The Precautionary Principle: Egoism, Altruism, and the Active SETI Debate

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the The Frontiers Collection book series (FRONTCOLL)

Abstract

At its crux, the debate whether Active SETI is a dangerous endeavor focuses on differences of opinion as to whether ETI would engage in ethical egoism (selfishness) toward humanity or ethical altruism (benevolence). Many critics of Active SETI employ a line of reasoning similar to the Precautionary Principle often utilized in the regulation of health and the environment. Several aspects of human behavior actually render the Precautionary Principle and related risk-balancing methods of dubious utility in sorting out competing risks. These same flaws apply equally to the Active SETI debate, in particular to the question of ETI egoism versus altruism. The Precautionary Principle encourages those engaged in the Active SETI debate to focus solely on one risk (egoistic and dangerous ETI) while ignoring other risks that are at least as likely if not more likely (such as lost “opportunity benefits” from contact with altruistic and benevolent ETI). Active SETI critics also ignore the very real political risks to science in general and SETI in particular that are created by possibly unfounded assertions of danger.

Keywords

Active SETI Altruism Egoism (ethics) Extraterrestrial intelligence METI Precautionary Principle Risk analysis Risk communication Risk perception SETI 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Atri, Dimitra., Julia DeMarines, and Jacob Haqq-Misra. 2011. “A Protocol for Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” Space Policy 27:165–169.Google Scholar
  2. Babe, Ann. 2005. “Doyle Vetoes Human Cloning Ban.” The Badger Herald, November 4. Accessed August 29, 2012. http://badgerherald.com/news/2005/11/04/doyle_vetoes_human_c.php.
  3. Baum, Seth D., Jacob D. Haqq-Misra, and Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman. 2011. “Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity?: A Scenario Analysis.” Acta Astronautica 68 (11–12):2114–2129.Google Scholar
  4. Billingham, John, and James Benford. 2011. “Costs and Difficulties of Large-scale ‘Messaging,’ and the Need of International Debate on Potential Risks.” Accessed August 29, 2012. http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1938v2.
  5. Davies, Paul C. W. 2012. “Footprints of Alien Technology.” Acta Astronautica 73:250–257.Google Scholar
  6. Denning, Kathryn 2005. “‘L’ on Earth.” Paper presented at the 56th International Astronautical Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, October 16–21.Google Scholar
  7. Denning, Kathryn. 2010a. “Unpacking the Great Transmission Debate.” Acta Astronautica 67:1399–1405.Google Scholar
  8. Denning, Kathryn. 2010b. “The History of Contact on Earth: Analogies, Myths, Misconceptions.” Paper presented at the 61st International Astronautical Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, September 27-October 1.Google Scholar
  9. Denning, Kathryn. 2011. “Ten Thousand Revolutions: Conjectures about Civilizations.” Acta Astronautica 68(3–4):381–388.Google Scholar
  10. Finkelmeyer, Todd. 2011. “UW Officials Say Bill Would Have a ‘Chilling Effect’ on Biomedical Research.” The Capital Times, August 6. Accessed August 29, 2012. http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/article_4d7e69e6-bfa1-11e0-a631-001cc4c03286.html.
  11. Gauchat, Gordon. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review 77(2):167–187.Google Scholar
  12. Grabenstein, John D., and James P. Wilson. 1999. “Are Vaccines Safe?: Risk Communication Applied to Vaccination.” Hospital Pharmacy 34(6):713–729.Google Scholar
  13. Khan, Amina. 2010. “Scientists Weigh in on Hawking’s Alien Warning.” Los Angeles Times, May 7. Accessed August 29, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/07/science/la-sci-hawking-aliens-20100508.
  14. Lemonick, Michael D. 2011. “ET Call Us—Just Not Collect.” Time, April 28. Accessed August 29, 2012. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2067855,00.html.
  15. McIntyre, Owen, and Thomas Mosedale. 1997. “The Precautionary Principle as a Norm of Customary International Law.” Journal of Environmental Law 9:221.Google Scholar
  16. Michaud, Michael A. G. 2001. “If Contact Occurs, Who Speaks for Earth?” Foreign Service Journal 78(April):23–27.Google Scholar
  17. Michaud, Michael A. G. 2003. “Ten Decisions That Could Shake the World.” Space Policy 19:131–136.Google Scholar
  18. Musso, Paolo. 2012. “The Problem of Active SETI: An Overview.” Acta Astronautica 78:43–54.Google Scholar
  19. O’Neill, Ian. 2011. “Big Question for 2012: Will We Find Earth 2.0?” Discovery News, December 21. Accessed August 29, 2012. http://news.discovery.com/space/big-question-for-2012-earth-20-111220.html.
  20. Penny, Alan. 2012. “Transmitting (and Listening) May Be Good (or Bad).” Acta Astronautica 78:69–71.Google Scholar
  21. Rose, Christopher, and Gregory Wright. 2004. “Inscribed Matter as an Energy-efficient Means of Communication with an Extraterrestrial Civilization.” Nature 431:47–49.Google Scholar
  22. Shostak, Seth. 2004. “Does ET Use Snail Mail?” Space.com, September 9. Accessed August 29, 2012. http://www.space.com/312-snail-mail.html.
  23. Shuch, H. Paul, and Iván Almár. 2007. “Shouting in the Jungle: The SETI Transmission Debate.” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 60(4):142–146.Google Scholar
  24. Sunstein, Cass N. 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tarter, Jill C. 2000. “SETI and the Religions of the Universe.” In Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life & the Theological Implications, edited by Steven Dick, 143–149. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  26. Turner, Graham. 2008. “A Comparison of The Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality.” Global Environmental Change 18(3):397–411.Google Scholar
  27. Vakoch, Douglas A. 2011. “Responsibility, Capability, and Active SETI: Policy, Law, Ethics and Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” Acta Astronautica 68(3–4):512–519.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CeleJureMononaUSA

Personalised recommendations