No, not really. The two areas developed independently, but are connected in our minds simply by virtue of the fact that they both have to to do with "space", which is enough of an abstract, human concept that it's entirely possible that an alien may not link those two concepts together at all, especially if their means of sensing is different than ours. Our way isn't the only way possible.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I made a number of mistakes here... the first was in assuming a modicum of familiarity with the topic on behalf of members. Surely you don't need a scenario spelled out.... I couldn't be bothered.

Interstellar travel might not be hard at all for a long-standing space faring species. It simply might be a matter of so many worlds... so little time.

Detecting us is not difficult (assuming a degree of interest and capability).

Again, and for the last time.... its a matter of probabilities.... the louder that you shout the more chance an aggressive species will hear you... this applies both in forests and in galaxies.

I am out of time and patience.... those who would like to continue with space opera scenarios please carry on....

You are the one who seems to lack familiarity, like how large space actually is, and how difficult it really is to cross. You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about an alien species' capability and actions. Interstellar travel being easy, and detecting civilizations a snap? "Wolves" prowling the dark spacelanes, ready to menace any sign of civilization? Those are definitely Space Opera concepts.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

And this is why I am out of patience...

I fully realise (as much as a human can....) how big it is... And how old it is. I know that it is unlikely for our technology to achieve interstellar travel in the next few hundred years... if ever. I have never said that detecting civilisations is a 'snap'. The 'wolves' word is an allegory. "Spacelanes'??? come on.... Finally..... The only assumption that _I_ am making is that it would be foolish to make assumptions about aliens.

I am slightly conversant with the Drake equation, SETI, the Fermi Paradox, current thinking on signal detection ranges, natural selection, extremophiles, exobiology and all the rest of the basic stuff that is behind my point. And yet I still consider myself largely ignorant on the matter....

Irrespective of all that... I would be surprised if anyone believes that any one group of astronomers has the right to do an experiment with all of earth in the potential firing line. (although now that I think about it.... some [insult deleted] here actually think they do....)

I am done here... I hope that at least one person.... (who is in a position to affect anything) might have had a seed of doubt placed in their mind by this. Maybe next time they hear folk glibly planning to speak for all of earth they might be moved to offer an alternate view.

Alternative views are heard all the time. But since we have no way of knowing how common life is, or how often it actually evolves into sapent life, and how often that sapient life survives long enough and has the inclination to build a technological civilization, and that we have no evidence that anything is near enough to us to be any danger, it's been judged to be not any greater a risk that anything else we do.

You aren't the first to think of these concerns; you aren't the first to present them to scientists. They've been thoroughly considered.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I think it is reasonable to be concerned about the issue at hand. Assumptions are made on both sides - and in all cases where there are unknowns, it is always best to err on the side of caution; all things being equal.

However, much of this depends upon opinion. Would it be safer to remain silent? One need not require the assumption of aliens being hostile to be true to recognize the simple logic of silence being safer, regardless. This is undeniable.

But, human beings have not progressed as they have by doing the safe thing. We cannot know what we might be passing up by being a quiet civilization. The one constant on both sides of this argument is that our presence would be detected by an advanced intelligence. For the sake of simplicity, we can reduce this to a very straightforward question, and approach this from another angle.

Let us say that through the SETI program, we detect undeniable evidence of intelligent life, in a system 1000 light years from ours. This detection is made in such a way that the nature or disposition of the civilization in question is unclear - we intercept television signals from this planet, and having watched episodes of the alien equivalents of both 7th Heaven and American Gladiators, we cannot determine if they are hostile or not.

Until this point in time, we have found no other evidence of intelligent life in the universe. We are, as far as we know, entirely alone. Having finally found someone else out there, and after years of observation, finding them to be much like us...do we contact them, or do we remain silent.

This is the choice we are faced with. We can never be assured of a lack of hostility on the part of anything we might find out there. Safety does come at a price. It may well be a decision that should be made at the highest level, and not by any single program or astronomer...but the decision remains.

For myself, I think it would be a damn shame to refuse that challenge, to reject that opportunity, to stick our heads in the sand and hope no-one notices us. It may well be that the reason we have not detected others as of yet is because this cautious attitude abounds in the universe...and if that is so, I can think of few things sadder.

God I hate to say it, but perhaps the phrase 'to boldly go' was more well thought out and more deeply considered than I'd ever imagined. It certainly seems to come down to that, when you examine what we will no doubt face, hopefully, someday.

Never mind about messages, which are single, short duration, highly directional beams; how about radar transmissions, which are more powerful and spread out in many directions? I live near a phased-array radar system which could be detected by Earth instruments thirty light years away. Are you suggesting we stop using that?
Are you in fact suggesting we stop defending ourselves?

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

This is like that bloody mafia movie..... 'Just when you think youse is out... they drag ya back in...'

Dear acum45... please use the search facility and look for the word radar.

Having half-said that.... yes I know they are powerful and frequent... I know they are necessary for defence... I would love to see us all disarm back to wet celery sticks but I am fairly certain that wont happen. So... what you cannot control... is out of your control. It doesn't mean that you should not try and avoid making matters worse.

Dear anthrage, I agree with you. But please note that under your scenario we would have more information than we have now... (even if confusing and conflicting).... again something that I advocate.

I am really off this time.......

The point I was trying to make was that it will never be possible to be sure. Having more information does not change that. Regardless of what information you have, you will eventually have to make a decision - and the risk is exactly the same in an information rich scenario as in an information poor one. The risk does not change.

At some point, you have to decide. What will your decision be based on? What qualities must a civilization have for you to choose to communicate with them?

Um... I think you have a good handle on the issues... but I must respectfully disagree... The risk analysis could be vastly different in an information rich scenario than a poor one. In some scenarios where you _do_ have information it could be very clear that saying hello would be a bad idea. Say for instance if you see the equivalent of video footage of their last three civilisation sackings....

Again... that is not really the point... at this moment in time... with no information at all... we would be unwise to sing out loud. Later we may have to face the issue that you refer to... and I understand your point that it may be difficult to know what is the best course of action. But that is not now. Pre-empting the decision by shouting is not a good policy.

What would want to make me say hello?... Simple... if it seems that there is a fair chance that they wont immediately attack I would vote for communication.

[NB: for the literal minded nit pickers out there.... the words 'immediately' and 'communication' are to be taken in the context of special relativity and galactic distances... not your irc chat session....]

There is a difference between 'risk' and 'danger' - the latter is what makes the former questionable. The danger level may be variable, but the risk is always the same.

That, I think, is the point. Whether we shout or not, the reason for not shouting is your danger assessment. As you yourself say, if there is a 'fair chance' they will not immediately attack, you would communicate. In my opinion, there is no difference between you making that determination then based on a fair chance, and those doing the shouting now making their decison on the same basis...that there is a fair chance they would not (immediately) attack; for the reasons previously mentioned in this thread.

The risk is the same. The decision - made now or then - is the same. Again I understand all you are saying, but I think you are overlooking the simple fact I have illustrated above. You just cannot escape the risk.

Without making a long post, my stance is...

the possibility that they may have large teeth to shred us with is enough for me to say lets be quiet.

My point is I don't want us to become extinct.

__________________
_
Show me the money
_

Oh WalrusLike, I think it's just that not many here take you or your concerns very seriously.

Not true. I take his concern seriously, I just think it's misplaced. Being that there's no evidence of any civilization whatsoever, hostile, friendly, or neutral, anywhere within listening range.

At the very least, the total destruction of a civilization would make some noise, wouldn't you think?

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

The human animal is not very good at understanding probability... or risk. It rarely behaves rationally in the face of risk assessments.

Some folk are too afraid to swim out a ways into the ocean because they fear a shark attack. They are happy to _drive_ to the beach... and then _sunbake_. But they definitely prefer to stay in the shallow water... where its safe.

Most shark attacks happen in shallow water, they are at phenomenally small risk of ever being involved in any attack, the drive to the beach was much more risky..... and the sunbaking is straight out asking for it.... cancer I mean. (btw: I do swim, don't wear sunscreen, drive whenever I want to...)

The risk of shouting that I refer to is unknown... its likely small... but maybe not... and if ever realised then it could be the end of everything for us.

Now I am as bad as the next bloke at ignoring facts and doing dumb things... (like trying to convince you for instance... ) But I reckon that if we ask for a show of hands... those of us here that know how many stars there are, that know of the last decades' changes in perceptions of the goldilocks zone, that understand predation and selection pressures, that understand the enormous lengths of time that this old galaxy has been wheeling around, that are aware of the increasing number of indications of planetary systems, that are aware of the pitifully small zone of search in bandwidth and distance that Seti has so far achieved, that know how little the distance we are visible from so far.... if we ask those folk: "Who here thinks that they are alone... and always have been... and always will be, in the universe?" I reckon few will put their hand up.

Most of us think that there is a chance, at least, that we are not alone. At that point we seem to get all warm and fuzzy and turn off all critical thinking and rationality. (the argument of concurrency of sentience is perhaps germane... but no one knows)

To all those [insult deleted] who say... its no big deal... its not much of a risk... you are worrying about nothing... we are too far away in distance and in time.... I say: Yep you are likely right.

But that doesn't change the fact that a potentially risky behaviour is occasionally being undertaken without consent and without any weight being given to the potential downside.

It has been at least partially acknowledged, by a few so far, that my three points are basic and unassailable... and all the glib 'don't worry about it' statements still don't give anyone the right to shout out to the universe from the same rock that my family (and their descendants) inhabit.

Btw a civilisation could easily go out with a whimper ... not a bang. Haven't any of you folks read _any_ science fiction?? Only the space pirate kind?

Every thing that I have said is self evident... and I will be bombastic enough to say that if you don't accept it then you are not thinking straight. (and some clearly cant...)

Mate I reckon that we are just arguing semantics here... risk/danger... call it what you will. The _fact_ remains that it is always best to know something about a situation before you jump in.

So if you ask me... (and I realise that few are... ), I would say... make the decision later... when more facts are in.

Even just allowing the seti search more time gives you an additional bit of information.... you have reduced the likelihood of there being many species available... for good _or_ ill. And if only one in a hundred species is truly dangerous then I would rather know that there are not too many around in our neighbourhood before piping up.