Set your clocks, watches, Tivos, VCRs, or whatever: astronomer and alien hunter Seth Shostak will be on the Colbert Report tonight!
Seth is a funny guy, a smart guy, and a good writer (his latest book, Confessions of an Alien Hunter, is great), so I suspect this will be a very interesting interview. But don’t take my word for it; NatGeo made a video about his book that’ll make this point:
I’m really excited for him (even if I couldn’t bribe him into giving Colbert a copy of my book), and can’t wait to see this! Check your local listings.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Seth Shostak: “You, Phil, wrote a book?”
May 20th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Great! Preview/edit facility at last! Any longer delay and I would have killed somebody! Well done Amos Zeeburg!
May 20th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I, for one, welcome our new editing overlords.
Thanks Phil and powers that be.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:02 am
To be honest, I don’t watch Colbert as often as I watch the Daily Show. It might be that I see it as a one joke show, and yes, I get the joke. This one will be on the TIVO when I get home tonight.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Cool!
Gotta make sure I don’t miss this. Can’t wait to finally meet Seth at Dragon*Con this year!
May 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I don’t generally watch Colbert (he’s too snarky for me, even though I know he’s on “our” side), but I will definitely make an exception this evening! …assuming the stars align and the karma curse comes off my evil cable box, of course…
May 20th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I don’t like the Seti institute. There I said it, I think we should just stop it.
I am a fervent supporter os studying the cosmos and searching for signs of life, but Seti is the wrong way, they are clinging to a hypothesis based on no evidence and a very thin probability – that there might be aliens watching television somewhere and those signals may reach earth – and have obtained zero positive results for decades, It’s unscientific and it’s really harming the bigger picture.
It’s harming because it diverts media attention, money and public awareness from where the real science is – looking for exoplanets, studying the geological history of mars, or the possibility of liquid water in moons of jupiter, areas where we are not taking shortcuts on the Drake equation – and blurring the line between real Scientists and UFO-believers and alien-abductee-cults.
Public awareness, funding and media attention is essential for science, and it’s important to draw a clear line between the Nasa’s Kepler Mission and Scientology’s E-meter. Seti doesn’t help.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Hate to be off topic, but I just have to see this new preview/edit feature.
Sweeeeet…
May 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
@alexandre van de sande
Methinks thou protesteth too much. Hiding something… alien?
I don’t understand what you mean? SETI is searching the cosmos for signs of life. SETI also runs on private donations so it isn’t “wasting” public funds. The hypothesis is based on evidence. We know of at least one “intelligent” life form in the universe. So the search has taken decades. So has the search for a cure to cancer. Diverting media attention from “real” science? It is radio astronomy. There’s not much more scientific than that and it is “sexy” science.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Like others, I watch the Daily Show more than I watch Colbert. I TiVo both of them, but I checkout who his guests are before I actually go out of my way to watch. This one I will have to catch.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I prefer Colbert over Stewart because Colbert actually bothers to stay in character and not laugh at his own jokes like Stewart.
And SETI is one big giant distraction. Kthxbye
May 20th, 2009 at 11:08 am
[...] Seth Shostak on Colbert tonight! __________________ "A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire. "All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis. [...]
May 20th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I’ll be staying up late for this…it’s worth hearing Seth speak and gazing into his twinkling eyes.
May 20th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Alexandre:
It might be wise to do some research on a topic before making a comment. While NASA did initiate a SETI program in 1991, Congress canceled it less than a year later, therefore, the current SETI program is NOT relying on your tax dollars. SETI research relies on private donations. That means the money they receive comes from people who WANT to support this research.
Secondly, and I can only hope your are making a poor attempt at humor on this point, we will not be able to pick up alien TV signals, and they will not be able to pick up our TV signals. Those signals have been discovered to be too weak to reach any nearby stars, and would be indistinguishable from any other natural background noise. (Even if we could pick up a stray Alien TV broadcast, it would be nearly impossible to decode that signal, and therefore probably would not be recognized as a broadcast from an intelligent civilization. Currently our analog TV/Radio signals could only be detected out to a distance that is significantly less that 1 LY.)
One theory suggests the reason we may not have heard a signal is because the more advanced a civilization becomes technologically, the more ‘quiet’ it becomes. As we start using the internet, fiber-optics, cable systems, there is less signal ‘leakage’, therefore we are, in a sense getting quieter. The window for picking up radio signals from any broadcasting civilization may be about 100 years, based on our own civilization.
What we could pick up are signals specifically designed to be “heard” by another civilization. We did this in the ’70′s when a signal was beamed into space from Arecibo.
BTW, last I saw, the search for exo-planets, and news of discoveries on Mars has generated far more media coverage than SETI.
As far as no results for decades, that may be true (there have been a few interesting ‘hits’, but nothing confirmed, as they appeared to be a one off, each time), but, we really haven’t knocked on that many doors, comparatively speaking. The Kepler Mission will scan 100,000 stars for possible exo-planets, and this will give SETI researches more direction in terms of where to search.
I do think we may be barking up the wrong tree in searching for radio signals. There are some that are now advocating changing the method from searching for radio signals to searching for signals that would come to us via light – specifically laser. Light is a far better medium of transmission than using radio signals, which, an advanced civilization may consider to be antiquated. When Pulsars were discovered, they were prefixed with the moniker LGM, for Little Green Men, because it was briefly thought that they were intelligently created signals. It was later shown that they are a natural phenomena.
In 300 years, does anyone honestly believe we will still have AM/FM stations still broadcasting?
Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth of rant for the day!
WOW! An edit feature! StevoR’s prayers have been answered!
May 20th, 2009 at 11:37 am
That is not the only reason to be looking for signals. I can think of two more off the top of my head:
1) Beacons — an alien civilization may be attempting to make contact with others who could be out there by deliberately broadcasting their presence using a powerful beacon sweeping out across space. We might also overhear radio beacons that they could be using for their own interstellar communications purposes.
2) They may already be trying to contact us. Kepler should be able to detect Earth-like planets up to 1,000 light years away or more and that’s a mere 10 years after we detected our first exoplanet of any kind. Just imagine what an ETI civilization that’s only 500 years more advanced than us could do. If they’re out there in our neck of the galaxy (within, say, 5,000 light years), they probably know about Earth already and could be pinging it to see if it is host to intelligent life.
So, there is absolutely no problem with the premise of SETI, and the only argument against it that holds water is the low probability of success. That is why NASA canceled funding years ago, but given that all the SETI Institute’s efforts are privately funded there really isn’t much to gripe about. It’s not as though the private backers would suddenly start sending their money to NASA if SETI was canceled. (Note, also, the SETI-funded Allen Telescope Array can also be used for more traditional astronomy research at the same time, so SETI is also giving back to the wider community of astronomers.
Finally, even though the chances of success are small, any confirmed positive result would be a breakthrough of historic proportions, and could herald profound changes in the course of human society in ways we cannot begin to imagine. For the sake of a few million dollars a year, that’s a chance worth taking.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Michael & Tacitus:
No I am not being comical, neither trolling, I do believe Seti is a lovable experiment, but it’s time has long gone.
I am aware that Seti is privately funded, and those backers have all the right to do so, but so is the discovery institute, and I will denounce them for funding antiscience. Even if Seti was public, it wouldn’t be my tax money, since I do not live in the US. It’s not about the money it’s about the endeavour.
I know Seti is not looking for TV signals, it was a metaphor, but my understanding is that Seti is constantly looking for some sort of communication with a existing civilization, and the means for it changes as we discover new medias. Is as if our civilization communicated through messages in bottles, Seti would be building huge space bottle detectors.
That’s why I call it a shortcut – instead of broadening our understanding of what is a planet, what does it means to “sustain life”, what life is and how it emerges, what is “intelligence” – walking slowly from the beggining of the drake equation – Seti assumes that there must be some life form akin to ours, that they must have evolved the same technology we do and that they must be sending signals everywhere and goes right looking for that one message.
This core assumption is based on nothing but a slim probability and wishful thinking. It makes for great science books but not good science. The “Astronaut-gods” theory is as probable, but I would not defend multi-decade research for it.
My understanding is that Seti is a lottery ticket, we either find the singlest-bestest-thing ever or we find only noise for decades. I would also love to win that lottery, but I don’t bet, I save my money on a pig jar.
So I ask you: When we send a probe to mars, even if it finds no signs of water and no microbial life it still send lots of useful data about our own existence. What useful outcome has Seti provided (other than the seti-at-home concept)?
May 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Alexandre, again, the argument you bring forth really makes no sense, in terms of understanding what a planet is, Mars research…
NO public money is being “wasted” on this research. NASA is conducting Mars research, and searching for exo-planets, using tax money.
…”what is a planet, what does it means to “sustain life”, what life is and how it emerges, what is “intelligence” -” These are questions astronomers are seeking answers to.
How do you consider SETI research, anti-science, comparing it to the Disco ‘Tute? UFO Astro-Gods??? The mind boggles at your logic.
It was only recently, less that thirty years ago, that people questioned whether or not other planets existed outside our solar system. Today, we have found over 300!
What scientific value have we received from the ISS? Oh, sure, we’ve learned how to build things in space… how does that help me? (See the argument, can be used in any way one likes).
Again, we really haven’t done much door knocking, and searches have been rather hit and miss. Now with the discovery of exo-planets, and the Allen Array coming on-line, those searches can be more focused, and at the same time, search a greater number of viable targets.
I believe Seth Shostak made the comment, that if we still haven’t found anything by 2020, we may need to re-think the whole ETI question. By that point we should know if we have neighbours, or, if we are the only kids on the block.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Would love to see Phil do a spot on Colbert Report.
You’re not pimping yourself hard enough Phil!
Get to it!
May 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Michael L.
Wait, you grossly misunderstood me!
I am NOT opposed to space exploration, astronomy and astrobiology! A a big fan of all that, that’s why I come to this blog. Save those arguments for someone else, I am, happily a big fan of space research.
I am talking specifically about the SETI institute, and comparing with other ways of researching. I am opposing two methods: Seti vs all the rest.
I am saying that mars missions, ISS, Kepler, Hubble are great science experiments because they test hipothesis that can yeld a graspable results that enhance our understanding of our universe.
In the other hand SETI – huge radio telescopes looking specifically for intelligent signals on the vast noise of the universe – is a huge waste of brains and money.
Your confusion is part of my argument. Most people will think of SETI when hear anything about searching for life in other planets – because SETI is great for TV. But that takes the spotlight of a more defendable science research, I would rather hear an astronomer on the Colbert report or NatGeo talking about what we know about life, water outside of earth or how to find planets in other suns. Instead we see a respected scientist blabber about what he assumes Aliens look like. This is science fiction not science.
And I am not alone on labeling Seti as pseudoscience, a recent guest on The skeptics guide to the universe said the same thing, I can google it for you. It’s pseudoscience because it’s a untestable hypothesis – or better yet a very tested hypothesis with no positive result.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Shane Said:
“The hypothesis is based on evidence. We know of at least one “intelligent” life form in the universe.”
That fact shows that intelligent life is possible, period. Our own existence here tells us nothing of the likelihood of life of any kind emerging elsewhere. Presumably at some point in Earth’s past, time = t, there was no life. At some later point, time = t’, there was life. What was the probability at t that there would be life at t’? Until we know how to answer that question, we won’t know the odds of abiogenesis anywhere at all.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Look at it another way. If we didn’t look, then we would have no idea whether there was anything out there or not. A negative result is still a useful scientific finding (even if it would be disappointing). Yes, it’s a shortcut, but it’s not as though it’s an expensive one (it really is a pittance relative to the billions being invested in Kepler, Hubble, TPF, and so on).
And you are mischaracterizing the assumptions SETI is making. Yes, there is the assumption that life is commonplace in the universe, if not abundant. That is a very fair assumption. It would be extremely unlikely we are the only intelligent life in the universe — slightly less so in our galaxy, given the numbers involved. The only other major assumption SETI makes is that at some point in a civilization’s evolution, they will develop the capability of radio communications. Given that we all live in the same universe governed by the same physical laws, it’s almost inconceivable that if advanced ETIs are out there, they don’t know about or don’t understand the utility of radio communications, especially within the neutral hydrogen window.
Ugh, that’s a terrible comparison. We have a perfectly good evidence and theories for how ancient civilizations evolved, and how they managed to do impressive feats on engineering, like the pyramids, without invoking outside assistance. SETI is doing real scientific research, those other guys are merely developing crackpot theories from the comfort of their armchairs. Not even close to the same thing.
That’s your choice. Others enjoy playing the lottery, even if they know they have virtually no chance of winning the jackpot. And a good number of them win one of the smaller prizes into the bargain.
SETI has built the Allen Telescope Array, which is a joint project with UC Berkley’s Radio Astronomy Lab, and there is an impressive list of non-SETI science goals:
SETI has also made advances in radio frequency scanning capabilities that can be used in other radio astronomy projects, and as I said before, even a negative finding is a valid result. And don’t forget, SETI@Home is the pioneer project for ‘distributed grid computing’ which has gone on to be used in many different scientific applications.
I am sure there are plenty more examples I don’t know about, but it’s abundantly clear that investing private money into SETI programs is far more effective than simply pouring it down the drain or buying a lottery ticket. Many scientists and astronomers are benefiting from work pioneered by SETI programs.
As for comparing SETI to the DI — you are comparing science with anti-science, which is the only thing the Discovery Institute is interested in doing. They are the enemies of everything people like Seth Shostak stands for.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
You continue to mischaracterize the SETI program. There is no set of huge radio telescopes looking specifically for anything. The Allen Telescope Array is the only SETI funded instrument they have, and as I showed you, it will be extremely useful for all kinds of regular radio astronomy programs that will likely generate hundreds of papers during the lifetime of the facility. Other SETI efforts, like SETI@Home specifically piggy-backed onto regular radio telescope observations so that costs were kept down. Very little dedicated telescope time has every been used by the SETI program. There is no huge waste of brainpower or money.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Huh? That’s nothing to do with the work of SETI. People speculate about this type of stuff all the time—there isn’t any law against it, and there certainly isn’t any prohibition on Colbert not to talk about anything he wants to with Shostak or anyone else.
I understand you think SETI is a waste of time and money—many people do—but you’re not making a very good defense of your argument by trying to turn SETI into something it’s not.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I was also going to comment about the waste of time and brain-power argument, by also stating, that there is a misconception among people about SETI. Yes, searches have been taking place since the ’60′s. BUT, those searches are not continuous. Up until the Allen Array was built, there were no radio telescoped specifically dedicated to SETI 24/7/365. Even the Allen Array will be used for other radio astronomy research.
Even if you consider SETI to be pseudo-science, it is research being funded by PRIVATE donation, so how is that a waste of resources?
Colbert has had many respected scientists on his show in the past, and has done much to promote science, in his unique way.
BTW, I just came across this article that seems to be attracting some attention concerning the optical SETI research. Not sure if this has been followed through on or not. Maybe some Aussie BAblogees would know?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25448647-30417,00.html
May 20th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Thanks, that’s the answer I was looking for.
You are basically saying that what is normally known as the Seti research – looking for intelligent extraterrestrial signals – is in reality a pet project using the remaining resources dedicated for a composite of many very real astronomical investigations being done on the Allen Telescope Array.
In that case, they are not actually doing what they sell, they are just selling it that way because it’s effective and brings more money to science (which is a good thing after all)
I still think astronomers that do speculative fiction on TV while using their credentials as Scientists are doing a disservice to the public by making them think that this is what they actually work on, opposed to just something they talk about over coffe. I hope Shostak does more than that on the colbert tonight.
But thanks tacitus: you’ve made me change my mind. SETI is in reality a big publicity stunt made to attract money to other research by promising it’s investor the biggest lottery ticket ever. That’s dirty trick, but I have to admit, a smart one.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
You completely misconstrued Tacitus’ answer. SETI has benefited us in… oh never mind… It’s kind of pointless to argue with people that refuse to listen, and have a grudge against SETI research…
May 20th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“That fact shows that intelligent life is possible, period. Our own existence here tells us nothing of the likelihood of life of any kind emerging elsewhere. Presumably at some point in Earth’s past, time = t, there was no life. At some later point, time = t’, there was life. What was the probability at t that there would be life at t’? Until we know how to answer that question, we won’t know the odds of abiogenesis anywhere at all.”
But given the size of the universe, it seems most unlikely that this only happened on one puny planet. Searching for evidence is an entirely laudable goal as far as I am concerned.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
As they said in contact “it would awful wsate of space”.
May 20th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Shostak is going on Colbert to sell his book. Hopefully he will get the chance to promote the SETI program and astronomy in general, but with Colbert you really don’t know what’s going to happen.
As for calling SETI as stunt, I’m guessing that you’re being sarcastic, since we successfully poked holes in your arguments, but whatever. If SETI generates more interest in astronomy as a side-effect of their work, then great, but SETI is much much more than a stunt. The mission they are on may end up being futile, but the are doing science as much as any other astronomer is.
The ATA is being built exclusively with SETI funds — it would not exist without it — and its primary mission is remains SETI-based. They are sharing the running costs with UC Berkley which in return is being given time on the telescope to conduct it’s own research programs. This is a full collaboration.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Daffy Said:
“But given the size of the universe, it seems most unlikely that this only happened on one puny planet.”
Without knowing how to compute the likelihood of life, the size of the Universe is irrelevant. For all we know, the probability may be approximately once per universe. The answer just isn’t known to us right now. It’s not out of the question that Earth is the only place with native life on it. If we are really interested in knowing more about what kind of universe this is, then we must be as prepared for that circumstance as for any other.
“Searching for evidence is an entirely laudable goal as far as I am concerned.”
I never said it wasn’t.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@ alexandre van de sande
Before you slam the entire SETI Institute again, you might consider learning about the few dozen non-SETI projects done at the SETI Institute.
Now I’ll go back to using the Allen Telescope Array.
Harumph!
Peter Backus
SETI Institute
May 20th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Of course the size makes a difference. If I roll the dice once, box cars are pretty unlikely. If I roll them a trillion times, it is far more likely I’ll get double sixes more than once. Not definite, of course, but far more likely.
Unless you are convinced of intelligent design…but since there is no way to prove that, it’s hardly worth discussing.
May 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Shostak seems as likeable in person as his research is competent.
Though I don’t get the “size” answer. Life communicates, even simple forms like bacteria, so it may be possible to have “social intelligences” as a form of glorified hive. Individually small, collectively smart.
That is a difficult proposition, seeing that SETI is testable, on the assumption of a technological civilization sending a recognizable message. (Several examples have been given of what would constitute a legible message.) It is also not pathological science like, say, “cold fusion”, as it hasn’t tried to push noise as signals or something similar.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Daffy Said:
“Of course the size makes a difference. If I roll the dice once, box cars are pretty unlikely. If I roll them a trillion times, it is far more likely I’ll get double sixes more than once. Not definite, of course, but far more likely.”
You’re presuming to know the rules in this game of chance. Perhaps the game is played with only a single polyhedral die of one googolplex of faces, “life” being only one of those faces. The size of the Universe all by itself definitely does NOT tell us the probability for life. We are still more in the dark than in the light on this question. We do not know the likelihood for abiogenesis on the early Earth.
May 20th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I don’t think it is quite that simple. We have other constraints that bears on this.
One is the short time period observed between Earth coalescing and fossil life evidence (photosynthesis in the earliest preserved rocks). If life would have been a rare and spontaneous event it should have happened any time during Earth history. It did not, and Lineweaver et al finds from a simple model of recurring attempts until successful abiogenesis that the fraction of habitable planets on which abiogenesis has occurred is “most probably close to unity and > 13% at the 95% confidence level.”
[The mechanism of abiogenesis frustration is suggested to be impact formation, specifically identified as Earth's Late Heavy Bombardment. This identification hit a major problem today. An online Nature letter by Abramov et al shows that the LHB was not a hinder but more likely a boon for microbial habitability, setting up a climate suitable for thermophiles.
However, it is likely that at some time initial impacts or other problems of an early Earth was responsible for frustration. In any case Lineweaver et al research shows that there are other considerations than makes the claim of "a single data point" non-trivial.]
May 20th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
I think by size, he is also referring to brain capacity as well. Bacteria may very well communicate at some level, but they will never achieve the ability to communicate over the vast reaches of interstellar space, unless of course they evolve into something like us!
May 20th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
TEL,
You are assuming that there is something entirely unique—in the entire vast universe!—-about Earth that gave rise to intelligence. I would suggest that it is your burden to give some idea of what that might be.
Without that, I can think of no reason to assume that the odds are zero.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Daffy,
I’m not assuming the odds are zero. I’m not assuming that Earth is peculiar. I definitely do not *believe* there is no other life in the Universe. I do not *believe* the Universe is overflowing with life. I’m owning up to my own ignorance on this matter. I’m being scientifically honest with myself.
How about this: you go ahead and compute a falsifiable prediction for the probability of abiogenesis, plugging empirical numbers into the variables, and get back to me with it.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
they can’t be large? that sucks i was hoping for zentradi
BA dosn’t give any respect to the Sci Fi anime: Macross
May 20th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
We are not fully in the dark regarding the chances of life. We already know that the laws of physics hold throughout the visible Universe, and that our galaxy and our sun, even if they aren’t the most common of their kind around, they are extremely commonplace everywhere we look.
Even after ruling out uninhabitable zones within galaxies, there are still uncountable trillions of stars like our own in the visible universe, and it’s becoming increasingly likely that a good proportion of those stars play host to a solar system full of planets. (Kepler will tell us much more about that within the next 3-4 years.)
So the conditions that gave rise to the advent of life of Earth are almost certainly commonplace in the universe. Discounting life itself for a moment, there doesn’t seem to be anything particularly special about Earth that would lead us to believe that conditions here were uniquely suited for abiogenesis or evolution.
That still leaves us with the big questions of how difficult is it for life to get started, and how likely is it that intelligence will arise thereafter. We are pretty much in the dark about that, but we haven’t seen anything in the universe that’s unique anywhere we’ve looked, so it would be somewhat presumptuous to argue that life and intelligence are unique to Earth.
My sense (and it’s only a guess) is that we will find that life is commonplace, but that intelligent life will be much harder to find. The best argument against the existence of other ETIs in this galaxy is to ask why they aren’t here already. If ETI civilizations were commonplace, then the odds are that at least one of them would be millions of years ahead of us in terms of technology, and would have already expanded out into the rest of the galaxy to extent that no planet playing host to life would have escaped unnoticed. There are possible explanations for their absence (other than them not existing) but now we are really moving into science fiction territory.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
@alexandre van de sande
I bet you don’t like science fiction either?
May 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
tacitus,
Compute a falsifiable prediction for the probability of abiogenesis, plugging empirical numbers into the variables, and get back to me with it.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
I dunno about computing the probability it but don’t we already know abiogenesis has to have a probability of greater than zero. We’re here.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Shane,
That’s not the same as knowing how likely it is. Let’s say that ten million people each buy one Powerball ticket, making the odds of winning one in ten million. One person wins. Just before the game’s digits were randomly generated, what were that person’s chances of winning? They were one in ten million, just like everyone else.
So, just before life emerged on the ancient Earth, what were its chances of doing so? The probability may not have been all that great. Just because we’re here doesn’t tell us how likely it is that there is other life in the Universe. The Cosmos may be crawling with critters, or we may be all there is. Anyone who insists that they know the odds are at liberty to compute a falsifiable prediction for the probability of abiogenesis, plugging empirical numbers into the variables, and to get back to me with it.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
T.E.L. I already said we don’t know how likely abiogenesis is, so don’t be a smart ass. (I believe the word “guess” should have clued you in.)
I am hopeful that within the next 20 – 30 years we will have a decent-sized sample of spectra from Earth-like exoplanets to study for signs of biological activity, and possibly even direct images to work with (that might be a stretch, but one never knows what our amazingly talented astronomers will come up with next). No matter what we find — even nothing — it will greatly inform this ongoing debate.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
tacitus,
I’m not being a smartass. I’m quite serious. We have no way of knowing today if Earth is typical or unique. It means nothing in this context to argue that the laws of physics are uniform throughout the Universe. They’re just as uniform throughout our solar system, yet the question of extraterrestrial life even this close to home remains as unanswered as ever. A good physicist will admit that there is no obvious path which starts with reductionist principles and deterministically marches toward organisms. It’s just not known, yet.
I cannot overstress what I’m about in this issue. I do not hope that life is rare. I do not hope that it’s abundant. I’m curious to know the character of this world, however it turns out to be. Most people I’ve spoken with don’t share that point of view. People want to believe, and what they want to believe is that the Universe is all about living things. They convince themselves that the single-most important thing humanity can possibly know is that there are people on other planets. I fail to empathize with such a cheap projection. It’s not important that we know anything at all about the world. We don’t have to study Nature because of manifest destiny. We can do it for a much better, more civilized reason: because we enjoy it. By shedding the notion of importance, we can free ourselves to follow evidence with honesty, wherever it takes us.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
‘Twas quite an entertaining interview, but I really wish Shostak hadn’t referred to the situation where Earth having intelligent life is the only possibility as a “miracle”. Highly unlikely, yes; but don’t give the creationists material, Seth…
May 20th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
T.E.L. I grant that you’re serious, but there was still little point in demanding that I attempt to quantify something that I readily admitted was just a guess.
There is nothing wrong in being hopeful. It’s a fundamental part of what makes us tick and helps drive our desire to discover more about the universe around us. I can’t speak for others, but I while I am hopeful that we will discover evidence for life beyond our own planet, I am realistic about the prospects of finding it within my lifetime (i.e. slim to none) — not that I would be complaining if ETIs popped-up in orbit tomorrow
.
Well, I can’t deny that the Universe would be a more fascinating place if it was teeming with life, and in particular intelligent life, but that does mean I believe it must be that way. Contact would be a profound event—certainly one whose date would be taught to schoolchildren for the rest of time—but what impact it would have on our society very much depends on what sort of contact we make. Simply discovering the presence of life on another planet won’t have much impact society at all, but if they showed up on our doorstep and began to trade information and technology, who knows what would happen? Certainly religions would have a tough time adjusting, if nothing else.
I strongly disagree with this. Enjoyment is certainly a valid reason to pursue research, but the more we know about the world the better placed we are to make sure we don’t screw things up for us and our children. Much of the work being done by scientists will save lives, directly and indirectly. I am sure they get some enjoyment out of it, but they don’t put themselves through years of toil and tedious work just for fun—they know how important their work could be to the rest of us.
Astronomy is a little different, since the impact on the lives of others is, for the most part, much less obvious. But I think your concerns that the astronomers won’t follow the evidence are overblown. I am sure they all have their personal prejudices (as do we all) but astronomers have certainly had to demonstrate their willingness to follow the evidence when it comes to finding out what makes the cosmos tick! And I believe the same thing will happen with the search for life on other planets. There are already noises being made in some quarters that if Kepler fails to find any Earth-like planets, follow-up missions like TPF will be much harder to fund.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
bønez_brigade, I doubt many of the religious right would be watching anyway.
I thought it was a good interview as these things go. Colbert asked some pretty decent questions and Shostak did his best to answer them in the very short time allotted to him (and in between the jokes).
May 20th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
tacitus said:
“Enjoyment is certainly a valid reason to pursue research, but the more we know about the world the better placed we are to make sure we don’t screw things up for us and our children. Much of the work being done by scientists will save lives, directly and indirectly.”
Certainly, but please note that I didn’t exactly say that we mustn’t do anything useful with what we learn. We can take our discoveries and do good things with that knowledge to make our lives richer. But doing so still needn’t be misconstrued as “important” in the sense in which I meant it earlier.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
@tacitus,
True, but it only takes one of them to alert all their friends — and then the quotemining beings.
“Alien hunter hasn’t found any intelligent signals and says we’re a miracle!”
Anyway, yeah, Shostak gave some great answers; and the interview was good stuff, overall.
[mereallylikes the new edit function]
May 20th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
A few weeks ago, I read an article concerning the origins of life, and how scientists have recently shown that it is easier than once thought, and may actually be a normal progression in the evolution of the Universe. For the life of me, I cannot find that specific article, however, I did find this one, from 2005, which is saying something similar.
http://www.physorg.com/news6513.html
BTW, just saw the interview, and thought it was great
May 21st, 2009 at 5:20 am
I think a lot of comments here debating the usefulness of SETI projects and their likelihood of success miss something important. The way SETI searches are conducted at present can also do other useful science simultaneously, such as searching for other exotic radio and microwave phenomena. It was noted in an earlier comment that the first detection of pulsars was thought to perhaps be an alien radio beacon. This kind of thing is found coincidentally all the time, and thanks to SETI@Home’s volunteers, it takes even fewer tax dollars to actually conduct these searches. SETI@Home’s current incarnation, Astropulse, looks for more than just signals from an intelligent ET.
As for the old Fermi’s Paradox that downplays the possibility of ETI due to ‘absence is evidence,’ I always have found it ironic that the very thing that makes light of assumption is itself based on potentially flawed notions. ‘If they existed, they would be here.’ Not quite. That would assume that the need to expand, explore and conquer is a universal trait of all intelligent life, and even on Earth, we know that isn’t true within the cultures that exist here. Not all tribes placed equal weight on these matters, and some became so isolated due to various circumstances that it was beyond their control. Perhaps their life cycle and total energy consumption is so long and small that they really don’t require exponential expansion. Perhaps curiosity isn’t part of their profile (though that would be bad for us, from a SETI standpoint).
May 21st, 2009 at 6:51 am
In case you missed the show or want to see it again, here’s the link
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/228301/may-20-2009/seth-shostak
May 21st, 2009 at 7:34 am
TEL,
You didn’t answer my question. You merely re-stated your position that something about Earth is unique in all the universe. I am asking you to tell me what it is.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:34 am
Tacitus, Michael L.
I was not being sarcastic or not listening. Tacitus really opened my eyes to other research being done in the seti institute. Calling the “contact” part a publicity stunt was some kind of compliment.
And I love science fiction.
As to the remaining discussion: I believe that that life in the universe is quite common, but maybe intelligent life is something a lot rarer, because if we managed to kill ourselves or our planet in a couple thousand years, civilization is but a quick spark in the grand scheme of things. And the possibility of two such sparks cohexisting at the same time, in close range might be very, very small..
But that is but a guess: to make it a science question I have to quantify it in every step that dr. Frank Drake once stated.
What’s the possibility of planets around other stars? the kepler telescope and search for exoplanets are working on it.
What’s the probability that a planet might contain elements that allows life to arise? Missions to mars and jupiter moons are working on that.
What’s the chances of life arising in those planets? We just had rna synthesis from simpler molecules observed in the laboratory..
How likely are simple life forms to evolve to multi cellular organisms? thousands of fossil diggers are looking into that and paleontologists.
How likely are they to form a civilization? Historians and sociologists can answer that.
How likely are we all to survive our own technology? Politicians, ecologists and the society as a whole is working to make that number as closer to 1.0 as possible.
We,the scientist body humanity as a whole, are looking on all the variables of that question.
The classical seti program went out to answer a simple question: Are they out there yet? Trasmiting signals? The answer is, after years, “unconclusive – probably not”. Are we done yet?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am
Hypatia says:
In case you missed the show or want to see it again, here’s the link
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/228301/may-20-2009/seth-shostak
Shostak doesn’t talk about search for dark matter, or trying to estimate the possibility of life in other planets. When Colbert asks he what he does he says: “we do like Jodie Foster did in ‘Contact’ we listen to radio signals and search for a signature of an artificial transmission”
Ok, maybe SETI is involved in other, more hypothesis-testing-results kind of research. But again, that’s not what they say they do. When he puts it like that it really seems like a waste of time and brains that wait patiently in the labs and analyze noise until the “one signal” comes.
That’s what I object – I am really the only one?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am
@alexandre van de sande
And I love science fiction.
Excellent. All is not lost then. It’s all about the sense of wonder.
Are we done yet?
As long as there are scientists with motivation, support and money I hope not because, really, what’s the harm?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
Daffy Said:
“You didn’t answer my question. You merely re-stated your position that something about Earth is unique in all the universe. I am asking you to tell me what it is.”
Daffy,
You’re imposing a mistaken interpretation onto my argument. I never claimed to know if Earth is unique. I think I’ve said this several times already.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:05 am
“You’re imposing a mistaken interpretation onto my argument. I never claimed to know if Earth is unique. I think I’ve said this several times already.”
Fair enough. I’ll re-phrase: Why do you think intelligent life arising on Earth does not indicate chances for the same thing happening elsewhere?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:33 am
Shane:
Don’t think I am not one of us. I have a very specific criticism to one specific experiment.
It’s all about the sense of wonder – have you seen the video of the Shuttle unlocking from hubble?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Daffy Said:
“Fair enough. I’ll re-phrase: Why do you think intelligent life arising on Earth does not indicate chances for the same thing happening elsewhere?”
I’ve already addressed that question. My take on it has been my whole theme in this conversation.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:45 am
alexandre van de sande,
Re shuttle hubble vid
So mundane and yet so extraordinary. One of my all time favourite “space” videos now.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:47 am
TEL: “I’ve already addressed that question. My take on it has been my whole theme in this conversation.”
Well, whatever you say. In the absence of any evidence for Earth being unique, as far as I can see intelligent life on Earth clearly indicates it is possible elsewhere. To assume otherwise requires facts not in evidence.
If such evidence turns up, I will, of course, revise my thinking. But I am not holding my breath.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:55 am
At first I thought that said “The Confessions of Allen Hunter” which I figured was a misspelling of Alan Hunter, who was the first VJ on MTV. It only took a nanosecond for my brain to realize that I was wrong, but for that brief nanosecond I was both perplexed and intrigued.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
Daffy Said:
“Well, whatever you say. In the absence of any evidence for Earth being unique, as far as I can see intelligent life on Earth clearly indicates it is possible elsewhere. To assume otherwise requires facts not in evidence.”
In probability there’s a world of difference between possible and probable. Even though it’s possible for me to win the Powerball jackpot, I’d be foolish to part with a dollar in exchange for a ticket, since my chances of winning are approximately zero with or without a ticket. The fact that someone did win says only that it’s possible to win. It absolutely doesn’t make winning very likely for any one ticket holder. If you sample a very large number of planets with conditions similar to those on Earth billions of years ago, abiogenesis is possible on each planet. It still may be extremely improbable. The probability could be so small that one would be foolish to spend time looking (assuming that one actually knows the likelihood; if one has not the slightest clue as to the likelihood, it then becomes an issue of how interested one is to study the problem and what surplus resources one has available for such a project).
Probabilities can be very interesting. In college physics classes students are sometimes given the problem of computing the probability of, for example, one’s head tunneling whole through a concrete wall. Even though such a thing is possible (i.e., it’s allowed by quantum mechanics), it turns out to be so improbable that one should not expect it at any time in the history of the Universe. We don’t know the probability of abiogeneis. It’s not unthinkable that it’s so unlikely that life anywhere in the known universe may be a statistical anomaly. Or it could be so inevitable as to make life cheap and disposable.