First, Do Nothing: A Passive Protocol for First Contact
Introduction
At the 2019 meeting of the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW), a workgroup organized by Ken Wisian, Ken Roy, and John Traphagan discussed developing a protocol for first contact with extraterrestrials. The present authors were part of a subgroup that outlined a uniquely passive approach to the problem, which in turn inspired this article. The basic insight, which we will discuss in more detail in the following paragraphs, is that any first contact situation is both extremely dangerous, perhaps even representing an existential threat to all of humanity, and quite unpredictable because we will know virtually nothing about our alien interlocutors. Two critical conclusions follow from this. First, it is absolutely essential that we develop a clear and quite strict protocol for contact because we cannot afford to have crews “wing it” when the fate of humanity is on the line. Second, at least when it comes to face-to-face interactions (as opposed to long distance contact via radio, laser, and so on), such a protocol must be heavily biased toward inaction. Stripped of the romantic overtones we so often paint contact scenarios in; it seems clear that the best course of action is to do as little as possible because anything one does has the potential to cause a catastrophe. The resulting protocol is not sexy and goes against common human intuitions in a way that will make it challenging to implement, but it is ultimately the best approach whenever we face poorly understood, extremely dangerous, risks.
Of course, in this article, we can only scratch the surface of a very complex problem. Curiously, however, our lack of knowledge makes the problem more tractable in a way because the motivation for inaction is largely due to the fact that humans have no idea what to expect in a first contact scenario. Our goals must therefore be quite modest: to avoid a disastrous, inadvertent mistake, to convey peaceful intent as best we are able, and to learn what we can consistent with these other goals. First contact is not the place for trial and error experimentation and thus should be thought of almost entirely as setting the stage for second contact. It is only during second contact, when our informational base has expanded and we have the luxury of consultation with an entire planet of experts, that we should entertain the possibility of a more active protocol.
Section snippets
Working assumptions
The situation posed to the TVIW workgroup involved a face-to-face first contact scenario in which the need for a clear “stand alone” protocol would loom large. Thus, we assume the following key conditions apply:
- 1)
This is a true first contact situation in the sense that humanity had no previous idea of the aliens' existence.
- 2)
Contact occurs outside our inner solar system or under other conditions where timely consultation with terrestrial experts is not feasible, thus forcing the crew to act on
Goals
Given the discussion earlier, we are now in a position to formulate the basic goals of first contact, which is a critical first step because we cannot know how to act until we are clear about what we wish to achieve. Given the depth of our ignorance, the extremely high stakes, and the likelihood of further contacts guided by better information and preparation, we should be very modest in our initial goals. In essence, we should seek to make a good first impression and open the door to further
Conclusion
One of the main principles of the Hippocratic oath, which has guided medical practice for 2500 years, is Primum non nocere (first, do no harm). This means, among other things, that when the stakes are high (a patient's life) and one has little idea what one should do, it is better to do nothing at all than risk a “treatment” that might make things worse. We argue for a similar approach to a face-to-face first contact scenario. In such a situation, the stakes are literally the highest imaginable
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (11)
Do no harm? Cultural imperialism and the ethics of active SETI
J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. (JBIS)
(2017)Culture, Science, and the Searth for Life on Other Worlds
(2016)Encoding altruism
Sci. Spirit
(2001)Extraterrestrial intelligence and human inagination: SETI at the intersection of science, religion, and culture
METI or REGRETTI?
Cited by (6)
SETI From the Perspective of Intercivilizational Politics
2022, Space PolicyCitation Excerpt :Conversation would likely have gaps of decades within the dialogue. For those such as Smith and Traphagan that advocate caution, this is good news in that we could carefully consider any response to initial contact or our own discovery [39]. Indeed, as Cirkovic has pointed out, our discovery of others is likely to be a longer scientific process rather than the eureka moment that popular science fiction has depicted [40].
SETI in 2020
2022, Acta AstronauticaCitation Excerpt :Vidaurri et al. [99] discussed METI and SETI, briefly, in the broader context of an anti-imperial approach to astrobiology and space exploration. Smith and Traphagan [100] argued for a position of extreme passivity for any First Contact scenario, a position that echoes the “Radical First Contact” of Oman-Reagan [101] in astrobiology. Wisian and Traphagan [102] argued that SETI practitioners need to be concerned about the geopolitical implications of success, presenting a realpolitik analysis of the potentially deadly competition among states that would follow to secure a monopoly on the advanced scientific ideas that would flow from contact. (
We Come in Peace? A Rational Approach to METI
2021, Space PolicyCitation Excerpt :In communicating our willingness to engage in irrational aggression, we should also try to convey that we only do so on our own turf. The strategy my analysis suggests is in contrast to the diplomatic stance suggested by Smith and Traphagan [45], which is to do nothing. They argue that since we do not know what sort of signals might provoke a hostile response from ETI, our best response to contact is passive neutrality.
The Bioethics of Space Exploration: Human Enhancement and Gene Editing in Future Space Missions
2023, The Bioethics of Space Exploration: Human Enhancement and Gene Editing in Future Space MissionsFeminism and gender in thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence
2023, International Journal of AstrobiologySETI in 2020
2021, arXiv