysIs and
equIpment deveIopment goes on. SETI Is one of vefy few human entefpfIses that feaIIy
Joes take a Iong-tefm vIew.
In thIs book I have attempted to expIaIn what we afe up agaInst when we embafk on
SETI, and to cfItIcaIIy examIne the hIdden assumptIons that undefIIe the pfesent
stfategy. I have afgued that the tIme has come to thInk much mofe cfeatIveIy and to
wIden the seafch In noveI ways, wIthout compfomIsIng the tfadItIonaI SETI pfogfamme.
But even the most afdent optImIst wIII concede that SETI Is an extfaofdInafIIy Iong shot.
AII we have to go on afe genefaI scIentIfIc pfIncIpIes and phIIosophIcaI anaIysIs. The
best that can be saId Is that no totaIIy convIncIng afgument has been gIven fof why
aIIen cIvIIIzatIons cunnot exIst.
So why do we do It? Can SETI be justIfIed, gIven the poof pfospects of success? I
beIIeve It can, fof sevefaI feasons. FIfst, It fofces us to conffont those gfeat questIons of
exIstence that we shouId be thInkIng about anyway. What Is IIfe? What Is InteIIIgence?
What Is the destIny of mankInd? As Ffank Dfake has femafked, SETI Is In many ways a
seafch fof oufseIves who we afe and whefe we fIt Into the unIvefse. When we thInk
about advanced aIIen cIvIIIzatIons, we afe aIso gIImpsIng the futufe of mankInd. The
eefIe sIIence gIves us pause that such a futufe Is by no means assufed.
FIfty yeafs Is a usefuI benchmafk, and an exceIIent tIme to evaIuate the pfogfamme. It
Is ceftaInIy too soon to get dIscoufaged and wInd It up. As I have expIaIned, SETI has
sampIed onIy a tIny ffactIon of potentIaI habItats. But It Is equaIIy cIeaf that the gaIaxy
Isn't obvIousIy a hIve of aIIen actIvIty. 'Yeaf aftef yeaf, deep sky fadIo seafches came up
wIth nothIng,' comments DavId BfIn, 'none of the expected tutofIaI beacons". No sIgn
of busy IntefsteIIaf communIcatIons netwofks. Indeed, no tface of technoIogIcaI
cIvIIIzatIon out thefe, at aII.'
9
So how Iong shouId we keep at It? Because SETI's vefsIon
of Moofe's Iaw ImpIIes that the seafch effIcIency shoots up exponentIaIIy, a hundfed
yeafs of sIIence wouId be vefy dIffefent ffom twIce fIfty yeafs. Evefy addItIonaI yeaf
that pfoduces a negatIve fesuIt gfeatIy ampIIfIes the sIgnIfIcance of the sIIence, and
boIstefs the tentatIve concIusIons we may dfaw ffom It.
The seafch fof aIIen InteIIIgence Is an exefcIse In the CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe whIch,
IooseIy stated, says that ouf IocatIon In space Isn't specIaI of pfIvIIeged In any way, so
that what happens In ouf paft of the unIvefse shouId happen eIsewhefe too. The
CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe Is not a Iaw of natufe, onIy a fuIe of thumb ('Why do we thInk we
afe so specIaI?'). It InevItabIy faIIs at some stage, and the poInt at whIch that faIIufe
occufs Is of enofmous Impoftance and Intefest.
10
The CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe appIIes weII
to gaIaxIes IIke the MIIky Way, to sun-IIke stafs wIthIn the gaIaxy, and so we have
fecentIy dIscovefed to entIfe pIanetafy systems too. What Is not yet cIeaf Is whethef
the pfIncIpIe wofks of faIIs fof specIfIcaIIy Eafth-IIke pIanets acfoss the gaIaxy. At the
pfesent tIme, scIentIsts seem to be about equaIIy dIvIded between 'fafe Eafth' and
'common Eafth' advocates, but that unceftaInty may soon be fectIfIed when the fesuIts
of the KepIef pIanet-huntIng mIssIon become avaIIabIe. By contfast, we now know that
wIthIn the soIaf system Eafth Is In fact fathef utypicul In Its physIcaI condItIons, and that
RenaIssance scIentIsts such as Huygens and KepIef wefe wfong to tfeat ouf sIstef
pIanets as on a paf wIth It. When It comes to bIoIogy, the case fof and agaInst the
CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe Is fIneIy baIanced at thIs tIme. It wouId, howevef, be ImmedIateIy
fesoIved In favouf of 'fof' If we dIscovef a shadow bIosphefe of an Independent genesIs
of IIfe on Mafs. That doesn't take us as faf as InteIIIgence of technoIogy though. It Is
possIbIe that the CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe appIIes aII the way up to compIex IIfe, but faIIs
when It comes to technoIogIcaI communItIes IIke oufs. We may yet be unIque.
Of coufse, we cannot pfove a negatIve. We couId conduct SETI fof a mIIIIon yeafs
wIthout encountefIng any evIdence of InteIIIgent aIIens, but that wouId not fuIe them
out of exIstence. Thefe couId be aII softs of exceptIonaI feasons why the seafch mIssed
them. NeveftheIess, If exhaustIve seafches yIeId nothIng If the eefIe sIIence becomes
deafenIng then most peopIe wouId pfobabIy thInk It safe to assume that we afe, aftef
aII, totaIIy aIone. What then?
ConcIudIng that we afe unIque In the unIvefse wouId gfeatIy ampIIfy the vaIue we
attach to IIfe and mInd, and to the pIanet that sustaIns them. So the eefIe sIIence couId
be goIden. It's tfue that In some sense IIfe at Ieast InteIIIgent IIfe wouId have to be
fegafded as a ffeak. But does ImpfobabIIIty dImInIsh wofth of enhance It? CeftaInIy we
shouId want to take bettef cafe of ouf pIanet. And we wouId need to take bettef cafe of
oufseIves too. It wouId be a tfagedy of IItefaIIy cosmIc pfopoftIons If we succeeded In
annIhIIatIng the one tfuIy InteIIIgent specIes In the entIfe unIvefse. Thefe Is, howevef, a
cfucIaI caveat on whIch any bfoad concIusIon about the ImpIIcatIons fof humanIty
hInges. In Chaptef 4, I dIscussed whethef the Gfeat FIItef IIes behInd us of ahead of us In
tIme. If Eafth Is not just the onIy pIanet wIth InteIIIgent IIfe, but aIso the onIy pIanet
wIth uny soft of IIfe, we wIII have passed thfough the fIItef aIfeady, and couId be poIsed
fof a unIque cosmoIogIcaI expefIment. We mIght make It ouf mIssIon and ouf destIny to
spfead beyond Eafth, caffyIng the fIame of IIfe, InteIIIgence and cuItufe wIth us, to
bestow thIs gIft on countIess stefIIe wofIds. But If we dIscovef that, aIthough InteIIIgence
Is confIned to Eafth, compIex IIfe Is wIdespfead, then the consequences afe pfofoundIy
aIafmIng and depfessIng. It ImpIIes a much hIghef chance that InteIIIgence has evoIved
on many pIanets In ouf gaIaxy and othefs, but that It aIways got snuffed out, by
waffafe, technoIogIcaI accIdents of any of a thousand othef causes. UnIess we had vefy
good feasons fof thInkIng we afe hIghIy atypIcaI, then a sImIIaf fate wouId awaIt us.
So the bottom IIne Is sImpIe. Thefe afe thfee possIbIIItIes, each wIth dfamatIcaIIy
dIffefent ImpIIcatIons fof humanIty. The fIfst Is a unIvefse fuII of InteIIIgence. That Is
not onIy exhIIafatIng, but wouId pfomIse a bfIght futufe fof mankInd. The second Is that
Eafth Is a unIque oasIs of IIfe. That wouId pIace an awesome bufden of fesponsIbIIIty on
ouf shouIdefs, yet It wouId pfovIde us wIth the tfuIy cosmoIogIcaI mIssIon of
pefpetuatIng a pfecIous phenomenon the fIame of feason. But the thIfd possIbIIIty a
unIvefse wIth wIdespfead IIfe and nobody Ieft baf us to ceIebfate It Is one that bodes
vefy badIy fof ouf specIes.
MIGHT WE BE AIONE AFTER AII? THE THREE-HATS ANSWER
PeopIe InevItabIy ask me, bIuntIy, 'Do you beIIeve we afe aIone In the unIvefse, of afe
thefe othef InteIIIgent beIngs out thefe somewhefe?' In thIs book, I have tfIed to pfesent
vafIous fof-and-agaInst afguments, but the tIme has come fof me to get off the fence. I
can do thIs onIy by weafIng thfee hats In successIon. FIfst I shaII weaf my scIentIst hat.
Do I, PauI 'The ScIentIst' DavIes, thInk we afe aIone? As a scIentIst, my mInd Is open to
new evIdence and thefefofe not yet made up. I can assIgn some soft of pfobabIIIty fof
aIIens to exIst, based on sIftIng aII the facts, weIghted In tufn by the feIatIve Impoftance
I attach to the vafIous afguments. When aII that Is put togethef, my answef Is that we
afe pfobabIy the onIy InteIIIgent beIngs In the obsefvabIe unIvefse, and I wouId not be
vefy sufpfIsed If the soIaf system contaIns the onIy IIfe In the obsefvabIe unIvefse. I
affIve at thIs dIsmaI concIusIon because I see so many contIngent featufes InvoIved In
the ofIgIn and evoIutIon of IIfe, and because I have yet to see a convIncIng theofetIcaI
afgument fof a unIvefsaI pfIncIpIe of IncfeasIng ofganIzed compIexIty of the soft I
touted In the pfevIous chaptef.
My answef may be dIsappoIntIng to the feadef. It Is ceftaInIy dIsappoIntIng to me,
PauI 'The PhIIosophef' DavIes. WeafIng my second hat, and IeavIng scIence to the sIde,
what afe my feeIIngs about the natufe of a unIvefse In whIch we afe aIone? FfankIy, It
makes me uneasy. I wondef what aII that stuff out thefe Is for, when onIy IowIy Homo
supiens get to see It. Of coufse, my hafd-headed coIIeagues teII me It's not for anythIng,
It's just thefe. The Idea that the unIvefse has a pufpose, they say, Is just a hangovef ffom
feIIgIon.
FInaIIy, thefe Is PauI DavIes, the human beIng. One of the thIngs that InfIuenced my
choIce of cafeef was my fascInatIon wIth the Idea that thefe mIght be InteIIIgent IIfe out
thefe somewhefe. IIke aII teenagefs, I fead the fIyIng-saucef stofIes, and wondefed
whethef thefe mIght be somethIng In them. I devoufed scIence fIctIon by Afthuf C.
CIafke, Ffed HoyIe, Isaac AsImov and John Wyndham, and pIctufed a gaIaxy puIsIng
wIth aIIen actIvIty. I watched StanIey KubfIck's fIIm 2001. A Spuce OJyssey and fejoIced
In the notIon that humanIty mIght have an astfonomIcaI dImensIon, soon to be feaIIzed.
I know othef scIentIsts who foIIowed the same path Into theIf cafeefs. My decades of
wofk as a pfofessIonaI scIentIst have not dIIuted that wIde-eyed schooIboy fascInatIon, I
wouId vefy much li/e to beIIeve that the unIvefse Is IntfInsIcaIIy ffIendIy to IIfe and to
InteIIIgence. It suIts my tempefament to suppose that ouf humbIe effofts on Eafth, the
daIIy found that consumes aImost aII ouf tIme and enefgy, afe paft of somethIng
gfandef and mofe meanIngfuI. I can thInk of no mofe thfIIIIng a dIscovefy than comIng
acfoss cIeaf evIdence fof extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence. In fomantIc moments, I IIke to
thInk that aII InteIIIgent entItIes, bIoIogIcaI of othefwIse, enjoy a bond of feIIowshIp that
stfetches acfoss the vast feaches of space and tIme, and up and down the IQ Iaddef.
Whethef It Is godIIke quantum mInds fIoatIng In the bIack emptIness of IntefgaIactIc
space, supef-cybofgs fIdIng commandeefed comets, MatfIoshka bfaIns huggIng spInnIng
bIack hoIes of humbIe pIanet-dweIIIng bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms wIth bIg bfaIns and fancy
technoIogy, I'd IIke to heaf ffom them. So weafIng my 'dfeamef' hat, yes, I can feeI at
home In a unIvefse In whIch InteIIIgent IIfe Is commonpIace. ThIs Is mofe of a 'want'
than a 'beIIef', but It Is as faf as I am pfepafed to go befofe DavIes the ScIentIst feIns me
In.
And that's what makes SETI so tantaIIzIng. We just Jon't /now.
1. Paft of the SETI InstItute's AIIen Affay In nofthefn CaIIfofnIa, showIng two of the
many IInked antennas.
2. The canaIs of Mafs, accofdIng to PefcIvaI IoweII.
3. Eufopa, a moon of JupItef, showIng an Ice-covefed sufface fent by stfIatIons thought
to be caused by sIIppage of the Ice on a subsufface IIquId-watef ocean.
4. VIkIng spacecfaft, showIng the fobot afm used to gathef dIft fof bIoIogIcaI anaIysIs.
5. Fouf ceIIs of the amazIng fadIatIon-toIefant einococcus ruJioJuruns.
6. A submafIne voIcano Iocated on the Juan de Fuca RIdge In the Nofth-East PacIfIc. The
'bIack smoke' Is a tufbuIent cIoud of Ifon suIphIde paftIcIes.
7. The dfy cofe of the Atacama Deseft, whefe even the hafdIest known mIcfobes gfInd to
a haIt. ThIs fegIon mIght just be home to weIfd IIfe.
8. A pIece of the MufchIson meteofIte, whIch contaIns amIno acIds, the buIIdIng bIocks
of pfoteIns.
9. ThIs Mafs meteofIte, found In AntafctIca In 1984, contaIns tIny featufes (see Inset)
suggestIve of nanobactefIa.
10. AIIens In the Iake? FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon and Ron OfemIand seafch fof afsenIc IIfe In
Mono Iake, CaIIfofnIa.
11. These mInuscuIe shapes, dubbed 'nanobes' by theIf dIscovefef, PhIIIppa UwIns, have
been Intefpfeted by some contfovefsIaIIy as a weIfd fofm of IIfe. They afe too smaII
(about 100 nm) to be standafd mIcfobes.
12. The fadIo teIescope at Pafkes In New South WaIes, AustfaIIa, has been at the
fofeffont of SETI feseafch. It Is one of the most poweffuI fadIo teIescopes In the wofId,
and was used to feIay the fIfst moon waIk In 1969, an event made famous by the movIe
T/e is/.
13. The AfecIbo fadIo teIescope Is the wofId's Iafgest but Is not steefabIe, so It can
obsefve onIy a IImIted sIIce of the sky. It has fof sevefaI yeafs been used IntefmIttentIy
fof SETI.
14. MatfIoshka bfaIn. Is thIs the feaI ET?
AppenJix
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SETI
The yeaf 2009 mafks the 200th annIvefsafy of the bIfth of ChafIes DafwIn, and the
150th annIvefsafy of the pubIIcatIon of hIs wofId-shakIng book On t/e Origin of Species.
It Is aIso the fIftIeth annIvefsafy of the famous papef by GIuseppe CocconI and PhIIIp
MoffIson showIng that IntefsteIIaf fadIo communIcatIon was feasIbIe, whIch paved the
way fof Dfake's Pfoject Ozma the foIIowIng yeaf.
Fof some tIme aftef Ozma, SETI was tfeated by the scIentIfIc communIty as a ffInge
actIvIty. But that was set to change. In the mId-1960s, John BIIIIngham, an ex-RAF
medIcaI doctof ffom the UK, began wofkIng fof NASA at the Ames Iabofatofy In
CaIIfofnIa. Thfough chance convefsatIons wIth Ames's exobIoIogy feseafchefs,
BIIIIngham became enthfaIIed wIth the Idea of SETI. He convened an Impfomptu
summef schooI, and the upshot was a detaIIed feasIbIIIty fepoft caIIed Pfoject CycIops,
compIIed by Befnafd OIIvef ffom the HewIett-Packafd CofpofatIon, and pubIIshed In the
eafIy 1970s. CycIops stImuIated a fIuffy of actIvIty, and obsefvIng pfogfammes wefe
InItIated by OhIo State UnIvefsIty, the PIanetafy SocIety, the UnIvefsIty of CaIIfofnIa
and the Jet PfopuIsIon Iabofatofy In Pasadena, as weII as NASA Ames and sevefaI
smaIIef gfoups. The SovIet UnIon aIso had SETI pfojects and, to a Iessef extent, so too
dId Westefn Eufope and AustfaIIa. CycIops aIso bfought SETI to the wIdef pubIIc. CafI
Sagan became Its best-known champIon. HIs books, aftIcIes, pubIIc Iectufes and hIghIy
successfuI teIevIsIon sefIes Cosmos tfansfofmed the acfonym SETI Into a househoId wofd.
On 20 Novembef 1984 the SETI InstItute was estabIIshed In MountaIn VIew,
CaIIfofnIa, cIose to NASA Ames, to coofdInate feseafch. (It has sInce moved to a IocatIon
adjacent to Ames.) The US Congfess fInaIIy decIded In 1988 to fund a compfehensIve
SETI seafch to commemofate the 500th annIvefsafy of ChfIstophef CoIumbus's affIvaI In
the New WofId. Fouf yeafs Iatef, obsefvatIons began amId fanfafe. AIas, thIs was a
shoft-IIved wondef. WIthIn a yeaf, Congfess puIIed the fIscaI pIug, amId a genefaI
feeIIng that IookIng fof aIIens was not an appfopfIate pfoject fof the pubIIc pufse. NASA
pfomptIy stopped fundIng SETI. SInce 1993 It has been fInanced aImost excIusIveIy by
pfIvate donatIons. ThIs enabIed the SETI InstItute to go ahead wIth Pfoject PhoenIx, a
tafgeted seafch of a thousand neafby sun-IIke stafs In both nofthefn and southefn
hemIsphefes. Pfoject SERENDIP at the UnIvefsIty of CaIIfofnIa at BefkeIey, and
Southefn SERENDIP at Pafkes In AustfaIIa, aIso fIoufIshed. MeanwhIIe, pubIIc Intefest
was eIevated by the SETI@home pfoject, In whIch sImpIe softwafe Is used to adapt home
computef scfeensavefs to anaIyse sIgnaIs ffom fadIo teIescopes, hoIdIng out the faInt but
deIIcIous hope that a hIgh schooI student mIght go down In hIstofy as the pefson who
wakes up one mofnIng to dIscovef ET on hef PC.
JIII Taftef Is cuffentIy the DIfectof of the Centef fof SETI Reseafch at the SETI
InstItute, and Is consIdefed by some to be the InspIfatIon fof the femaIe Iead In Contuct.
In spIte of NASA's Iukewafm appfoach to fundIng SETI, It actIveIy coIIabofates wIth the
SETI InstItute on a wIde fange of feseafch pfojects, IncIudIng many In maInstfeam
astfobIoIogy. Ffank Dfake contInues to wofk as an actIve feseafchef and advocate fof
SETI.
Bibliogrup/y
Bennef, Steven, Life, t/e Universe unJ t/e Scientific Met/oJ (The Ffame Pfess, GaInsvIIIe, FIa., 2009)
Bennett, Jefffey, BeyonJ UIOs. T/e Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Life unJ Its Astonis/ing Implicutions for Our Iuture
(PfInceton UnIvefsIty Pfess, PfInceton, NJ, 2008)
BfaceweII, RonaId, T/e Guluctic Club (W. H. Ffeeman, San FfancIsco, 1975)
CheIa-FIofes, JuIIan, A SeconJ Genesis (WofId ScIentIfIc, SIngapofe, 2009)
CfIck, FfancIs, Life Itself. Its Origin unJ Nuture (Touchstone, New Yofk, 1981)
Cfowe, MIchaeI, T/e Lxtruterrestriul Life ebute, 17501900 (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess, CambfIdge, 1986)
DavIes, PauI, T/e Iift/ Mirucle. T/e Seurc/ for t/e Origin unJ Meuning of Life (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1988)
, T/e Origin of Life (PenguIn Books, Iondon, 2003)
DIck, Steven J., Plurulity of WorlJs. T/e Lxtruterrestriul Life ebute from emocritus to Kunt (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess,
CambfIdge, 1982)
(ed.), Muny WorlJs. T/e New Universe, Lxtruterrestriul Life, unJ t/e T/eologicul Implicutions (TempIeton FoundatIon
Pfess, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000)
DoIe, Stephen H., Hubituble Plunets for Mun (EIsevIef, KIdIIngton, 1970)
de Duve, ChfIstIan, Vitul ust. Life us u Cosmic Imperutive (BasIc Books, New Yofk, 1995)
Dyson, Ffeeman, Origins of Life (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess, CambfIdge, 1986)
Ekefs, R. D., D. Kent CuIIefs and John BIIIIngham, SLTI 2020. A RouJmup for t/e Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence
(SETI Pfess, MountaIn VIew, CaIIf., 2002)
FeInbefg, GefaId and Robeft ShapIfo, Life BeyonJ Lurt/. An Intelligent Lurt/ling's GuiJe to Life in t/e Universe (WIIIIam
Moffow, New Yofk, 1980)
Gafdnef, James N., Biocosm T/e New Scientific T/eory of Lvolution. Intelligent Life is t/e Arc/itect of t/e Universe (Innef
Ocean PubIIshIng, Makawao, HawaII, 2003)
GIImouf, Ian and Mafk Stephton (eds.), An IntroJuction to Astrobiology (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess, CambfIdge, 2004)
GoIdsmIth, DonaId and TobIas Owen, T/e Seurc/ for Life in t/e Universe, 3fd edn (UnIvefsIty ScIence Books, SausaIIto,
CaIIf., 2002)
KufzweII, Ray, T/e Age of Spirituul Muc/ines. W/en Computers LxceeJ Humun Intelligence (VIkIng, New Yofk, 1999)
IemonIck, MIchaeI, Ot/er WorlJs. T/e Seurc/ for Life in t/e Universe (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1998)
McConneII, BfIan S., BeyonJ Contuct. A GuiJe to SLTI unJ Communicuting wit/ Alien Civilizutions (O'ReIIIy MedIa, Inc.,
SebastopoI, CaIIf., 2001)
MoffIs, SImon Conway, Life's Solution. Inevituble Humuns in u Lonely Universe (UnIvefsIty of CambfIdge, CambfIdge, 2003)
PIaxco, KevIn W. and MIchaeI Gfoss, Astrobiology. A Brief IntroJuction (The Johns HopkIns UnIvefsIty Pfess, BaItImofe,
2006)
Sagan, CafI, Contuct (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1985, Centufy HutchInson, Iondon, 1985)
, Cosmos (Random House, New Yofk, 1980, MacdonaId & Co., Iondon, 1981)
ShapIfo, Robeft, Origins. A S/eptic's GuiJe to t/e Creution of Life on Lurt/ (SummIt Books, New Yofk, 1986)
Shefmef, MIchaeI, W/y People Believe WeirJ T/ings. PseuJoscience, Superstition, unJ Ot/er Confusions of Our Time (W. H.
Ffeeman, San FfancIsco, 1997)
Shostak, Seth, S/uring t/e Universe. Perspectives on Lxtruterrestriul Life (BefkeIey HIIIs Books, AIbany, CaIIf., 1998)
, Confessions of un Alien Hunter. A Scientist's Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence (NatIonaI GeogfaphIc, WashIngton,
DC, 2009)
Shuch, H. PauI, Tune into t/e Universe. A RuJio Amuteur's GuiJe to t/e Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence (AmefIcan
RadIo ReIay Ieague, Haftfofd, Conn., 2001)
Wafd, Petef and DonaId BfownIee, Rure Lurt/. W/y Complex Life is Uncommon in t/e Universe (CopefnIcus, New Yofk,
2000)
Webb, Stephen, If t/e Universe is Teeming wit/ Aliens. W/ere is LveryboJy? Iifty Solutions to Iermi's PuruJox unJ t/e
Problem of Lxtruterrestriul Life (CopefnIcus, New Yofk, 2002)
Notes
Pfeface
1. Today, the sIgnIfIcance of Jansky's dIscovefy Is fecognIzed by the name assIgned to the unIt of fadIo fIux the jansky.
2. 'SeafchIng fof IntefsteIIaf communIcatIons', by GIuseppe CocconI and PhIIIp MoffIson, Nuture, voI. 184 (1959), p. 844.
1. Is Anybody Out Thefe?
1. The unIt MHz stands fof 'megaheftz', heftz beIng a measufe of ffequency named aftef the Gefman physIcIst HeInfIch
Heftz. It Is equIvaIent to 1 cycIe pef second. 1 MHz Is 1 mIIIIon heftz. 1 gIgaheftz, wfItten GHz, Is 1 bIIIIon heftz, of
1,000 MHz. The ffequency 1,420 MHz coffesponds to a waveIength of 21 cm. An automatIc devIce enabIed Dfake to
scan a naffow-ffequency fange afound 1,420 MHz.
2. A mofe feaIIstIc descfIptIon of how SETI fIaps wofk In pfactIce Is gIven by Seth Shostak In hIs book Confessions of un
Alien Hunter. A Scientist's Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence (NatIonaI GeogfaphIc, 2009).
3. MotIon of the soufce of feceIvef shIfts the ffequency In a tIme-vafyIng mannef because of the DoppIef effect. WIthout
coffectIon, an aIIen fadIo sIgnaI wouId dfIft out of a fIne-tuned ffequency band In just a few mInutes.
4. H. G. WeIIs, T/e Wur of t/e WorlJs (HeInemann, Iondon, 1898), p. 4.
5. Fof an endofsement of the InfofmatIon motIve, see, fof exampIe, T. B. H. KuIpef and M. MoffIs, 'SeafchIng fof
extfateffestfIaI cIvIIIzatIons', Science, voI. 196 (1977), p. 616, D. G. Stephenson, 'ModeIs of IntefsteIIaf expIofatIon,'
Quurterly Journul of t/e Royul Astronomicul Society, voI. 23 (1982), p. 236.
6. Fofewofd by Ffank Dfake In Confessions of un Alien Hunter. A Scientist's Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence by Seth
Shostak (NatIonaI GeogfaphIc, 2009), p. Ix.
7. CafI Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, New Yofk, 2002), p. 339.
8. http:,,www.meteofIab.com, METEORIAB2001dev,metIcs.htm=Thomas
9. A good exampIe ffom paftIcIe physIcs was the dIscovefy of the W and Z paftIcIes at CERN In the eafIy 1980s. The
dIscovefIes wefe announced aftef onIy a handfuI of actuaI 'events' had been detected In the Iafge EIectfon PosItfon
coIIIdef. Few physIcIsts quIbbIed, because an exceIIent theofy pfedIctIng W and Z had been wofked out a decade eafIIef,
and gave vefy specIfIc quantItatIve pfedIctIons of what the new paftIcIes wouId be IIke.
10. Rupeft SheIdfake has come cIosest to pfoducIng a scIentIfIc theofy of somethIng IIke teIepathy, one that makes bfoad
faIsIfIabIe pfedIctIons, but It stIII Iacks a cfedIbIe physIcaI basIs and a pfopef mathematIcaI modeI of the mechanIsm
InvoIved. Fof a fevIew, see Rupeft SheIdfake, T/e Sense of Being StureJ At. AnJ Ot/er Aspects of t/e LxtenJeJ MinJ
(Cfown, New Yofk, 2003).
11. In mathspeak, the pfIof pfobabIIIty of a communIcatIng cIvIIIzatIon In ouf gaIaxy Is IIkeIy to be 'bImodaI' eIthef vefy
cIose to zefo of vefy cIose to 1 (a pfobabIIIty of 1 Is a ceftaInty). Note that It Is not then IegItImate to assIgn a pfIof
pfobabIIIty of (beIng the avefage of 0 and 1) In the absence of any othef evIdence, any mofe than we can say thefe Is
a 5050 chance of thefe beIng an aftefIIfe on the basIs that about haIf the popuIatIon thInk thefe Is and the othef haIf
thInk thefe Isn't.
12. EzekIeI 1:428.
13. DemocfItus accofdIng to HIppoIytus, Refutution of t/e Heresies I 13 2, In Hefmann DIeIs and WaIthef Kfanz, ie
Irugmente Jer Vorso/ruti/er (WeIdmann, ZufIch, 1985), voI. 2, sectIon 68 A 40, p. 94. TfansIatIon ffom W. K. C.
GuthfIe, A History of Gree/ P/ilosop/y. Presocrutic TruJition from PurmeniJes to emocritus (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty
Pfess, CambfIdge, 1965), voI. 2, p. 405.
14. T/e Romun Poet of Science, Lucretius. e Rerum Nuturu Book II (tfans. AIban Dewes WInspeaf, The Hafbof Pfess, New
Yofk, 1955).
15. Kepler's Conversution wit/ Gulileo's SiJereul Messenger (tfans. Edwafd Rosen, Johnson fepfInt, New Yofk and Iondon,
1965), p. 42.
16. http:,,ufos.natIonaIafchIves.gov.uk,
17. Edwafd Condon, Scientific StuJy of UniJentifieJ Ilying Objects (UnIvefsIty of CoIofado, BouIdef, 1968).
18. J. B. S. HaIdane, Possible WorlJs. AnJ Ot/er Lssuys (Chatto and WIndus, Iondon, 1932), p. 286.
2. IIfe: Ffeak SIde-Show of CosmIc ImpefatIve?
1. Wus/ington Post, 20 JuIy 2008.
2. FfancIs CfIck, Life Itself. Its Origin unJ Nuture (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1981), p. 88.
3. Jacques Monod (tfans. A. WaInhouse), C/unce unJ Necessity (CoIIIns, Iondon, 1972), p. 167.
4. Geofge GayIofd SImpson, 'The non-pfevaIence of humanoIds', Science, voI. 143 (1964), p. 769.
5. ChfIstIan de Duve, Vitul ust. Life us u Cosmic Imperutive (BasIc Books, New Yofk, 1995).
6. http:,,www.teIegfaph.co.uk,scIenceandtechnoIogy, scIence,space,4629672,AAAS-One-hundfed-bIIIIon-tfIIIIon-
pIanets-whefe-aIIen-IIfe-couId-fIoufIsh.htmI
7. J. WIIIIam Schopf and BonnIe M. Packef, 'NewIy dIscovefed eafIy Afchean (3.43.5 Ga OId) mIcfo-ofganIsms ffom the
Waffawoona Gfoup of Westefn AustfaIIa', Origin of Life unJ Lvolution of Biosp/eres, voI. 16, nos. 34 (1986), p. 339.
8. A. AIIwood, 'StfomatoIIte feef ffom the EafIy Afchaean Efa of AustfaIIa', Nuture, 8 June 2006, p. 714.
9. I dIscussed thIs pfocess In detaII In my book T/e Iift/ Mirucle (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1998, AIIen Iane, The
PenguIn Pfess, Iondon, 1998), pubIIshed In a fevIsed edItIon In the UK undef the tItIe T/e Origin of Life (PenguIn,
Iondon, 2003).
10. Gefda Hofneck, et aI., 'MIcfobIaI fock InhabItants sufvIve hypefveIocIty Impacts on Mafs-IIke host pIanets: fIfst phase
of IIthopanspefmIa expefImentaIIy tested', Astrobiology, voI. 8, no. 1 (2008), p. 17.
11. Ffed HoyIe, T/e Intelligent Universe (MIchaeI Joseph, Iondon, 1983), pp. 1819.
12. Geofge WhItesIdes, 'The ImpfobabIIIty of IIfe', In John D. Baffow, SImon Conway MoffIs, Stephen J. FfeeIand and
ChafIes I. Hafpef (eds.), Iitness of t/e Cosmos for Life. Bioc/emistry unJ Iine-Tuning (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess,
CambfIdge, 2004), p. xIII.
13. IbId., p. xv.
14. IbId., p. xvII.
15. IbId.
16. Thefe may be othef combInatIons of moIecuIes, aIso fandom In the sense of beIng pattefn-Iess, that wouId fepfesent a
dIffefent fofm of IIfe. The poInt Is that bIoIogIcaIIy functIonaI moIecuIaf sequences occupy a tIny ovefaII ffactIon of the
totaI sequence space, even If thefe afe vefy many dIsconnected fegIons fepfesentIng possIbIe bIoIogIcaI functIonaIIty.
17. And just to be compIeteIy cIeaf, when I use the coIIoquIaI tefm 'neaf-mIfacIe' I am not suggestIng that the ofIgIn of IIfe
was due to some soft of dIvIne IntefventIon. I thInk It was a peffectIy natufaI pfocess, though pefhaps an exceedIngIy
ImpfobabIe one.
18. Iet me be expIIcIt: If you examIne a stfIng of fIfty amIno acIds and tfy to guess on mathematIcaI gfounds aIone ffom
the pfIof sequence what the next amIno acId wIII be, then you wIII be fIght onIy to the extent of pufe chance. The same
goes fof base-paIf sequences In DNA.
19. PauI DavIes, T/e Cosmic Blueprint, fev. edn (TempIeton FoundatIon Pfess, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004). See aIso the
fInaI chaptef of T/e Iift/ Mirucle.
20. A good IntfoductIon to thIs fIeId Is WIIIIam Poundstone, T/e Recursive Universe (WIIIIam Moffow, New Yofk, 1996). A
mofe In-depth (and contentIous) dIscussIon may be found In Stephen WoIffam, A New KinJ of Science (WoIffam MedIa,
ChampaIgn, III., 2002).
21. A. G. CaIfns-SmIth, Seven Clues to t/e Origin of Life (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess, CambfIdge, 1986).
22. I dIscuss a specIfIc modeI In 'It's a quantum IIfe', P/ysics WorlJ, voI. 22, no. 7 (2009), p. 24.
23. Mafs femaIns the favoufIte, but Eufopa, a moon of JupItef, Is anothef possIbIe abode fof pfImItIve IIfe. It Is an Ice-
covefed body, wIth an ocean of IIquId watef beneath, wafmed by a pfocess caIIed tIdaI fIexIng. As It ofbIts JupItef,
Eufopa gets defofmed by the gIant pIanet's gfavItatIonaI fIeId, eIongatIng Its entIfe body, IncIudIng the soIId cofe. That
genefates a Iot of ffIctIonaI heat. Anothef body of gfeat Intefest Is TItan, a Iafge moon of Satufn. In 2008 a smaII pfobe
caIIed Huygens was pafachuted to TItan's sufface, and feveaIed a ffIgId wofId wIth fIvefs and Iakes of IIquId methane
and ethane, focks of watef Ice, and a thIck atmosphefe of petfochemIcaI smog. ThIs IethaI cocktaII wouId fInIsh off
teffestfIaI ofganIsms In no tIme at aII, but some scIentIsts have conceIved of exotIc Iow-tempefatufe IIfe fof whIch
IIquId watef Is fepIaced by a dIffefent soIvent, and metaboIIsm hInges on the convefsIon of acetyIene to methane.
24. UnIess, by a pefvefse stfoke of bad Iuck, Mafs hosts two fofms of IIfe, wIth opposIte chIfaIIty and equaI popuIatIon
densIty.
3. A Shadow BIosphefe
1. KevIn Mahef and DavId Stevenson, 'Impact ffustfatIon of the ofIgIn of IIfe', Nuture, voI. 331 (1988), p. 612.
2. I mooted thIs Idea In 1988 In my book T/e Iift/ Mirucle. A detaIIed study Is fepofted In IIoyd E. WeIIs, John C.
Afmstfong and GuIIIefmo GonzaIez, 'ReseedIng of eafIy eafth by Impacts of fetufnIng ejecta dufIng the Iate heavy
bombafdment', Icurus, voI. 162, no. 1 (2003), p. 38.
3. The tefm 'shadow bIosphefe' was coIned by CafoI CIeIand and SheIIey CopIey of the UnIvefsIty of CoIofado In theIf
papef 'The possIbIIIty of aItefnatIve mIcfobIaI IIfe on Eafth', Internutionul Journul of Astrobiology, voI. 4 (2005), p. 165.
4. RIchafd DawkIns, T/e Ancestor's Tule (Houghton MIffIIn, Boston, 2004, WeIdenfeId & NIcoIson, Iondon, 2004).
5. PauI C. W. DavIes and ChafIey H. IIneweavef, 'Seafch fof a second sampIe of IIfe on Eafth', Astrobiology, voI. 5, no. 2
(2005), p. 154.
6. PauI DavIes, Steven Bennef, CafoI CIeIand, ChafIey IIneweavef, ChfIs McKay and FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon, 'SIgnatufes of a
shadow bIosphefe', Astrobiology, voI. 9, no. 2 (2009), p. 1.
7. Stephen Jay GouId, 'PIanet of the BactefIa', Wus/ington Post Horizon, voI. 119 (1996), p. 344.
8. ThIs Is somethIng of a sImpIIfIcatIon. WhIIst some ofganIsms can use onIy the InofganIc gases hydfogen and cafbon
dIoxIde as Input, othefs make IndIfect use of sufface bIoIogy thfough dIssoIved oxygen of ofganIc substances that sInk
down ffom sunIIt Iayefs neaf the sea sufface.
9. Thomas GoId, T/e eep Hot Biosp/ere (SpfIngef, New Yofk, 1999). Fof an up-to-date fevIew, see Bo Bafkef Jofgensen
and Steven D'Hondt, 'A stafvIng majofIty deep beneath the sea fIoof', Science, voI. 314 (2006), p. 932.
10. Fof a fevIew, see my book T/e Iift/ Mirucle.
11. T. O. Stevens and J. P. McKInIey, 'IIthoautotfophIc mIcfobIaI ecosystems In deep basaIt aquIfefs', Science, voI. 270
(1995), p. 450, D. R. IovIey, 'A hydfogen-based subsufface mIcfobIaI communIty domInated by methanogens', Nuture,
voI. 415 (2002), p. 312, I. H. IIn, et aI., 'Iong-tefm sustaInabIIIty of a hIgh-enefgy, Iow-dIvefsIty cfustaI bIome',
Science, voI. 314 (2006), p. 479.
12. AstfobIoIogIsts specuIate that thefe may be sImIIaf subsufface ecosystems on Mafs hence the fIuffy of excItement
when methane was dIscovefed In the MaftIan atmosphefe a few yeafs ago.
13. By some defInItIons, vIfuses themseIves afe aIIve, so a weIfd vIfus wouId aIone count as a dIscovefy of weIfd IIfe.
VIfuses afe a mafgInaI case, because they cannot fepfoduce wIthout the heIp of a ceII, so they afe not autonomous
ofganIsms. But If we fInd weIfd vIfuses, then weIfd ceIIs afe unIIkeIy to be faf away.
14. If GII's fevamped IabeIIed ReIease expefIment wofks weII on Eafth, the next step wouId be to send It to Mafs to cIeaf
up the VIkIng mystefy once and fof aII.
15. As I aIfeady expIaIned, when I caII these IntefIopefs 'aIIens', It Is In the sense of beIng 'othef'. It does not ImpIy they
'came ffom outef space' to use scI-fI jafgon, aIthough they may have done. They may have come ffom Mafs, but so
mIght ouf own dIstant ancestofs.
16. P. C. W. DavIes, E. V. PIkuta, R. B. Hoovef, B. KIyce and P. A. DavIes, 'BactefIaI utIIIzatIon of I-Sugafs and D-amIno
acIds,' pfoceedIngs of SPIE's 47th annuaI meetIng, San DIego, August 2006, 63090A.
17. Steven Bennef, Life, t/e Universe unJ t/e Scientific Met/oJ (The Ffame Pfess, GaInsvIIIe, FIa., 2009).
18. AfIeI Anbaf, PauI DavIes and FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon, 'DId natufe aIso choose afsenIc?', Internutionul Journul of
Astrobiology, VoI. 8 (2009), p. 69.
19. In technIcaI Ianguage, It offefs a fedox potentIaI by pefmIttIng afsenate to be feduced to afsenIte, feIeasIng enefgy as a
fesuIt.
20. Fof exampIe, mass spectfometfy, whIch can measufe the feIatIve weIghts of moIecuIes and thefeby soft ofganIcs Into
categofIes.
21. Thefe Is a fufthef compIIcatIng factof. In dIscussIng 'the ofIgIn of IIfe' I have tacItIy assumed that thefe Is a cIeaf
demafcatIon between the 'non-IIvIng' and 'IIvIng' states, so that bIogensIs Is a weII-defIned event. But thIs may be an
unwaffanted sImpIIfIcatIon. Thefe may be no cIeaf IIne sepafatIng IIfe ffom non-IIfe, mefeIy a seamIess and extended
chemIcaI pathway to states of gfeatef and gfeatef compIexIty.
22. I am gfatefuI to ChfIs McKay and FeIIsa WoIfe-SImon fof dfawIng my attentIon to those exampIes.
23. Bfent C. ChfIstnef, CIndy E. MoffIs, ChfIstIne M. Fofeman, Rongman CaI and DavId C. Sands, 'UbIquIty of bIoIogIcaI Ice
nucIeatofs In snowfaII', Science, voI. 319 (2008), p. 1214.
24. R. I. FoIk, 'SEM ImagIng of bactefIa and nanobactefIa In cafbonate sedIments and focks', Journul of SeJimentury
Petrology, voI. 63 (1993), p. 990.
25. PhIIIppa J. R. UwIns, RIchafd I. Webb and Anthony P. TayIof, 'NoveI nano-ofganIsms ffom AustfaIIan sandstones',
Americun Minerulogist, voI. 83 (1998), p. 1541.
26. E. O. Kajandef and N. CIftcIogIu, 'NanobactefIa: an aItefnatIve mechanIsm fof pathogenIc Intfa- and extfaceIIuIaf
caIcIfIcatIon and stone fofmatIon', ProceeJings of t/e Nutionul AcuJemy of Sciences, voI. 95 (1998), p. 8274.
27. Bennef, Life, t/e Universe unJ t/e Scientific Met/oJ, pp. 1223.
28. Fof a detaIIed account of the Mafs meteofIte, see my book T/e Iift/ Mirucle.
29. J. MafteI and J. D.-E. Young, 'Pufpofted nanobactefIa In human bIood as caIcIum cafbonate nanopaftIcIes', ProceeJings
of t/e Nutionul AcuJemy of Sciences, 8 ApfII 2008, voI. 105, no. 14 (2008), p. 5549.
30. JoceIyn SeIIm, 'Ventef's ocean genome voyage', iscover onIIne, 27 June 2004.
4. How Much InteIIIgence Is Out Thefe?
1. ChafIes DafwIn, On t/e Origin of Species (John Muffay, Iondon, 1859), fInaI page.
2. H. J. JefIson, Lvolution of t/e Bruin unJ Intelligence (AcademIc Pfess, New Yofk, 1973). The expecteJ bfaIn to body sIze
fatIo Is computed usIng a scaIIng Iaw avefagIng ovef many anImaIs that assumes the bfaIn mass shouId vafy IIke the
2,3 powef of the body mass, that beIng the sufface afea to voIume fatIo. ThIs assumptIon, and Indeed the vefy notIon
of EQ as a usefuI measufe of InteIIIgence, has been cfItIcIzed. See, fof exampIe, Robeft O. Deanef, KafIn IsIef, JudIth
Bufkaft and CafeI van SchaIk, 'OvefaII bfaIn sIze, and not encephaIIzatIon quotIent, best pfedIcts cognItIve abIIIty
acfoss non-human pfImates', Bruin, Be/uvior unJ Lvolution, voI. 70 (2007), p. 115.
3. See, fof exampIe, http:,,sefendIp.bfynmawf.edu,bb,kInsef,Int3.htmI.
4. ThIs Is the type of gfowth, chafactefIstIc of aII unfestfaIned expansIon, whefe a quantIty doubIes In a fIxed tIme. See,
fof exampIe, D. A. RusseII, 'ExponentIaI evoIutIon: ImpIIcatIons fof InteIIIgent extfateffestfIaI IIfe', AJvunces in Spuce
Reseurc/, voI. 3, (1983) p. 95.
5. Stephen Jay GouId, WonJerful Life (Nofton, New Yofk, 1990).
6. See, fof exampIe, SImon Conway MoffIs, Life's Solution. Inevituble Humuns in u Lonely Universe (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty
Pfess, CambfIdge, 2003). Anothef factof that weakens GouId's afgument Is Its negIect of feedback mechanIsms that
sefve to feInfofce evoIutIonafy tfends. See Robeft WfIght, Nonzero. T/e Logic of Humun estiny (Pantheon, New Yofk,
2000).
7. IIneweavef aftIcuIates hIs afgument In a fevIew of Petef UImschneIdef's book Intelligent Life in t/e Universe, In
Astrobiology, voI. 5, no. 5 (2005), p. 658. See aIso C. H. IIneweavef, 'PaIeontoIogIcaI tests: human-IIke InteIIIgence Is not
a convefgent featufe of evoIutIon', In J. Seckbach and M. WaIsh (eds.), Irom Iossils to Astrobiology (SpfIngef, New
Yofk, 2009), p. 353.
8. ChfIstophef P. McKay, 'TIme fof InteIIIgence on othef pIanets', In Iaufance R. DoyIe (ed.), Circumstellur Hubituble
Zones, ProceeJings of t/e Iirst Internutionul Conference (TfavIs House PubIIcatIons, MenIo Pafk, CaIIf., 1996), p. 405.
9. See, fof exampIe, IofI MafIno, 'Convefgence of compIex cognItIve abIIItIes In Cetaceans and PfImates', Bruin, Be/uvior
unJ Lvolution, voI. 59 (2002), p. 21.
10. See, fof exampIe, MIfcea EIIade (tfans. WIIIafd R. Tfask), T/e Myt/ of t/e Lternul Return (PfInceton UnIvefsIty Pfess,
PfInceton, NJ, 1971).
11. Joseph Needham and coIIabofatofs, Science unJ Civilizution in C/inu, 7 voIs. (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess, CambfIdge,
1954 ).
12. The feIevant numbef fof SETI Is actuaIIy the fate of staf fofmatIon some bIIIIons of yeafs ago.
13. On the othef hand, fogue pIanets may not offef good pfospects fof advanced IIfe, aIthough we cannot be sufe. The
Dfake equatIon aIso omIts the possIbIIIty that some pIanets may acquIfe IIfe and,of InteIIIgence on account of beIng
coIonIzed fathef than It afIsIng Je novo. ThIs Is a topIc I dIscuss In Chaptef 6.
14. I am IgnofIng the IIght tfaveI tIme when I say 'now', as the basIc afgument Is unaffected.
15. MIchaeI Shefmef, 'Why ET hasn't caIIed', Scientific Americun, 15 JuIy 2002.
16. A good exampIe of what Is pfesumabIy a coIncIdence of two causaIIy Independent tImescaIes Is the Iunaf cycIe and the
human menstfuaI cycIe, both about twenty-eIght days.
17. CafI Sagan, 'The abundance of IIfe-beafIng pIanets', Bioustronomy News, voI. 7, no. 4 (1995), p. 1.
18. Bfandon Caftef, 'The anthfopIc pfIncIpIe and Its ImpIIcatIons fof bIoIogIcaI evoIutIon', P/ilosop/icul Trunsuctions of t/e
Royul Society of LonJon, voI. A 310 (1983), p. 347.
19. RobIn Hanson, 'The gfeat fIItef: afe we aImost past It?', http:,,hanson.gmu.edu,gfeatfIItef.htmI (1998).
20. As I expIaIned eafIIef, thIs hypothesIs was wIdeIy accepted when Caftef fofmuIated hIs afgument In about 1980.
21. Bfandon Caftef, 'FIve of sIx step scenafIo fof evoIutIon?', Internutionul Journul of Astrobiology, voI. 7 (2008), p. 177.
22. In the absence of any specIaI feason to the contfafy, we shouId assume that humans afe typIcaI obsefvefs. Caftef's
afgument Is consIstent wIth that typIcaIIty assumptIon, fof suppose we envIsage an enofmous voIume of space much
bIggef than the obsefvabIe unIvefse and focus on the sub-cIass of aII (accofdIng to Caftef, exceedIngIy fafe) pIanets
wIth InteIIIgent obsefvefs. Then Eafth shouId be a typIcaI membef of that sub-cIass, and as faf as we know that Is the
case. By contfast, If Caftef Is wfong and InteIIIgent IIfe Is vefy IIkeIy and quIck to afIse, then because humans wefe so
tafdy In evoIvIng on Eafth, we wouId be utypicul obsefvefs.
23. An aItefnatIve expIanatIon, of coufse, Is that we afe not aIone, but the aIIens have not so faf manIfested theIf exIstence
In a way that has been notIced by us. They may have ceased fadIo emIssIons aftef a bfIef dufatIon, fof exampIe.
24. See, fof exampIe, John IesIIe, T/e LnJ of t/e WorlJ. T/e Science unJ Lt/ics of Humun Lxtinction (RoutIedge, Iondon,
1996), and MaftIn Rees, Our Iinul Century (Affow Books, Iondon, 2004).
25. NIck Bostfom, 'Whefe afe they? Why I hope the seafch fof extfateffestfIaI IIfe wIII fInd nothIng', MIT Tec/nology
Review, May,June Issue (2008), pp. 72, 77.
5. New SETI: WIdenIng the Seafch
1. Abfaham Ioeb and MatIas ZaIdaffIaga, 'EavesdfoppIng on fadIo bfoadcasts ffom gaIactIc cIvIIIzatIons wIth upcomIng
obsefvatofIes fof fedshIfted 21cm fadIatIon', astfo-ph,0610377 (Octobef 2006). The authofs estImate that much mofe
poweffuI mIIItafy-fadaf-stfength puIses mIght be detectabIe wIth the SKA ffom as faf away as 650 IIght yeafs, fof a
one-month IntegfatIon tIme.
2. The sensItIvIty of an Instfument depends not onIy on the coIIectIng afea, but aIso on the computef aIgofIthm used to
extfact the sIgnaI ffom the noIse. Recent wofk by CIaudIo Maccone suggests that a technIque known as the KI
tfansfofm, named aftef the mathematIcIans KafI Kafhunen and MaufIce Ioeve who pfoposed It In 1949, may Iead to an
Impfovement In sensItIvIty by a factof of up to a thousand.
3. John G. Ieafned, SandIp Pakvasa and A. Zee, 'GaIactIc neutfIno communIcatIon', P/ysics Letters B, voI. 671, no. 1
(2009), p. 15.
4. Modefn IIghthouse sIgnaIs afe encoded wIth IdentIfyIng InfofmatIon too.
5. The exampIes at the staft of thIs sectIon faII undef the categofy of 'actIve SETI' of METI messagIng extfateffestfIaI
InteIIIgence a contentIous subject I shaII fetufn to In Chaptef 9.
6. RegafdIng my eafIIef femafks about enefgy consefvatIon beIng an anthfopocentfIc concefn, I dIstInguIsh between
enefgy as not beIng a pfIofIty Issue fof aIIens and theIf deIIbefateIy squandefIng It fof no good pufpose. Even If enefgy
Is cheap, you stIII have to acquIfe It.
7. Gfegofy Benfofd, James Benfofd and DomInIc Benfofd, 'Cost optImIzed IntefsteIIaf beacons: SETI', to be pubIIshed.
8. In 1989, Sagan and HofowItz anaIysed thIfty-seven unexpIaIned puIses, and aIthough the soufces showed a tendency to
cIustef In the gaIactIc pIane, the authofs concIuded they wefe not stfong evIdence of ETI.
9. M. J. Rees, 'A bettef way of seafchIng fof bIack-hoIe expIosIons?', Nuture, voI. 266 (1977), p. 333.
10. The Innef cofe of the gaIaxy, wIthIn about 1,000 IIght yeafs of the centfe, Is an unpfomIsIng IocatIon fof advanced IIfe,
fof feasons I shaII expIaIn In the next sectIon.
11. Robeft A. Rohde and RIchafd A. MuIIef, 'CycIes In fossII dIvefsIty', Nuture, voI. 434 (2005), p. 208.
12. MIkhaII V. Medvedev and AdfIan I. MeIott, 'Do extfagaIactIc cosmIc fays Induce cycIes In fossII dIvefsIty?',
Astrop/ysicul Journul, voI. 664 (2007), p. 879.
13. AnxIous feadefs shouId fest assufed that the soIaf system Is cuffentIy cIose to the gaIactIc pIane and weII away ffom the
dangef zone.
14. A neutfon staf Is the femnant of the cofe of a Iafge staf that has ImpIoded undef Its own Immense weIght to fofm an
exceedIngIy dense baII of neutfons, typIcaIIy onIy a few kIIometfes acfoss, but wIth a mass exceedIng that of the sun.
15. WIIIIam H. Edmondson and Ian R. Stevens, 'The utIIIzatIon of puIsafs as SETI beacons', Internutionul Journul of
Astrobiology, voI. 2, no. 4 (2003), p. 231.
16. I IncIude computef InteIIIgence In the defInItIon of aIIen InteIIIgence, fof feasons I shaII dIscuss fufthef In Chaptef 8.
The convefsatIon wouId be dIfectIy wIth the pfobe and not wIth the pfobe's dIspatchefs.
17. RonaId N. BfaceweII, 'CommunIcatIons ffom supefIof gaIactIc communItIes', Nuture, voI. 186 (1960), p. 670.
RepfInted In A. G. Camefon (ed.), Interstellur Communicution (W. A. BenjamIn, Inc., New Yofk, 1963), p. 243.
18. ThIs Is an ofbIt wIth a pefIod of one day, so that the sateIIIte appeafs to femaIn statIonafy above a fIxed poInt on Eafth.
TeIevIsIon sateIIItes do thIs.
19. Thefe afe aIso EafthMoon Iagfange poInts, whIch have been the subject of IImIted seafches.
20. Fof many decades 5- to 10-second fadIo-bfoadcast echoes have been detected, and femaIn somethIng of a mystefy. See
VoIkef Gfassmann, 'Iong-deIayed fadIo echoes: obsefvatIons and IntefpfetatIons', VHI Communicutions, voI. 2, 109
(1993).
21. John von Neumann, edIted and compIeted by Afthuf W Bufks, 'The theofy of seIf-fepfoducIng automata', (UnIvefsIty
of IIIInoIs Pfess, Ufbana, III., 1966).
22. The text of hIs addfess, whIch was deIIvefed at the CaIIfofnIa InstItute of TechnoIogy, Is fepfoduced at
http:,,www.mfs.ofg,s_mfs,doc.asp?CID=8969&DID=195829.
23. ThIs scenafIo, and the tefm 'gfay goo', was Intfoduced by the nanotechnoIogy pIoneef EfIc DfexIef In hIs 1986 book
Lngines of Creution (DoubIeday, New Yofk, 1986, Anchof Books, Petefbofough, 1986).
24. StfIctIy speakIng a vIfus Is not a von Neumann machIne because It cannot fepfoduce unaIded, It must Infect a host ceII
to manufactufe fepIIcas.
25. ThIs basIc Idea was dIscussed many yeafs ago by FfancIs CfIck, aIthough hIs specuIatIon was that aIIens had pfopeIIed
mIcfobes acfoss space togethef wIth a 'staftef kIt' to Incubate them, wIth the pufpose of seedIng Eafth and othef
pIanets wIth IIfe, fathef than conveyIng a message. See FfancIs CfIck and IesIIe E. OfgeI, 'DIfected panspefmIa', Icurus,
voI. 19, 341 (1973), and FfancIs CfIck, Life Itself. Its Origin unJ Nuture (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1981).
26. Anothef stfategy wouId be to Inseft 'DNA-ffIendIy' InfofmatIonaI moIecuIes that wouId not themseIves be DNA, fathef,
they wouId be made up of moIecuIaf buIIdIng bIocks othef than the standafd A,G,C,T tooIkIt of known IIfe, and chosen
fof theIf chemIcaI stabIIIty and Iowef mutatIon fate. Fof thIs Idea to wofk, sequences of these buIIdIng bIocks wouId
stIII have to be accufateIy fepIIcated by the bIochemIcaI machInefy of standafd IIfe.
27. ThIs Idea has been InvestIgated ovef many yeafs by Ffed HoyIe and Chandfa WIchfamasInghe. See, fof exampIe, F.
HoyIe and N. C. WIckfamasInghe, Astronomicul Origins of Life, In Astrop/ysics unJ Spuce Science, voI. 268 (2000),
whIch fepfInts much of theIf eafIIef wofk.
28. H. Yokoo and T. OshIma, 'Is bactefIophage phI X174 DNA a message ffom an extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence?', Icurus, voI.
38 (1979), p. 148.
6. EvIdence fof a GaIactIc DIaspofa
1. Ffom Afthuf Conan DoyIe, T/e Sign of t/e Iour, In Lippincott's Mont/ly Muguzine (Febfuafy 1890).
2. Stephen Webb, If t/e Universe is Teeming wit/ Aliens. W/ere Is LveryboJy? Iifty Solutions to Iermi's PuruJox unJ t/e
Problem of Lxtruterrestriul Life (CopefnIcus Books, New Yofk, 2002).
3. RonaId BfaceweII, T/e Guluctic Club (Ffeeman, San FfancIsco, 1975).
4. Stephen HawkIng, 'ChfonoIogy pfotectIon conjectufe', P/ysicul Review , voI. 46 (1992), p. 603.
5. No evIdence and pfecIous IIttIe theofetIcaI suppoft, eIthef, fof astfonaut-sIzed wofmhoIes. UItfa-mIcfoscopIc ones afe
mofe feasIbIe.
6. Some peopIe pIn theIf hopes on space pfIvateefs. So faf the pfIvate sectof space pfogfamme Is IImIted to joyfIdes, but
In the event of the fuII commefcIaIIzatIon of space, pfIvate Industfy couId oveftake govefnment agencIes In space
expIofatIon,toufIsm.
7. Geofge Dyson, Project Orion. T/e True Story of t/e Atomic Spuces/ip (Henfy HoIt, New Yofk, 2002).
8. Seth Shostak, Confessions of un Alien Hunter. A Scientist's Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence (NatIonaI GeogfaphIc,
WashIngton, DC, 2009), p. 264.
9. Geofffey IandIs, 'The FefmI pafadox: an appfoach based on pefcoIatIon theofy', Journul of t/e Britis/ Interplunetury
Society, voI. 51 (1998), p. 163.
10. RobIn Hanson, 'The fapacIous hafdscfappIe ffontIef', In DamIen BfodefIck (ed.), Yeur Million. Science ut t/e Iur LJge
of KnowleJge (AtIas Books, AshIand, OhIo, 2008), p. 168.
11. ThIs consIdefatIon Is IffeIevant, howevef, If the coIonIsts wefe non-bIoIogIcaI machInes. In that case, Eafth's
IndIgenous bIoIogy mIght pfove attfactIve as faw matefIaI fof makIng bIo-machInes to assIst the coIonIsts' entefpfIses.
It Is fascInatIng to specuIate whethef the descendants of these dIscafded aIIen cfeatIons afe stIII afound, fofmIng a
shadow bIosphefe awaItIng detectIon. But thefe Is cIeafIy an even mofe dfamatIc possIbIIIty, whIch Is that the aIIens
vIsIted Eafth 3.5 bIIIIon yeafs ago and cfeated teffestfIaI IIfe ub initio, In the fofm of cIevef nanomachInes to heIp wIth
the chofes. If they feIeased these synthetIc ofganIsms Into the envIfonment and dIdn't cIean up pfopefIy, It wouId have
a bIzaffe ImpIIcatIon: we couId be the dIstant descendants of aIIen bIo-tfash Ieft behInd when the expedItIon moved on!
12. Mofe pIausIbIy, the pfobabIIIty wIII fIse sIowIy ovef tIme as the numbef of habItabIe pIanets accumuIates, so the
chance of aIIen vIsItatIon shouId be weIghted somewhat In favouf of mofe fecent epochs, but not enough to contfadIct
the bfoad concIusIon I have dfawn.
13. An anaIogous suggestIon on these IInes was made by Ffank Dfake, who poInted out that an aIIen cIvIIIzatIon mIght
cfeate a beacon by dumpIng a Iafge quantIty of a fafe eIement wIth a shoft haIf-IIfe Into Its pafent staf. A good
candIdate Is technetIum, whIch does not occuf natufaIIy on Eafth (aIthough It can be manufactufed). The pfesence of
technetIum IInes In the spectfum of a staf wouId stfongIy suggest the pfesence of a technoIogIcaI cIvIIIzatIon.
14. AIan WeIsman, T/e WorlJ Wit/out Us (PIcadof, Iondon, 2007).
15. Tface amounts of Pu
244
Isotope have been found on the Moon, and at OkIo, but nothIng concentfated enough to faIse
eyebfows. A ceftaIn amount was pfesent when the soIaf system fofmed, but most of It has now decayed.
16. Gfeg Beaf, T/e Iorge of GoJ (Tof Books, New Yofk, 2001).
17. OIaf StapIedon, Stur Mu/er (Methuen, Iondon, 1937).
18. I weII femembef a sobef Iunch convefsatIon In 1975 In the student cafetefIa of the Iondon SchooI of EconomIcs, neaf
KIng's CoIIege, whefe I was at the tIme wofkIng In the MathematIcs Depaftment. My coIIeague ChfIs Isham fepofted on
a cIaIm that a baIIoon-bofne cosmIc fay expefIment had detected a magnetIc monopoIe, and we gIoomIIy fefIected on
the potentIaI of these paftIcIes fof weapons of mass destfuctIon.
19. Fof a popuIaf account, see DennIs Ovefbye, 'A whIspef, pefhaps, ffom the unIvefse's dafk sIde', T/e New Yor/ Times,
25 Novembef 2008.
20. CufIousIy, cosmIc stfIngs have been Invoked as a possIbIe expIanatIon fof IofImef's puIse (see p. 100), aIthough no
suggestIon has been made that It InvoIved aIIen technoIogy.
7. AIIen MagIc
1. Ffeeman Dyson, 'Seafch fof aftIfIcIaI steIIaf soufces of Inffafed fadIatIon', Science, voI. 131 (1960), p. 1667.
2. RIchafd A. CaffIgan Jf, 'IRAS-based whoIe-sky uppef IImIt on Dyson sphefes', In astfo-ph 0811.2376.
3. Fof a dIscussIon, see RIchafd DawkIns, T/e BlinJ Wutc/mu/er (Nofton, New Yofk, 1986).
4. DavId Bohm, W/oleness unJ t/e Implicute OrJer (RoutIedge, Iondon, 1996).
5. Iawfence Kfauss, T/e P/ysics of Stur Tre/ (Hafpef & Row, New Yofk, 1996).
6. See my book How to BuilJ u Time Muc/ine (PenguIn,VIkIng, Iondon and New Yofk, 2002) fof a fevIew of the pfobIems.
7. MIcfoscopIc shoft-IIved wofmhoIes mIght just be possIbIe, and couId conceIvabIy be made In paftIcIe acceIefatofs IIke
the Iafge Hadfon CoIIIdef at CERN.
8. Afthuf EddIngton, T/e Nuture of t/e P/ysicul WorlJ (CambfIdge UnIvefsIty Pfess, CambfIdge, 1928), p. 74.
9. Fof a dIscussIon of the way In whIch the expansIon of the unIvefse Is speedIng up, see my book T/e GolJiloc/s Lnigmu
(PenguIn, Iondon, 2006, and Houghton MIffIIn, Boston, 2008).
10. Quantum mechanIcs pfedIcts a fInIte pfobabIIIty fof the unIvefse to tunneI ffom one vacuum state to a Iowef one. If
thIs happened at a gIven poInt In space, It wouId cfeate a bubbIe that wouId expand out at neafIy the speed of IIght,
enguIfIng and obIItefatIng aII mattef In Its path. A nIce scIence fIctIon stofy aIong these IInes Is Stephen Baxtef's
MunifolJ. Time (DeI Ray, New Yofk, 2000).
11. NegatIve enefgy and pfessufe Is feIated to the exotIc mattef needed to stabIIIze wofmhoIes.
8. Post-BIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
1. S. ButIef In Cunterbury Press, 13 June 1863.
2. T/e Times online, 24 ApfII 2007.
3. If they afe, It Is faf ffom obvIous that humans wouId choose genetIc enhancement of the Mekon-fesembIIng vafIety. I
can weII ImagIne the cIamouf fof gIamouf wouId take pfecedence. Of pefhaps spoftIng pfowess.
4. It Is aIso easy to ImagIne a nIghtmafe socIety of monstefs and suffefIng.
5. AIan TufIng, 'Can machInes thInk?', MinJ, voI. 59 (1950), p. 433.
6. I am sIde-steppIng the depfessIng pfospect that humans may tfy to pfogfam the machInes to fIght theIf own IItefaI and
metaphofIcaI battIes, even when the machInes outsmaft them.
7. I am not aIone In advocatIng a post-bIoIogIcaI unIvefse domInated by 'machIne' InteIIIgence. The hIstofIan of scIence
Steven DIck has deveIoped the Idea In detaII. See hIs essay 'CuItufaI evoIutIon, the post-bIoIogIcaI unIvefse and SETI',
Internutionul Journul of Astrobiology, voI. 2, no. 1 (2003), p. 65.
8. An ATS dIffefs ffom the BIue BfaIn sImuIatIon I dIscussed eafIIef, whIch wouId have a pefsonaI IdentIty. The Iattef Is a
sImuIatIon of a feaI bIoIogIcaI bfaIn, not a post-bIoIogIcaI entIty.
9. http: ,,www.aeIveos.com:8080,-bfadbufy, MatfIoshkaBfaIns,MatfIoshkaBfaInsPapef.htmI
10. DomInated In InteIIectuaI tefms, that Is. In tefms of sheef numbefs, smaIIef bfaIns,computefs wIII pfoIIfefate much
fastef.
11. In fact, a supefposItIon Is mofe genefaI than I have descfIbed, because the admIxtufe of heads and taIIs can be a
compIex numbef.
12. The fesuIts of a quantum computatIon evade the genefIc vagafIes of quantum unceftaInty onIy If ceftaIn specIaIIy
seIected states afe used at the poInt of Input and output. A handfuI of quantum aIgofIthms have been dIscovefed fof
soIvIng specIaI cIasses of mathematIcaI pfobIems makIng use of thIs.
13. Fof an IntfoductIon, see T/e Ieynmun Processor by Gefafd MIIbufn (BasIc Books, New Yofk, 1999).
9. FIfst Contact
1. Stephen Baxtef, 'RenaIssance v. feveIatIon: the tImescaIe of ETI sIgnaI IntefpfetatIon'. Journul of t/e Britis/
Interplunetury Society, voI. 62 (2009), p. 131.
2. http:,,www.coSETI.ofg,SETIpfot.htm
3. A gfaphIc account of these events Is gIven by Seth Shostak, who was thefe at the tIme, In hIs book Confessions of un
Alien Hunter. A Scientist's Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestriul Intelligence (NatIonaI GeogfaphIc, WashIngton, DC, 2009).
4. S. Shostak and C. OIIvef, 'ImmedIate feactIon pIan: a stfategy fof deaIIng wIth a SETI detectIon', In G. Iemafchand and
K. Meech (eds.), Bioustronomy 99. A New Lru in t/e Seurc/ for Life, ASP Confefence SefIes, voI. 213 (2000), p. 635.
5. IbId., p. 636.
6. IbId., p. 635.
7. Fof a vIvId and cfItIcaI account, see Ffank CIose, Too Hot to HunJle. T/e Story of t/e Ruce for ColJ Iusion (W. H. AIIen,
Iondon, 1990).
8. WhIch vefy neafIy happened on 13 Januafy 2004, when astfonomefs In the US computed a one-In-fouf chance that a
500-metfe-wIde astefoId mIght hIt the Eafth wIthIn thIfty-sIx houfs. They sensIbIy heId off caIIIng the WhIte House In
the mIddIe of the nIght untII Impfoved data showed aII was weII.
9. http:,,Impact.afc.nasa.gov,news_detaII.cfm?ID=122
10. Actu Astronuuticu, voI. 21 (1990), no. 2, p. 153.
11. A famous hoax, known as the EQ Peg affaIf, occuffed on 28 Octobef 1998, when an anonymous amateuf astfonomef In
BfItaIn cIaImed to have pIcked up a sIgnaI ffom the feIatIveIy neafby staf EQ PegasI usIng a smaII fadIo dIsh beIongIng
to hIs empIoyef, a UK eIectfonIcs company. None of the estabIIshed SETI pfotocoI was obsefved. The BBC bfoke the
stofy, whIch then attfacted majof medIa attentIon afound the wofId. PfofessIonaI SETI scIentIsts wefe suspIcIous ffom
the staft. UnabIe to vefIfy the sIgnaI, PauI Shuch and hIs SETI Ieague coIIeagues dIscovefed that the sIgnaI Images wefe
fabfIcated usIng commefcIaIIy avaIIabIe softwafe. When the SETI Ieague and SETI InstItute debunked the cIaIm, the
tabIoIds pfedIctabIy accused them of a sInIstef covef-up. At no stage dId any govefnment agency show the sIIghtest
Intefest.
12. The IconIc pIctufe of eafthfIse ffom the Moon, taken by the ApoIIo astfonauts, boosted the fIse of envIfonmentaIIsm In
the 1970s by dfamatIcaIIy emphasIzIng how pfecIous and how IsoIated Is ouf IIttIe haven of IIfe In a hostIIe and often
vIoIent unIvefse.
13. CafI Sagan, T/e Cosmic Connection (Hoddef and Stoughton, Iondon, 1974), pp. 21819.
14. P. W. AtkIns, T/e SeconJ Luw, 2nd edn (ScIentIfIc AmefIcan Books, New Yofk, 1994), p. 200.
15. I have dIscussed these Ideas In gfeatef depth In my book T/e Cosmic Blueprint (SImon & Schustef, New Yofk, 1988).
See aIso Stuaft Kauffman, At Home in t/e Universe. T/e Seurc/ for t/e Luws of Self-Orgunizution unJ Complexity
(Oxfofd UnIvefsIty Pfess, Oxfofd, 1996).
16. Beftfand RusseII, Mysticism unJ Logic (Bafnes & NobIe, New Yofk, 1917), pp. 47, 48.
17. An In-depth dIscussIon of the phIIosophy of pfogfess can be found In John Baffow and Ffank TIpIef, T/e Ant/ropic
Cosmologicul Principle (Oxfofd UnIvefsIty Pfess, Oxfofd, 1986).
18. MaftIn Rees, Our Iinul Hour (BasIc Books, New Yofk, 2003), Our Iinul Century. Will t/e Humun Ruce Survive t/e
Twenty-Iirst Century? (WIIIIam HeInemann, Iondon, 2003).
19. See, fof exampIe, Ffeeman Dyson, 'Ouf bIotech futufe', T/e New Yor/ Review of Boo/s, voI. 51, no. 12 (19 JuIy 2007).
20. Ray KufzweII, T/e Singulurity is Neur (VIkIng, New Yofk, 2005).
21. In thIs sectIon I shaII bypass the possIbIIIty that ET Is some soft of machIne InteIIIgence of even an ATS, as It Is hafd
enough to dIscuss the mofaI dImensIon of aIIen bIoIogIcaI ofganIsms.
22. Thefe Is the thIfd soIutIon, whIch Is that the aIIens afe saved by some othef mode of dIvIne IntefventIon about whIch
we cannot guess. ThIs fesponse, howevef, sImpIy puts the pfobIem In the 'too hafd' basket.
23. http:,,padfefunes.bIogspot.com,2008,05,extfateffestfIaI-Is-my-bfothef.htmI
24. Ted Petefs and JuIIe FfoehIIg, 'The Petefs ETI feIIgIous cfIsIs sufvey', 2008,
http:,,www.countefbaIance.net,etsufv,Index-ffame.htmI.
25. That at Ieast Is the foIkIofe. Efnan McMuIIIn, a phIIosophef of feIIgIon, has cfItIcIzed It as sImpIIstIc.
26. http:,,www.davIddafIIng.Info,encycIopedIa,W,WheweII.htmI
27. WIIIIam WheweII, T/e Plurulity of WorlJs (GouId and IIncoIn, Boston, 1854).
28. EmanueI Swedenbofg, Lurt/s in t/e Universe (The Swedenbofg SocIety, Iondon, 1970).
29. IbId., p. 47.
30. IbId., p. 60.
31. IbId., p. 3.
32. E. A. MIIne, MoJern Cosmology unJ t/e C/ristiun IJeu of GoJ (CIafendon Pfess, Oxfofd, 1952), p. 153.
33. MIIne's pfoposaI was sIammed In 1956 by E. I. MascaII, a phIIosophef and pfIest, In favouf of muItIpIe IncafnatIons to
save any 'fatIonaI cofpofeaI beIngs who have sInned and afe In need of fedemptIon'. See E. I. MascaII, C/ristiun
T/eology unJ Nuturul Science (RonaId Pfess, New Yofk, 1956), p. 37.
34. Fof an up-to-date account, see Efnan McMuIIIn, 'IIfe and InteIIIgence faf ffom Eafth: fofmuIatIng theoIogIcaI Issues', In
Steven DIck (ed.), Muny WorlJs (TempIeton FoundatIon Pfess, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2000), pp. 15175.
35. www.davIdbfIn.com,shouIdSETItfansmIt.htmI
36. www.CfIchton-offIcIaI.com
37. Geofge BasaIIa, CivilizeJ Life in t/e Universe. Scientists on Intelligent Lxtruterrestriuls (Oxfofd UnIvefsIty Pfess, Oxfofd,
2006).
38. Mafgafet WeftheIm, T/e Peurly Gutes of Cyberspuce (Nofton, New Yofk, 2000), p. 132.
39. Stephen Baxtef has pfoduced a usefuI compIIatIon of scIence fIctIon In feIatIon to SETI and spIfItuaIIty, 'ImagInIng the
aIIen: the poftfayaI of extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence In SETI and scIence fIctIon', www.stephen-baxtef.com.
10. Who Speaks fof Eafth?
1. http:,,www.davIdbfIn.com,SETIseafch.htmI
2. DavId WhItehouse, 'Meet the neIghboufs: Is the seafch fof aIIens such a good Idea?', InJepenJent, 25 June 2007.
3. As faf as I know, no poweffuI Iasef puIses have been dIfected Into space.
4. John BIIIIngham, MIchaeI MIchaud and JIII Taftef, 'The decIafatIon of pfIncIpIes fof actIvItIes foIIowIng the detectIon of
extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence', In Bioustronomy. T/e Seurc/ for Lxtruterrestiul Life T/e Lxplorution BrouJens,
PfoceedIngs of the ThIfd IntefnatIonaI SymposIum on BIoastfonomy, VaI CenIs, SavoIe, Ffance, 1823 June 1990
(SpfIngef, HeIdeIbefg, 1991).
5. My wIfe dIsagfees, she Is cufIous to know the physIcaI fofm of any aIIen beIngs.
6. DougIas Vakoch, the DIfectof of IntefsteIIaf Message ComposItIon at the SETI InstItute, has anothef cfItIcIsm. He
beIIeves that aII the messages so faf composed paInt an ImpIausIbIy posItIve pIctufe of humanIty, emphasIzIng
coopefatIon, aftIstIc sensItIvIty and technoIogIcaI skIII. MIssIng Is any mentIon of the dafk sIde of human natufe, the
wafs, the pIanetafy despoIIatIon, the gfeed. The messages fefIect ouf fInest aspIfatIons fathef than the pfesent feaIIty.
See www.space.com,seafchfofIIfe,080410-SETI-shadow-oufseIves.htmI.
7. See John Baffow, T/e Artful Universe (Oxfofd UnIvefsIty Pfess, Iondon and New Yofk, 1995).
8. Fof a fevIew, see DougIas Hofstadtef, GoJel, Lsc/er, Buc/. An Lternul GolJen BruiJ (Hafvestef Pfess, Iewes, 1979).
9. DavId BfIn, 'ShoutIng at the cosmos', http:,,www.davIdbfIn.com,shouIdSETItfansmIt.htmI.
10. I am gfatefuI to ChfIs McKay fof thIs obsefvatIon.
InJex
A for AnJromeJu, by Ffed HoyIe 171
actIve SETI (METI) 99, 1967, 221
aefo-bfakIng 27, 11213, 115
aIIen cIvIIIzatIons
awafeness of ouf own 934, 182, 1979
Dfake equatIon 77, 8081
dufabIIIty of aftIfacts 1089
FefmI pafadox 11718, 123
spacefafIng 123
age and IongevIty of 78, 8083, 90
messages Intended fof 99, 1967, 200203, 221
motIvatIon to make contact 166, 172, 184
neafby pfobes 10612
Types I, II and III 1412
see ulso coIonIzatIon of the gaIaxy, contact, InteIIIgence
Alien (movIe) 52
aIIen technoIogy
consequences of detectIon 178
detectIng tfaces 120, 13035, 14043
pfospect of access to 1845
quantum computIng 1656
supef-scIence 1479
see ulso enefgy soufces
aIIens
UFOs 19
depIcted as maIevoIent 129, 171, 198
hIstofIcaI concepts of 1316, 1945
human-IIke quaIItIes 22, 1534
AIIen TeIescope Affay 2, 102
amIno acIds
exotIc 534
In meteofItes 30, 534
MIIIef-Ufey expefIment 2930
T/e Ancestor's Tule, by RIchafd DawkIns 54, 217
anthfopocentfIsm
eafIy SETI appfoaches 56, 810
ImagInIng aIIen evoIutIon 1545
ImagInIng aIIen motIvatIon 119, 171
new SETI and 140, 167
of feIIgIons 18892, 211
vIews of InteIIIgence 712, 159
antImattef 134, 1378
afchaea 56, 59
AfecIbo fadIo teIescope 102, 196
afsenIc, foIe In IIfe 55, 58, 61, 634, 117
aft, potentIaI unIvefsaIIty 202
aftIfIcIaI InteIIIgence 15660
astefoIds
aIIen pfobes among 107
possIbIe Impacts 82, 1745, 227
faw matefIaIs ffom 132, 1345
see ulso heavy bombafdment phase
AstfopuIse pfoject 102
atmosphefes
bfakIng effects 27, 11213, 115
possIbIIIty of mIcfobIaI IIfe In 50, 60
pfImevaI 29
AustfaIIa
Eufopean cIvIIIzatIon and 126, 172
evoIutIonafy convefgence and 69, 71
SETI and 169, 170, 210
see ulso MufchIson, Pafkes, PIIbafa
auto-teIeoIogIcaI supefsystems (ATS) 1613
AzImov, Isaac 156, 208
Babbage, ChafIes 98, 110
bactefIa see mIcfobes
Bayes' fuIe (Thomas Bayes) 1012, 136
beacons 98102, 104, 181, 224
Beaf, Gfeg 135
Benfofd, Gfeg and JIm 99
Bennef, Steve 54, 61
Beyond Centef fof FundamentaI Concepts In ScIence 5, 39, 51, 65, 169
BIIIIngham, John 170, 209
bIochemIstfy
IdentIfIcatIon of aIIen fofms 52
sImIIafIty of known IIfe 45
use of dIffefent eIements 55
see ulso amIno acIds, chIfaIIty, DNA
bIogenesIs see IIfe, ofIgIns of bIoIogIcaI messagIng 11215
bIack hoIes 101, 131, 1413, 167
'bIack smokefs' 48
BIue Book pfoject 20
BIue BfaIn pfoject 1578, 226
BfaceweII, RonaId N. 106, 118, 223
bfaIns
capacIty of human 1567
evoIutIon 67, 7072, 86, 889, 1534
MatfIoshka bfaIns 162
sIze and InteIIIgence 67, 219
BfIn, DavId 194, 1967, 205
canaIs of Mafs 16
cafbon
as chafactefIstIc of IIfe 5051, 55, 102, 201
fadIo-IabeIIed 38
Caftef, Bfandon 867, 89, 22021
ceIIuIaf automata 345
chIfaIIty
as sIgnatufe of IIfe 39
and weIfd IIfe on Eafth 524, 56
ChfIstIanIty 74, 179, 18893
CIafke, Afthuf C. 109, 140, 208
CIInton, BIII (US PfesIdent) 61, 111, 178
Close Lncounters of t/e T/irJ KinJ (movIe) 20, 153, 171
CocconI, GIuseppe xII, 213
coId fusIon 1734
coIonIzatIon of the gaIaxy
by aIIens 11920, 1239, 130
by humans 122
space afks 119, 128, 135
comets
as bIodeIIvefy vehIcIes 115, 208
Impact thfeat 71, 91, 105, 166, 1745, 184
as fesoufces 110, 1334
see ulso heavy bombafdment phase
compIexIty
and evoIutIon 68, 72
Iaw of IncfeasIng 34, 76, 1867, 207
computefs see InteIIIgence, quantum computefs, sImuIatIons
ConJon Report (Edwafd Condon) 20, 214
Confessions of un Alien Hunter, by Seth Shostak 124, 213, 227
conspIfacy theofIes 22, 176
contact
faIse posItIves 3, 172, 174, 177, 227
hopes and feafs assocIated wIth 171
govefnment fesponse 177, 227
Iongef-tefm consequences 179, 18593
medIa fesponse 1727
possIbIe motIvatIon fof 166
ffom a pfobe 107, 110
Contuct, by CafI Sagan xII, 4, 107, 148, 171, 181
Contuct (movIe) xIIxIII, 4, 102, 171
contInentaI dfIft 18, 69
CopefnIcan pfIncIpIe 2056
CopefnIcan wofIdvIew 15, 17980, 185, 188, 193
T/e Cosmic Blueprint, by PauI DavIes 216
T/e Cosmic Connection, by CafI Sagan 214
cosmIc ImpefatIve, IIfe as 256
evIdence fof 334, 367
Gfeat FIItef and 91
tacIt acceptance of 25, 80
tests of 41, 423
cosmIc fays 1034, 112, 114
cosmIc stfIngs 138
Cosmos, by CafI Sagan 209, 214
cost optImIzed sIgnaIIIng 99, 221
CfIck, FfancIs 25, 215, 223
CycIops pfoject 209
Dafk Age, cosmoIogIcaI 95
dafk enefgy 150
dafk mattef 136
DafwIn, ChafIes 267, 60, 667
On t/e Origin of Species 209, 219
see ulso evoIutIon
DawkIns, RIchafd 54, 217
de Duve, ChfIstIan 25, 834, 215
DemocfItus 1415, 214
desefts, IIfe In 50, 60
deutefIum 1334, 174
dInosaufs and InteIIIgence 71
DIfac, PauI 136, 204
DNA
encodIng messages wIthIn 11215
nanobactefIa and 612
ofIgIns of IIfe and 30
possIbIIIty of aItefnatIve 545, 568, 64
DoppIef effect
dIscovefy of exopIanets 17
and pIanetafy motIon 7, 213
Dfake, Ffank 214, 215
ambItIons fof SETI 180, 205
PIoneef 10 pIaque 200
SETI pafochIaIIsm and 10
as SETI pIoneef xII, 13, 5, 7
Dfake equatIon 7782, 185, 194, 220
Dyson, Ffeeman 187
Dyson sphefes 134, 141, 162
L.T. (movIe) 153
Eafth
age of 27
heavy bombafdment phase 278, 423, 85, 217
ofIgIns of IIfe on 2631, 45, 85, 88, 224
'Eafth-IIke' pIanets
Dfake equatIon expfessIon fof 7980, 185
eafIy hIstofy of Mafs as 4041
numbefs IIkeIy to be InhabIted 24, 80, 83
fequIfements 1718, 205
eIements, abundances 132, 224
encephaIIzatIon quotIent (EQ) 67, 71
enefgy consefvatIon 99, 221
enefgy footpfInts 14041
enefgy soufces
aIIen detectIon vIa 13032, 1378
Dyson sphefe detectIon 141
effIcIency of bIack hoIes 131, 1412, 167
IImIts on 15051
nucIeaf fusIon 185
entfopy 150, 186
EQC (extfateffestfIaI quantum computefs) 1667
eukafyotes see muItI-ceIIuIaf ofganIsms
Eufopa (JovIan moon) 18, 216
Eufopean Space Agency 37
evoIutIon
effectIve suspensIon of 81, 154
moIecuIaf fepIIcatofs 34
nIche metaphof 69
pefIodIcIty of extInctIons 1034, 221
pfogfessIve tfends In 668, 72, 1867
evoIutIonafy convefgence 58, 689, 72
exopIanets
coIonIzatIon by aIIens 11920
detectIon of oxygen 41
dIscovefIes 17, 79
Dfake equatIon expfessIon 7880
as METI tafgets 196
possIbIIIty of IIfe on 1719
see ulso Eafth-IIke pIanets
extfateffestfIaI IIfe see aIIens
extfemophIIes 4751, 53
FefmI pafadox (EnfIco FefmI) 11621, 167
METI and 198
space expIofatIon and 1234, 128, 224
tempofaI vefsIon of 1212
T/e Iift/ Mirucle, by PauI DavIes 215, 216, 217
T/e Iirst Men in t/e Moon, by H. G. WeIIs 151
fossII fecofd
bIomafkefs of 'weIfd IIfe' 59
and the gfeat fIItef 88
pefIodIcIty of extInctIons 103, 221
and the tfee of IIfe 46
ffactaI stfuctufe of coIonIzatIon 127
gaIactIc centfe 1023
'GaIactIc CIub' concept 11819, 184, 223
gaIactIc pIane 1034
game theofy 129
gamma fay bufsts 90
genefaI feIatIvIty 121, 147, 151, 2034
genetIcs
dIstInctIon between afchaea and bactefIa 59
engIneefIng 1545, 1589
possIbIIIty of aItefnatIve DNA 54, 56, 58
and the tfee of IIfe 46
genomIc SETI 115
geosynchfonous ofbIts 106
GIeIse 581 18, 196
GdeI's theofem 203
GoId, Thomas 49, 217
T/e GolJiloc/s Lnigmu, by PauI DavIes 225
GoIdIIocks zone fof IIfe 18
GouId, Stephen Jay 46, 68, 217, 219
Gfeat FIItef 8690, 206
Gfeek phIIosophy 73, 756
Gfeen Bank fadIo teIescope 1, 172
habItabIIIty wIndow 847
habItabIe zones 18, 50
HaIdane, J. B. S. 223, 214
Hanson, RobIn 867, 1279
HawkIng, Stephen 101, 121
heavy bombafdment phase 278, 423, 85, 217
hoaxefs 1089, 227
'hot JupItefs' 17
see ulso exopIanets
How to BuilJ u Time Muc/ine, by PauI DavIes 122, 225
HoyIe, Ffed 28, 171, 208, 215, 223
human cIvIIIzatIon(s)
consequences of unIqueness 206
deveIopment of scIence 723
IIIumInated by SETI 205
Image pfojected to aIIens 200202, 22930
IIkeIy dufatIon of 8, 9092
IImIted detectabIIIty by aIIens 934, 197
pfospects fof space expIofatIon 122
vIewed as a thfeat 198
see ulso anthfopocentfIsm
hydfogen emIssIon ffequency 1, 67, 213
IAA (IntefnatIonaI Academy of AstfonautIcs)
DecIafatIon of PfIncIpIes. 176, 199
SETI Pefmanent Study Gfoup 169, 176
IAU (IntefnatIonaI AstfonomIcaI UnIon) 170, 177
Impacts see astefoIds, comets, heavy bombafdment phase
InJepenJence uy (movIe) 1434, 171
InfIatIon (cosmoIogIcaI) 137
InfofmatIon-age SETI 9, 1445, 213
InfofmatIon exchange possIbIIItIes 11819
InfofmatIon pfocessIng systems 1613
InfofmatIon fepIIcatIon, IIfe as 30, 35
Inffafed AstfonomIcaI SateIIIte (IRAS) 141
InteIIIgence
Dfake equatIon and 80, 185
encephaIIzatIon quotIent (EQ) 67, 71
FefmI pafadox 117
genetIc modIfIcatIon and 15
Gfeat FIItef concept 8790, 206
human and ATS compafed 1612
Iate appeafance of 71, 857, 89
IImIts to non-bIoIogIcaI 1623
nIche metaphof fof 6971
pfesumed InevItabIIIty of 678, 85
sIgnaIs showIng evIdence of 102
see ulso bfaIns, non-bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
T/e Intelligent Universe, by Ffed HoyIe 215
IntefgaIactIc medIum 1034, 166
IntefnatIonaI Academy of AstfonautIcs (IAA)
DecIafatIon of PfIncIpIes. 176, 199
SETI Pefmanent Study Gfoup 169, 176
IntefnatIonaI AstfonomIcaI UnIon (IAU) 170, 177
the Intefnet 1078, 173
IsIamIc schoIafshIp 73
It's About Time (TV sefIes) 92
Jansky, KafI xI
jansky (unIt) 213
Jeffefson, Thomas 1112
Kafdashev, NIkoIaI 14041
KepIef, Johannes 15
KepIef mIssIon 17, 25, 80, 205
IabeIIed feIease (IR) expefIment 389, 51
Iagfange poInts 107
IandIs, Geofffey 126, 128
Ianguage
decodIng pfobIems 18081, 183
mathematIcs as unIvefsaI 203
Iasefs 7, 96, 99, 229
Iaw of IncfeasIng compIexIty 34, 76, 1867, 207
Iaws of physIcs 14950, 2034
IevIn, GIIbeft 39, 51
IevItatIon 151
IIfe
condItIons fof 32, 489
defInItIons of 356, 218
Dfake equatIon on emefgence of 83
Eafth-IIke pIanet numbefs 24
extfemophIIes 4751, 53
subteffanean ecosystems 18, 49, 217
synthesIs In the Iabofatofy 36
see ulso aIIens, mIcfobes, shadow bIosphefe, weIfd IIfe
IIfe, ofIgIns of
as a fIuke 25, 316
on Eafth 2631, 45, 85, 88, 224
muItIpIe teffestfIaI ofIgIns 437
Life Itself. Its Origin unJ Nuture, by FfancIs CfIck 215, 223
IIght tfaveI tImes see speed of IIght
IIneweavef, ChafIes 6970, 219
IOFAR (Iow ffequency affay) 956
IofImef's puIse (DavId IofImef) 100, 225
T/e Lost Plunet (TV sefIes) 79
IoweII, PefcIvaI 16, 98, 124
machInes see non-bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
magnetIc monopoIes 1368
mankInd see human cIvIIIzatIon(s)
MafInef mIssIon 16
Mafs
contamInatIon pfobIem 4041
hIstofIcaI and fIctIonaI 'MaftIans' 89, 15, 989, 191
meteofItes ffom 612, 178
methane emIssIons 38, 40, 217
possIbIIIty of extInct IIfe 3741, 612, 178, 206
possIbIIIty of pfImItIve IIfe today 33, 217
as possIbIe ofIgIn of teffestfIaI IIfe 278, 41, 889
fecent hopes fof InteIIIgent IIfe 1516
watef on 323, 3940
mass extInctIons 1034
mathematIcaI games 34
mathematIcaI modeIIIng see sImuIatIons
mathematIcs
and the gfowth of scIence 745
InexhaustIbIIIty 167
as a unIvefsaI Ianguage 183, 203
MatfIoshka bfaIns 1623, 1678, 208
see ulso statIstIcaI appfoaches
MaxweII's equatIons (James CIefk MaxweII) 2034
medIa fesponse to fIfst contact 1727
meteofItes
maftIan 612, 178
MufchIson 534
Thomas Jeffefson on 1112
methane emIssIons 38, 40, 50, 59, 217
METI (messagIng extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence) 99, 1967, 221
mIcfobes
abIIIty to wIthstand space condItIons 27, 43, 21516
bIoIogIcaI messagIng usIng 11415
desIgn by InteIIIgent machInes 159
dIstInctIon between afchaea and bactefIa 59
eIsewhefe In the SoIaf System 19, 278, 3840
extfemophIIes 4751, 53
pfospects of Iabofatofy pfoductIon 36
fadIatIon-fesIIIent 48, 114
teffestfIaI domInance of 467, 63
see ulso weIfd IIfe
mIcfowave beacons 99
mIIItafy fadafs 2, 82, 197
MIIky Way, concentfatIng on 1024
MIIIef-Ufey expefIment, 2930
mInefaIs
bIogenIc 6061, 66
as evIdence of Industfy 1312
see ulso subteffanean ecosystems
'mIffof IIfe' 52, 56, 59
moIecuIaf fepIIcatofs 34
Monod, Jacques
on chemIstfy of IIfe 32
vIews contfasted wIth de Duve's 25, 37, 80, 834
vIews suppofted by Caftef-Hanson 89
monotheIsm and scIence 736
moons, habItabIIIty 18, 216
movIes
Alien 52
Close Lncounters of t/e T/irJ KinJ 20, 153, 171
Contuct xIIxIII, 4, 102, 171
L. T. 153
InJepenJence uy 1434, 171
Plunet of t/e Apes 70
Stur Wurs 52, 126, 156
2001. A Spuce OJyssey 109, 156, 208
muItI-ceIIuIaf ofganIsms
emefgence of 86, 88, 186
tfee of IIfe and 46, 56
MufchIson meteofIte 534
nanobactefIa,nanobes 612
nanotechnoIogy 11112
naffow-band fadIo 56, 93, 100, 102, 182
NASA
bIoIogIcaI InvestIgatIons 379, 52, 63, 178
convIctIons about watef 32
messages on outgoIng spacecfaft 200
and SETI 24, 61, 123, 20910
natufaI seIectIon see evoIutIon
NeandefthaIs 67, 1889
neufaI netwofks 1567
neutfInos 12, 75, 968
new SETI 5
beyond the eIectfomagnetIc spectfum 968
detectIng aIIen pfobes 1069
dIstance pfobIems wIth fadIo detectIon 936
evIdentIaI pfobIems 140
focussed seafchIng 1025
nanopfobes and bIoIogIcaI messagIng 968, 10915
possIbIe beacons 98102
post-bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence and 167
scIentIfIc basIs 1479
news bIackouts 1757
nIche metaphof 6971
noIse 1812
non-bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
agenda of InteIIIgent machInes 159
ATSs and EQCs 1618
attfactIveness of Eafth to 224
genetIc modIfIcatIon and 1546
human concepts of a machIne 1445
hybfId IIfe fofms 130, 155, 161
InevItabIIIty of 15660
feIatIonshIp to bIoIogIcaI 166, 208
nucIeaf annIhIIatIon thfeat 8, 75, 812, 91, 184
nucIeaf fusIon technoIogy 1734, 185
nucIeaf technoIogy, evIdence 13033
OkIo natufaI feactof 131
OIIvef, CafoI 169, 173
Ooft cIoud (Jan Ooft) 133
optIcaI SETI see Iasefs
ofganIc moIecuIes
detectIon attempts on Mafs 389
evIdence of a shadow bIosphefe 60
occuffence In space 32, 534
synthesIs ffom supposed pfImevaI atmosphefe 29
On t/e Origin of Species, by ChafIes DafwIn 209, 219
ofIgIns of IIfe see IIfe
oxygen detectIon 41
Ozma pfoject 2, 7, 209
see ulso Dfake, Ffank, SETI
PanspefmIa SocIety 114
pafanofmaI phenomena 12
Pafkes fadIo teIescope 100, 210
paftIcIe physIcs see subatomIc paftIcIes
Penfose, Rogef 141
pefcoIatIon theofy 126, 129
phase-IockIng 18
phIIosophy
as basIs of scIence 73
IIkeIy Impact of aIIen contact 1878
IImItatIons 92, 2023
PhoenIx Pfoject 210
phosphofus fepIacement 55, 64, 117
photosynthesIs 38, 41, 59, 88
physIcs
IImItIng aIIen technoIogy 1468, 15051, 162, 1657
feIIabIIIty of the Iaws of 14950, 203
and scIentIfIc theofy 75
unIvefsaI Ianguage of 2034
T/e P/ysics of Stur Tre/, by Iawfence Kfauss 148
PIIbafa HIIIs 267, 40
PIoneef 10 detectabIIIty 106
PIoneef 10 and 11 pIaques 200201
Plunet of t/e Apes (movIe) 70
pIanets
feconfIgufIng 1345
possIbIIIty of habItabIe IntefIofs 18, 49, 217
fogue pIanets 79, 220
unsuItabIIIty fof EQC InteIIIgence 166
see ulso exopIanets
pIanets (SoIaf System)
possIbIIIty of IIfe on 15, 191, 216
tfansfef of IIfe between 278
see ulso Eafth, Mafs
pIate tectonIcs 18, 69
pIutonIum 132
post-bIoIogIcaI see non-bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence
Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup, SETI 45, 16871, 175, 181, 195
powef see enefgy soufces
pfIme numbefs 1089, 181, 183
pfImofdIaI soup 27
pfobabIIItIes see statIstIcaI appfoaches
pfobes
aIIen 10612, 120
NASA 378, 200201
see ulso von Neumann machInes
Pfojects (AstfopuIse, BIue Book, BIue BfaIn, CycIops, Ozma, PhoenIx, setI@home,
SERENDIP and Tafa Oceans) see unJer t/e project nume
pseudoscIence 10, 13
puIsafs 1045, 138, 200
puIsed sIgnaIs 100102
quantum computefs 109, 1638
quantum mechanIcs 1467, 2034
quantum vacuum 15051, 225
Quutermuss (TV sefIes) 51, 58, 171
fadIatIon-fesIIIent mIcfobes 48
fadIo astfonomy
AIIen TeIescope Affay 2
AfecIbo fadIo teIescope 102, 196
bIfth of xI
detectIon sensItIvIty 96, 221
Gfeen Bank fadIo teIescope 1, 172
IOFAR and SKA 956
Pafkes fadIo teIescope 100, 210
SETI deveIopment ffom xII, 77
fadIo ffequencIes
1420 MHz hydfogen emIssIon 1, 67, 213
domestIc fadIo tfaffIc 95
mIcfowave beacons 99
SETI concentfatIon on 67, 82
fadIo tfansmIssIons
dIstInguIshIng ffom noIse 181
IdentIty of echoes 107, 222
Iength of actIve phase 77, 8082
IIkeIIhood of aIIen 94
naffow-band fadIo 56, 93, 100, 102, 182
see ulso METI
fadIoactIve tfacefs 38, 51, 64
fed dwaffs 18
fed faIn of KefaIa 60
feIatIvIty theofy 121, 147, 151, 2034
feIIgIon
and the emefgence of scIence 736, 179
IIkeIy Impact of aIIen contact 18893
SETI's fesembIance to 1935
fogue pIanets 79, 220
Sagan, CafI
assumptIons about bIogenesIs 85, 89
assumptIons about cIvIIIzatIon IongevIty 81
assumptIons about evoIvIng InteIIIgence 67, 80
assumptIons about fadIo-based contacts 6
book, Contuct xII, 4, 107, 148, 171, 181
book, T/e Cosmic Connection 214
book and TV sefIes, Cosmos 209, 214
PIoneef message to aIIens 200
on tIme deIays 106
on UFO evIdence 10, 214
scIence
InteIIIgent IIfe and deveIopment of 726
IIkeIy Impact of contact on 1857
feIIabIIIty of Iaws of physIcs 14950
status of SETI as 1013
scIence fIctIon
aIIens as maIevoIent 129, 171
aIIens on Eafth 512, 109
authof's InspIfatIon by 208
ImpfobabIe constfucts of 121, 126, 129, 1434, 1478
see ulso movIes, inJiviJuul uut/ors unJ titles
second Iaw of thefmodynamIcs 150, 1856
seIf-awafeness and AI 158, 162
seIf-ofganIzIng systems 3031, 34, 62, 186
seIf-fepIIcatIng machInes 110, 112, 120, 161
SERENDIP Pfoject 210
SETI InstItute 3, 20910
SETI Pefmanent Study Gfoup, IAA 169
SETI (seafch fof extfateffestfIaI InteIIIgence)
assumptIons 67
CaftefHanson afgument and 8791
effect of tIme deIays 94
estabIIshIng aftIfIcIaIIty of sIgnaIs 1012
hIstofy xII, 2, 20910
InfofmatIon-age SETI 9, 213
justIfIcatIon 2047
optIcaI SETI 7
post-bIoIogIcaI InteIIIgence and 161, 167
Post-DetectIon Taskgfoup 45, 16972, 176, 182, 196
quasI-feIIgIous aspects of 1935
fIsk of anthfopocentfIsm 510
see ulso aIIens, contact, genomIc SETI, METI, new SETI, fadIo ffequencIes
setI@home pfoject 115, 210
sexuaI fepfoductIon 86, 88
'shadow bIosphefe' on Eafth possIbIIIty of 43, 217
possIbIe aIIen constfuctIon of 114
possIbIe fofms and theIf detectIon 48, 51, 6065
see ulso weIfd IIfe
Shostak, Seth 173, 227
Confessions of un Alien Hunter 124, 213, 227
sIgnaIIIng to aIIens see METI
sImuIatIons
of aIIen coIonIzatIon 1269
of bfaIns 1578, 226
SKA (squafe kIIometfe affay) 956
smaft pfobes 110
SOHO sateIIIte 172
SoIaf System
heavy bombafdment phase 278, 423, 85, 217
possIbIe aIIen pfobes In 1067
see ulso CopefnIcan wofIdvIew, pIanets
space afks 119, 128, 135
space expIofatIon
motIvatIon 110, 118, 1256
paucIty of bIoIogIcaI expefIments 37
space tfaveI
bIack hoIes and 141
cost consIdefatIons 10910, 11213
GaIactIc CIub aItefnatIve 11819
at neaf-feIatIvIstIc speeds 1478
pfospects fof human 122
see ulso coIonIzatIon of the gaIaxy, pfobes
spacecfaft, messages ffom Eafth on 200201
speed of IIght
attaInIng feIatIvIstIc speeds 141
as a constfaInt on machIne InteIIIgence 1623
as a constfaInt on supef-scIence 147, 149
deIays Intfoduced by 934, 106, 128
tIme dIIatIon and 121
StapIedon, OIaf 135, 141, 195
Stur Mu/er, by OIaf StapIedon 135, 141, 195
Stur Tre/ (TV sefIes) 45, 55, 148
Stur Wurs 52, 126, 156
stafs
Dyson sphefes found 141
IIfetImes of 845, 87, 142
neafby systems 94
nucIeaf waste dIsposaI 13031
popuIatIon of Sun-IIke 78
statIstIcaI appfoaches
afguments agaInst a mIddIe posItIon 83
astefoId Impacts 175
Bayes' fuIe and pfobabIIItIes 1013, 214
emefgence of IIfe 31
gfeat fIItef concept 878
pfobabIIIty of aIIen vIsItatIons 130, 224
quantum unceftaInty 164
stefanes 59
stfomatoIItes 26, 66, 215
subatomIc paftIcIes
exotIc 1356
W and Z bosons 76, 97, 214
subteffanean ecosystems 18, 49, 217
Sun-IIke stafs 78, 835
supef-Eafths 17
see ulso exopIanets
supefnova dIstfIbutIon 131
Swedenbofg, EmanueI 1912
synthetIc bIoIogy 30, 54
Tafa Oceans pfoject 645
technetIum 224
technoIogy as natufe pIus 1437
teIepathy 1213, 214
teIepoftatIon 148
tempefatufe IImIts on IIfe 489
thefmodynamIcs, second Iaw of 150, 1856
thefmophIIes and hypefthefmophIIes 4850
tIme
fof message exchange 934, 106
scaIe of aIIen coIonIzatIon 130
vIewed as IIneaf 734
fof whIch cIvIIIzatIons tfansmIt 8081
tIme dIIatIon effect 121
tIme tfaveI and tIme toufIsm 1212, 148
TItan 216
tfanshumanIsm 155
tfansIent events 100102
tfansIt detectIon of exopIanets 17
tfee of IIfe 436, 557
TufIng, AIan 110, 156, 158
2001. A Spuce OJyssey (movIe) 109, 156, 208
Type I, Type II and Type III cIvIIIzatIons 1412
UFOs (unIdentIfIed fIyIng objects) 10, 1923, 116
unceftaInty and quantum mechanIcs 1645
undefgfound IIfe see subteffanean ecosystems
UtopIanIsm 187
vacuum enefgy 150
Ventef, J. CfaIg 36, 64, 112
VIkIng spacecfaft 378
vIfuses
as bIomessagIng systems 115
as nanomachInes 11213
as possIbIe IndIcatofs of weIfd IIfe 50
synthesIs In the Iabofatofy 36
von Neumann, John 116
von Neumann machInes 11012, 120, 125, 128, 134
A Voyuge to Arcturus, by DavId IIndsay 195
Voyagef pfobe 200
W and Z bosons 76, 97, 214
T/e Wur of t/e WorlJs, by H. G. WeIIs 8, 16, 129, 171, 213
watef
on Mafs 323, 3940
In pIanetafy IntefIofs 1819, 40
as pfobabIe fequIfement fof IIfe 18, 33, 48
waveIength see fadIo ffequencIes
'weIfd IIfe' 47, 515, 1489
estabIIshIng the status of 5563
ocean sampIIng pfoject 645
possIbIe coexIstence wIth standafd 589
see ulso aIIens, shadow bIosphefe
WeIIs, H. G.
T/e Iirst Men in t/e Moon 151
on tIme tfaveI 122
T/e Wur of t/e WorlJs 8, 16, 129, 171, 213
WheweII, WIIIIam 19091
WhItehouse, DavId 176, 197
WoIfe-SImon, FeIIsa 55, 63, 117
wofmhoIes 121, 148
'Wow!' sIgnaI 100101