Slashdot Mirror
If ET Calls, Who Speaks For Humanity?
EagleHasLanded writes "Who speaks for humankind if ET calls on us? Paul Davies, chairman of the SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup, is a likely ambassador. But Allen Tough founded the Invitation to ETI Web site, which encourages ET to make contact via email (and also strongly discourages humans from impersonating ET). But an individual in the UK got over some of the hurdles designed to weed out hoaxers, before finally throwing in the towel."
Wouldn't this be a good slashdot poll? Maybe we should put kdawson in charge.
Just in case you, or someone you know turns out to be the first, everyone should read this
It's not exactly rigorous, but it gets the main points across.
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
I suggest we let ELIZA do the talking.
Our TV broadcasts have already spoken for us, and it wasn't a good message.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wouldn't ET pick the ones they wanted to initiate conversations with first? Possibly the ones less likely to point a gun at them?
Just remember, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say, "YES!"
Jodie Foster!
if et calls we should great them with the communication of the other animals on the planet (well some of them),first. Before grating them ourselfs.
this would show them that we can appreciate the communication of other life forms, and even put that communication before the communication of ourselfs.
If we are to communicate we need to demonstrate empathy, since the only thing we know about them is that they can communicate, empathy via appreciation of the communication of other life forms on our own planet may demonstrate we can empathize with them.
This should reduce fear and hostility towards us, and aid in good relations. in respect they may attempt to empathise with us a little more.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Aliens are already here and do not recognize SETI or any human government or group organization. They deal with and judge each human being on their individual merits and faults. For more information, see http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/
I've read my sci-fi and I know how dangerous alien email can be.
I think you've been watching too many movies where aliens land in the USA and act as if they don't even know that the rest of the world exists, i.e like Americans.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Morgan Freeman.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Bruce Campbell. No matter what happens, he's seen it all before.
Obviously, there's no good answer to this question. No matter who was picked, by whatever process, some group on the planet would resent it.
Personally I think Sagan had it right - we pick someone who doesn't have a religious or political agenda, is broadly educated especially in sciences, and
would be willing to perform the task.*
(Hmm... Richard Dawkins? *g*)
* No, really:
1) No religious agenda - doesn't matter whether or not the aliens have religion. If they don't, they'll likely think us backward. If they do, it's possible they will be offended by our version(s) - and it's certain that picking anyone who professes one major religion would piss off the other major religions.
2) No political agenda. I doubt I need to explain this one; the person will be speaking for ALL HUMANITY.
3) Broadly educated - in trying to understand a totally alien viewpoint, experience in many different fields would be essential.
4) ... especially in the sciences - because it's likely anyone who *could* contact us would be extremely far along in the sciences. Unless they're doing it with telepathy...
5) Volunteer, of course.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Not a slashdot poll but probably some sort of an online forum where people from around the world can vote on the questions to be asked would be a good start. Why does it have to be one person or a small group of people who speak for humanity when there is a way to let a large part of the humanity participate.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Nah, I think it should be a muppet, keep'em guessing is my advice. The drummer Animal might do well, or Kermit if we'd like to appear reasonable.
Pat Welsh, apparently.
What do you think, sirs?
Please hope the Brits don't make first contact with ET, their track record isn't so hot when it comes to handling these things...
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
...though they might declare war on us...
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
Why do we need someone to speak for humanity as a whole? Why do we assume the aliens will have a single government? Why can't we communicate nation-to-nation?
I mean... we have the UN right? so wouldnt' Ban Kyi Moon be the appropriate choice?
Hilarious as always.
No one speaks for "humanity." Everyone speaks for themselves. But, I suppose that won't stop some sleazebag politician from claiming to speak for a few million or billion other people...
Liberty in your lifetime
So, you assume that atheists are correct and that aliens, assuming they even exist would be atheists?
Personally, I suspect that's true, but I don't know. However, I see three possibilities:
Now, of those, do you really think #2 is likely? (If you do, you probably should investigate how religion arose on this planet.)
No, the likelier possibilities are option #1, in which case, any religious individual would make us seem backwards and primitive; or #3, in which case, any religion we choose to represent would likely be weird and possibly offensive to them.
Who would you suggest? An obnoxious pompous prick like Dawkins?
Funny... when I believed, I thought the same way you did. About Randi, also.
Eventually, I realized that what I saw as "arrogance" was merely the courage to stand up to popular dogmas. They were attacking things I held dear, and that made me defensive, so of course I saw them as arrogant and disruptive.
real science, rather than trying to prove the non-existence of god.
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and you might notice he's also written several books about that. If you investigate what he actually does with his time, you'll probably find he spends far more time doing exactly that -- real science.
You seem to be confused into thinking that all atheists are necessarily "militant atheists", and that this would be the first thing on their minds when they encounter an alien being. That's not the concern at all. The concern is that the last thing we want is to be trying to tell an alien the "good news".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I do. Next question, please.
Geez Louise! Dozens of answers already and not a single one of you has suggested Kent Brockman. What is wrong with you people?!?
Well, I for one do not welcome such a cataclysmic failure in geek cred. Our insect overlords can't get here soon enough, if you ask me.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Clearly, Sarah Palin should do the talking for us. This way, the ET's won't bother us, thinking there's no intelligent life on Earth.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Meanwhile, just go about your business, but keep in mind that they are watching, and judging.
So, what you're saying is, my mom is an alien?
It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.
And pretty much every scientist out there agrees with you. It's the religious people who can't admit they're wrong, and that's the reason they shouldn't speak for us. Humility would indeed be the best practice.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I suggest we let ELIZA do the talking.
Why are you interested in mutilating our cows.
Nuff said.
"Our insect overlords can't get here soon enough, if you ask me."
I agree. I've heard that they taste like chicken, if you deep fry them. Mmmm-mmmm. Southern fried insect overlords - a hillbilly delight!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Somehow, I get the feeling that ET's first email will be something like:
Subject: 0rder Vicodin, Hydrocodone, Paracod, Codeine, Phentermin at Cheapest Price on net. 100% NoPrescription + FDA APPR0VED, FedEx shipping and FREE BONUS pills with every order!
I was thinking John Boehner. Can you imagine the glee with which he's going to be made to eat his words?
The one and only...the G.O.A.T...The man who has banged every green chick from here to the Delta Quadrant...
WILLIAM SHATNER!!!
Hmmm...now i know why aliens do not dare to land...they obviously mistook ST-TOS for reality...;-)
but I sugeset we enlist Dr. Who to but us in the best light.
Actually, I would disagree that there is a conflict between science and religion... well... the scientists don't think so, at least. The scientists: "We know the following stuff about how the world works - here's what our experiments tell us." The religious: "Scientists aren't agreeing with us on everything! They're a threat to us and they must be stopped!" Is it possible to have a conflict where really only one side is trying to 'beat' the other?
Is Richard Dawkins up to snuff with his science? I don't know - I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Is there a conflict between science and religion? No, not really, but the religious folks out there seem to be making capital out of the idea that there might be.
As a robotics research engineer very little of my science has anything to do with religion. I have, however, attempted to create the robot devil with so far inconclusive results. The prototype can fiddle, but hasn't yet bought a soul.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Whoever picks up the phone. Hopefully it will not be one of our "leaders".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Clearly, Sarah Palin should do the talking for us.
After all, she can see outer space from her back porch.
Sheezus, if this were to be continued, we'd have millions of posts, all suggesting one extra person.
I'll try and shorten it. Here's a start, anyway:
List of people who should NOT be allowed to participate in First Contact:
Politicians
Actors
Reality show participants
Tom Cruise
Jack Thompson
Elvis (Yeah, he's dead, but that doesn't stop some people)
Astrologers (of any stripe)
Fundamentalists (of any stripe)
?To be continued?
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
It could save a lot of anal probing.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
nobody really knows how religion arose in the first place,
Well, yes and no. We have some good theories, and we've watched real religions arise fairly recently -- cargo cults being the obvious example.
The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs.
That's unfortunately only true for a minority of the world.
Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.
The AC pointed out Stalin. There are two crucial issues here: First, no one goes to the war in the name of atheism, while they do in the name of religion. Second, the term "atheist" simply means one who is not a theist -- there is no unifying belief or dogma, no requirement that atheists be scientifically minded critical thinkers or even sane.
The numbers right now do tend to favor atheists in a few ways -- fewer in prisons, fewer divorces, etc -- but this isn't really relevant, other than to dispel the notion that atheists are inherently evil or stupid. You only need one person to be a counterexample to that, but it seems less useful to try to show that atheists are somehow better, more peaceful, smarter, etc.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
*shrug* I've been atheist since about '78,79, somewhere there. Can't say, didn't wake up one day and say "There is no dog" or anything like that. Raised Lutheran, just didn't take; as Carlin said, I "reached the age of reason". People who believe in tarot cards, or any other form of superstition or mysticism, are not atheists. I don't know where you get that definition from, but it isn't accurate. They may say they are, but they aren't. I'll agree that atheism, by itself, is not necessarily rational. But most people who admit to being atheist are rational. We could play statistical quote-me back and forth for weeks, tho. If it comes down to talking to aliens, tho, I suspect that scientific rationalism - and probably anarchic scientific rationalism - will win the day. I have to crash, have to work tomorrow. I'd love to debate this more with you, but sleep demands me. What would an alien species that doesn't sleep think of that? *g* later SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Nice to meet you. Would you kindly take me to your leader?
I'd imagine the Secretary-General of the United Nations would be the most reasonable choice. He's the closest thing Earth has to "our leader".