Back
Redefining SETI: Where to Begin?
Posted by Mac Tonnies, Monday, February 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM by Mac Tonnies
A few readers have expressed some deserved confusion about what disciplines I was referring to in the previous post. After all, SETI's long affiliation with radio astronomy makes the idea of invoking non-technical disciplines seem both heretical and ill-advised. Wouldn't we be best served, mainstream SETI pundits might ask, by "staying the course" with increasingly robust sky scans? After all, if "they're" out there, it strains orthodox acceptance to consider the possibility that "they" might have made it here.
I'm frankly disillusioned by the casual assumption that SETI is an endeavor best left to radio astronomers. While I support radio SETI, I think an equally valid case can be made for searching planetary surfaces for traces of extraterrestrial habitation.
The lunar surface--airless and spared the erosion constantly at work on dynamic worlds like Earth--would seem to be a prime candidate for methodical study. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the Moon (and perhaps Mars) has been visited at least once by a visiting civilization. Ironically, none other than SETI pioneer Carl Sagan championed the possibility that the Moon might serve as a platform for ET monitoring devices. (Sagan's scenario is memorably encapsulated in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey," a book widely regarded as a formative work of "serious" science fiction.)
But if we're to take up the hunt for ET artifacts, radio-based SETI suddenly becomes of limited use. A meaningful search for lunar artifacts might reasonably call on the expertise of archaeologists (many of whom rely increasingly on remote sensing technology), anthropologists and even artists. Hardly the "hard" sciences typically associated with searching for ET life, they're nonetheless decidedly relevant if we're to advance planetary SETI as a viable alternative.
Is such an unorthodox study feasible in the face of radio SETI's staunch "electromagnetic chauvinism"? I argue that it is, and that its chances for payoff are high enough to justify committed research. In fact, it's just possible that we've already stumbled upon candidate ET structures, only to reject them for fear of violently offending the status quo.
I'll return to just such a case in a forthcoming post.
4 Comments:
 |
Posted by Michael Garrett
February 18, 2008 at 04:04 PM
I agree with Pal Robinson that SETI has managed to avoid the giggle factor and that is good thing, although they certainly had their detractors from the onset. The fact that a few respected scientists took on this challenge was and remains a bright spot in an otherwise often overly skeptical group concerning the possibility of extraterrestrial life. But new thoughts have evolved since SETI began and with the discovery of more and more stars with planets revolving around them, the prevailing thought seems to be changing somewhat. The potential of finding ET now seems to be greater than most once believed. But, the question remains, how best to find them if they are out there or right here. The scientific community as a whole needs, I think, to take this search very seriously and incorporate other disciplines in the process, as Mac is advocating.
|
|
Posted by Daniel Brenton
February 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Mac --
I see what you're driving at, and this has merit, in my mind at least.
One aspect that an archaeological approach lacks, obviously, is the ability to interact (even over an extended timeframe) with an extraterrestrial intelligence. This seems like an undercurrent in the radio approach. Most likely if we find anything at all archaeologically, we would be doing an evaluation of visitors long gone, or worse, a postmortem on an extinct species.
Of course, the good news would be that a undisputed discovery of this kind would show that intelligence, as we define it, is not exclusive to this planet.
|
|
Posted by Paul Robinson
February 18, 2008 at 01:51 PM
While I agree that a hunt for ET artifacts is a good idea one has to wonder what the first step would be in such an undertaking.
Clearly, it would be of precious little use to ask agencies such as NASA if any of their endeavours have born fruit... unless you simply want a database of places NOT to bother looking at.
Also, how would this kind of search be received by the scientific community as a whole? SETI have done well to avoid the 'giggle factor' so far. Would this change matters?
|
|
Posted by Greg Bishop
February 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
You might surprise the SETI community yet, and/or you may challenge them to think in novel ways. Good to see you on a new venture. I can't wait to see the next post.
|
Leave a Comment
Back
