It's difficult to know how we should communicate when we don't know how aliens view the universe, how they communicate amongst themselves, or even how they think. Adding to the complications, nobody can be certain that intelligent extraterrestrials have ever existed, or if they still exist today.

Dr Douglas Vakoch is one of a relatively small collection of scientists addressing the question of how to talk back to extraterrestrials. While most researchers involved in SETI, or the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence, come from physics and engineering backgrounds, Dr Vakoch draws on a background in linguistics, sociology and psychology to explore SETI-related issues.

A member of the California-based SETI Institute, Dr Vakoch conducts research and seminars aimed at improving our efforts to communicate with extraterrestrials, should we hear from them. He recently spoke with the Australian journalist and space analyst Dr Morris Jones.

Q: The SETI institute suggests that we should decide on a reply to an extraterrestrial transmission in a structured, bureaucratic process. But radio transmitters are plentiful, and under the control of many people. What do you think of this?

A: Even though the SETI Institute, and the SETI community in general, has protocols for dealing with a reply to extraterrestrials, these have no legal status. They are really gentleman's agreements. Even if there were laws against transmitting, there would still be the possibility of people transmitting in spite of those laws.

The current protocols call for an open discussion on the location of the signal and the frequencies involved. So it could be easy for people to stage impromptu replies.

This is one reason why we are working on preparing messages ahead of time. We want to be concrete on what our options are for replying. However, there is no exact way of controlling transmissions from Earth.

Q: Are you worried that a barrage of unauthorised transmissions from Earth could interfere with attempts to receive an ongoing broadcast from the extraterrestrials themselves?

A: Certainly. Radio interference is a problem that we need to deal with already in searches, and additional attempts to transmit on the frequencies we are listening to would make that more difficult.

Q: Earth has been pumping a barrage of radio transmissions into space for decades, most of it not aimed at extraterrestrials. What would extraterrestrials think of this?

A: A lot depends on whether or not they could understand them. We are working on developing messages that could be easily decoded. It depends on the sophistication of the extraterrestrials themselves. Would they understand "I Love Lucy?"

Our own attempts to understand long-lost civilisations from Earth's past are an analogue to SETI. They show that even though we may share a lot in common with those people, we may not understand what they have to say.

Q: Media scholars debate Marshall McLuhan's concept that "the medium is the message". Most SETI searches, and proposed replies, are focused on radio, microwave and radio transmissions. Does the nature of these transmission systems influence message design?

A: It's true that most discussion so far has focused on creating a message, then encoding it afterwards. But you need to remember that SETI message construction has mostly been done by people with backgrounds in astronomy, engineering and physics. So information theory has influenced this, where there is an almost arbitrary relationship between the message and the transmission system. We are now attempting a more sophisticated approach, where we explore the relationship between the medium and the message. One example is to think of messages we could send that require minimal encoding. If we wanted to talk about the chemical formaldehyde, we could do this by simulating the emission spectrum of the formaldehyde molecule, which are distinct frequencies emitted by this molecule. It's useful to draw on the concept of icons, where the form of the message resembles the concept being communicated. In this case, the icon for formaldehyde would actually look like formaldehyde. Often, we have assumed that some types of information would be easily understandable by extraterrestrials because they are universal, like mathematics. But even basic scientific concepts can be expressed in different ways. We don't know if extraterrestrials would conceptualise of atoms in the same way that our scientific models do.

Q: You have recently focused on communicating the concept of altruism to extraterrestrials. How do you define the concept of altruism from your perspective?

A: I think there are a lot of different types of altruism. One type of altruism is sociobiological, which means doing something for the benefit of someone else but to the detriment of yourself. We are looking at things like kin selection and reciprocal altruism: I scratch your back, you scratch mine.

Q: Human society is filled with chaos and crime. Why do you want to communicate altruism to extraterrestrials?

A: If we talk about altruism in messages to extraterrestrials, I think it's important to make clear that this is not the best way of characterising ourselves. There are certainly times when we act altruistically, but I think these definitions of altruism provide a way of communicating our ethical ideals. I think it would be better to communicate that we sometimes act altruistically, but don't always. To say that we were always altruistic would be a lie.

Q: So should we explain crime and war?

A: If we wanted to provide a balanced view of ourselves, this would be honest. This would also be a big contrast with previous messages sent out into space.

Q: The messages on the Voyager records deliberately avoided communicating or displaying hostility. What do you think of this?

A: There are a couple of reasons why you might not want to communicate anything hostile. One is to put your best foot forward. Another is to consider human interactions as a model. When we meet a stranger, we usually try to make a good first impression. On the other hand, if we want to provide a more illuminating view of ourselves, I think it is important to say that we are sometimes prone to violence.

There was also a concern with the Voyager records about being misunderstood. They didn't want to be provocative to the extraterrestrials.

Q: The Australian scientist Dr Michael Archer expects that any extraterrestrials we encounter in space will be predators, just like us. Do you agree?

A: SETI is expected to encounter a particular type of extraterrestrial civilisation, namely one that has been around for a long time. That's a requirement for succeeding in contact. If civilisations are violent and short-lived, they won't co-exist with us, given the immense age of the galaxy. We are likely to make contact with older, more advanced civilisations. To me, it seems unlikely that an excessively aggressive civilisation would make it through the adolescence that human society is going through right now.

Q: How likely is it that any civilisation that broadcasts a transmission will still be around by the time we receive their signal and reply?

A: The question of "is anyone still there?" is probably more relevant to ourselves than the extraterrestrials. We have had radio technology for less than a century, while the extraterrestrials are likely to have used it for thousands of years or more. If they have managed to survive for so long, it is unlikely that they will disappear in the few hundred years or so that it takes them to receive our message. But human society hasn't been transmitting for so long, so can we really expect that humans will be around for centuries to come? It will say a lot about ourselves if we decide to reply, and expect humans to still be around when the message we transmit is received.

Q: Does communicating altruism place us at a potential disadvantage that extraterrestrials could exploit?

A: To be completely altruistic, giving away things without any expectation of return, may not be wise. Maybe the reason that civilisations enter into interstellar dialogues, if they actually do, is for purposes of trade, principally the trade of information. If we give away everything about us in our messages from the beginning, we may be selling future generations short. So it may be best to think of altruism in its reciprocal form, where we expect something in return. We give away some interesting things at first, but save other things for later.

Q: Could we inadvertently communicate a hostile message to extraterrestrials?

A: We could. It's possible that if we continually talk about altruism, extraterrestrials could find it suspicious that we need to actively emphasise it.

Q: To what extent would the encoding of a message be influenced by any messages we receive?

A: It would be influenced by the extent to which we could interpret the message we receive. If we received a message that was little more than an artificial transmission, with no discernible information, it could be difficult.

Q: What is the current state of message preparation within the SETI community?

A: We are now just beginning to discuss the range of types of messages we could send. We are trying to move beyond the types of messages sent in the past, which mostly deal with basic maths and science, and use those basic principles to say something else. We want to communicate altruism and our aesthetic sensibilities. We want to being together scholars from many disciplines and break free from some of the previous assumptions. We also want effective critics to examine our work.

Q: If a transmission from an extraterrestrial civilisation was received tomorrow, what would happen in terms of replying?

A: SETI scientists would start by examining the signal to see if there was any modulation or message encoded in it. They would try to decode any messages. But the SETI Institute would not transmit a reply. There might be responses from other organisations, or anyone with a transmitter.

Morris Jones is a Sydney, Australia-based consultant and journalist. His email address is morrisjonesNOSPAMhotmail.com. Replace NOSPAM with @ to send email.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only