Nick Bostrom: "Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing."

Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom desperately hopes that we never find signs of extraterrestrial life -- advanced or otherwise.

Why?

Because he understands the Fermi Paradox.

Or more accurately, he understands the implications of the Fermi Paradox and The Great Silence.

Because the Galaxy appears uncolonized and unperturbed by intelligent life, and because there has been ample time and motive for this to happen, we have to conclude that some kind of filter is in place that prevents life from arriving at this advanced phase.

In his recent article for Technology Review, Bostrom writes:

...the evolutionary path to life-forms capable of space colonization leads through a "Great Filter," which can be thought of as a probability barrier...The filter consists of one or more evolutionary transitions or steps that must be traversed at great odds in order for an Earth-like planet to produce a civilization capable of exploring distant solar systems. You start with billions and billions of potential germination points for life, and you end up with a sum total of zero extraterrestrial civilizations that we can observe. The Great Filter must therefore be sufficiently powerful--which is to say, passing the critical points must be sufficiently improbable--that even with many billions of rolls of the dice, one ends up with nothing: no aliens, no spacecraft, no signals. At least, none that we can detect in our neck of the woods.

Now, just where might this Great Filter be located? There are two possibilities: It might be behind us, somewhere in our distant past. Or it might be ahead of us, somewhere in the decades, centuries, or millennia to come.

We are hoping that the filter resides in our past, that we have already overcome highly improbable odds.

More disturbingly, however, it's likely that the Great Filter still awaits us in the future. There's some kind technologically instigated event that exists out there -- and no species can avoid it.

Again, Bostrom writes:

Throughout history, great civilizations on Earth have imploded--the Roman Empire, the Mayan civilization that once flourished in Central America, and many others. However, the kind of societal collapse that merely delays the eventual emergence of a space-colonizing civilization by a few hundred or a few thousand years would not explain why no such civilization has visited us from another planet. A thousand years may seem a long time to an individual, but in this context it's a sneeze. There are probably planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Any intelligent species on those planets would have had ample time to recover from repeated social or ecological collapses. Even if they failed a thousand times before they succeeded, they still could have arrived here hundreds of millions of years ago.

The Great Filter, then, would have to be something more dramatic than run-of-the mill societal collapse: it would have to be a terminal global cataclysm, an existential catastrophe. An existential risk is one that threatens to annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential for future development. In our own case, we can identify a number of potential existential risks: a nuclear war fought with arms stockpiles much larger than today's (perhaps resulting from future arms races); a genetically engineered superbug; environmental disaster; an asteroid impact; wars or terrorist acts committed with powerful future weapons; super­intelligent general artificial intelligence with destructive goals; or high-energy physics experiments. These are just some of the existential risks that have been discussed in the literature, and considering that many of these have been proposed only in recent decades, it is plausible to assume that there are further existential risks we have not yet thought of.

Bostrom, who is the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, concludes his article by making a case for increased foresight and vigorous inquiry into potential risks.

But even so, Bostrom asks, what makes us think we'd be immune to such a powerful filter?

Which is why, when he looks up at the stars, he is thankful that we have yet to see any signs of extraterrestrial life.

Read the entire article, "Where are They?"

Latest podcast posted: 2008.04.01

The latest episode of the Sentient Developments Podcast is now available. Alternative audio formats are also available.

This episode:

Considering the Hadron Particle Accelerator and asking the question: When is an existential risk TOO risky?

What the Fermi Paradox tells us about humanity's future: Making claims about what advanced civilizations DO NOT do.

Christopher Hitchens gets it wrong about Buddhism.

Large Hadron Collider accused of being an existential threat

Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho are pursuing a lawsuit in a U.S. federal court to prevent Geneva's Large Hadron Collider from being switched on later this summer.

They're afraid that the new giant particle accelerator could destroy the entire planet.

That is, without trying to over-state the obvious, a rather extraordinary claim; it doesn't get much more serious than that.

Wagner and Sancho argue that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce a tiny black hole or a strangelet that would convert Earth to a shrunken mass of strange matter.

They also claim that CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This case illustrates a disturbing new trend -- one that started with the development of the atomic bomb: we are increasingly coming into the possession of technologies that could cause the complete extinction of the human species.

Or, at the very least, technologies that we think might destroy us.

Memories of the Manhattan Project

We don't know for certain that the collider will create a black hole or cause some other unpredictable disaster.

But we suspect that it might. Thus, it has to be considered an existential risk.

This is now the second time this has happened to us.

Back during the early days of the Manhattan Project, a number of scientists voiced their concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by "igniting" the atmosphere. It was decided that the threat was very low and, as we all know, the United States went ahead and detonated the first bomb on July 16, 1945.

But for a brief moment 63 years ago, some concerned observers held their breath and nervously watched at the bomb lit-up the New Mexico sky.

And now we have a new contender for the perceived existential threat de jour.

Let science be our guide

Is the Hadron Collider an existential risk? Well, based on our current understanding of physics, we have to conclude that there is a non-zero probability that the collider will act in a way that could destroy the planet.

Just how non-zero is the next big question.

Three years ago, Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom wrote a piece for Nature in which they took a stab at the question. They warned that humanity has been lulled into a false sense of security and that "the fact that the Earth has survived for so long does not necessarily mean that such disasters are unlikely, because observers are, by definition, in places that have avoided destruction."

To reach an answer, they combined physics, philosophy, probability theory (and most assuredly a hefty dose of wild-ass guessing) and concluded that a civilization destroys itself by a particle accelerator experiment once every billion years.

Admittedly, one in a billion seems excruciatingly improbable.

So let's have some fun and smash those particles together at extreme velocities.

But I have to wonder: what if they had concluded a one in a million chance? Is that sufficiently low? Remember, we're talking about the fate of all human life here.

What about one in a hundred thousand?

At what probability point do we call it all off?

How will we ever be able to agree? And would our conclusions cause us to become cripplingly risk averse?

I have no good answers to these questions, suffice to say that we need to continually develop our scientific sensibilities so that we can engage in risk assessment with facts instead of conjectures and hysteria.

The new normal

Moving forward, we can expect to see the sorts of objections being made by Wagner and Sancho become more frequent. Today's it's particle accelerator experiments. Tomorrow it will be molecular nanotechnology. The day after tomorrow it will be artificial intelligence.

And then there are all those things we haven't even thought of yet.

The trick for human civilization will be to figure out how to assess tangible threats, determine level of risk, and devise steps on how to take action.

But it doesn't end there. Inevitably, we will develop technologies that have great humanitarian potential, but are like double-edged swords. Molecular nanotechnology certainly comes to mind.

Consequently, we also have to figure out how to manage our possession of an ever-increasing arsenal of doomsday weapons.

It will be a juggling act where one single mistake will mean the end of all human life.

Not a good proposition.

Should SETI break the Great Silence?

Centauri Dreams has more on the SETI/METI controversy: SETI’s Dilemma: Break the Great Silence? Excerpt:

When Alexander Zaitsev presented his recent paper at the International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad (India) recently, he spoke from the center of a widening controversy. The question is straightforward: Should we broadcast messages intentionally designed to be received by extraterrestrial civilizations, thereby notifying them of our existence? Zaitzev, chief scientist at the Russian Academy of Science’s Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics, addressed the question by seeing a necessary relationship between SETI (the search for ETI) and METI (messaging to other civilizations).

Indeed, the Russian scientist, working at the Evpatoria Deep Space Center in the Ukraine, has the experience to discuss METI from a practical standpoint. Evpatoria has already transmitted a number of messages, the so-called ‘Cosmic Call’ signal (1999) being made up of various audio, video, image and data files submitted by people around the world. The later ‘Teen-Age Message,’ aimed at six Sun-like stars, was sent in 2001; another ‘Cosmic Call’ followed in 2003.

Zaitzev has in the interim emerged as a leading spokesman for direct messaging to extraterrestrial civilizations, an idea now hotly debated by a relatively small group of researchers concerned about its implications. I note the size of the debate pointedly — it is remarkable to me that an issue that has the potential of involving the entire human species in what could become a first contact scenario is known only to a limited number of professionals, within whose ranks there is by no means agreement.

Entire article.

My thoughts on the issue.

Russians detonate 'superstrength' bomb

More saber-rattling from Putin's Russia; from Reuters:

Russia has tested the world's most powerful vacuum bomb, which unleashes a destructive shockwave with the power of a nuclear blast, the military said on Tuesday, dubbing it the "father of all bombs".

The bomb is the latest in a series of new Russian weapons and policy moves as President Vladimir Putin tries to reassert Moscow's role on the international stage.

"Test results of the new airborne weapon have shown that its efficiency and power is commensurate with a nuclear weapon," Alexander Rukshin, Russian deputy armed forces chief of staff, told Russia's state ORT First Channel television. The same report was later shown on the state-sponsored Vesti channel.

"You will now see it in action, the bomb which has no match in the world is being tested at a military site."

It showed a Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bomber dropping the bomb over a testing ground. A large explosion followed.

Pictures showed what looked like a flattened multi-storey block of flats surrounded by scorched soil and boulders. "The soil looks like a lunar landscape," the report said.

This appears to be a response to the USA's 'Mother Of All Bombs,' which was the previous record holder for most powerful non-nuclear weapon.

This 'vacuum bomb' is also known as a thermobaric weapon (also called high-impulse thermobaric weapons (HITs) or fuel-air explosives (FAE or FAX)). According to the Wikipedia article, these bombs differ from conventional explosive weapons in that they use atmospheric oxygen instead of an oxidizer in their explosives. They produce more explosive energy for a given size than do other conventional explosives, but have the downside of being less predictable in their effect.

In regards to this bomb's effect (from Wikipedia):

There are dramatic differences between explosions involving high explosives and vapor clouds at close distances. For the same amount of energy, the high explosive blast overpressure is much higher and the blast impulse is much lower than that from a vapor cloud explosion. The shock wave from a TNT explosion is of relatively short duration, while the blast wave produced by an explosion of hydrocarbon material displays a relatively long duration. The duration of the positive phase of a shock wave is an important parameter in the response of structures to a blast.

The effects produced by FAEs (a long-duration high pressure and heat impulse) are often likened to the effects produced by low-yield nuclear weapons, but without the problems of radiation. However, this is inexact; for all current and foreseen sub-kiloton-yield nuclear weapon designs, prompt radiation effects predominate, producing some secondary heating; very little of the nominal yield is actually delivered as blast. The significant injury dealt by either weapon on a targeted population is nonetheless great.

Some fuels used, such as ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, act like mustards. A device using such fuels can be dangerous if the fuel fails to completely ignite; the device is at risk of producing the effects of a chemical weapon.

More.

Messages to ET and the precautionary principle

Science fiction author and futurist David Brin recently contacted me and brought me up to speed on his efforts to raise awareness about the active SETI approach, also known as METI (messages to extraterrestrial intelligences). Brin is vehemently opposed to this idea, as he believes it could put humanity in great peril. For all we know, he argues, some malevolent ETI is lurking in the neighborhood waiting for less advanced civilizations to draw attention to themselves.

Brin writes,

Let there be no mistake. METI is a very different thing than passively sifting for signals from the outer space. Carl Sagan, one of the greatest SETI supporters and a deep believer in the notion of altruistic alien civilizations, called such a move deeply unwise and immature....

Sagan — along with early SETI pioneer Philip Morrison — recommended that the newest children in a strange and uncertain cosmos should listen quietly for a long time, patiently learning about the universe and comparing notes, before shouting into an unknown jungle that we do not understand.

Brin invited me to join a closed discussion group where this issue is examined and debated. The purpose of the exercise is to not just think more deeply about this issue, but to also raise awareness and possibly prevent a catastrophe (i.e. alien invasion). Essentially, Brin argues that METI needs to be strongly considered before any group or individual takes it upon themselves to shout out to the heavens. He is particularly concerned how some groups, including SETI, are dismissive of his concerns. His fear is that someone will unilaterally decide to start transmitting messages into the depths of space.

I was unsure at first about whether or not I should join this group. As a contact pessimist I’m fairly certain that the fear about a METI approach is unwarranted -- not because ETI's are likely to be friendly, but because no one's listening. And even if they are listening, there's nothing we can do about it; any advanced ETI that's on a search-and-destroy mission would likely have the 'search' aspect figured out. I'm not sure how any civilization could hide in the Galaxy. Consequently, METI is somewhat of a non-issue in my opinion.

That being said, however, I did reach the conclusion that there is a non-zero chance that we could run into trouble should we change our approach from listening to messaging. For example, resident berserkers could be waiting, for what ever reason, for this sort of change in our radio signals. Perhaps they are waiting for a sign that we've passed a certain developmental threshold.

I think this argument is extremely weak and improbable, but it's not impossible; it should not be ruled out as a potential existential risk.

Which leads me to the precautionary principle. Since no one is listening, there is no harm in not sending messages out into the cosmos. Again, if a friendly ETI wanted to do a meet-and-greet, they should have no trouble finding us. But because there is the slim chance that we may alert a local berserker (or something unknown), we should probably refrain from the METI approach for the time being.

So, I took Brin up on his offer and I’ve joined the discussion group. We are currently considering the possibility of organizing a conference centered around the issue. I’ll continue to post about this topic as news develops. More information can be found here.

The dark side of the Simulation Argument

Kudos goes out to Nick Bostrom for having his Simulation Argument (SA) featured in the New York Times today. The SA essentially states that, given the potential for posthumans to create a vast number of ancestor simulations, we should probabilistically conclude that we are in a simulation rather than the deepest reality.

Most people give a little chuckle when they hear this argument for the first time. I've explained it to enough people now that I've come to expect it. The chuckle doesn't come about on account of the absurdity of the suggestion, it's more a chuckle of logical acknowledgment -- a reaction to the realization that it may actually be true.

But this is no laughing matter; there are disturbing implications to the SA. We appear to be damned if we're in a simulation, and damned if we're not.

Dammit, we're in a simulation!

If we were ever to prove that we exist inside a simulation, it would be proof that the transhumanist assumption is correct -- that the transition from a human to a posthuman condition is in fact possible. But that will be of little solace to us measly sims! The simulation -- er, our world -- could be shut down at any time. Or, the variables that make up our modal reality could be altered in undesirable ways (e.g. our world could be turned into a Hell realm).

Also, should we reside in a simulation, we have to pretty much assume that our digital benefactors are rather indifferent to our plight. Based on the amount of suffering going on around here we should probably assume a gnostic religious sensibility. These gods are not our allies; they may have created us, but they are not looking out for our best interests.

Dammit, we're not in a simulation!

Now, on the other side of the virtual coin, should we ever prove that we are not in a simulation, that would also be bad. It would be potential evidence that the transition to a posthuman condition may not be possible.

This problem is similar to the Fermi Paradox and the possible resolution that we are the first intelligent civilization to emerge in the Galaxy. This is a hard pill to swallow based on the extreme odds.

Similarly, we should be disturbed that we are not in a simulation because it may imply that we don't have a very bright future -- that civilizations destroy themselves before developing the capacity to create simulations. Otherwise, we have to take on a exceptionally optimistic frame and assume that we'll survive the Singularity and be that special first civilization that spawns simulations. Again, a probabilistically unsatisfactory proposition.

Of course, advanced civilizations may not create simulations on this scale. The Fermi Paradox offers yet another example as to why this is a problematic suggestion. Given the technological potential to colonize the Galaxy, why haven't advanced civilizations done so? Similarly, why wouldn't advanced civilizations create simulations given the technological capacity to do so?

The NYT article goes over a number of these issues and Bostrom provides some possible solutions. Ultimately, however, the answers are unsatisfactory.

The Simulation Argument solves the Fermi Paradox! Maybe...

Perhaps the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that we are in a simulation. It would certainly explain the Great Silence. Why bother simulating extraterrestrials? Maybe that's the point of the simulation -- to study how a civilization advances without any outside intervention.

Or maybe the Fermi Paradox exists because all civilizations are busy working on their simulations....

Or perhaps.....ah, forget it. My brain (which is probably sitting in a vat somewhere) hurts.

The Fermi Paradox: Possible solutions and next steps

This article is partly adapted from my TransVision 2007 presentation, “Whither ET? What the failing search for extraterrestrial intelligence tells us about humanity's future.”

In my previous two articles I attempted to re-affirm the Fermi Paradox (FP) and circumscribe some of the possible interstellar activities and developmental aspects of advanced extraterrestrial intelligences (ETI’s).

In this article I will offer two broad solutions to the FP: 1) unavoidable self-destruction and 2) localized non-migratory existence.

It is not my intention at this time to provide a complete list of possible reconciliations, nor am I claiming to have found any kind of special answer; I just wish to explore these two particular possibilities.

At the conclusion of this article I offer some suggestions to help us move forward as we work to solve the observational problem that is the Great Silence.

Self-Destruction and the Great Filter

This is the most likely and philosophically satisfying answer to the Fermi Paradox – although hardly the most desirable.

Looking at ourselves as a typical example of a pre-Singularity civilization, what do we find? We find a species already in possession of apocalyptic technologies and on the verge of developing an entirely new generation of lethal weapons. In short order we will be required to manage an assortment of apocalyptic technologies; it will be akin to spinning plates. There are only so many that can be managed before one of them falls – and one is all that is needed to end the story.

Examples of pending existential risks include the ongoing threat of nuclear holocaust, a nanotechnological disaster, poorly programmed artificial superintelligence (ie Singularity as extinction event), catastrophic pandemic, and so on.

A counter-argument is often made that self-inflicted catastrophism could never be exclusive to all civilizations. How is it, ask critics, that all civilizations cannot escape such a fate? Robin Hanson attempted to answer this question by proposing the Great Filter hypothesis – the suggestion that a developmental stage exists for all life which is insurmountable. The question then: is the Great Filter behind us, or does it await us in our future?

I would argue, based on much of the data I presented earlier, that the Rare Earth hypothesis has to be rejected. Moreover, a healthy application of the self-sampling assumption strongly indicates that the filter is ahead of us should it exist. The Galaxy is likely brimming with life, including complex life.

As for as the search for extraterrestrial life is concerned, Hanson argues that the detection of ETI's would be bad. This would indicate, given our observation of an unperturbed, uncolonized galaxy, that the Great Filter is indeed still ahead of us.

Another disturbing data point as a self-sampling species is that we here on earth have come to possess apocalyptic technologies long before we have developed the capacity to live off-planet or live in self-contained biospheres. All our eggs are in one basket and they will continue to remain that way into the foreseeable future.

And then there's the disturbing Doomsday Argument which suggests that we're closer to the end than the beginning of human civilization.

Perhaps the most common and smug solution to the Fermi Paradox is the suggestion that we are the first. It is frequently used because it is said to best satisfy Occam’s Razor. But while it may be the simplest solution, it defies our sense of probability and disregards the central lesson of the Copernican Principle – the idea that we are not unique, and very likely a typical example.

Earlier I presented a picture of a biophilic Universe. If this issue is to be settled by a battle between Occam’s Razor and the Copernican principle, on this matter I’ll take Copernicus any day.

Interestingly, the longer we survive as a species without extraterrestrial contact, the more we can assume that we have passed the Great Filter.

Localized non-migratory digital existence

Now, the prospect of human extinction is quite obviously mere speculation. As Morpheus proclaimed in the Matrix: “We are still here!” Consequently, there are some non-extinction scenarios that I would like to explore.

The past 40 years of scientific progress has forced a re-evaluation of humanity’s potential. We appear to be headed for a transformation that takes us away from biological existence and towards a postbiological, or digital existence. Our future visions must take this into account. As Milan Cirkovic and Robert Bradbury have noted, we need to adopt a digital perspective (pdf).

Why leave the local system when everything can be accomplished at home? Localized existence may hold promise for all the aspirations that an advanced intelligence could conceivably conjure.

Specifically, advanced intelligences may engage in computational megaprojects and live virtual reality existences. It would be an existential phase transitioning into virtual space such that interstellar colonization would never emerge as a feasible option or experiment.

For example, advanced ETI’s may construct Jupiter (pdf) and Matrioshka Brains. A Jupiter Brain would utilize all the matter of entire planet for the purpose of computation, while a Matrioshka Brain (a kind of Dyson sphere) would utilizes the energy output of its parent star.

Determining an upper bound for computational power is difficult, but a number of thinkers have given it a shot. Eric Drexler has outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube that would perform 10^21 instructions per second. Robert Bradbury gives a rough estimate of 10^42 operations per second for a computer with a mass on order of a large planet. Seth Lloyd calculates an upper bound for a 1 kg computer of 5*10^50 logical operations per second carried out on ~10^31 bits – this would likely be done on a quantum computer or computers built of out of nuclear matter or plasma [see this article and this article for more information].

More radically, John Barrow has demonstrated that, under a very strict set of cosmological conditions, indefinite information processing (pdf) can exist in an ever-expanding universe.

This type of computational power is astounding and defies human comprehension. It’s like imagining a universe within a universe -- and that may be precisely be how it's used.

What would a future civilization do with all this power?

A civilization’s transition into high-speed digital mode may come about as natural consequence of its development. The switch from an analog civilization to a digital one – one in which the clock-speed would be accelerated to billions if not trillions of times faster than before – would preclude the desire to interact with the outside world.

Megascale computers may be used to support uploaded civilizations. It may prove to be the existential substrate of choice – one in which the potential for self-destruction is greatly mitigated.

Advanced civilizations may also use this computer power to run simulations for reasons of scientific research, running ancestor simulations or for entertainment (pdf) purposes. Simulations may also be run as a part of some sort of ethical or sociological necessity.

Another possibility is the Hedonistic Imperative, a term attributed to David Pearce. Given that virtually every religion has fantasized about an afterlife of bliss and an end to suffering, paradise engineering may come to represent the optimal end-state for intelligent life. Ultimately, societies will always be comprised of conscious individuals. The optimization of subjective experience may take precedence over colonial ambitions.

This tendency may be part of a broader, more 'existential' focus on life. Civilizational achievement may not be measured by the rate of imperialistic expanse or by how much energy it can consume, but in how individuals relate to themselves and their place in the Universe. This quest for introspective enlightenment may be characterized by efforts to optimize the mode of conscious experience.

What about long term survival?

In regards to long-term survival, Vernor Vinge has predicted that post-Singularity intelligences will build local secondary systems to ensure the near-immortality of the infocomplex. These could exist in off-planet repositories. Shields composed of nanotechnology and femtotechnology could deal with the issue of gamma ray bursters and other cosmological threats.

As for the local star, it could be given added life through stellar-engineering projects in which the crucially low elements are re-introduced. Eventually, however, migration to a younger star would be necessary.

There may also be unknown reasons for this type of existence. But what is certain is that wide-scale colonization is not in the cards.

Moving Forward

Admittedly, these two broad solutions -- self-destruction and non-migration scenarios -- are unsatisfactory. The notion that not even one civilization can escape self-destruction is difficult to believe. Moreover, localized digital existence and the proliferation of colonization waves are not either/or scenarios; one can imagine a civilization embarking on both paths.

As we move forward in attempting to solve the FP we need to apply much stricter methodologies to the problem.

Solutions to the FP must avoid the trappings of sociological analyses, which often present non-exclusive scenarios. Answers like the ‘zoo hypothesis,’ ‘non-interference,’ or ‘they wouldn’t find us interesting,' tend to be projections of the human psyche and our own modern-day realities. Moreover, these sorts of solutions, while they may account for some of the actions of advanced civilizations, cannot account for all.

Instead, a more rigid and sweeping methodological frame needs to be applied– one which takes cosmological determinism and sociological uniformitarianism into account. In other words, we need to be concerned with cosmological limits and the pressure of physical and resource constraints.

This is what is Nick Bostrom refers to as the strong convergence hypothesis -- the idea that all sufficiently advanced civilizations converge towards the same optimal state. This is a hypothesized developmental tendency akin to a Dawkinsian fitness peak -- the suggestion that identical environmental stressors, limitations and attractors will compel intelligences to settle around optimal existential modes. This theory does not favour the diversification of intelligence – at least not outside of a very strict set of living parameters.

The trick will be to predict what these deterministic constraints are. One can imagine factors such as limited resources, access to energy, computational requirements (including heat dissipation, error correction, and latency problems) and self-preservational modes (i.e. political and social orientations that eliminate the possibility of self-destruction).

A side benefit of this exercise is that it doubles as a foresight activity. The better we become at predicting the make-up of advanced ETI's, the better we will be at predicting our own future.

Consequently, our very own survival may depend on it.

Blessed are the doomsayers

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -- Woody Allen

Back in 2000 Sun Microsystems chief scientist Bill Joy published his now famous (or is that infamous?) warning cry, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Soon thereafter philosopher Nick Bostrom published his seminal paper on existential risks and Sir Martin Rees released his book, Our Final Hour. Even thinkers like Stephen Hawking and James Lovelock chimed in, warning that human civilization is headed in a bad way.

And it was only recently that the Doomsday Clock was once again moved foward.

Indeed, doom mongering has suddenly crept back into fashion. A new breed of Chicken Littles has emerged. But these aren't your run-of-the-mill street corner nut jobs warning that the end is nigh. Rather, these are serious thinkers with excellent credentials.

And in my own small way I have also contributed to this burgeoning neo-doom culture. A good portion of my thinking and writing is devoted to the topic. It's an important issue for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (where I'm on the Board of Directors). I'm also advising for the Lifeboat Foundation, an organization dedicated to foresight and disaster prevention.

I settled into this vein quite unintentionally and unwillingly; the more I delved into the issue, however, the more I became convinced that looming catastrophic risks were indeed a problem.

Needless to say there has been considerable negative reaction to what is perceived as unjustified fear mongering and hyper negativity. Doomsayers are often scorned and put to task on their grim prognostications. Many critics contend that today's catastrophists are no different that those from the past. For them, it's deja vu all over again.

Popular targets

Doomsayers are often ridiculed or ignored altogether mainly on account of the fact that an existential catastrophe has yet to actually happen. Catastrophism evokes images of apocalyptic religions and doomsday cults -- Book of Revelations type stuff, end of the world, judgment day, and so on.

Observation tells us that the worst predictions rarely, if ever, come true. Humans, after all, are still alive and kicking 60 years after the development of the atomic bomb. Moreover, despite localized violence in many parts of the world today, conditions for human existence have never been better. And the problems that do exist, like climate change, do not appear overwhelming intractable.

The human psyche is repelled by despair; it flees from it like the plague. Few want to associate themselves with the fear mongering doomsayers. It is a position that is inherently unattractive, with all its pessimism, defeatism and paranoia.

Catastrophists have been accused of using their position to increase social status. Worse, doomsayers are seen as providing fodder for advantageous politicians who use scare tactics in their politicking. There's no better way to control and manipulate a populace by exploiting their fears.

Enter the new doomsayers

Doomsaying went out of style thanks to the euphoria caused by the end of the Cold War. An idealistic complacency settled in, and much of society lived in utter denial of humanity's ongoing apocalyptic potential.

These days, in our post 9/11 world, disaster scenarios have once again regained currency. The fall of the bi-polar geopolitical arrangement has led to a much more unstable multi-polar global regime, while the United States exhibits a hegemonic attitude despite not actually being one.

Further, an entirely new generation of apocalyptic threats have been uncovered by scientists and technologists. Theoretical possibilities include catastrophic devastation in the wake of deliberately engineered pathogens, self-replicating molecular nanotechnology run amok, run-away global warming, and poorly programmed artificial intelligence. There are undoubtedly many more. Humanity will in short order have access to a growing arsenal of apocalyptic technologies; we'll soon be spinning plates -- and eventually one of them is going to fall.

Adding insult to injury are philosophical and observational indicators suggesting that humanity does not have a very promising future. These include the Doomsday Argument and the Fermi Paradox.

Confronting the grim and bitter truth

Intelligence, which has in the short run been the most powerful evolutionary trait ever witnessed, may ultimately prove to be a fatal adaptation. It may very well be that civilizations eventually extinguish themselves under the weight of their untenable technological complexity.

Our past success as a civilization does not guarantee future gain. Yes, we survived the Cold War, but as an apocalypse wielding species, we are now perpetually living on borrowed time. In our militaristic, real politik world, the notion of abolishing and containing these weapons is a pipe-dream.

Off the mark?

Of course, I and many other doomsayers may be wrong; my view of the future may be considerably off the mark.

A number of scenarios come to mind. A quasi-totalitarian and planetary wide police state could be imposed; the nation state may die as a political entity resulting in the significant lessening of geopolitical tensions; ongoing memetic homogenization may alleviate the pressure exerted by radical non-state actors; democratic institutions may prove to be successful in how they manage the development, application and proliferation of apocalyptic technologies; effective prophylaxis may be developed to counter the effects of catastrophic technologies (e.g. space-based defenses and Active Shields).

Don't blame the messenger

More to the point, however, none of the doomsayers are saying, "abandon hope all ye who enter here." On the contrary, despite the seemingly impossible odds, the purpose of the doomsaying exercise is to raise awareness. Human civilization needs to work to prevent catastrophe -- and prevention cannot happen without foresight. These threats are a call to action. Failure to properly assess and elucidate these threats could quite literally result in human extinction.

Societies need doomsayers to eliminate passivity and indifference so that a safe future can be engineered.

Even if that may be an impossible task.

If aliens wanted to, they would have destroyed us by now

The Speculist today alerts us to an interesting article in The Independent called, "Meet the neighbours: Is the search for aliens such a good idea?"

The article, which was very well researched by astronomer David Whitehouse, examines the issue of whether or not human civilization should announce itself to the larger galactic community. Whitehouse cites the opinions of such notables as Freeman Dyson, David Brin, Ronald Bracewell, and many others. Understandably everyone has a strong opinion on the subject.

Here's my own take: If advanced extraterrestrial civilizations wanted to, they would have destroyed us by now. It's the Fermi Paradox all over again -- but this time, instead of wondering, "where is everybody," we find ourselves asking, "why haven't we be destroyed already?" There are several considerations which make the observation of our ongoing presence in the Universe a pertinent one.

First, it's largely believed that intelligence may have emerged in the Milky Way as long as 4.5Gyr ago. As has been argued on many occasions, this, in conjunction with the possibility of self-replicating probes, cuts the size of the Galaxy to manageable proportions; the Galaxy could have been colonized many times over -- but it's not.

This has also led to speculation about so-called berserker probes (a term attributed to Fred Saberhagen). These self-replicating probes could sterilize the Galaxy in relatively short order -- and the process would be fairly easy. A berserker could poison each planet such that life would never be capable of emerging. If the berserker should discover a planet with life already on it, all it would have to do is cause a global ecophagy through the use of molecular nanotechnology; an entire ecosystem could be destroyed in as little as 20 months.

If this seems like a rather excessive and 'uneconomical' way of sterilizing the Galaxy, keep in mind that we're talking about exponentially self-replicating probes. Berserkers could reproduce themselves using material found in asteroid belts or dead planets. There would be little cost involved, aside from the production and dissemination of the first probe.

If, on the other hand, an ETI was both malevolent and frugal there is another possibility: the use of hibernating berserker probes. Much like the monolith of 2001: A Space Odyssey, self-replicating probes could be lying dormant in every solar system in the Galaxy waiting patiently for intelligence to emerge. It could easily detect the presence of a civilization by listening for their radio signals. Swift destruction would ensue.

Which brings up an interesting consideration. Seeing as we have been transmitting radio signals for almost 100 years, any dormant berserker probe would be well aware of us by now. If it is going to destroy us, it should probably get going; we are only about 50 years away from a Singularity (a cosmologically insignificant amount of time).

I would think that the point of sterilizing the Galaxy would be to eliminate the possibility of any rival post-Singularity intelligences. And if you don't like the Singularity moniker, just substitute Kardashev I civilizations into your calculations.

Consequently, the berserker should have wiped us out by now. But it hasn't, which likely means there is no berserker hanging out in our neighborhood. Moreover, the fact that we're still inhabiting a life-rich Earth is an indicator that we don't reside in a sterile galaxy. We can thus conclude that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations do not embark on such nefarious campaigns. As Robert Freitas has stated, "The present observational record can only support the much more restricted conclusion that no rapacious galactic civilisations are currently loose in the Galaxy."

So, we don't need to worry about sending our radio signals out into space. We can transmit all we want -- it won't make a bit of difference.

Nobody is listening and nobody cares.
____________________________
Related articles:
Is Active SETI imperiling Humanity?
Building a machine designed by ET: not a good idea

When hypergiants go hypernova

Scientists predicted that something like this could happen, and now they have actually observed it: a hypergiant star went nova.

About 238 million years ago a star in galaxy NGC 1260 ended its life. To say that it was a powerful explosion would be a gross understatement; the amount of explosive energy expelled by supernova SN 2006gy defies human comprehension.

Prior to its dramatic death, the hypergiant star, which was 150 times larger than our own, suffered a sudden and violent collapse. Extremely high levels of gamma radiation from the star's core caused its energy to transform to matter, and the drop in energy in turn caused the star to collapse. This resulted in a dramatic increase in the thermonuclear reactions that was burning within it. All this added energy overpowered the gravitational attraction causing the star to explode.

And explode it did.

Scientists claim that the supernova was over 150 times more powerful than any other observed to date. Physical models suggested that such a supernova was theoretically possible, but astronomers believed that such events were limited to the early Universe when stars tended to be hypergiant.

A hypernova like SN 2006gy can instantly expel about 10X46 joules. This is more energy than our sun produces over a period of 10 billion years.

According to the Astroprof blog,

At discovery, it was already as bright as a Type Ia supernova at its peak. But, instead of getting dimmer, SN 2006gy continued to get brighter for several weeks. The peak brightness seldom comes much more than a week after the explosion. Theoretical models suggest that SN 2006gy gets its light from both the expanding cloud of gas and a shock front as the cloud of gas expands into very dense gasses surrounding the progenitor star. But, the expanding gas cloud is so bright that it requires substantially more radioactive decay to heat it that would be present in almost any other supernova. The best way to get that much radioactive material, according to the model that the theorists have come up with, is for basically the whole core to be thrown out into the supernova, leaving little or nothing behind to form a neutron star or black hole. So much material is thrown out, that the supernova continues to be heated long after the explosion itself. In fact, even months later, SN 2006gy has faded in brightness only to as bright as the peak brightness of a Type Ia supernova!

In fact, astronomers were able to observe the hypernova's peak brightness for an astounding 70 days.

Supernovas can wreak tremendous havoc in its local area, effectively sterilizing the region. These explosions produce highly collimated beams of hard gamma rays that extend outward from the exploding star. Any unfortunate life-bearing planet that should come into contact with those beams would suffer a mass extinction (if not total extinction depending on its proximity to the supernova). Gamma rays would eat up the ozone layer and indirectly cause the onset of an ice age due to the prevalence of NO2 molecules.

Supernovas can shoot out directed beams of gamma rays to a distance of 100 light years, while hypernovas and gamma ray bursts can impact areas as far as 500 light years away.

Thankfully, hypergiant Eta Carinae, which is on the verge of going nova, is well over 7,500 light years away from Earth. We'll be safe when it goes off, but you'll be able to read by its light at night-time.

Why the discovery of a nearby Earth-like planet is bad news

Wow, the blogosphere has been absolutely gushing these past few days over the news that an Earth-like planet may have been discovered in the 'hood. This planet may boast a moderate climate that could conceivably support life and is only 20 light years away.

Not surprisingly, this news has caused a number of pundits to fantasize about jumping into their rocketships and bidding adiós to our polluted, war-torn and diseased planet.

But not so fast, amigos. While many have misguidedly jumped on the bandwagon to the stars, a number of bloggers have gotten it right.

In his article, "'Don't Pack Your Bags Just Yet", Jamais Cascio notes that, "By the time we have the technology that would make a 20 light year trip even remotely plausible (the fastest space craft yet made would still take thousands of years to get there), we probably won't be all that interested in living in a watery gravity hole anyway. Nope -- give us some nice, massive gas giants to convert to computronium!"

Michael Anissimov points out that we have a human hospitable planet right here that we’ve barely even begun to use. He also argues that "even if we did need to leave the Earth, there is a tremendous amount of raw materials for space colonies right next door in the form of carbonaceous asteroids, which make up about 75% of known asteroids." Moreover, warns Anissimov, "we should think carefully before sending off colonists to far-away places without ensuring that they’re capable of protecting the fundamental freedoms of their citizens." Specifically, he worries that a blight may come back to haunt us (which also reminds me of the Honored Matres of the Dune series).

And as Tyler Cowen noted, "Are earth-like planets so common? That probably means lots more civilization-supporting planets than I had expected. But where are the alien visitors? As suggested by the Fermi paradox, we must revise our priors along several margins, one of which is the expected duration of an intelligent civilization."

Indeed, Cowen is on the right track. A primary argument used to reconcile the Fermi Paradox is the Rare Earth Hypothesis. This line of reasoning suggests that we haven't been visited by ETI's because life is far too rare in the cosmos.

But if we have discovered an Earth-like planet as little as 20 light years away, it's not unreasonable to suggest that our Galaxy must be absolutely teeming with life. This would seem to be a heavy blow to the REH.

So why is this bad news? It's bad news because our biophilic universe should be saturated with advanced intelligence by now...but it's not. The Fermi Paradox is very much in effect as a profound and disturbing unsolved mystery in astrosociobiology, philosophy and futurism.

Are all civilizations doomed before getting to the Singularity? Or is there something else at work here?

Doomsaying: It's a 'status' thing

According to Freeman Dyson, the prevalence of doom-and-gloom prognosticators at Cambridge University (a group that would include Sir Martin Rees) is a consequence of the English class system. He says,

Has rising status for commercial middle and upper classes made academics feel slighted and lower in status? Have some of them responded by generating more arguments about looming disasters as a way to boost their own importance and status in the eyes of government leaders and general public?

I find the argument plausible because the desire to raise one's status seems an obvious basic human instinct. The desire for higher status can be seen as a motivation for everything from the drive for wealth, political power, and fame, The desire for higher status may well be the biggest driver of large scale philanthropy by the famous and wealthy.

Gee, and here I thought all the doomsaying was on account of academic due diligence and responsible foresight. Oh, and all those nasty apocalyptic technologies we're about to unleash....

New audiocast posted

My latest audiocast has been posted here. You can subscribe to this feed.

In this episode I discuss Bjork's colonization simulation and Fermi's Paradox, the recent change to the Doomsday Clock, my rebuttal to Nigel Cameron, and how Fight Club portrays the modern male.

Doomsday clock moved ahead due to climate and biotech

Now that even an enviroskeptic like Ronald Bailey is convinced that climate change is happening, it should come as no surprise that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has turned their attention to global warming. For the first time in history the infamous Doomsday Clock was moved ahead for environmental reasons; climate change now joins nuclear annihilation as one of the greatest threats to face humanity.

The clock was incremented by 2 minutes and now stands at 5 minutes to midnight.

The decision to do so was reached by a number of experts, including BAS directors and affiliated scientists such as Sir Martin Rees and Stephen Hawking. Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Chicago-based BAS, noted that "When we think about what technologies besides nuclear weapons could produce such devastation to the planet, we quickly came to carbon-emitting technologies." Rees added that "Humankind's collective impacts on the biosphere, climate and oceans are unprecedented." Stephen Hawking released a video statement in which he makes similar warnings.

Specific fears included rising sea levels, heat waves and desertification. It is also feared that there will be new disease outbreaks and wars over arable land and water.

The BAS Board notes,

Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons. The most authoritative scientific group on these issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has concluded, “Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Carbon dioxide, principally from fossil fuel burning, has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up its surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years.

Also added to the list of threats are those posed by the emerging life science technologies, such as synthetic biology and genetic modification.

While the risks associated with global warming are severe, I am unconvinced that they qualify as extinction risks. More problematic would be a feedback and runaway greenhouse gas effect in which rising temperatures would move beyond human control. It is feared that such a catastrophe would convert the Earth into a Venus-like planet where temperatures would exceed 400°C. And indeed, the BAS did note this grim possibility in their review.

Historic and unprecedented as it is to include climate and biotech, it is my opinion that the BAS is still ignoring or underestimating a number of potential catastrophic risks. While I can understand their reluctance to include technologies that do not yet exist, the mere theoretical possibility and burgeoning development of such things as molecular nanotechnology, anti-matter weapons, and artificial superintelligence should at the very least be acknowledged.

It's never too early to start planning and formulating potential prescriptions for threats that may result in the extinction of the human species.