Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Communications Space United Kingdom Science

If ET Calls, Who Speaks For Humanity? 371

Posted by timothy
from the your-call-is-very-important-to-us dept.
EagleHasLanded writes "Who speaks for humankind if ET calls on us? Paul Davies, chairman of the SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup, is a likely ambassador. But Allen Tough founded the Invitation to ETI Web site, which encourages ET to make contact via email (and also strongly discourages humans from impersonating ET). But an individual in the UK got over some of the hurdles designed to weed out hoaxers, before finally throwing in the towel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

If ET Calls, Who Speaks For Humanity?

Comments Filter:
  • Its too late. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday March 21 2010, @05:45PM (#31560510) Homepage Journal

    Our TV broadcasts have already spoken for us, and it wasn't a good message.

  • Obama (Score:1, Insightful)

    by quantumpineal (1724214) on Sunday March 21 2010, @05:48PM (#31560534) Homepage
    It would be Prez Obama, whether that's right or wrong who knows, but that's what would happen.
  • Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)

    by clarkkent09 (1104833) * on Sunday March 21 2010, @05:58PM (#31560626)
    I think you've been watching too many movies where aliens land in the USA and act as if they don't even know that the rest of the world exists, i.e like Americans.
  • I vote for.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney (648748) on Sunday March 21 2010, @05:59PM (#31560644) Homepage

    Morgan Freeman.

  • by shadowbearer (554144) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:01PM (#31560660) Homepage Journal

    ;-)

      Obviously, there's no good answer to this question. No matter who was picked, by whatever process, some group on the planet would resent it.

      Personally I think Sagan had it right - we pick someone who doesn't have a religious or political agenda, is broadly educated especially in sciences, and
    would be willing to perform the task.*

      (Hmm... Richard Dawkins? *g*)

      * No, really:

      1) No religious agenda - doesn't matter whether or not the aliens have religion. If they don't, they'll likely think us backward. If they do, it's possible they will be offended by our version(s) - and it's certain that picking anyone who professes one major religion would piss off the other major religions.

      2) No political agenda. I doubt I need to explain this one; the person will be speaking for ALL HUMANITY.

      3) Broadly educated - in trying to understand a totally alien viewpoint, experience in many different fields would be essential.

      4) ... especially in the sciences - because it's likely anyone who *could* contact us would be extremely far along in the sciences. Unless they're doing it with telepathy...

      5) Volunteer, of course.

    SB

  • Re:Its too late. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animaether (411575) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:13PM (#31560750) Journal

    Our TV broadcasts have already spoken for us, and it wasn't a good message.

    Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?

    We're us - and though we do so with a lot of falling down and getting back up again, we generally strive to better ourselves and our fellow man all the time.

    If that makes us unworthy of a casual visit, or more worthy of evaporation, by some alien civilization, so be it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ya7ZRlrEo [youtube.com] - "My Way", Frank Sinatra.

    As it stands - we don't know -what- a particular alien civilization might enjoy... perhaps they're big fans of WW2 and want to include us in an intergalactic battle. Or maybe they just love Britney Spears and will come over to abduct all of the * Got Talent, * Idol, * Factor show people. Or maybe they'll catch one of the many talks from Stephen Hawking from old broadcasts and think it would be a jolly good time to sit down and have a chat with him via their neural interface gadgetry. So there's no point in entertaining the thought of "What Would The Aliens Do?" any more than WWJD-shirts do.. just carry on doing what we're doing for our own (planet's) good.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:21PM (#31560826)

    An Alien first need to understand our tcp/ip packets. Imagine if they have their own computer system. They need to decode our internet traffic. Okey it's only a bunch of zeros and ones. But how is disposed here on Earth is completely different what is disposed for an Alien system. So is necessary to convert our tcp/ip to a protocol understand for the aliens. Then the IANA didn't allocate any ipv4 for UFOS. So, the only possibility is hack some ISP to join the internet, open an Gmail ou any free email account for sending a message. That's will not be easy because they need to understand and study our language. The satellites are there transmitting all kind of TV programs still in a analogic. If an alian decode it, they will study and learn any earth language.

    Any way if they send a email, our researches will think that is a hoax. I think that the best way is fly to a TV station and shows everyone that they are there. So there will be no doubt about intelligence outside our solar system.

  • Re:obviously (Score:2, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:25PM (#31560858) Homepage Journal

    wouldn't you smile before a good firm handshake and slap on the back.

    Oh yeah, bear your teeth, seize their forelimb, then strike them between the main arm joints. That'll give them a warm reception. Or make them shit right on the landing ramp...

  • Nobody (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:25PM (#31560862) Journal
    Why do we need someone to speak for humanity as a whole? Why do we assume the aliens will have a single government? Why can't we communicate nation-to-nation?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:25PM (#31560866)

    I mean... we have the UN right? so wouldnt' Ban Kyi Moon be the appropriate choice?

  • No one (Score:4, Insightful)

    by J'raxis (248192) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:28PM (#31560906) Homepage

    No one speaks for "humanity." Everyone speaks for themselves. But, I suppose that won't stop some sleazebag politician from claiming to speak for a few million or billion other people...

  • Re:obviously (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelbear (870538) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:29PM (#31560918)

    But in other cases, baring your teeth is a sign that you're planning to bite down on their neck.

    Humans smile to relax each other. Some animals use it are a threat. We wouldn't know what showing teeth means in an alien's culture.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:35PM (#31560976)

    Judging from how we treat animals that are less mentally and technologically developed than ourselves, I would argue that a very, very cute person would be the best option.

    That is if ET has a sense of cuteness. Otherwise I would guess that we are what scientists technically refer to as "fucked".

  • by shadowbearer (554144) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:37PM (#31561004) Homepage Journal

    requisite background in deal making, understanding different points of view, and convincing others more powerful than we not to wipe us out

      Sure they do. Nearly all scientists are familiar with the grant application process ;-)

    SB

  • Re:Davies, ORLY? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:48PM (#31561088) Journal

    So, you assume that atheists are correct and that aliens, assuming they even exist would be atheists?

    Personally, I suspect that's true, but I don't know. However, I see three possibilities:

    • They have no religion.
    • They have a religion very similar to ours.
    • They have a religion unlike anything we've ever seen.

    Now, of those, do you really think #2 is likely? (If you do, you probably should investigate how religion arose on this planet.)

    No, the likelier possibilities are option #1, in which case, any religious individual would make us seem backwards and primitive; or #3, in which case, any religion we choose to represent would likely be weird and possibly offensive to them.

    Who would you suggest? An obnoxious pompous prick like Dawkins?

    Funny... when I believed, I thought the same way you did. About Randi, also.

    Eventually, I realized that what I saw as "arrogance" was merely the courage to stand up to popular dogmas. They were attacking things I held dear, and that made me defensive, so of course I saw them as arrogant and disruptive.

    real science, rather than trying to prove the non-existence of god.

    Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and you might notice he's also written several books about that. If you investigate what he actually does with his time, you'll probably find he spends far more time doing exactly that -- real science.

    You seem to be confused into thinking that all atheists are necessarily "militant atheists", and that this would be the first thing on their minds when they encounter an alien being. That's not the concern at all. The concern is that the last thing we want is to be trying to tell an alien the "good news".

  • Re:Its too late. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dbet (1607261) on Sunday March 21 2010, @06:51PM (#31561122)

    Our TV broadcasts have already spoken for us, and it wasn't a good message.

    I hear Single Female Lawyer [wikipedia.org] has some fans.

  • Re:Just in case... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tassach (137772) on Sunday March 21 2010, @07:42PM (#31561446)

    any aliens with the technology to travel across interstellar space would have to have some pretty phenomenal computer technology

    The only thing safe to assume about aliens is that they will be ALIEN. As in, completely unlike us in every way. It's a mistake to terrestrialize ETs, let alone anthropomorphize them. Their concept of 'communication', let alone their culture and motivations, will likely be be so wildly different than ours as to be beyond our ability to even conceive of it. Hell, we have a hard enough time understanding and communicating with other HUMAN cultures. Aliens, especially aliens sophisticated enough to cross interstellar distances? Forget about it.

  • Re:obviously (Score:4, Insightful)

    by precariousgray (1663153) on Sunday March 21 2010, @07:57PM (#31561570)
    I would hope that an alien species capable of something as ordinary as intergalactic travel would also have spent some time thinking this through and determined that our customs and social cues may not necessarily directly correlate to their own.
  • Re:Just in case... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HungryHobo (1314109) on Sunday March 21 2010, @08:12PM (#31561688)

    Someone mod the parent up.

    Is there any particular reason an alien species would be any nicer to other species than we are to other species?

  • by Jeremi (14640) on Sunday March 21 2010, @08:32PM (#31561856) Homepage

    I hear that France has already preemptively surrendered to ET because of this article.

    Hilarious! A one-liner about French people being quick to surrender! That joke just never gets old! It's almost as funny as the "Polish people are stupid" jokes, or the "Jewish people like money" jokes! Maybe next you could tell one about lazy Mexicans...

  • Re:Davies, ORLY? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kell Bengal (711123) on Sunday March 21 2010, @08:39PM (#31561920)
    Actually, I would disagree that there is a conflict between science and religion... well... the scientists don't think so, at least. The scientists: "We know the following stuff about how the world works - here's what our experiments tell us." The religious: "Scientists aren't agreeing with us on everything! They're a threat to us and they must be stopped!" Is it possible to have a conflict where really only one side is trying to 'beat' the other?

    Is Richard Dawkins up to snuff with his science? I don't know - I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Is there a conflict between science and religion? No, not really, but the religious folks out there seem to be making capital out of the idea that there might be.

    As a robotics research engineer very little of my science has anything to do with religion. I have, however, attempted to create the robot devil with so far inconclusive results. The prototype can fiddle, but hasn't yet bought a soul.
  • Re:Just in case... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xenn (148389) on Sunday March 21 2010, @08:48PM (#31561996)

    > "Not exactly rigorous"... it doesn't withstand two seconds of critical thought.

    Are you sure? Have you tried it?

    what are suggesting?

    ...that plants are sentient, or that they flail like crazy and try to get away?

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Sunday March 21 2010, @08:50PM (#31562012) Homepage

    Whoever picks up the phone. Hopefully it will not be one of our "leaders".

  • Re:Just in case... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shadowbearer (554144) on Sunday March 21 2010, @09:10PM (#31562214) Homepage Journal

      I see your point, but if there are aliens who are capable of traveling across interstellar space and navigating it without computer technology of some sort, there will likely never EVER be any common ground with us to communicate thru.

      We rely on our technology for communications, more and more so the more technically advanced we get. Any form of communication has to have some sort of symbolic nature, otherwise it's not communication.

        Like I said elsewhere, unless they communicate via telepathy, there has to be at least some common ground, technology wise. However, just because WE can't understand THEM, doesn't mean that THEY won't be able to understand US.

      At the risk of providing fodder for fruitcakes, technically they could already be living amongst us, and we'd never know they were there. I am familiar with Clarke's Law wrt advanced technology...

      I think it much more likely that any aliens who would go to the trouble of trying to contact us - as a species - via a means we are familiar with would use the means of communication we are capable of detecting.

      Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in attempting to do so.

    SB

  • Re:Just in case... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shadowbearer (554144) on Sunday March 21 2010, @09:26PM (#31562342) Homepage Journal

    Ditto.

      Let's hope that they won't judge us on that. If they do, we're pretty well screwed.

      “You are capable of such wonderful dreams,and such terrible nightmares.”

      Hell, we can't even treat other members of our OWN species decently, as a whole, much less other species.

      Some say we're in our adolescence, I'd argue we're still in the terrible two's" stage, where, as a species, we haven't developed a learned sense of ethics...

    SB

  • Re:Just in case... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Monday March 22 2010, @12:12AM (#31563468)

    We regularly leave our planet by use of technology and have harnessed the power of the atom?
    That's not to say it's enough, but those are at least two things that would probably differentiate us quite a bit.

    But if we're not 6-dimensional beings and don't *smell* the *pretty* colors, we might seem like a talking dog or a counting horse. They might be amazed by the dog (but will never consider it an equal), but they'll only be temporarily amused by the horse until they wanted to ride somewhere, make some glue, or eat horse-chops.

    Strange magical physics don't even have to be in play; the aliens only have to believe that quality X is more important than intelligence (or that quality X denotes intelligence), and if we don't have it, then we're defacto non-intelligent.

  • Re:Davies, ORLY? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shadowbearer (554144) on Monday March 22 2010, @01:34AM (#31563956) Homepage Journal
    *shrug* I've been atheist since about '78,79, somewhere there. Can't say, didn't wake up one day and say "There is no dog" or anything like that. Raised Lutheran, just didn't take; as Carlin said, I "reached the age of reason". People who believe in tarot cards, or any other form of superstition or mysticism, are not atheists. I don't know where you get that definition from, but it isn't accurate. They may say they are, but they aren't. I'll agree that atheism, by itself, is not necessarily rational. But most people who admit to being atheist are rational. We could play statistical quote-me back and forth for weeks, tho. If it comes down to talking to aliens, tho, I suspect that scientific rationalism - and probably anarchic scientific rationalism - will win the day. I have to crash, have to work tomorrow. I'd love to debate this more with you, but sleep demands me. What would an alien species that doesn't sleep think of that? *g* later SB
  • Re:I do. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordSnooty (853791) on Monday March 22 2010, @06:18AM (#31564962)

    Next question, please.

    Nice to meet you. Would you kindly take me to your leader?

  • Re:Just in case... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious (631665) on Monday March 22 2010, @06:33AM (#31565004) Homepage Journal

    They might be criminals, political refugees, or any other "undesirable" on the run, who see our remote backward world as a good hideout (this falls somewhere between "planned" and "seredipitous" at least for them). Maybe the scum of their species, maybe the oppressed.

    So it's 1620 all over again, but this time we're all Red Indians and the pilgrims are green?

    Watch out for the blankets.

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.

Working...