A few weeks ago I published an article looking at the idea that a long history of intelligent civilization has shaped our universe. Somewhat surprisingly to me, the article received a lot of attention. Many people left comments — some positive, some constructive, some entirely negative — and raised further points that I thought worth addressing.
The ideas behind the article had been floating around in my mind for years. However, it was only with two recent inputs that they solidified enough to be written down in words. Those inputs were Death’s End, the final book of Cixin Liu’s brilliant trilogy, and Extraterrestrial, a recent book from Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb.
Both of those works challenge our current naive assumptions about extraterrestrial intelligence. We think, perhaps influenced by shows like Star Wars and Star Trek, that aliens would be friendly, open to discussion and willing to help us. When hostile aliens appear — such as in Independence Day — plucky human underdogs manage to defeat them and save the world.
The reality is likely far different and much harsher. We have no reason to believe that an alien civilization would be respectful and friendly. If they chose to destroy us, we would have little chance of survival. The cold logic of interstellar communication, cosmic sociology as Liu names it, may explain why we have yet to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe. Simply put, everybody is either hiding or dead.
At the heart of my article are ideas about technological and scientific progress. Throughout history our scientific knowledge has seen several revolutions, each of which led to technology unimaginable even a few decades earlier. The most obvious example is quantum physics: an unexpected breakthrough that opened the way for lasers, computers and the atom bomb. But there are many other examples: electricity, relativity, thermodynamics.
We should expect that similar revolutions will happen in the future. We should also realise that these revolutions are often unpredictable even a few years before they happen. In fifty years time our understanding of physics may be little changed from now, or it may be radically altered, based around a deeper understanding of nature. In effect this is a known unknown: we know the future will be different, but we don’t know how.
A secondary point arose from the way we observe the universe and how we explain the things we can’t explain. Take dark matter, as an example. A century ago astronomers realised galaxies spin faster than they should. Newton’s law of gravity couldn’t explain why, neither could Einstein’s. But by introducing an unseen mass — dark matter — astronomers could get the equations to work.
In that case astronomers got lucky. The idea of invisible and undetectable matter might seem ridiculous, but by invoking it science has managed to explain a whole series of problems, from the rotation of galaxies to the grand structure of the universe. Scientists have since invented many other things, from higher dimensions to parallel universes, to explain other unexplained phenomena.
But, as Avi Loeb argues, how is this different from saying aliens did it? Why is an eleven dimensional universe more likely than advanced aliens using science we don’t understand? After all, we know that rocky Earth-like planets are common in the galaxy. Water and the other ingredients for life should be widespread. Why must we be alone? It’s worth noting that despite its utility in theory, we still have no idea what dark matter actually is.
The ultimate endpoint of these first two arguments is a solution, of kinds, to the Fermi Paradox, the question of why we haven’t found alien life. It may simply be that we don’t know what we are looking for, and don’t recognise the signs that might otherwise be clear. The idea that the night sky is artificial is fascinating and far-fetched, but perhaps isn’t much more radical than other ideas embraced by science.
The final point, the one which allows for a dramatic headline, is the danger this presents to us. Many people took exception to the idea that aliens may want to destroy us. Some argued that as technology advances so does moral responsibility. Others questioned why a hyper-advanced civilization would deign to notice us at all.
To understand why this is wrong, we need to go back to the idea of comic sociology — that everyone is either hidden or dead. Diplomacy and communications in space are not like on Earth. Sending a message to an alien civilization would take years at best, and centuries at worst. Star Trek, with faster than light communication, is a fantasy. In reality the Enterprise would be a floating island of humanity, isolated from any other outpost by the light speed barrier.
This inevitable delay means that knowledge of an alien civilization must be limited. Consider finding aliens around a star just twenty light years from Earth. Initial communications, lasting half a century or so, establish that they are at a similar level of technology to us. Not much threat, then, to our continued existence.
But wait. The time from sending a message to getting a reply is forty years. As we’ve established, that forty years could see a sudden breakthrough in science, enabling rapid development of unimagined technology. Imagine they make such a breakthrough and are suddenly easily able to overpower us. How would we know, until it is too late?
The same logic applies throughout the galaxy. No matter how much of an advantage a civilization has over another, the risk always remains that someone may make a sudden undetectable breakthrough. Add in the difficulty of understanding an alien mind on a distant world, and the cruel logic of cosmic sociology becomes clear.
To be sure that a threat never arises, the logical approach is to destroy every other civilization found, no matter how weak they are. Flip the logic, then, and every civilization must recognise that it is at risk of sudden, catastrophic destruction. The inevitable result is a galaxy full of civilizations hiding their presence, careful not to arouse suspicion from anyone else.
Of course, it should be noted that this is based on its own assumptions. Perhaps there are ways to communicate faster than light. Maybe it is impossible to hide one’s presence completely, making hiding a foolish strategy. Even so, the possibility remains, and until we have a clearer understanding of what might be out there, we should walk carefully.
China and Russia recently announced an intention to develop a research base on the surface of the Moon. The partnership is interesting — Russia is a declining space power; China a rising one — but it is hard to see this as much more than words at this stage.
Neither nation currently has the ability to send people to the Moon, let alone build a base there. China has made some steps towards a manned landing on the Moon, notably with a series of robotic landers and the development of more powerful rockets. But they are at least a decade from landing someone on the surface.
Initial plans, perhaps sensibly, focus more around a robotic base. China plans further missions to the Moon to lay foundations around the lunar south pole. The 2030s may see more advanced missions and perhaps even the first Chinese manned landing close to the base. A more permanent human presence could be in place by the mid-century.
The Hubble Space Telescope entered a safe mode for a few days, following a software problem onboard. Controllers were able to resolve the issue and restore normal functioning, but the event is a reminder of the increasing age of the telescope. Astronomers are confident Hubble will keep working for another few years, but eventually another repair mission will be needed, or the telescope will have to be scrapped.
A more powerful telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, recently completed the final tests needed before launch. Soon the JWST will be shipped to French Guiana, where it will be launched on an Ariane 5 in October.
So much reporting around health, science and space exploration is unrealistic, hyperbolic and misleading. These are complicated topics, and there are often no easy or straight forward answers. Instead what is needed is analysis, discussion and an exploration of the possible ways forward.
Follow me, and subscribe to my free Substack newsletter to get the latest. Articles are published regularly, and by signing up you will never miss an update.