Speaker 1: Or Hey, how do you feel when you get an
Speaker 1: unexpected piece of mail, like a letter to my house?
Speaker 1: It's usually either good news or bad news exactly, But
Speaker 1: do you get a feeling about it before you open it,
Speaker 1: about whether it's good or bad? Sure, Like, if it
Speaker 1: looks like a check, it's probably good news. If it
Speaker 1: comes from the I R S, probably not good news. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and anything handwritten is probably also not bad news. What
Speaker 1: if the I r S says your handwritten note, that's
Speaker 1: probably extra bad news. Actually, well, it could be a
Speaker 1: fan from the I R S. You could have a
Speaker 1: fan letter, unless it's cut off from little pieces of
Speaker 1: magazine fonts. I don't want anybody the I r S
Speaker 1: to be impressed by the creativity of my tax return.
Speaker 1: I am more handmay cartoonists and the creator of PhD comics.
Speaker 1: I'm Daniel. I'm a particle physicist and a professor at
Speaker 1: u C Irvine, where my mailbox is usually filled with
Speaker 1: people sending me their theories of the universe and letters
Speaker 1: from prisoners. Is that true you get letters from prison
Speaker 1: like physical letters, I do. I get handwritten letters from
Speaker 1: prison from folks who have found our book in their
Speaker 1: prison library. Wow. That's pretty interesting. That's pretty cool. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a little window out into the universe. I thought you
Speaker 1: were going to say they're from your friends in prison,
Speaker 1: although I guess now you have friends in prison. There
Speaker 1: are my friends now. I actually used to teach in
Speaker 1: prison when I was at Berkeley. I used to go
Speaker 1: up and be a t a at San Quentin. They
Speaker 1: had a class there in mathematics for prisoners. So go
Speaker 1: and help teach arithmetic to prisoners. Oh, that's pretty cool,
Speaker 1: until the day I discovered that one of the prisoners
Speaker 1: there used to be a grad student working for my advisor,
Speaker 1: also at Berkeley. No way, so you were, you thought,
Speaker 1: because they do more than you, or it sort of
Speaker 1: scared you about your potential future. I thought, Wow, there
Speaker 1: are more career paths from grad school than I realized,
Speaker 1: creative ones at that But welcome to our podcast Daniel
Speaker 1: and Jorge Explain the Universe, a production of I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio in which we try to unlock your mind and
Speaker 1: release you from the prison of our human ignorance. We
Speaker 1: want to set everybody's brains free, and we want to
Speaker 1: understand everything that's out there in the universe from the
Speaker 1: true nature of the fundamental elements of the universe, our
Speaker 1: space and time fundamental, or do they emerge from some
Speaker 1: crazy frothing quantum reality all the way up to the largest,
Speaker 1: most dramatic structures in the universe, to the very edges
Speaker 1: of the known universe and beyond. We aim to explain
Speaker 1: all of it to you. Yeah, because it is a
Speaker 1: pretty amazing universe. It's vast and full of interesting and
Speaker 1: crazy mysteries. But we seem to be sort of maybe
Speaker 1: stuck and maybe sort of also prisoners in one little
Speaker 1: tiny corner of it, sort of blocked off by the
Speaker 1: huge walls of space around us that make it really
Speaker 1: hard for us to go visit other places. It does
Speaker 1: sort of seem like we are in solitary confinement, and
Speaker 1: we don't know if there are other intelligent beings out
Speaker 1: there in the galaxy also wondering about the same questions
Speaker 1: that we are proving the nature of matter, and wondering
Speaker 1: if they are also alone. Yeah, we're like in a
Speaker 1: cosmological time out. Maybe we misbehave We've definitely been misbehaving,
Speaker 1: But I don't know if we deserve to be in
Speaker 1: isolation for thousands and thousands of years. It seems a
Speaker 1: bit extreme. We can't play with the breast of the
Speaker 1: kids kids species in the universe. Maybe we're just waiting
Speaker 1: for the day we get let out into the yard
Speaker 1: and we get to meet all the other prisoners. Although
Speaker 1: it's not a bad prison metaphorically speaking. I mean, the
Speaker 1: Earth is pretty comfortable. It's like home confinement. That's right.
Speaker 1: I got no complaints. I love the Earth, And we
Speaker 1: got a pretty good view out of our window. We
Speaker 1: can see really far into the universe, across billions and
Speaker 1: billions of light years and are witnessing cataclysmic cosmic events
Speaker 1: that give us clues into the nature of reality. One
Speaker 1: thing we haven't seen yet, however, is evidence that there's
Speaker 1: somebody else out there. Yeah, it kind of makes you
Speaker 1: wonder if there are other alien species sort of looking
Speaker 1: at the universe like we are, and maybe looking at
Speaker 1: the same events at the same time as we are,
Speaker 1: and asking the same questions we're asking about the universe.
Speaker 1: I think it's even more interesting if there are alien
Speaker 1: astronomers looking at the same events but before we are,
Speaker 1: Like some photons that have taken five hundred million years
Speaker 1: to get to Earth, aliens might have seen photons from
Speaker 1: that same event. A hundred million years ago, they might
Speaker 1: have been like working on this and writing papers and
Speaker 1: scooped us by a hundred million years. Are you saying
Speaker 1: the science we have right now is old news like
Speaker 1: it's it's it's based on stale data. That's right. It's
Speaker 1: time to go out there and get some fresh results.
Speaker 1: But depending on where you are in the universe, you
Speaker 1: may see something a lot sooner then somebody else. So
Speaker 1: it could be that there's something amazing that happened in
Speaker 1: the universe and the light from it is still getting here,
Speaker 1: but it's already hit alien astronomers and they have received
Speaker 1: this incredible insight from this one of a kind cosmic event. Right,
Speaker 1: But I guess in a relative universe there's such a
Speaker 1: thing as sort of instantaneity, right, Like, maybe they saw
Speaker 1: it before we did, But by the time they tell
Speaker 1: us they saw it, we have already seen this discovery.
Speaker 1: That's true. Photons from the event will arrive here before
Speaker 1: their paper on it arrives here, so we'll have a
Speaker 1: narrow window to claim that we came up with the
Speaker 1: ideas ourselves, unless their paper is about wormholes and somehow
Speaker 1: they get it to us before we see the light,
Speaker 1: in which case it's like maybe getting a preview or something.
Speaker 1: Maybe or maybe the first interstellar war will be started
Speaker 1: by physicists arguing about who came up with an idea first. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it'll be fought on the wormhole Internet probably, or maybe
Speaker 1: their first paper will be like, hey, Earth, watch out,
Speaker 1: there's a giant gamma raypers coming your way that will
Speaker 1: kill you. Would be very kind to them. I hope
Speaker 1: that aliens are out there and looking out for us,
Speaker 1: But it is a pretty big question of whether or
Speaker 1: not we are alone in the universe. That you know,
Speaker 1: it's a vast universe and we are able to sit
Speaker 1: of sea and look out there, and we're also able
Speaker 1: to send messages. But it's a little bit of a
Speaker 1: debate about whether we should be sending out messages or not.
Speaker 1: That's right. Some folks are desperately curious to contact aliens
Speaker 1: or even just to know about their existence, and other
Speaker 1: folks are wondering, is it a good idea for aliens
Speaker 1: to know that we are here? Yeah, because you might
Speaker 1: be a learning dangerous aliens to our presence. Right, you
Speaker 1: might be telling them, Hey, there's a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: delicious looking meat running around here in this blue planet
Speaker 1: where you can also get a nice drink of water,
Speaker 1: come get it, that's right, Or you might accidentally say
Speaker 1: something offensive to spark an interstellar war. Sometimes just staying
Speaker 1: quiet is the best approach. You're saying, the aliens could
Speaker 1: have thin skin. Maybe they don't even have skin, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe they just take offense to everything instantly, that's right.
Speaker 1: Who knows they're aliens? Right, it could just be like
Speaker 1: a cloud of group or something. But I guess it's
Speaker 1: sort of the idea that maybe our quest to be
Speaker 1: like reach out and contact other civilizations maybe naive, right,
Speaker 1: because it could be leading us into a potentially dangerous
Speaker 1: situation exactly. And it's a question we often are confronted
Speaker 1: by in physics, not just whether we can, but whether
Speaker 1: we should. So today on the podcast, we'll be tackling
Speaker 1: the question is it dangerous to try to communicate with aliens?
Speaker 1: That question sounds dangerous. I mean, anytime you say sort
Speaker 1: of aliens, you gotta you gotta step back for a second.
Speaker 1: You and I often joke about this on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to the day the aliens arrived because
Speaker 1: I hope I can ask them physics questions about like
Speaker 1: what is the true nature of reality and quantum gravity
Speaker 1: and how did the universe begin? Etcetera. But sometimes you
Speaker 1: get the impression that you're a little bit more concerned
Speaker 1: about whether or not the aliens will just fry us
Speaker 1: from orbit. Yeah, well, you know, you look at it
Speaker 1: from all sides, I guess. But um, you know, first
Speaker 1: of all, I guess you're assuming that the aliens know
Speaker 1: the answer to these questions. Maybe they're just as clues
Speaker 1: as as we are and hungry. That's a great point.
Speaker 1: It depends a lot on how we actually get in
Speaker 1: touch with these aliens. If aliens come to Earth, and
Speaker 1: it's likely that they have traveled through space in a
Speaker 1: way that we haven't been able to, so it's very
Speaker 1: likely they're more advanced than we are, and so probably
Speaker 1: they have some answers or at least different perspectives on
Speaker 1: these questions. But if we just get a message from them,
Speaker 1: then there's no guarantee that they have developed anything that
Speaker 1: we haven't developed. And if they all they do is
Speaker 1: here our message, they might not have very sophisticated technology
Speaker 1: at all. I think it's just kind of dangerous to
Speaker 1: have those expectations. You know, like, what if you hail
Speaker 1: the aliens they come all the way here, and then
Speaker 1: you ask them like, hey, what are the secrets to
Speaker 1: the universe? And they're like, we don't know. What are
Speaker 1: you gonna do? It's gonna be really awkward to I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be like, I made all this guacamole just just
Speaker 1: for have this party with you to celebrate this, you know,
Speaker 1: solutions to the universe, and now it's just gonna go bad. Uh,
Speaker 1: And then what are you gonna do? Or you can
Speaker 1: disinvite them? What are you going to talk about for
Speaker 1: the next you know, billion years with them in your house.
Speaker 1: I'm definitely not great at keeping conversation going, especially with strangers,
Speaker 1: so it would be a tricky situation. But I think
Speaker 1: it's worth the risk because they could have incredible answers,
Speaker 1: or at least, you know, maybe they even just ask
Speaker 1: different questions, questions we haven't thought to ask. I think,
Speaker 1: joking aside, the greatest thing we would learn from communicating
Speaker 1: intellectually with another species is just learning from all the
Speaker 1: differences in our approaches, not even necessarily the answers interesting.
Speaker 1: Yet it wouldn't it be easier just to try a
Speaker 1: different approach ourselves. Yeah, sit down, brainstorm, other ways we
Speaker 1: could think about things. What do you need to outsource?
Speaker 1: Sometimes I think the human thought is sort of trapped
Speaker 1: in a rut and we don't even realize all the
Speaker 1: time the decisions we've made in the arbitrary choices that
Speaker 1: have influenced us. And just like the path of human thought,
Speaker 1: you know who thought of what when and who had
Speaker 1: time to go into science and influence the direction and
Speaker 1: of human science. So I think if you ran the
Speaker 1: Earth is an experiment a thousand times, you would probably
Speaker 1: get lots of different ideas about science. But we only
Speaker 1: have this one experiment. So it's a little frustrating, all right. Well,
Speaker 1: as usually, we were wondering how people thought about this
Speaker 1: idea of contacting aliens or looking for aliens, or whether
Speaker 1: they thought it was a good idea or risky one.
Speaker 1: So Daniel went out there, this time in person, out
Speaker 1: into the campus of you see Irvine, to ask people
Speaker 1: this question. That's right, you see, I opened up again
Speaker 1: after the pandemic, and so I was able to walk
Speaker 1: around campus and make people feel weird by asking them
Speaker 1: about aliens. To thank you to all the u c
Speaker 1: I students, who answered this question. Wow, was it extra
Speaker 1: weird being back and asking questions of strangers? Like I
Speaker 1: imagine it was weird before to have this, you know,
Speaker 1: scurfy looking physicist approach you and ask you questions about
Speaker 1: the universe. But now you're doing it with a mask
Speaker 1: and there's a pandemic going on. How was that weird? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I'm a little less scruffy because of the mask.
Speaker 1: It hides some of the rough so maybe it makes
Speaker 1: me look a little more professional. But it was nice.
Speaker 1: It's good to be out there again. It's good to
Speaker 1: see people. It's good to have the campus be alive.
Speaker 1: So I think people are a little hungry for some interaction.
Speaker 1: I was surprised everybody was very receptive. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: think about it for a second. If someone asked you
Speaker 1: whether it's a good idea to look for aliens or
Speaker 1: is it risky? What would you answer. Here's what people
Speaker 1: had to say. I don't really know. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty cool. I guess I think it's more
Speaker 1: interesting rather than like dangerous if you were to try
Speaker 1: to communicate. So, yeah, there is always a risk, but uh,
Speaker 1: there's also an opportunity. So I feel yeah, I feel
Speaker 1: it's actually not necessarily It's hard for me to say
Speaker 1: it's cool or bad, but it's also hard for me
Speaker 1: to say it's necessarily bad. I think it's incredibly risky.
Speaker 1: I think that the prospect of an extra strestrial civilization
Speaker 1: showing up on Earth is very scary. You don't know
Speaker 1: what they what their intentions might be, and I think
Speaker 1: history kind of shows us that when people who are
Speaker 1: outsiders show up in a place where you know they
Speaker 1: don't really think of the other inhabitants, is so much
Speaker 1: like then, or you know, the equivalent of them, then
Speaker 1: these are usually turn out so well, really, because we
Speaker 1: could advance our knowledge about how life is form and
Speaker 1: how it functions and ways we cannot even begin to
Speaker 1: comprehend right now. And what about the risks worth it?
Speaker 1: Every new idea brings risks, and everything we do depends
Speaker 1: on on who we are and how we go about it.
Speaker 1: So based on that, we could never do anything if
Speaker 1: we don't trust the people that doesn't, they could bring
Speaker 1: us diseases that we couldn't fight. Well. I think it's
Speaker 1: a good idea for a multitude of reasons. I think,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, it's just informative to know whether or
Speaker 1: not where alone or not? And then that just opens
Speaker 1: up a whole new lineup questioning, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: how do they develop differently from us? Where did we diverge?
Speaker 1: Do we look at the universe in the same way?
Speaker 1: You know? I think in much the same way that
Speaker 1: it's informative to get other cultures experiences on certain things.
Speaker 1: It can be interesting to get an entirely different species
Speaker 1: perspective on something. What about the risks? There are risks,
Speaker 1: but there are risks inherent in anything, right, Um, the
Speaker 1: Manhattan rodinking built a new you know, the risk was,
Speaker 1: are we going to ignite the atmosphere? We're just gonna
Speaker 1: wipe out the human race right now? Probably not if
Speaker 1: the risk is there, right, And if we go out
Speaker 1: into space looking for extra terrescials, the same risk is
Speaker 1: inherentble But I think the benefits out where the risks.
Speaker 1: But then if it's pot wiping out the human race, well,
Speaker 1: some might argue that there is a benefit to wiping
Speaker 1: out the human race. I wouldn't go that far, but
Speaker 1: but some people would make that argument. But that is
Speaker 1: actually a benefit. I definitely think it's a good idea
Speaker 1: of course we should. I guess it doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be balanced with other needs for resources. So, for example, um,
Speaker 1: should we educate our children or do biomedical research versus
Speaker 1: for all our resources into the hope of maybe finding
Speaker 1: alien life. I guess I'd still vote for like, keeping
Speaker 1: our planet working right here at home, I think would
Speaker 1: be a good idea. I could see how it would
Speaker 1: be dangerous if but I would choose to believe that
Speaker 1: they would be just as curious as we are and
Speaker 1: not aggressive or hostile in anyway, and then it would
Speaker 1: be a mutual communication between both of us. All Right.
Speaker 1: We have a pretty wide range of opinions here from people.
Speaker 1: Some people think it's super risky, some people think it's
Speaker 1: super cool, yeah, And some people think it's risky but
Speaker 1: worth the risk. I guess I wonder if they're thinking
Speaker 1: about the full range of risk potential here. You know,
Speaker 1: there was somebody who argued that the human race itself
Speaker 1: getting wiped out might be a benefit, not necessarily a risk.
Speaker 1: Oh my goodness. There was some pretty dark thoughts going on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: pretty uh dark people who go to uc I apparently.
Speaker 1: But it's an interesting question whether it's worth the risk, right,
Speaker 1: because the risk could be a pretty bad You could
Speaker 1: wipe out the whole maybe human race potentially. Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: talking about alien technology with unknown capabilities. So definitely, like
Speaker 1: sterilizing the entire planet is in the realm of possibility,
Speaker 1: And so it seems like a weird balance to strike
Speaker 1: the right, Like, on the one hand, we could be
Speaker 1: destroyed and wipe out our species. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: we might satisfy Daniel Whiteson's curiosity. I don't know, man,
Speaker 1: that's a tough call. That is a tough It's a
Speaker 1: tough call for the rest of us to be audest well.
Speaker 1: I promised to share some of the insights if they
Speaker 1: do come. How about that balance a little bit? Of
Speaker 1: course you're going to share that, Daniel. I mean you
Speaker 1: were you thinking that you're going to keep it to yourself.
Speaker 1: I might. I might just build a prison of solitude
Speaker 1: and sit there knowing all these answers on my own.
Speaker 1: I see, you're gonna put the entire human race and
Speaker 1: risk and then keep all of the reward to yourself.
Speaker 1: I'll just dribble out of paper every ten years or so,
Speaker 1: blowing everything out of the water. From the alien prison.
Speaker 1: You'll be writing us and then the rest of us
Speaker 1: will get it through the prison newsletter? Is that the
Speaker 1: said the idea, and then we're gonna think, oh wow,
Speaker 1: that was totally worth it. Yeah, well, jokes aside, there
Speaker 1: are some really interesting questions there about how to communicate
Speaker 1: with aliens if they do come, or if they do
Speaker 1: send us a message, how to speak for Earth, you know,
Speaker 1: like who gets to speak for Earth? It's a difficult question.
Speaker 1: We actually talked to Jill Tartar, head of CETI about that,
Speaker 1: about how they get a community together, a multicultural, multi
Speaker 1: perspective community to think about how to respond potentially to
Speaker 1: an alien message. It's a hard question. Interesting all right,
Speaker 1: But before I guess we get into those details, let's
Speaker 1: maybe take a step back here and think about this
Speaker 1: larger question of are we alone? What have we learned
Speaker 1: about that question? What have we done to answer that question? Daniel?
Speaker 1: It's a really interesting question, and obviously we all want
Speaker 1: to know the answer are we alone? But it's sort
Speaker 1: of puzzling that we don't know the answer already. It's
Speaker 1: famously said by for me that was wondering, like where
Speaker 1: is everybody? Because the galaxy is pretty big? I mean,
Speaker 1: stars are far away, but it's also really really old
Speaker 1: and then filled with planets, And so if you think
Speaker 1: that life is not like totally unlikely, not like one
Speaker 1: in a trillion, then the number of planets means there
Speaker 1: should be a lot of life out there, which is
Speaker 1: a lot of opportunity for intelligent aliens. And because the
Speaker 1: galaxy is really old compared to how big it is,
Speaker 1: it's totally possible for an intelligence civilization to have sent
Speaker 1: us messages or to have explored the universe. So it's
Speaker 1: sort of puzzling, like why we haven't been contacted yet?
Speaker 1: Why aliens haven't found us or sent us messages yet? Right?
Speaker 1: That's the famous form me paradox, right, Like we look around,
Speaker 1: there's so many stars, so many potential habitable planets. There
Speaker 1: must be other we can't be like the only ones.
Speaker 1: That would be sort of a crazy coincidence, And so
Speaker 1: you've got to wonder where why haven't we made contact?
Speaker 1: Though you sort of also think that, you know, being
Speaker 1: an old universe, it also makes it harder to contact
Speaker 1: people if it's an old universe, right, because maybe there
Speaker 1: was an alien species nearby, but they lived billions of
Speaker 1: years ago, and so maybe they did some messages, but
Speaker 1: we weren't around or listening to to hear them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's lots of potential solutions to this paradox. And that's
Speaker 1: why I love about the paradox. It's not really like
Speaker 1: a contradiction necessarily makes you question your assumptions and you say,
Speaker 1: if all these things I think are true, then we
Speaker 1: should have been contacted. So let's go back and examine
Speaker 1: those assumptions. And one of the important ones is that
Speaker 1: when you just mentioned which has to do with how
Speaker 1: long civilizations survive, like if intelligence civilizations only last for
Speaker 1: a few thousand years before they blow themselves up or
Speaker 1: you know, ruin their environments or something, then to be
Speaker 1: very difficult to have them line up in time so
Speaker 1: that they could discover each other and maybe even communicate
Speaker 1: with each other. This is sometimes called the great filter,
Speaker 1: that maybe most civilizations are extinguished before they can become
Speaker 1: long lasting civilizations. Yeah, like it's inevitable sort of yeah.
Speaker 1: And then the question is like, well, did we already
Speaker 1: survive the Great filter? Are we through it or is
Speaker 1: it ahead of us? You know, are we about to
Speaker 1: extinguish ourselves? All signs point to yes. It depends on
Speaker 1: whether those planets have a Daniel Whites and who's crazy
Speaker 1: curiosity leads them down the wrong path. I see, So
Speaker 1: you're the filter. Is that what you're saying, the thing
Speaker 1: that filters us from a longevity. All I'm saying is
Speaker 1: that we have one of me and we've survived so far.
Speaker 1: You know, that's what the data says. Years Daniel, you're
Speaker 1: barely getting started. Look, I have destroyed the Earth and
Speaker 1: extinguished humanity exactly zero times in my life. So that's
Speaker 1: all I can say. In fact, the trend is going
Speaker 1: the wrong way, Like recently you've got a microphone and
Speaker 1: reaching more people, and so the filter is she's getting
Speaker 1: more clogged up. I think that's true. But there's lots
Speaker 1: of ways to attack this problem. You know. One is
Speaker 1: to say, well, maybe life just is much more rare
Speaker 1: than we ever imagine. Maybe we really are alone out
Speaker 1: there in the universe, and that's certainly possible. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't know how many times life started. We've only
Speaker 1: ever seen this one example though. If you look at
Speaker 1: the history of life on Earth, we see that it
Speaker 1: started pretty quickly after the conditions were favorable, and we
Speaker 1: think those conditions are not that rare. So it'd be
Speaker 1: pretty strange if life itself at least you know, heiny
Speaker 1: microbial life started somewhere else. What do you mean it
Speaker 1: started early, like as soon as the Earth form we
Speaker 1: had sort of self assembling molecules in our primorial soup.
Speaker 1: After we had reasonable conditions and liquid water. It only
Speaker 1: took a few hundred million years at most before we
Speaker 1: had very simple forms of life. You know, on the
Speaker 1: time scale of the Earth billions of years, that's not
Speaker 1: that long. And it might have started sooner. That's just
Speaker 1: like the oldest evidence that we have for life. It's
Speaker 1: very difficult to find very very ancient signs of life
Speaker 1: in old rocks, so it could have started even sooner. Wow.
Speaker 1: So I guess the fact that we got it early
Speaker 1: means it must have been easy, right, I guess is
Speaker 1: that the reasoning, like, oh, we got it pretty quick,
Speaker 1: it must not be that hard, that's the reasoning. Although
Speaker 1: we only have one example, it could be that we
Speaker 1: got super duper crazy lucky, right, We just don't know.
Speaker 1: We need to find life somewhere else to get a
Speaker 1: clear view of that situation. But you know, intelligence arrived
Speaker 1: fairly late on Earth, and so that makes the opposite suggestion.
Speaker 1: Maybe life is fairly common in the universe, but mostly
Speaker 1: it's not very smart and intelligence is very rare, or
Speaker 1: maybe the Earth is unusual. Right. We just can't draw
Speaker 1: a lot of conclusions from one example, right, Right, That's
Speaker 1: why I'm always late making things and turning things in,
Speaker 1: because if you do it too early, people are going
Speaker 1: to think it's too easy. Right, Jo must be really
Speaker 1: intelligent because he's always very late. That's exactly exactly, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: Or what he's doing must be really hard it's taking
Speaker 1: in so long, another argument for procrastination. And there are also,
Speaker 1: of course questions about the nature of intelligence. You know,
Speaker 1: would we even recognize intelligent life if it sent us
Speaker 1: a message or if it flew by? Are we trapped
Speaker 1: into a box of thinking about intelligent life as sort
Speaker 1: of variations on the human experience and the human an example,
Speaker 1: unable to even imagine the crazy forms that life or
Speaker 1: intelligence might take out there in the universe. Yeah, you mean,
Speaker 1: like they could have been sending us message all this time.
Speaker 1: There could be messages from aliens washing over us right now,
Speaker 1: but maybe in a totally different way than what we
Speaker 1: were expecting. Right, Like, we're listening the way we send signals,
Speaker 1: but maybe they're sending sending signals in a totally different
Speaker 1: way exactly, And we're sending signals in ways that seem
Speaker 1: obvious to us, and like anybody would do it this way, right,
Speaker 1: But that's exactly what we want to learn when we
Speaker 1: talk to aliens. We want to learn how they might
Speaker 1: think differently. So when we start by assuming that they're
Speaker 1: doing things the same way, we trap ourselves and only
Speaker 1: being able to find aliens that are basically like us,
Speaker 1: you know, with maybe wrinkly foreheads or pointy ears, right,
Speaker 1: But to be honest, that seems like a very human
Speaker 1: thing to do, like, let's only talk to people who
Speaker 1: are exactly like us. I try to only talk to
Speaker 1: physicists except twice a week. When I talk to you, good,
Speaker 1: I'm your alien. He's taking a risk here, a big
Speaker 1: risk that I might destroy you, but you get so
Speaker 1: much out of our conversations exactly, it's worth the risk
Speaker 1: because I always say that's right. Yeah, Well, thank you, Daniel,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Thank you for not frying me with
Speaker 1: your death ray so far. Yet, well, there are other possibilities,
Speaker 1: and it also raises a question, why should we be
Speaker 1: looking for aliens out there. So these are interesting and
Speaker 1: big questions that we are going to talk about. But first,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. All right. We're talking about
Speaker 1: whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to
Speaker 1: look for aliens out there in the universe, and it's
Speaker 1: a tricky balance, Daniel, I guess maybe what are some
Speaker 1: of the arguments for looking for aliens? The arguments for
Speaker 1: are easy to make. I mean, we just want to know.
Speaker 1: It's one of the deepest questions in modern science. Are
Speaker 1: we alone in the universe? It tells us so much
Speaker 1: about the nature of our existence. You know, I'm always
Speaker 1: saying that the reason we do science is not just
Speaker 1: to have spinoffs and technology and faster phones, but to
Speaker 1: understand the very context of our lives. What is this
Speaker 1: universe we're living in? How did it come to be?
Speaker 1: Because it changes how we live our lives. And knowing
Speaker 1: that we are alone in the universe or knowing that
Speaker 1: we are not, both of those totally change the context
Speaker 1: of our lives. And so I think it's just one
Speaker 1: of the deepest questions and we're desperate to know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I totally agree, although I also have to kind of
Speaker 1: say that we sort of have that answer in a way, right, Like,
Speaker 1: at this point, we know so much about the universe
Speaker 1: that we think that the answer is probably right, like
Speaker 1: probably there's life out there or most likely there's life
Speaker 1: out there. Isn't that sort of good enough? Yeah, I'd
Speaker 1: say the answer is plus or minus. You know, but
Speaker 1: we we basically don't know anything. You know, we have
Speaker 1: this one example. We can make estimates, but until you know,
Speaker 1: you don't really know anything. That's why we do experiment, right.
Speaker 1: We think we figured out how this works, and we
Speaker 1: go out there, and then the universe surprises us. Every
Speaker 1: time we open up new eyeballs or new ears into
Speaker 1: the universe, we learned something surprising and shocking that changes
Speaker 1: the very way we think about the universe. So it's
Speaker 1: definitely worth looking because I bet the answer is pretty
Speaker 1: different from what we expect. Well, I guess, you know,
Speaker 1: we expect it to be yes. So you're saying maybe
Speaker 1: the answers no, The answers very so much depends on
Speaker 1: who you ask. Like, personally, I think it's very likely
Speaker 1: that there's life all over the universe in lots of
Speaker 1: ways we can't even imagine, and that intelligence takes such
Speaker 1: a varied forms that would be very difficult for us
Speaker 1: to recognize it, not to mention, communicate with it, or
Speaker 1: understand a message. I think aliens are probably more alien
Speaker 1: than we can even imagine interesting, and so you just
Speaker 1: want to kind of find them and to just to
Speaker 1: see how weird they can be. Yeah, absolutely, the same
Speaker 1: reason I like to go traveling, Like, Wow, look what
Speaker 1: people put on their French fries in this country. I
Speaker 1: never even thought of that. Oh my gosh. It just
Speaker 1: you know, expands ther insense of your brain. It makes
Speaker 1: you think in Newton different ways, right, But would you
Speaker 1: still eat it? Though? Do you always try them? I
Speaker 1: try every condiment once I see you just want to
Speaker 1: sample the aliens. He's not take a picture of him.
Speaker 1: Maybe these aliens are delicious also, you never know. Oh jeez, well,
Speaker 1: I guess. Um. Now the question is how are we
Speaker 1: looking for these aliens? Are we actively listening? I know
Speaker 1: there's a SETI program out there, Um what else is
Speaker 1: out there? And setting means search for an extraterrestrial intelligence.
Speaker 1: They're the biggest deal out there in terms of trying
Speaker 1: to identify messages from space, and so this is very
Speaker 1: different from like questions about whether alien craft are in
Speaker 1: the skies and these alien UFO videos said, He's like,
Speaker 1: let's just listen for messages from across the universe, trying
Speaker 1: to see if somebody out there is similar enough to
Speaker 1: us in intelligence and technology that they're sending us messages.
Speaker 1: At least we should be listening. They got about a
Speaker 1: hundred million bucks from a centric billionaires about five years ago,
Speaker 1: and they've been using it to buy telescope time like
Speaker 1: the Green Bank Observatory and the Park Observatory to try
Speaker 1: to listen for these messages. But I guess they're listening
Speaker 1: in the electromagnetic spectrum, right, like looking for radio signals,
Speaker 1: just like we use radio signals. And so that's assuming
Speaker 1: the aliens use radio signals and within a certain frequency
Speaker 1: range they are doing that. They also have some visible
Speaker 1: light observations and they also look for this weird stuff.
Speaker 1: Jill Tarter was on the podcast a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and she was telling us about how they're trying to
Speaker 1: imagine other ways aliens might communicate, like what if they're
Speaker 1: changing the frequency of pulsars through some crazy engineering project,
Speaker 1: and so not just like listening for messages in the
Speaker 1: way that we might format them. They're out there trying
Speaker 1: to think about other ways aliens might be affecting the
Speaker 1: cosmos that we could discover, right. We we talked once
Speaker 1: on the podcast about like our aliens building a giant
Speaker 1: Dicen sphere, or are they you know, moving galaxies around
Speaker 1: or something. And so they're being actually very thoughtful about
Speaker 1: this and involving philosophers and cultural historians and trying to
Speaker 1: think really carefully about the assumptions they are making when
Speaker 1: they're searching for these signals. But in the end, it's
Speaker 1: limited to our imagination. Right It's possible that there are
Speaker 1: signals already out there in our data that we just
Speaker 1: haven't interpreted in the right way. Interesting, So listen to
Speaker 1: that episode if you have a chance. But there are
Speaker 1: other things we're doing, not just listening for messages or
Speaker 1: strange things in the universe. We're also sending stuff out there,
Speaker 1: that's right. There's another program called METTI m e t I,
Speaker 1: which is messaging extraterrestrial intelligence, And this is a community
Speaker 1: people who think that we should not just be listening
Speaker 1: for these messages, we should be broadcasting our location into
Speaker 1: space and letting other civilizations know that we are here
Speaker 1: interesting like a group of people who think we should
Speaker 1: be more proactive about content ing aliens. Yeah. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: this has actually a long history. It's not just a
Speaker 1: recent effort. There's some really fun stories. There's an Austrian
Speaker 1: astronomer who wanted to dig massive trenches in the Sahara desert,
Speaker 1: fill them with water, top them with kerosene, and then
Speaker 1: set them on fire to communicate with people who might
Speaker 1: be living on Mars. What this was recent or a
Speaker 1: long time ago? This is a long time ago. This
Speaker 1: is like more than a hundred years ago, back when
Speaker 1: we didn't know are their civilizations on Mars, and people thought, well,
Speaker 1: here's the way we could send a message because we
Speaker 1: saw what looked like canals on Mars, and so for
Speaker 1: a while people thought maybe there was a civilization on Mars.
Speaker 1: So it's like writing help in the sand on your
Speaker 1: desert island, you know. Yeah, it seems a live with
Speaker 1: desperate if you ask me, think you might as well
Speaker 1: stand outside their driveway holding a boom box or something.
Speaker 1: And there was a French guy who asked for money
Speaker 1: from the French government because he wanted to build a
Speaker 1: giant mirror which would focus sunlight and write messages onto
Speaker 1: the surface of Mars, Like wouldn't that piss people might
Speaker 1: send them message? Don't you think so? Sorry about frying
Speaker 1: your elementary school filled with alien children. We just really
Speaker 1: wanted to get in touch. Boy. Well, it also doesn't
Speaker 1: see make a lot of sense because if there were
Speaker 1: Mars Martians looking at us, they would already see us, right,
Speaker 1: they would look at our you know lights at night
Speaker 1: and stuff, right, because you can see those from space. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you could. But this is a long time ago, before
Speaker 1: I think the Earth was as electrified, some people were
Speaker 1: thinking about this kind of stuff. But more recently, you know,
Speaker 1: people like Carl Sagan have thought about how somebody might
Speaker 1: respond to seeing one of our space probes, until like
Speaker 1: on the Voyager, we sent this golden record that has
Speaker 1: transmissions from Earth, you know, whale songs and people singing,
Speaker 1: and this information on there about like how to find
Speaker 1: the planet, done in a way that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: sort of self explanatory that anybody with a mathematical and
Speaker 1: astronomical understanding might be able to decode, right, yeah, and
Speaker 1: you can you can find images of the plaque online, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, and more aggressively. We actually sent a dedicated
Speaker 1: message to space from the air Receiva Observatory, this huge
Speaker 1: radio dish that used to be operating in Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: We sent a message out in to space specifically for
Speaker 1: aliens in designing a way we thought maybe they would
Speaker 1: be able to decode. It's sort of a pictogram. Interesting. Now,
Speaker 1: is this group of people METI. Is this like an
Speaker 1: actual institution or is it just sort of like what
Speaker 1: you call people who want to send messages out. It's
Speaker 1: an actual institution. There's a longer history here of this
Speaker 1: sort of movement of people sending messages out. But there
Speaker 1: is a group actually, it's based in San Francisco called MEDI,
Speaker 1: and they are sending messages. Like in two thousand and seventeen,
Speaker 1: they sent a message consisting of a scientific and mathematical
Speaker 1: tutorial to one particular star that's located twelve light years
Speaker 1: from Earth, you know, hoping that the aliens would get
Speaker 1: it then learn about our math and science. Is there
Speaker 1: a shorter version of this group called the eye MEDI
Speaker 1: instant messaging extra terrestrial intelligence somebody wants to text to
Speaker 1: other planets. Yeah, it seems like it might be a
Speaker 1: little more efficient and you know, casual cash. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: the problem. You know, their inboxes are so overflowing with
Speaker 1: interstellar spam that they're not reading our That's right, we're
Speaker 1: in their spam folder. Yeah, that's the nightmare, isn't it
Speaker 1: the nightmare? Like, hey, we're here, we're desperate to connect
Speaker 1: with other people. Spam delete exactly. They get so many offers.
Speaker 1: That's the great filter that I think. Really it's the
Speaker 1: great spam filter of the Google of the universe. You see,
Speaker 1: spam really does have costs. Well. Despite this idea of
Speaker 1: sending messages to aliens, some people think it's a bad
Speaker 1: idea and something that maybe the reason it's a bad
Speaker 1: idea could be maybe an explanation for why we haven't
Speaker 1: contacted other aliens, Like maybe it's a bad idea. That's
Speaker 1: why nobody else in the universe is sending signals out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Such famous physicists as Michio Kaku said, trying
Speaker 1: to contact aliens is quote the biggest mistake in human history.
Speaker 1: So there are definitely some people who think this is
Speaker 1: not a good plan. Yeah. I think the pictures they're
Speaker 1: trying to pain is like maybe the universe is kind
Speaker 1: of like a dark force, and they're be predators out there,
Speaker 1: and so we're sort of like a vulnerable species. We
Speaker 1: maybe don't want to advertise our presence exactly in the
Speaker 1: same way that if you're in a horror movie and
Speaker 1: you're walking through dark woods, you don't start singing a
Speaker 1: loud song, right. You tiptoe very carefully because you don't
Speaker 1: want to announce your presence, and that's why everybody else
Speaker 1: is being quiet. So the lesson is like, if the
Speaker 1: universe seems quiet, maybe there's a reason that's right. And
Speaker 1: if you're a cheerleader or a football player, you're probably
Speaker 1: toasted exactly. And we are alone, right, we have separated.
Speaker 1: We decided to go out into this forest by ourselves,
Speaker 1: and so maybe we should think twice before announcing our location.
Speaker 1: So it's it's sort of an interesting scenario and a
Speaker 1: potentially dangerous idea to contact other aliens. And so to
Speaker 1: get more perspective, Daniel went out there to interview an
Speaker 1: expert on this topic. That's right. I found a really
Speaker 1: interesting paper from Dr Kareem Jabari, a professor of philosophy,
Speaker 1: who are the paper about the dangers of communicating with
Speaker 1: aliens I reached out to him and he was kind
Speaker 1: enough to spend a few minutes explaining the ideas to me.
Speaker 1: So here is Daniel's interview with Dr Kareem Jabari on
Speaker 1: whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to
Speaker 1: contact aliens? All right, So then it's by great pleasure
Speaker 1: to introduce to the program Dr Kareem Jabari, who has
Speaker 1: a PhD in philosophy and as a researcher at the
Speaker 1: Institute for Future Studies. Kareem, thank you very much for
Speaker 1: joining us today. Thanks for the invitation. So you wrote
Speaker 1: this fascinating paper about the dangers of communicating with extraterrestrials.
Speaker 1: Tell me a little bit how you got interested in
Speaker 1: this topic. Is this something people discuss a lot at
Speaker 1: the Institute for Future Studies And not at all. Actually,
Speaker 1: it's more focused around the future of child poverty and
Speaker 1: those kind of more Monday issues. But I've always been
Speaker 1: a huge fan of science fiction, and I made a
Speaker 1: stab at trying to write a short science fiction story.
Speaker 1: It turned out to be much more difficult than I
Speaker 1: anticipate paid it. But I did a lot of research
Speaker 1: for that story, and that research led me to this idea.
Speaker 1: And so how was it received by your colleagues. Do
Speaker 1: they see this as like, Wow, what a fascinating discussion
Speaker 1: of this important topic, or do they think of you
Speaker 1: as like, oh my gosh, it's kareem In contacted by aliens. No, no,
Speaker 1: I think my colleagues really appreciate it. Although there a
Speaker 1: lot of the ideas that I presented this paper are
Speaker 1: not especially novel for other philosophers, so when I talk
Speaker 1: to them, they go like, yeah, this is interesting, but yeah,
Speaker 1: we know this already. But I thought that the added
Speaker 1: value was trying to reach out then and try to
Speaker 1: share these ideas with the non philosopherical community right well.
Speaker 1: As a non philosopher or an amateur philosopher science, I
Speaker 1: found it very interesting. So I want to begin by
Speaker 1: speculating with you about what level of technology or civilization
Speaker 1: we might be able to guess that extraterrestrial intelligences have.
Speaker 1: I mean, if they arrive on Earth, obviously they have
Speaker 1: some technology that we don't have. But in the case
Speaker 1: that we're communicating with distant civilizations around other stars, do
Speaker 1: we know anything or can we guess anything about what
Speaker 1: level of technology or civilization they might have. Sure, if
Speaker 1: if we got a signal from them, for example, by
Speaker 1: radio waves, we could infer that they have some machine,
Speaker 1: some apparatus to produce that signal, because I think that
Speaker 1: most people in the field assume that biological systems could
Speaker 1: not produce a signal that is strong enough and an
Speaker 1: accurate enough to to convey through many light years. So
Speaker 1: so I think we could we could conclude that, and
Speaker 1: if the signal allows us to know where the planet is,
Speaker 1: we can pain point it. Then we could direct our
Speaker 1: telescopes there and and maybe that would help us to
Speaker 1: find out other things about about these creatures. Maybe if
Speaker 1: if their star is a yellow star like ours, then
Speaker 1: that may is it more likely, for example, that they
Speaker 1: would have a visual system that is similar to ours,
Speaker 1: because eyes are really good to have, and we see
Speaker 1: that a lot of different animals on Earth have developed
Speaker 1: ice independently of each other. So if they have a
Speaker 1: sound like star, then the adds are pretty good that
Speaker 1: they would have eyes. Other than that is kind of difficult.
Speaker 1: Can we get anything based on the fact that many
Speaker 1: stars out there are older than our son, So it
Speaker 1: might be that other civilizations have had, you know, a
Speaker 1: billion year head start in terms of evolution, and developing technology. Yes, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's certainly possible that they could be really advanced. Um.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, if they're so advanced, how calm
Speaker 1: they have not changed more stuff. So one of the
Speaker 1: ideas out there is that if on a civilization is
Speaker 1: very advanced, they will have a great energy needs. And
Speaker 1: if fat civilization has all this need for energy, they
Speaker 1: would cons shuck, dison, swarm, or they would cover their
Speaker 1: sun or their starring in solar sales or something like that,
Speaker 1: and that would be visible for us because we would
Speaker 1: see stars disappearing. That suggests that if we don't see it,
Speaker 1: then we can assume that there may be not that advanced.
Speaker 1: But of course it's also possible that they are very
Speaker 1: advantage just don't care about don't care about energy, or
Speaker 1: they get their engine in some other way. Well, I
Speaker 1: think the prospect of receiving a message from an alien
Speaker 1: civilization and then trying to figure out what they're like
Speaker 1: and what that message means, and what they're trying to
Speaker 1: communicate to us and how we might communicate with them
Speaker 1: is certainly a very fascinating one. In your paper, you
Speaker 1: make the argument that this problem might be harder than
Speaker 1: people anticipate. In fact, you write in the paper, no
Speaker 1: entity can translate any message that humans could send with
Speaker 1: nothing but electromagnetic transmission. Essentially, you're saying that it's impossible
Speaker 1: for us to send something which could be decoded by aliens,
Speaker 1: which I guess means in converse, that there's no way
Speaker 1: we could understand any message aliens and with just electromagnetic transmissions.
Speaker 1: He sketch out that argument for us. Why do you
Speaker 1: believe that it's impossible for us to understand the alien message?
Speaker 1: I can also add that this would be true even
Speaker 1: if the aliens were very similar to us. So, just
Speaker 1: as a thought experiment imagined that the aliens are actually
Speaker 1: biologically identical to us, they just look like humans. According
Speaker 1: to this argument, it would be impossible for us to
Speaker 1: translate that message. But of course they it's very unlikely
Speaker 1: that they would be identical to us, so that would
Speaker 1: make it even more difficult. So the argument basically goes
Speaker 1: a theory that is fairly prominent in the philosophy of
Speaker 1: language that was articulated by William van orman Quin. But
Speaker 1: and that builds on some very interesting insights that were
Speaker 1: formulated by the philosopher a little big Wittgenstein, and the
Speaker 1: idea is that utterances in a language do not contain
Speaker 1: the meaning that they are trying to convey. Rather, meaning
Speaker 1: is something that that exists entirely in our heads and
Speaker 1: that we derive from observing the behaviors of other people.
Speaker 1: And to illustrate this, Equin has this for experiment where
Speaker 1: he imagines a person going into a jungle and this
Speaker 1: person is a linguist, so he tries to communicate with
Speaker 1: the people who are living in the jungle. They don't
Speaker 1: know his language and he doesn't know their language. And
Speaker 1: the way you start to communicate or start to learn
Speaker 1: another people's language is by observing their behavior in their environment,
Speaker 1: and with the help of different hypothesis of how these
Speaker 1: people work and what they do, you can slowly but
Speaker 1: surely construct a translation. Manue. So let's say that that
Speaker 1: you have this person in the jungle and he points
Speaker 1: at a rabbit and he says, gabba guy. And then
Speaker 1: you make a hypothesis here that gaba guy can mean rabbit,
Speaker 1: but gaba guy could also mean food, and or maybe
Speaker 1: gave a guy could be I mean rabbitness or being
Speaker 1: very fast. Because this rabbit happened to be very fast,
Speaker 1: and all these hypothesis are consistent with your observation. So
Speaker 1: what you need to do is to make more observations.
Speaker 1: For example, if the people that you're trying to talk
Speaker 1: to they point at a potato and they say, have
Speaker 1: a guy, then we can start discarding some of the
Speaker 1: hypothesis because the potato is not fast, right, but the
Speaker 1: potato is food or so you assume. So then you
Speaker 1: say that, yeah, it's more likely that you have a
Speaker 1: guy means food, because that's what is common with these
Speaker 1: two things. But this is just a tentative hypothesis, right,
Speaker 1: But at some point, after a long period of interaction,
Speaker 1: you will be good enough in understanding them that you
Speaker 1: will be able to ask them. So you you will
Speaker 1: be able to ask them by rabbit, do you mean
Speaker 1: this or that? But this is not something you can
Speaker 1: do initially. Initially, the only thing you can do is
Speaker 1: to observe behavior and from your understanding about how humans work.
Speaker 1: For example, you you know that humans eat rabbits sometimes
Speaker 1: and they also eat potatoes, and that's why you can
Speaker 1: kind of make this hypothesis. But with the help of
Speaker 1: this knowledge, this background knowledge about how humans work, you
Speaker 1: can start producing these hypothesis. The problem is that when
Speaker 1: when we're dealing with a string of digits that an
Speaker 1: extraterrestrial might send to us, then we have, first of all,
Speaker 1: we don't have any information or very little information about
Speaker 1: you know, if they like potatoes or not, or if
Speaker 1: they call them French fries or if they call them
Speaker 1: something else, or if potatoes are like some ritual object
Speaker 1: in their everyday lives, or maybe potatoes do move fast
Speaker 1: on their planet. But let me back you up and
Speaker 1: ask you a question, just to make sure I understand
Speaker 1: the point you're making. You're saying that even just pointing
Speaker 1: to things and saying the words requires some sort of
Speaker 1: common context. Have to have some common experience, some common cultures,
Speaker 1: some common inherent understanding to make those connections. That you
Speaker 1: can't truly translate an alien language because you don't have
Speaker 1: the context to understand that that the framework to fit
Speaker 1: those things into. So what Chrime actually says is that
Speaker 1: you can never truly translate anything. So think about it.
Speaker 1: We learn language by observing human behavior and inferring an
Speaker 1: observing utterances and inferring what those utterances can mean by
Speaker 1: then observing their behavior. For example, if you say, pass
Speaker 1: me the salt, and then I give you the salt.
Speaker 1: Then you seem satisfied with that. Then I infer that
Speaker 1: you know I was in the ballpark of what you meant.
Speaker 1: But we can never have a complete total understanding of
Speaker 1: what you meant by the different utterances that you make,
Speaker 1: all right, but sometimes we can accomplish what we need
Speaker 1: to write. I don't really know if you have like
Speaker 1: a deep, you know, philosophical understanding of salt, but I
Speaker 1: know that you passed me the salt, just like you know.
Speaker 1: We are speaking English, which is not a perfect language
Speaker 1: to convey all of our ideas as well. In that sense,
Speaker 1: you know, you could say no language is perfect, but
Speaker 1: that's not the sense that we're grasping for, right, We're
Speaker 1: trying to develop some basic understandings. So it was this
Speaker 1: argument saying, you can never have a perfect translation of
Speaker 1: an alien language, or you can never have any translation.
Speaker 1: So Twiet theory would allow for a good enough translation
Speaker 1: of an alien language if we had those two preconditions,
Speaker 1: if you had the interaction, and if that interaction was
Speaker 1: in a in a context where we can observe the behavior.
Speaker 1: So imagine you get these people coming here from proximal
Speaker 1: Centauri with their embassy, their alien embassy, and then we
Speaker 1: can look at their behavior and then we can see like, oh,
Speaker 1: they eat, they seem to be absorbing substances from that orrifice.
Speaker 1: Let us postulate that they're eating now, and they seemed
Speaker 1: to be eating this kind of I don't know, it
Speaker 1: looks like porridge, and then we can do a chemical
Speaker 1: analysis of that and realize that, yeah, it's pretty similar
Speaker 1: to porridge. And then that would allow us to slowly
Speaker 1: but surely construct a translation manual over many interactions. But
Speaker 1: when we just get the string, uh, we we we
Speaker 1: can't make much of it. I see. So if we
Speaker 1: could spend some time with the aliens and develop some
Speaker 1: common context, then we could have the framework for developing
Speaker 1: some sort of effective but imperfect translation. But you're saying,
Speaker 1: if all we get other messages, even if they're actually
Speaker 1: biologically humans and think the same way we do, it
Speaker 1: would be impossible for us to translate because we don't
Speaker 1: have a context or what their lives are like and
Speaker 1: what they might mean exactly. That's really interesting, And you
Speaker 1: make this comment in your paper about Chomsky's analysis of
Speaker 1: language is universal grammar. This claim that all human languages
Speaker 1: are based on the same sort of mathematical structure. And
Speaker 1: you're write in the paper that Chomsky never claimed that
Speaker 1: universal grammar was universal in the sense that it would
Speaker 1: be shared across all possible species able to use language.
Speaker 1: That is, you know, is universal grammar universal in the
Speaker 1: sense that it might also apply to structures of alien languages,
Speaker 1: which is a really cool concept. And Chomsky was here
Speaker 1: on our podcast a couple of weeks ago. I actually
Speaker 1: asked him about this whether he thought that it was
Speaker 1: possible that alien languages might be constructed in the same
Speaker 1: way as human languages, and he made some argument that
Speaker 1: the development of language and symbolic thought might be due
Speaker 1: to evolutionary pressure, and so it might be some sort
Speaker 1: of like optimum solution to this problem, and therefore it
Speaker 1: might be or it could be likely, or you could
Speaker 1: argue at least that alien languages might have a similar
Speaker 1: structure if that were true, are you saying that that
Speaker 1: still doesn't help us, Like even if we have human
Speaker 1: biological aliens with minds similar to ours that have a
Speaker 1: universal grammar, in that case, we still couldn't develop enough
Speaker 1: common understanding just by sending signals to effectively communicate. I'm
Speaker 1: not exactly sure what chance the means by that, but
Speaker 1: it's only true that we can see convergent evolution across
Speaker 1: many traits, right. But for example, the wings of baths
Speaker 1: are similar to the wings of birds, but they're not identical. Right,
Speaker 1: So they're similar in some respects and different in other respects.
Speaker 1: And I think that a language that emerges some say
Speaker 1: proximus century, it's probably going to emerge under you know,
Speaker 1: some evolutionary pressure. And I think it's sensible to assume
Speaker 1: that it would be similar in some respects to human languages,
Speaker 1: and and and different in other respects. The crucial point
Speaker 1: here is that would it be similar in the sense
Speaker 1: that would allow this innate language sense or innate language
Speaker 1: grammar to allow us to pick out the right translation
Speaker 1: from a whole range of potential translations. And I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, it might be possible, But I think then
Speaker 1: you would be committed to some fairly controversial views in
Speaker 1: the philosophy of language. And I think that, I mean,
Speaker 1: I have the utmost respect for Chomsky and his work,
Speaker 1: but I think that his view of universal grammar remains
Speaker 1: quite controversial to this name. Yeah, I agree I think
Speaker 1: it's interesting also to wonder why we haven't been able
Speaker 1: to cross the species barrier. I mean, if we're going
Speaker 1: to solve the puzzle speaking with another intelligent species from
Speaker 1: another planet, we might first want to tackle the question
Speaker 1: of like speaking to dolphins or two other intelligent mammals.
Speaker 1: Do you have thoughts about why we have not yet
Speaker 1: been able to crack the dolphin language. Well, it's controversial
Speaker 1: as to whether the dolphins have a language. I mean,
Speaker 1: we know that they communicate, and I think this is
Speaker 1: what Chomsky says too, that that dolphins and other clever mammals,
Speaker 1: they they have advanced communication, but they don't have this
Speaker 1: ability to generate an infinite amount of center from a
Speaker 1: finite set of words. So so they don't have grammar basically,
Speaker 1: and that makes their communication fundamentally different from what we
Speaker 1: call language. But if we think about the bracket that
Speaker 1: sort of speak, we think that we are actually pretty
Speaker 1: good at communicating with some animals, especially animals we have
Speaker 1: bread to be attentive to our utterances, for example, dogs.
Speaker 1: I don't have a dog myself, but I find it
Speaker 1: amazing the things that people can do when they train
Speaker 1: their dogs. And I think it shows a very high
Speaker 1: level of communication, of ability to communicate. I mean, you
Speaker 1: can't use understand the language of dogs because they don't
Speaker 1: have a language. On on that kind of more precise
Speaker 1: notion of what languages. I understand that you also have
Speaker 1: a pet, one that you've named after Chomsky. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she's a rabbit. Her name is Chomska, and she's not
Speaker 1: as eloquent as as Chomsky, but she's very charismatic. I
Speaker 1: hope that you have a shared emotional context with your
Speaker 1: Chomska at least so a lot of people speculate that
Speaker 1: it might be impossible to have a common cultural context
Speaker 1: with aliens, and therefore these questions of language are always
Speaker 1: going to be impossible. But many folks argue that mathematics
Speaker 1: and physics and the sort of physical rules about the
Speaker 1: universe might be that context that we might be able
Speaker 1: to communicate with aliens by first starting with simple mathematics
Speaker 1: and building up from there. You make a reference in
Speaker 1: your paper to Frudenthal's self explaining message in his language,
Speaker 1: the lingual Cosmico, which is built up from these mathematical primitives.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's not possible to start from just
Speaker 1: mathematics and develop some way to discuss with each other,
Speaker 1: some way to communicate and transfer information. I think that
Speaker 1: would run into similar problems. So, first of all, if
Speaker 1: we just talk about science and this is this goes
Speaker 1: also back to a theory articulated by Quine and others
Speaker 1: in that philosophical movement. But what clients is that science
Speaker 1: is underdetermined by observation. So imagine that you have a
Speaker 1: theory and you make an observation that seems inconsistent with
Speaker 1: that theory. That means that, as a good scientist, we
Speaker 1: need to revise something right, But the observation doesn't tell
Speaker 1: you what to revise. So, for example, um, the according
Speaker 1: to Nitsonian mechanics, um, the behavior of the planet Mercury
Speaker 1: was rather odd. But one of the suggested solutions to
Speaker 1: this problem was to postulate that there was a planet
Speaker 1: there that we couldn't see that they named volcan, which
Speaker 1: I think is a pretty awesome name for a planet.
Speaker 1: It's a very logical choice. Yes, but but yeah, and
Speaker 1: I don't think it was a bad hypothesis. But it
Speaker 1: just shows you that making the observation that Mercury behaves
Speaker 1: in an other way doesn't tell you what is the truth.
Speaker 1: It just tells you that something needs revising. So the
Speaker 1: idea that Quin has is that you could imagine two
Speaker 1: distinct scientific um worlds or or scientific systems, with coherent
Speaker 1: theories about everything about you know, evolution and physics and chemistry,
Speaker 1: and that you can do the same things with these theories,
Speaker 1: but that that these theories imply very different views about
Speaker 1: the world. And in the paper, I have an example, uh,
Speaker 1: And I don't think it's mine. Actually it's it's also
Speaker 1: from Quin, where you can imagine a civilization, perhaps in
Speaker 1: an Alpha centauri, that that developed general relativity and special
Speaker 1: relativity without first having developed Newtonian mechanics. Might be unlikely,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly possible. Uh. And that means that if
Speaker 1: they had this, then they could make the same predictions,
Speaker 1: and you know, they could be as a as a
Speaker 1: Newtonian civilization like we could in the nineteenth century, but
Speaker 1: they would have very different views about the world, because
Speaker 1: Newtonian physics implies one set of beliefs about the worlds
Speaker 1: about the universe, and general and special relativisty implies a
Speaker 1: very different set of beliefs. So you're saying that even
Speaker 1: though we exist in the same physical universe and observe
Speaker 1: the same things about the universe, we might come to
Speaker 1: different internal mental explanations of that universe, two different theories
Speaker 1: of science that both work, and therefore just being in
Speaker 1: the same physical universe doesn't give us enough of a
Speaker 1: shared mental context to develop communication. Is that the argument
Speaker 1: I would like to say that this is different from
Speaker 1: because sometimes this view is conflated with relativism, for example
Speaker 1: Koon's view about you know, scientific revolutions and so on.
Speaker 1: But this is different. This is not relativism because here
Speaker 1: we would say that both scientific theories or scientific systems
Speaker 1: are true in the relevant sets. So let's say that
Speaker 1: you have a scientific system that can make correct predictions
Speaker 1: about the universe and about physical systems and so on,
Speaker 1: and it also gives an adequate explanation of how things work.
Speaker 1: I think in many respects we would say that that
Speaker 1: is sufficient for us to say that this is true.
Speaker 1: The fact that there are other descriptions of the universe
Speaker 1: and other ways of making the same predictions that is
Speaker 1: also true but different, does not make our of you
Speaker 1: less true, right. I think that that would blow the
Speaker 1: minds of most practicing scientists, especially particle physicists to imagine
Speaker 1: that the description we're building of the universe, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it be tiny strings or bouncing particles or wiggling fields,
Speaker 1: that these are not necessarily unique. That even if it's
Speaker 1: true and it works perfectly, it might just reflect mathematical
Speaker 1: models in our minds rather than the actual structure of
Speaker 1: the universe in any sort of objective way. That's the argument,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Yeah, well almost, because I would say that
Speaker 1: what makes a very true if our ability to understand
Speaker 1: and manipulate the world around us. So if if a
Speaker 1: theory is good at that, then it's true in the
Speaker 1: relevant sense. I see. So you're saying my theory could
Speaker 1: be true and your theory could be true, and they
Speaker 1: could have basically nothing in common other than that they
Speaker 1: both work. Yes, But it's also true that that a
Speaker 1: theory could be better than the other even though both
Speaker 1: are true. So, for example, we would say that special
Speaker 1: and general relativity as a theory is better than Newtonian mechanics,
Speaker 1: but Newtonian mechanics is true for predicting the behavior of
Speaker 1: small objects moving at non relativistic speeds. All right, well,
Speaker 1: this is really fascinating. Dive into how to communicate with aliens?
Speaker 1: Are a lot more questions for you, but first we
Speaker 1: have to take a short break. All right, we're back
Speaker 1: and we're talking with Dr Kareem Jabari about how to
Speaker 1: communicate with aliens and especially how to stave off interstellar war.
Speaker 1: So the reason that we're talking about how to communicate
Speaker 1: with aliens is that we're wondering about the question of
Speaker 1: how to get along with aliens or why aliens haven't
Speaker 1: contacted us, and the hypothesis that the universe out there
Speaker 1: is like a dark forest where everybody is being quiet
Speaker 1: to avoid being wiped out by some sort of predator race.
Speaker 1: So in your paper, you build on this argument that
Speaker 1: we can't understand aliens to suggest that we might essentially
Speaker 1: stumble our way into an interstellar war because we have
Speaker 1: no good way to communicate with them. So walk me
Speaker 1: through the argument there. You use some game theory to
Speaker 1: suggest that will end up in a situation where it
Speaker 1: seems logical to us to essentially first strike against these aliens.
Speaker 1: How do we get there from we got a message
Speaker 1: and we don't understand it too. Now we're sending a
Speaker 1: nuke to Alpha Centauri. Yeah, that would really suck. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So the idea comes from a game game theories called
Speaker 1: Thomas Shelling that in turn got the idea from Thomas Hobbes.
Speaker 1: And the idea is that we can think about our
Speaker 1: interactions with this extraterrestrial as a coordination game and in
Speaker 1: a coordination and that there are many classical coordination games.
Speaker 1: But basically in a coordination game, you you you have
Speaker 1: two alternatives. One is to cooperate and the other is
Speaker 1: to play it safe and don't cooperate. And the idea
Speaker 1: is that when you cooperate, then you take a small
Speaker 1: risk or you take a risk. But if I also cooperate,
Speaker 1: then there will be a great advantage for both of us.
Speaker 1: But if you played safe and don't cooperate, then you're
Speaker 1: not taking as much risk. On the other hand, you're
Speaker 1: not getting a chance to get a big payoff. And
Speaker 1: a classical example to illustrate this is to imagine two
Speaker 1: people walking in the forest and decide as to whether
Speaker 1: or not to chase a stag or to chase a rabbit.
Speaker 1: And to chase a stag, we need to cooperate. So
Speaker 1: if we both choose to chase a stag, then we'll
Speaker 1: get the stag and we'll get a lot of food
Speaker 1: and we'll be very happy. But if you choose to
Speaker 1: chase the stag and I go for the rabbit, then
Speaker 1: you won't get get the stag and you'll be very hungry.
Speaker 1: Whereas to get the rabbit, you don't. You can do
Speaker 1: it by yourself. So I'll get the rabbit. I'll get
Speaker 1: one one piece of food, not as much as the stag,
Speaker 1: but I would get enough. You know, I have to say,
Speaker 1: you talk a lot about eating rabbits for somebody who
Speaker 1: has a pet rabbit, you know, in there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of a mental tension there for you. Well, yes, sometimes,
Speaker 1: but it's just because they appear so much in the
Speaker 1: philosophical literature. Well, I hope you cover her ears when
Speaker 1: you talk about this in front of her, all right,
Speaker 1: saying you're explaining why you need to communicate in order
Speaker 1: to cooperate and take risks together. So if we trust
Speaker 1: each other, then of course we'll corporate, right because I
Speaker 1: know that you're a good guy that corporates with people.
Speaker 1: And then we'll go and we'll get a stag and
Speaker 1: will be very happy. But if I am suspicious about you,
Speaker 1: then I will try to go for the rabbit, So
Speaker 1: you would say that the rabbit is a risk dominant equilibrium,
Speaker 1: whereas this stag is a payoff dominant equilibrium. And both
Speaker 1: of these strategies are rational, or none of these strategies
Speaker 1: is more rational than the other if we don't know anything.
Speaker 1: But the problem here is that if we can't communicate,
Speaker 1: then there will be and we we also have this
Speaker 1: opportunity to defect, to not be cooperative. Then Hobbes and
Speaker 1: Shelling and others argue that the option to defect or
Speaker 1: to be non cooperative becomes the focal point. So we
Speaker 1: get both attracted to that option because I start thinking that,
Speaker 1: oh my god, he's the going to go for the rabbit.
Speaker 1: And he also probably thinks that I think that he's
Speaker 1: going to go for the rabbit. But that means that
Speaker 1: he's more inclined to go for the rammit himself, and
Speaker 1: he knows that I know that he knows that I
Speaker 1: think this way, so that means that he will be
Speaker 1: even more inclined to go off to the rabbit, which
Speaker 1: makes me more inclined to go off to the rabbit,
Speaker 1: and so on. And in the context of interstellar war,
Speaker 1: going for the rabbit or or being non cooperative could
Speaker 1: imply a first strike. Right, So if our options instead
Speaker 1: of hunting for a stag or hunting for a rabbit,
Speaker 1: if our choices are a share all of our theories
Speaker 1: of physics and all of our knowledge and the beauty
Speaker 1: that we develop this humanity and be send a nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon to avoid being wiped out by their nuclear weapon,
Speaker 1: then you're saying that a rational choice would be to
Speaker 1: fire first to avoid being wiped out by their new
Speaker 1: rather than just like dumping the Encyclopedia Britannica into a
Speaker 1: message and sending it to Alpha Centauri. Yeah, that's are
Speaker 1: going to ocean in this paper. But I was always
Speaker 1: very dissatisfied with this conclusion, so I wrote another paper
Speaker 1: where I argue that that we are wrong. But that's
Speaker 1: another kind of discussion. But but yeah, basically, if we
Speaker 1: assume that there's only one other player there, then the
Speaker 1: rational strategy should be to attack first. I think this
Speaker 1: game theory approach is really fascinating because you're thinking carefully
Speaker 1: about the risks you want to take, and obviously we
Speaker 1: have a lot at stake here. We're just on one planet,
Speaker 1: and it goes to the heart of understanding what the
Speaker 1: other player might do, you know, the choices that the
Speaker 1: other player might make, and the risks we are taking.
Speaker 1: And I think, you know, we see that of course
Speaker 1: a lot on Earth and game theory developed in the
Speaker 1: context of you know, human warfare and the prisoner's dilemma
Speaker 1: and all this kind of stuff. But isn't that also
Speaker 1: a case of projection? I mean, aren't we assuming in
Speaker 1: that case that the aliens would be thinking in a
Speaker 1: game theoretical way, that they would be rational in a
Speaker 1: way according to our definition of rationality. You know, if
Speaker 1: we don't understand these aliens and we can't communicate with them,
Speaker 1: should we just assume we may never even understand their motives,
Speaker 1: that they might operate essentially randomly. Yes, No, that's certainly true.
Speaker 1: So it's a it's a pretty big assumption that we're
Speaker 1: making here that that game theory is a plausible tool
Speaker 1: to understand or predict alien behavior. I can add that
Speaker 1: game theory has, with some success, actually been used in
Speaker 1: many non human contexts. So we've used to game theory
Speaker 1: to understand how pathogens emerge and behave and evolve, but
Speaker 1: also how animal populations interact with each other in complex
Speaker 1: ecological systems. So there seems to be some fundamental aspect
Speaker 1: of game theory that allows us to predict these systems
Speaker 1: where where we're dealing with utterly alien life forms. So
Speaker 1: that is one reason to believe that that perhaps this
Speaker 1: this tool can be used in this context. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's certainly an assumption that needs to be made, will
Speaker 1: be fascinating problem to have. I think that a more
Speaker 1: likely scenario if we do meet aliens or get messages
Speaker 1: from aliens, is that we sort of hilariously misunderstand them,
Speaker 1: or that we send them a message of friendship which
Speaker 1: is interpreted to be offensive in their context. You know,
Speaker 1: we send them a picture of our rabbit and then
Speaker 1: you know, to them, rabbits are terrifying or yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The paper that I wrote was in the context of
Speaker 1: this idea that some astronomers have that we should send
Speaker 1: out signals to nearby solar systems um, even though we
Speaker 1: don't know if somebody is there, just just to see
Speaker 1: what happens. And we argue that this could be very
Speaker 1: dangerous if because it were would alert the aliens of
Speaker 1: our presence. Perhaps, I mean, it's it's not certain that
Speaker 1: they know where we are, But if we do this,
Speaker 1: then that chance increases. If they contact us first, that
Speaker 1: means that we are not certain that they know where
Speaker 1: we are. Maybe they have these kind of equivalent of
Speaker 1: the seat set people who won't just want to send
Speaker 1: out some random signals. So answering could also be very
Speaker 1: dangerous because it could reveal our location. But as a
Speaker 1: philosopher of science and somebody who's desperately curious about the world,
Speaker 1: if we get a message from a distant star and
Speaker 1: it clearly has information in it, we spend time decoding it.
Speaker 1: Are you saying that we shouldn't respond, for example, that
Speaker 1: we should stay silent, that we should ignore a message
Speaker 1: from an alien world. I don't think we should ignore it,
Speaker 1: but I don't think we should respond, and we should
Speaker 1: instead invest every effort that we can spare to gather
Speaker 1: more information about about them. So that would be my
Speaker 1: first option. But of course, if I am correct in
Speaker 1: the article that I'm writing at the moment, then then
Speaker 1: it would be fine to to answer them. But I
Speaker 1: think that, yeah, I think we we would rather want
Speaker 1: to collect as much information as possible before or we
Speaker 1: do it. In any case, I mean, if if it's
Speaker 1: going to go, if a message is going to travel
Speaker 1: for fifty or sixty years, it wouldn't hurt to, you know,
Speaker 1: take five years, build some cool space based telescopes and
Speaker 1: try to gather as much information about that's the planetary
Speaker 1: system before. And then we discovered that they all look
Speaker 1: like rabbits, and then we think, oh, how could they
Speaker 1: possibly be dangerous? So one last question is you suggested
Speaker 1: that you're writing an article currently which disagrees with the
Speaker 1: previous article and suggest it might be fine to talk
Speaker 1: the aliens. What's the essential argument there were evolved in
Speaker 1: your thinking to make you think it might be fine
Speaker 1: to talk to the aliens. So let's assume that we
Speaker 1: stumble upon some aliens in a nearby planetary system, let's
Speaker 1: say Intel or Trappists. So that means that either alias
Speaker 1: extraterrestrial intelligence are extremely common. That's one possibility that would
Speaker 1: explain why we find aliens so close, or it would
Speaker 1: be a fantastic coincidence that too intelligent beings involved independently
Speaker 1: of each other in in in in such proximity. And
Speaker 1: the second alternative is of course not very plausible. So
Speaker 1: so the the idea is that upon finding one alien
Speaker 1: species on say Tau City, then that would mean that
Speaker 1: we may should make a basion update on our subjective
Speaker 1: probability on the average density of extraterrestrial intelligences in the galaxy.
Speaker 1: And at the moment we don't know. We don't have
Speaker 1: any information about that, so we have a uniform prior
Speaker 1: we you know, the closest we might be alone in
Speaker 1: the galaxy, or there might be aliens in almost every
Speaker 1: solar system. We don't know. But if we will find
Speaker 1: some aliens at Tau City that's about twelve life years
Speaker 1: from here, then we should expect that there to be
Speaker 1: lots of them and and lots of them nearby. The
Speaker 1: next step is that in that case, we should ask ourselves, like,
Speaker 1: how come we're still here? You know, if there's so
Speaker 1: many aliens out there and it's it's very unlikely that
Speaker 1: nobody is aggressive, you get a conundrum like how come
Speaker 1: we're still here? And the only way to explain that
Speaker 1: would be to postulate that there must be some reason
Speaker 1: for why aliens don't attack each other, and that could
Speaker 1: be many different reasons, but there must be some reason
Speaker 1: for why that explains our existence. So it's sort of
Speaker 1: like an inverse firm me paradox for me, a paradox
Speaker 1: saying why is nobody out there? The answer is maybe
Speaker 1: there's somebody out there squashing anybody who raises their head.
Speaker 1: But you're saying, if we go out there and find
Speaker 1: that actually the galaxy is filled with aliens, and that
Speaker 1: suggests that there isn't anybody out there hunting species that
Speaker 1: speak up and make themselves known exactly, because otherwise we
Speaker 1: would be dead, or we would have an evational already
Speaker 1: on our way or something like. So for some reason,
Speaker 1: aliens seeing peaceful in in or an observation of that
Speaker 1: kind would suggest that aliens are peaceful, and that means
Speaker 1: that if the cloud setiens see us, then they would
Speaker 1: think the same thing. If we both have this assumption,
Speaker 1: then we can move ourselves in the coordination game to
Speaker 1: the other equilibrium, to the payoff dominant equilibrium, because we
Speaker 1: are not concerned about them attacking, because we assume that
Speaker 1: it's uncommon for aliens to attack each other, and that
Speaker 1: makes us more confident that they think that we are
Speaker 1: not going to attack them, and that makes us even
Speaker 1: more confident that we shouldn't attack them, which makes us
Speaker 1: even more confident that they shouldn't attack us, all right,
Speaker 1: So I guess the message is if we discover aliens,
Speaker 1: we hope that they are nearby, because I suggests that
Speaker 1: there's lots more aliens out there and maybe they're all peaceful. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Or another possibility, of course, would be that imagine that
Speaker 1: we would find an alien civilizations but they were not
Speaker 1: very advanced, say that there in the Bronze Age or
Speaker 1: the Iron Age. Then that would not rule out the
Speaker 1: possibility that aliens in general are aggressive, because if if
Speaker 1: we would find that primitive civilization, that would rather suggest
Speaker 1: that we just happened to be lucky to be first
Speaker 1: in our neighborhood or very early. So if we would
Speaker 1: find a civilization like that, then we couldn't draw the
Speaker 1: same influence. On the other hand, a Bronze Age civilization
Speaker 1: is not gonna be a threat to us, um, not
Speaker 1: for some time, so yeah, that's also a consideration. All right,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for coming on the podcast and
Speaker 1: talking about these amazing and super fun and mind bending
Speaker 1: ideas with us. Very grateful for your time and your energy,
Speaker 1: and give our regards to your rabbit. I will thank
Speaker 1: you all right. Pretty interesting interview and I'm sort of
Speaker 1: getting the general message of these things. It's a bad
Speaker 1: idea because of the potential for miscommunication or misunderstandings, yeah,
Speaker 1: or just lack of ability to communicate at all. And
Speaker 1: so if they misinterpret our message and they don't know
Speaker 1: what we mean, they might be worried about our intentions.
Speaker 1: And then who knows what they would do if they're
Speaker 1: you know, run by some generals that are have their
Speaker 1: fingers on the button. They might get nervous and launch
Speaker 1: a first strike when they get our message. You mean,
Speaker 1: like they're going to get a message and they're gonna
Speaker 1: interpret the message as like a first strike or something
Speaker 1: like who gets a message that you can't understand then
Speaker 1: and then assumes that they're trying to they're insulting you. Well,
Speaker 1: you don't know, like the Daniel on that planet is
Speaker 1: probably like, yeah, we heard from aliens, let's send them
Speaker 1: all of our physics textbooks, you know, But everybody else
Speaker 1: in that planet is like, hold on a second, do
Speaker 1: we really want to let those folks know we're here?
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a trap, and the risks, as you say,
Speaker 1: are large, And so if you put yourself in the
Speaker 1: minds of those aliens, they might have the same worries,
Speaker 1: and so they might be aggressive in response. I see.
Speaker 1: But then he said sort of said that, you know,
Speaker 1: if there are a lot of aliens out there, the
Speaker 1: fact that nobody has attacked us maybe means that maybe
Speaker 1: that's not a realistic scenario. Perhaps there aren't a lot
Speaker 1: of trigger happy aliens out there. Yeah. I like that
Speaker 1: he ended on a hopeful note there. If there are
Speaker 1: a lot of civilizations out there, they've somehow learned to
Speaker 1: live together, and that gives us hope that we can
Speaker 1: join that community. I guess either way, you're sort of
Speaker 1: projecting our own human bias onto these scenarios, right, Like,
Speaker 1: maybe we would react a certain way, but that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean other aliens would react the same way exactly. And
Speaker 1: I put that same question to him, and maybe you
Speaker 1: heard his answer. He thinks that this game theory analysis
Speaker 1: might be universal, that it goes just beyond humans, that
Speaker 1: it's useful in understanding like even microbes and all sorts
Speaker 1: of systems. And so there's some arguments made there that
Speaker 1: it might be universal. But in the end, you're right,
Speaker 1: we don't know what motivates an alien, so we definitely
Speaker 1: don't have a basis for speculating about their choices, right,
Speaker 1: And then I know you've brought something up before, which
Speaker 1: is like, it doesn't make a lot of sense for
Speaker 1: aliens to come here for our resources or to eat us, right,
Speaker 1: Like that's what the alien movies and TV shows always show.
Speaker 1: But I'm always like you, I think thinking in the
Speaker 1: back of my head, like why would you come all
Speaker 1: this way just for like a little bit of water
Speaker 1: or just to eat like you know, a few billion humans,
Speaker 1: Like it's like trying across the country to eat a hamburger.
Speaker 1: You know, I know you want some water. Neptune is
Speaker 1: basically all water. Help yourself, right, You want platinum? We
Speaker 1: got asteroids filled with platinum. We don't even know how
Speaker 1: to get to take some. Please, nobody would come here
Speaker 1: just for those resources. Or you like meat. Hey, we
Speaker 1: have this great animal thing called the impossible burger. That's
Speaker 1: just as good. I'm sure with your advanced illuciation you
Speaker 1: can figure it out too exactly. And so I agree
Speaker 1: with you that it's unlikely to have interstellar war for
Speaker 1: resources because they seem essentially infinite. But this is another angle.
Speaker 1: You know, we might have an interstellar war due to
Speaker 1: a misunderstanding if those aliens are worried that we're aggressive,
Speaker 1: they might be aggressive in response, even if it doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense for anybody to be aggressive. And so
Speaker 1: there is the potential there for misunderstanding, like maybe the
Speaker 1: aliens are just doing it for support, you mean, like
Speaker 1: they just maybe like going to war. Maybe they're just
Speaker 1: not as curious about the universe. They don't really care
Speaker 1: about everything. We figured out we need to Daniel dim Daniel.
Speaker 1: We need to like implanted Daniel in there amongst their ranks. Now,
Speaker 1: you got it. We need to spread Daniel across the universe.
Speaker 1: And that's what this podcast is all about. So maybe
Speaker 1: if they hear this podcast, they'll realize, hey, we're just
Speaker 1: kind of goofy and curious. We pose no harm. That
Speaker 1: would be hilarious. They like in a thousand years alien
Speaker 1: come and they say, hey, we're going to wipe you out.
Speaker 1: But then we picked up this podcast that you're transmitting,
Speaker 1: and this famous profit that Daniel, Why the Lights and
Speaker 1: the Chosen One illuminated us into what it means to
Speaker 1: be curious about the universe. We were slightly offended Jorge's jokes,
Speaker 1: but we decided that's right. All the Banana Joeys were terrible.
Speaker 1: We wish or would just go away. Bring on this
Speaker 1: other guest, Hose, and they were much more interesting. Anyways,
Speaker 1: Can we be a guest on your show? Yeah, exactly, Aliens,
Speaker 1: you are welcome to come and be a guest in
Speaker 1: the show. Please do come and tell us all about
Speaker 1: the secrets of the universe. That is my scientific fantasy.
Speaker 1: That's right. Just don't eat horrete or anybody. You don't
Speaker 1: eat anybody. Have some impossible burghers, have some impossible humans.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, I guess it's something to think about,
Speaker 1: you know, whether or not we want to contact ailings
Speaker 1: out there, whether it would be worth the risk. You know,
Speaker 1: how would our lives change? And we newly precise answer
Speaker 1: to that question. Yeah, it is an important question, and
Speaker 1: it's a question that no individual person can or should
Speaker 1: make on behalf of humanity. That's what scares me a
Speaker 1: little bit about this rogue group that's just sending messages
Speaker 1: out there. You know, they're making decisions for the entire
Speaker 1: human race, and it's not a small decision to make. Right. Well,
Speaker 1: I have bad news for you, Daniel. The fate of
Speaker 1: human kind is already in the hands of like four people.
Speaker 1: That's true, So it sounds like you have a little
Speaker 1: deeper problem with the way humans organize themselves. That's true,
Speaker 1: but out of scope I think for today's podcast. Let's
Speaker 1: try stay tuned for our next episode. Daniel and jorgey
Speaker 1: overthrow the global elite. That's right, yes, don't wipe obile
Speaker 1: politics and other political leadings. All right, Well, we hope
Speaker 1: you enjoyed that. Thanks for joining us, see you next time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening, and remember that Daniel and Jorge Explain
Speaker 1: the Universe is a production of I Heart Radio. For
Speaker 1: more podcast For my heart Radio, visit the I heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows. H