Knocking on the Stars: The Philosophical Implications

of the Search for Extraterrestrial Life

Danielle Mortensen
November 2021

Abstract
As Carl Sagan puts it- “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not.
Both are equally terrifying.” But what is more than this is the undeniable human desire to know which
possibility is a reality. The search for intelligent extraterrestrial life has existed for thousands of years in
thought, literature, and now reality, but we often don’t consider the question: Should we be searching for
intelligent extraterrestrial life? This paper will propose several reasons why humanity is not prepared
to encounter intelligent extraterrestrials and suggest that the conditions for preparedness are advanced
technology and world peace. Once these are attained, the search for intelligence off-Earth becomes a
matter which humanity is fit to face. In contemplating these scenarios and arguments, we also suggest
that science and philosophy go hand-in-hand and require each other for the growth and betterment of
humanity.

1 Introduction
Perhaps one of the greatest existential thoughts is that age old question- Are we alone in the Universe?
The complexities and curiosities of human nature lead us to ponder this question and inevitably search for
other life with a passionate need to know the answer. But at the same time, should we find that there
is intelligent life beyond us, this matter alone will change the course of human philosophy, history, ethics,
religion, astronomy, biology, chemistry, technology, and arguably every other aspect of our lives and how we
understand ourselves [Dominik and Zarnecki(2011)].
So far, the search for life seems promising, even within our own Solar System. Scientists have determined
that the best places for finding life in the near neighborhood (excluding extraterrestrial intelligence) are on
Mars, Europa, Enceladus, and Titan [Dominik and Zarnecki(2011)]. And although astronomers, physicists,
and biochemists are optimistic about finding life beyond Earth, there are some, generally evolutionists, who
assert that life is a “once in a Universe” kind of occurrence [Sri Kantha(1996)]. Statistically, however, it
would seem that life probably exists off-Earth. From current research around exoplanets, of which we have
found 4,516 as of September 2021 [Archive(2021)], it is probable that most stars have a planetary system.
If there are billions of other galaxies, containing billions of stars each, containing several planets each, then
it is unlikely, given the numbers, that Earth is the only place harboring life in the Universe [Bilder(2020)].
There are certain characteristics of exoplanets which we take to be supportive of the formation and
sustainability of life. These characteristics include a relatively circular orbit, a stable star, long-term (sev-
eral billions of years) stability in the stellar system, presence of gases such as CH4 , N H3 , N2 O, and CS2
[Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution(1990)], the presence of liquid water, at least a
little starlight, and the presence of carbon [McKay(2014)]. Circular orbits would allow for consistent tem-
peratures on the exoplanet and a stable star would prevent evolving life from being wiped out by stellar
activity such as coronal mass ejections and flares. Long-term stability in the stellar system would ensure
that the exoplanet isn’t kicked out of its system or undergoing drastic changes which could also destroy life
on the planet. The presence of certain molecules like H2 O are important because water is a universal solvent
which aids in life processes on Earth, and elements like carbon have a large and strong structure which is
also ideal for life. Between all of these conditions, the search for extraterrestrial life can be narrowed to
stellar systems which have formed under these circumstances.

1
 A study involving alien life would not be complete without mention of the two most famous concepts of
this topic- the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. Fermi’s Paradox boils down to the question- If there
are so many alien life forms, then why don’t we see them? [Prantzos(2015)]. According to this theory, odds
are that intelligent alien civilizations are millions, if not billions of years, more advanced than ourselves,
who only showed up around 200,000 years ago [Bilder(2020)]. So this poses a good point: where are they?
Technology millions or billions of years more advanced should, theoretically, have given other civilizations
the opportunity of finding and communicating with us. There are possible addresses to Fermi’s Paradox that
would explain why we have not yet uncovered the presence of extraterrestrial life, such as the consideration
that advanced civilizations and technology are not necessarily synonymous concepts [Lamb(2001)].
The Drake Equation [Drake(1961)] estimates the number of extraterrestrial civilizations N that may have
the ability to communicate with us. In its original form, the equation is as follows:

N = R∗ fp ne f1 fi fc L
Where

R∗ = The rate of formation of stars suitable to harboring life in the Galaxy

fp = The fraction of R∗ with planetary systems
ne = The number of planets per such a system
fl = The fraction of fp where life could develop
fi = The fraction of fl where intelligent life could develop
fc = The fraction of fi where such intelligent life would develop communication technology
L = The time span over which such a communication signal would be sent

While the estimated values for each of these parameters varies, the formulation itself is not generally chal-
lenged. Scientists have realistic numbers, from observation, on the first few parameters, R∗ , fp , and ne . To-
gether, R∗ ·fp ·ne ≈ 0.1, [Tsumura(2020)], but the rest of the parameters can only be estimated. Many sugges-
tions have been made to estimate N ; Drake himself believes N = 10, 000 [Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu(2018)],
but the range varies by opinion. Attempts to estimate the remaining unknown parameters are difficult be-
cause the only reference that scientists have to calculate these is humanity, as Earth is the only location of
confirmed life.
The Drake Equation accounts for fc , or what fraction of intelligent life forms would be able to create the
technology reserved for communication with other intelligent civilizations, but how to communicate is also
up for debate. There are three general forms of possible communication in this case [Sri Kantha(1996)]: (a)
We observe the presence of organic matter; (b) We send out a signal which other life intercepts; (c) We send
physical instruments and/or humans to initiate contact. It is much more likely that (a) or (b) happen before
(c) ever does, and this is mainly due to our current technological limitations in terms of travel speed. We
cannot yet travel at a significant enough fraction of the speed of light to make an interstellar mission with
humans aboard plausible [Sri Kantha(1996)]. So, generally, our only means of communication right now is
the fastest thing in the Universe, light. However, options for channels of communication include the entire
electromagnetic spectrum. So in the search for other life, we need to decide on a ”Universal” communication
frequency.
This topic has been subject to a fair amount of debate, but it has generally been concluded that the
extraterrestrial search should be conducted in the 21 cm wavelength. This specific wavelength was chosen
because it is not as easily scattered by interstellar material as smaller wavelengths and because it comes
from the most abundant element in the Universe, hydrogen. When a neutral hydrogen atom’s electron
moves from its excited state to the ground state, it results in a 21 cm wavelength photon [Liu(2008)]. Due
to the commonality of this particular wavelength in the Universe, it is assumed that other intelligent life
will come to the same conclusions and also tune their instruments to 21 cm. Arguments have been made to
broaden the search to include the H2 O resonance at 1.35 cm and most microwave signals in general. While
these are good starting points in searching for extraterrestrial signals, there is no guarantee that alien life
would bother to send signals in a particular wavelength, if at all [Townes(1983)].
On a more open-ended side of this topic, the presence of Science Fiction in popular literature is highly in-
fluential on our ideas surrounding advancements in technology and our overall drive for discovery [Bassett(2013)].
Favorable TV shows, movies, and books such as Star Trek, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Star Wars,

2
Contact, War of the Worlds, and so many more have undoubtedly shaped human perceptions of extrater-
restrial life. Speculations about how humanity will react to alien life and, further still, how alien life may be
incorporated into our own lives have ranged from catastrophic to rather enlightening in these science fiction
stories. Starting in the 20th century, science fiction has become much more based on science truth which
makes it a valuable resource for innovative ideas come to life and understanding how humanity will react to
such a discovery as extraterrestrial life [Menadue and Cheer(2017)]. It has even been suggested that science
fiction bridges the gap between the sciences and the humanities [Schwartz(1971)]. Writers of science fiction
have allowed us to view the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries in benign thought experiments
rather than actually living them out. In this way, science fiction is key in explaining that science benefits
from philosophy and that philosophy advances due to science.

2 The Question
With the possibility of encountering extraterrestrial life at any moment, we are left with the choice of actively
seeking it out or not. This poses the question- Should we be searching for extraterrestrial life? It is generally
understood that finding extraterrestrial life would have a profound impact on humanity as we know it,
therefore it is quite the important question to ask. And more importantly, is it even possible for humanity
to agree on an answer? This paper will argue the point that we are not scientifically or philosophically
prepared to encounter intelligent extraterrestrial life, and therefore we should postpone our search until
certain conditions of preparedness are met.
Before we can formulate an argument on the subject, it is vital that we come to a consensus on certain
key definitions of “life”, “intelligence”, “non-intelligence”, “First Contact”, and “communication”:
Though the topic of life is undeniably complex, and we have not been able to find an all-encompassing
definition, for the purposes of this paper, we will consider life in the more common Darwinian sense. Life
is that which evolves through the process of amplification, mutation, and selection. Amplification involves
the genetic replication of a prototype, mutation involves a variation in amplification, and selection involves
choosing among these genetic replications for a new prototype [Joyce(1995)]. In layman terms, an organism
has a genetic mutation which perhaps increases its survivability, and natural selection takes place until this
mutation is adopted by the whole species. There are notable issues with this Darwinian definition of life,
as explained by Joyce, however, it does pose the most straightforward and widely accepted description.
It is noted, and later discussed, that by limiting life to this definition, we are creating assumptions on
what extraterrestrial life might look like. But, it is important to understand that science, as we generally
understand it, has a rather determined view on what it means to be “alive”.
A definition of “intelligence” is also quite difficult. The only beings that we can surely count in this
category are us, humans. But the question of intelligence becomes more convoluted when we consider
octopi, apes, dolphins, and other rather brainy animals. Do they fall under the definition of intelligence?
We will consider an Aristotelian-inspired definition of intelligence: the ability to comprehend one’s own
mortality. According to some, death cannot be taught [Yun(2011)], therefore, it is a development which
arises from self-awareness and therefore can be taken as a mark of intelligence. But, how do we explain
this self-awareness and reasoning? Aristotle explains in his De Anima that there are three parts to the
soul, the nutritive (plant) soul, the sensible (animal) soul, and the rational (human) soul. Nutritive souls
include the basics of life such as reproduction, growth, and metabolism. Sensible souls begin to involve
emotions, senses, and desires. Finally rational souls involve the abilities of thought and reason- the highest
of the three [Aristotle(2016)]. But instead of spending too much time on the concept of the soul, we will
just use it to limit the definition of intelligence to this ability of “rational thought”, and therefore allow
for comprehension of one’s own mortality. Humans, we shall say, are the only creatures on Earth under
this category of intelligence. Although this cannot be proven, it narrows the idea of intelligent life when
considering extraterrestrials. Additionally, from here we can suss out a definition of non-intelligence being
any life which does not fall under the category of intelligence.
The term “First Contact”, was initially made popular in the context of extraterrestrials by Murray Lein-
ster’s 1945 Science Fiction book, First Contact [Brown(2018)]. It is used to refer to the initial communication
between humanity and extraterrestrial life. However, for the purposes of this paper, “First Contact” will
specifically refer to initial communication from intelligent extraterrestrial life to humanity. This might in-

3
clude radio messages, physical presence on Earth, or physical presence on other Earth-explored bodies. This
would not include the physical discovery of evidence of an extinct alien civilization (with the exception of
radio messages from a civilization which may have gone extinct since sending), Earth messages intercepted by
alien civilizations, or discovery of non-intelligent extraterrestrial life. Essentially, if intelligent extraterrestrial
life is made known to us somehow, then this is “First Contact”.
By exploring “communication” as well as “First Contact”, we can be sure to specify the situation even
further. Communication has to do with intent, and by considering communication to include non-intended
messages to Earth or from Earth, we complicate matters even further. The movie Galaxy Quest provides
the perfect example for intended communication. In this movie, intelligent extraterrestrials view “signals”
from Earth which are airings of a space science fiction TV show, not unlike Star Trek, and the aliens
assume these airings to be historical records of Earth. The cast of this TV show is visited by the intelligent
extraterrestrials who want assistance in fighting an intergalactic war of sorts, but the actors seem to have no
means of actually helping them. Communication, in this instance was intended for Earthly entertainment,
but it was misinterpreted as a historical record. This led to massive confusion and toil for both parties and
emphasizes the importance of intent in communication.
Now that these important terms have been defined, we come to the topic of “preparedness”. Though we
will be arguing that humanity is not prepared for First Contact, it is vital that we consider the conditions
for preparedness. What would make us ready for First Contact? As the following sections will show, the two
primary conditions of preparedness are world peace and advanced technology. World peace would allow us
to ethically enter into a new age of civilization where interactions with intelligent extraterrestrials becomes
a matter of pure intent instead of being influenced by power and control. Advanced technology is also a
condition because of our current limited resources and knowledge. By searching for intelligent extraterrestrial
life before we have precise means of doing so, we are creating a rapidly deteriorating timeline by which we
limit humanity through the focus of resources on non-essential projects.

3 The Argument
3.1 SETI & The Distribution of Resources
The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been at the forefront of extraterrestrial research since
its beginning in 1984, and it is currently entirely funded by donations. But is this really the best investment
for our money at the moment? Compare this to recent donations made to Notre Dame. According to some
sources, between $835 million and $1 billion US dollars have been donated to the repair of Notre Dame
after the infamous fire in 2019, and there has been some major backlash on the subject [Noack(2019)]. Also
according to Noack, the actual cost of restoring Notre Dame would only be around $330 million to $670
million US dollars, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in excess which could have been donated to feed
the hungry children of the world or clean up trash in the oceans or helping war refugees find safety. The
question of morality becomes prominent as all this money instead goes toward restoring a building. In the
same way, many millions of dollars go to SETI research programs to search for extraterrestrial life when
there are still such prominent world issues which could be addressed with this money [SETI Institute(2021)].
Just from a practical perspective, would this money not have far more return for the human race if it were
put into more pressing issues than the search for alien life?
Assuming that most people would answer “yes” to this, the question now becomes- Why do we spend
so much time, money, and resources on projects like SETI? For one thing, the idea is “sexy”. Led by our
perceptions of intelligent alien life by sources like science fiction, it is probable that many believe a topic so
mysterious and fascinating as space travel and communication is far more intriguing to put money into than
something as mundane as cleaning plastic from our oceans. In addition to this, actually finding intelligent
extraterrestrials might allow for the possibility of learning more, traveling more, and solving many problems
which face us now. In this way, SETI is a beam of hope for humanity and therefore attracts the attention
of donors. It is easy to throw money into something which is not concrete and proposes endless possibilities
rather than current problems that face the Earth and seem impossible to fix. In a sense, many people have
given up on the idea of saving the Earth and have turned to the alternative of space as an end-all solution
to our problems. But the reality is that Earth is all we have right now, and instead of turning to the

4
uncertainties that come with projects like SETI, we may find ourselves needing the certainties of projects
like cleaning the ocean to survive.
This is not to say that we should never invest in searching for intelligent alien life, but let us consider
the fact that our current technology is nowhere near advanced enough to search for every kind of life, in
every kind of way, and in every direction of the Universe. SETI bases their search on many assumptions,
meaning it’s possible that they are spending all this donated money searching in the wrong places because
the technology does not yet exist for us to address our assumptions. This will be further discussed in the
following sections.
Also important to consider is the fact that by finding intelligent extraterrestrial life, we may further limit
our resources by creating a higher demand and distribution of them. This is very similar to the plot of Dune
(1965), an extremely popular science fiction novel by Frank Herbert. In this book, advanced civilizations
require the resource of “spice”, naturally occurring on the planet Arrakis, and oppress the lives of natives to
this planet in their attempt to control this resource. Suppose that intelligent alien life contacts us and we
learn that they also require fresh water. If they, themselves, do not have any at their disposal, now, instead
of a few billion people fighting over clean water sources, it is 10s of billions, 100s of billions, or even trillions
of individuals who need this limited resource. Depending on the circumstances, the human race could end
up like the natives of Arrakis, oppressed and much worse off than if these extraterrestrials had never come
at all. Perhaps advanced technology will allow not only for increasing our current set of accessible resources,
but also for a more ethical distribution of the resources we have. Sticking to our example of clean water,
maybe we should make sure that all of humanity is getting the clean water they need before opening Earth’s
resources up to other potentially water-loving alien civilizations.
It is possible that by discovering and initiating contact with intelligent extraterrestrials, we may gain
access to additional resources. Perhaps these water-loving aliens have a whole planet of clean, fresh water
which they are willing to give us access to. While this would be excessively helpful to humanity, it is only a
best-case scenario. Between the two extreme possibilities, it is preferable to avoid causing harm to humanity
altogether (by postponing First Contact insomuch as we can) than it is to take the chance that resources
(with no caveats) would be gained through extraterrestrial interactions.

3.2 Our Assumptions

The Drake Equation, while helpful for estimating the number of intelligent, social alien civilizations in our
Galaxy, is full of assumptions when actually calculating the value of N. SETI and other organizations with
the focus of searching for extraterrestrial life also make plenty of assumptions which affect their search.
These include, but are not limited to topics of intelligence, communication, extraterrestrial travel, and life
itself.
SETI, in particular, tends to narrow their definition of intelligence. For a large portion of their re-
search, intelligent life seems to be any being with the ability to communicate via electromagnetic waves
[Dunér(2017)]. They do not necessarily account for the possibility of non-social or non-technological intelli-
gent civilizations. They are looking for intelligence as it is synonymous with technological advancements in
communication. Perhaps the pinnacle of enlightenment and philosophical knowledge of advanced intelligent
civilizations has been found by renouncing technology. This is not so outrageous an idea- that a civilization,
perhaps millions of years older than us, has found meaning in life through the abandonment of technology.
On the other hand, perhaps these alien civilizations are so advanced that while we are at the age where
using light as communication seems like the best possible method, they may have developed technology
which allows them other means of communication. There is no reason to believe that light is the best
way of sending messages for other civilizations. In fact, there’s no reason to believe that other intelligent
civilizations are sending signals at all! Generally, we have adopted a listening strategy when it comes to
the search for extraterrestrial life; we listen for extraterrestrials trying to contact us. While there have been
some instances where we have sent radio messages into space in an attempt to contact extraterrestrials, this
is by far the less practiced of the two. Who’s to say that intelligent extraterrestrials aren’t doing the same?
Perhaps they are purposely staying silent and listening for everyone else. Any of these instances would have
an impact on the fc variable of the Drake Equation. Perhaps these civilizations are technologically advanced
enough to have communications technology but don’t use it to announce their presence to the rest of the
Universe.

5
 Also regarding communication, there are issues with what form communication from extraterrestrial
beings may come in. We have learned that most of these searches are conducted in the 21 cm wavelength of
electromagnetic waves. But, how can we know intelligent extraterrestrials will come to the same conclusions
that we have and use the 21 cm wavelength? How can we assume that they will use light as a means of
communication at all? Suppose that these extraterrestrials did use light to communicate, even then, it
would not be realistic to search everywhere in the Universe at every single wavelength in order to find them.
Perhaps we will create technology in the future which is capable of doing so, but until this technology has
been developed, the range of possibilities for means of communication is just too large for us to cover.
Another assumption made when calculating N from the Drake Equation is the assumption that intelligent
life is staying in one place- the same place where it originated. Travel to other planets, moons, and even
stellar systems would have a large impact on the fl variable. Intelligent life could be rare but easily spread
and multiply much farther than its point of creation. And if this is the case, planets and moons which we
didn’t think would be able to hold life actually would [SETI Institute(2021)]. On the same note, we also
assume that intelligent life is limited to planets in stellar systems. This is based on our own ideas of the
necessities of life, namely water and energy, like Earth life needs. But this, by no means, indicates that
extraterrestrial life works the same way.
Finally, there are also assumptions in terms of life itself. What does life look like? What signs indicate
life? What is life made of? Early on, we came to the conclusion that life is Darwinian in nature. But this
is the ultimate assumption when it comes to extraterrestrial life! We cannot even create a good definition
of life based on “living” organisms on Earth, so how can we expect to define life in terms of extraterrestrial
organisms? What counts as living? Right now, those who are searching for extraterrestrial life are searching
for “signs of life”. We’ve also discussed the different exoplanet conditions which are considered “potentially
habitable” for intelligent extraterrestrials. These include things like a strong magnetic field, a relatively old
star, the presence of water, etc... Because we consider these to be indications of the possibility of life, these
conditions are what we search for when we search for extraterrestrial life. Needless to say, there is no reason
to believe that life requires these conditions at all. Of course, we require these conditions, but Earth alone is
hardly a full set of data in this matter. With infinite possibilities on what life may be like, it is presumptuous
to assume that we are standard forms of life.

3.3 First Contact Protocol

There have been a few attempts at creating a series of steps for First Contact, such as the SETI post-
detection protocol, approved by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) in 1989. However, no
protocol is legally enforceable to the nations of the world, making First Contact a big question mark in
terms of what would happen [Dominik and Zarnecki(2011)]. If no protocol is binding for the whole world,
then First Contact becomes a situation where things could go horribly wrong. Say, for example, that an
individual tries to convince intelligent extraterrestrials to wage war on the rest of the world. This is a rather
outlandish tale but still in the realm of possibility. There seem to be no laws against this person doing
so, but it could potentially cause great havoc to the rest of the world. When it comes to the unknown of
extraterrestrial life, anything we can imagine is possible, even to the far reaches of Science Fiction. It is
understandable that these limitless possibilities make coming up with a plan immensely difficult, however it
will prove incredibly useful for if/when First Contact happens.
Laws surrounding international space have generally been debated and poorly regulated since the space
age began in the mid 1900s. In fact, the latest news is that Russia tested an anti-satellite, or ASAT, missile
on November 15, 2021. By destroying one of their own satellites, they created 1,500+ pieces of debris in
Low Earth Orbit (LEO), which is heavily utilized internationally by both commercial and private sectors
[U.S. Space Command(2021)]. Despite their detailed laws, it is still difficult to enforce rules and regulations
about international space in a global fashion. Russia’s ASAT test is just one example of how difficult it is
to get the world to agree upon space protocol, and the topic of extraterrestrials would likely become just as
chaotic.
The point here is that before searching for intelligent extraterrestrials, it would be helpful to have an idea
about what to do once First Contact occurs. This would require the nations of the world working together
to create a plan of action which everyone will agree to and follow. The protocol would prevent unnecessary
misunderstandings and provocations like the Russian ASAT test. But before we can even get to agreeing

6
upon a First Contact protocol, we have to figure out our own space laws and regulations! U.S. Army General
James Dickinson commented that “Russia has demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the security, safety,
stability, and long-term sustainability of the space domain for all nations,” [U.S. Space Command(2021)].
Clearly, this is the case for this specific instance, but many nations are guilty of the same kinds of space-
related misdemeanors for the sake of expressing power. If we, as humanity, are not able to come to an
agreement on use of our own local space, how will we handle First Contact? Poorly, I would argue. So,
is there really benefit right now to pushing the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life? We haven’t even
handled issues and discrepancies amongst ourselves.

3.4 World Peace

World peace, which we’ve said is a condition for preparedness in the search for extraterrestrial life, naturally
becomes a reasonable solution. If world peace had been attained already, then Russia probably would
not have felt the need to demonstrate their anti-satellite technology, and the world would not be in this
conundrum about all of the extra debris polluting LEO. Maybe if world peace were the case, we could get
on with discussing options for First Contact protocol. One could make a plethora of arguments about what
world peace means, but for the purposes of this argument, we are projecting large-scale; peace simply means
cooperation and collaboration between nations and internal to nations without animosity and with the intent
of benefiting humanity instead of gaining power and control. If this is the case, there is no need to keep
weapons of mass destruction because there is no rivalry between these groups of people. This is a very lofty
goal for us, and there is no avoiding the question: could we even attain world peace in this way? Assuming
the ambitious answer, “yes”, it follows that humanity would then be in an acceptable position to encounter
intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Consider the Space Race. This crucial moment in the development of human history was brought about
by warring nations. The U.S. and Russia found themselves in a competition for who could get to space
first (Russia) and then who could get to the Moon first (the U.S.). One might easily argue that the conflict
between these adversaries actually inspired scientific and technological advancements, but how often do
we look at the costs of the Space Race, the risks that we took, and the unethical corners cut in order to
“win”? James Donovan, author of the book Shoot for the Moon: The Space Race and the Extraordinary
Voyage of Apollo 11 summed the consequences best- “Rockets exploded. Systems malfunctioned. Men died,”
[Donovan(2020)]. At the cost of lives, Russia and the U.S. continued to push for beating the other to space
and to the Moon. And what was this for? It was not with the purpose of technological advancements and
growth of humanity but with the purpose of expressing power, control, and superiority. This being said, it
is not just warring nations who cause chaos and tragedy- it is also toxic competition between nations which
leads to humanity’s detriment.
When turning this argument to address intelligent extraterrestrial life, it is rather simple: we should be
held morally responsible for what values we put out into the Universe and pass on to alien civilizations.
If we are not held responsible, then what is to stop us from destroying, even accidentally, other intelligent
extraterrestrial civilizations? For example, suppose we happen upon a slightly less advanced alien civilization
and teach them how to make nuclear weapons, and they then proceed to destroy themselves because they
learned the concept of war and destruction from us. Would we not, then, need to take responsibility for the
war and death we’ve caused?
If this is still unconvincing, suppose it is we who are the war-ignorant civilization and nuclear weaponry
is only the tip of the iceberg for a newly contacted alien civilization which has not attained world peace. Not
only is there a chance that we gain knowledge of their weapons technology and end up destroying ourselves,
but it is also possible that relations with the alien civilization become unstable. Instead of inspiring curiosity
and making efforts to advance science and understand ourselves better, we might get caught in an alien
civil war. Being a neutral party is one thing, but when they have impossibly advanced weapons technology,
we may need to choose a side or become an unwilling enemy. This seems like a horrible situation for us
to be in. Aliens who have not attained peace for themselves may bring about destruction, death, and
morally complex situations from which we have no escape. Would anyone want this from First Contact
with intelligent extraterrestrials? I would think it difficult to argue for such a situation. Therefore, is it not
morally irresponsible for us to, even inadvertently, create this situation for other civilizations?
Overall, we struggle with taking responsibility for the pain and destruction we’ve caused each other, so

7
introducing another intelligent species into the mix would just complicate things further. It is imperative
then, that we learn how to propagate peace throughout the world before making efforts toward First Contact.
Peace, though likely far from our reach at the moment, is our only means of going into First Contact with a
clear conscious and pure intent. The search for extraterrestrial life is fuelled right now by human curiosity,
and it would be a terrible thing to destroy that intent with so petty a thing as war.

4 Conclusion
Now, we can finally put everything together by addressing the question: Why shouldn’t we be searching for
intelligent extraterrestrial life? This can only be answered with more questions which are ultimately up to
you to decide:

• Is the search for extraterrestrial intelligence important enough to prioritize along with other pressing
needs of humanity?
• Are we willing and prepared to share our resources with extraterrestrials, should the need arise?
• Have we taken the time to address our assumptions about extraterrestrial life?

• Do we have the right to define what it means to be alive?

• Is it reasonable to believe that extraterrestrial life would be similar to us?
• Would humanity be able to agree upon a response to First Contact?

• Is our intent with initiating First Contact completely isolated from a desire for power and control?
• Are we prepared to take responsibility for our impact on less-advanced alien civilizations?
• Are we prepared to defend ourselves against possibly hostile alien civilizations?
• Are we willing to deny advanced weapons systems from alien civilizations in the interest of world peace?

If the answer to most of these questions is “no”, then perhaps it is worth rethinking our relentless search
for intelligent extraterrestrials because we are not prepared for them. By advancing technologically and
acquiring world peace, we believe that the answers to these questions would slowly and surely turn to “yes”.
And once they do, the world will be in a much more prepared state to address the search for intelligent
extraterrestrial life.
From here, we could also ask- Why do we have this need to know in the first place? and What drives
this human curiosity? This is interestingly explained as the “Mount Everest Effect”. In 1924, George
Mallory was asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, and he replied simply, “Because it’s there”
[van Dijk and Zeelenberg(2007)]. So, while we have no good answer to the questions “Why do we need to
know?” and “What drives human curiosity?”, there is no doubt that we push the limits of humanity because
we can. George Mallory, in answering this question, probably wasn’t considering the dangers of climbing
Mount Everest or the societal impacts it would have. Instead, he was driven by the same curiosity that every
human shares- the need to know the unknown. What is not generally known about George Mallory is that,
tragically, he died on this expedition. This is not to say that “curiosity killed the cat”, but perhaps the cat
should take more precautions. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. This is the lesson learned here.
The unknowns of intelligent extraterrestrial life are more than enticing, but they also pose major threats
to us, should we be unprepared for this encounter. The achievements of world peace and advanced technol-
ogy are not only indications of growth as humanity, but they also allow us to patiently, slowly, and safely
move forward in our exploration of the Universe. It would seem that on the topic of searching for intelligent
extraterrestrial life, scientists have been rather dismissive of the surrounding philosophy and ethics. But, sci-
ence needs philosophy for guidance and philosophy needs science to enact on the brilliance of the human mind.

Science without philosophy is blind, and philosophy without science is empty.

8
5 Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the following:

Dr. Andrej Prša for his guidance of this research as a whole, his assistance in finding sources and ideas
prevalent to this issue, and his scientific expertise to add to this topic.

Dr. Lisa Dolling for her inspiration of thought experiments, encouragement of ideas, and writing guidance.

Dr. John Carvalho for his advice on structure, philosophical perspective, and expansion of key concepts.

The Villanova University Astrophysics/Planetary Science Department and Philosophy Department for
their support and instruction throughout this research.

And the following individuals for their scientific and philosophical conversations and input, without which
I would not have been able to write this paper:

Danny Jensen, Caleb Kwon, Dr. Edward Guinan, Arianna Imperiali, Thinh Nyguen, Conor Larsen,
Grace Chiodo, Kevin Moposita, Catherine Petretti, Glenn Mortensen, Susan Mortensen, James Mortensen,
Jenna Poland, Dr. David Tomlinson, Dr. Julie Klein, Tommy McGlone, and Ben Palmer.

9
References
[Dominik and Zarnecki(2011)] M. Dominik and J. Zarnecki, “The detection of extra-terrestrial life and the
consequences for science and society,” Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, vol. 369, pp.
499–507, 2011.
[Sri Kantha(1996)] S. Sri Kantha, “Pros and cons in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence,” Medical
Hypotheses, vol. 46, pp. 183–187, 1996.
[Archive(2021)] N. E. Archive, “Records,” 2021.
[Bilder(2020)] R. Bilder, “Editorial comment: On the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (seti),” The
American Society of International Law, vol. 391, pp. 369–377, 2020.
[Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution(1990)] N. R. C. U. Committee on Planetary
Biology and Chemical Evolution, “Search for life outside the solar system,” Jan 1990. [Online].
Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235417/
[McKay(2014)] C. P. McKay, “Requirements and limits for life in the context of exoplanets,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 111, no. 35, pp. 12 628–12 633, 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/35/12628
[Prantzos(2015)] N. Prantzos, “A probabilistic analysis of the fermi paradox in terms of the drake formula:
The role of the l factor,” MNRAS, vol. 00, pp. 1–9, 2015.
[Lamb(2001)] D. Lamb, The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Routledge, 2001.
[Drake(1961)] F. Drake, “Project ozma,” Physics Today, 1961.
[Tsumura(2020)] K. Tsumura, “Estimating survival probability using the terrestrial extinction history for
the search for extraterrestrial life,” Scientific Reports, 2020.
[Haqq-Misra and Kopparapu(2018)] J. Haqq-Misra and R. K. Kopparapu, “The drake equation as a
function of spectral type and time,” Habitability of the Universe Before Earth, p. 307–319, 2018.
[Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811940-2.00013-7
[Liu(2008)] L. Liu, “The hydrogen 21-cm line and its applications to radio astrophysics,” 2008.
[Townes(1983)] C. H. Townes, “At what wavelengths should we search for signals from extraterrestrial
intelligence?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 80,
no. 4, pp. 1147–1151, 1983. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/13452
[Bassett(2013)] C. Bassett, “Better made up : The mutual influence of science fiction and innovation,” 2013.
[Menadue and Cheer(2017)] C. Menadue and K. Cheer, “Human culture and science fiction: A review of
the literature, 1980-2016,” SAGE Open, vol. 7, no. 3, p. 2158244017723690, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017723690
[Schwartz(1971)] S. Schwartz, “Science fiction: Bridge between the two cultures,” The English Journal,
vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 1043–1051, 1971. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/814025
[Joyce(1995)] G. F. Joyce, “The rna world: Life before dna and protein,” 1995.
[Yun(2011)] S.-I. Yun, “Can death be taught? finding meaning, mortality, and culture,” Finding Meaning,
Cultures Across Borders: International Dialogue between Philosophy and Psychology, pp. 87–94, 2011.
[Aristotle(2016)] Aristotle, De Anima, 2016.
[Brown(2018)] A. Brown. (2018) Trailblazing through time and space: The essential murray
leinster. [Online]. Available: https://www.tor.com/2018/08/30/trailblazing-through-time-and-space-
the-essential-murray-leinster/

10
[Noack(2019)] R. Noack, “Notre dame may have too much money after bil-
lionaires and others rushed to pledge,” Apr 2019. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/25/billionaires-rushed-save-notre-dame-amid-
backlash-economists-now-say-they-may-have-pledged-more-than-needed/
[SETI Institute(2021)] SETI Institute, “Seti institute,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.seti.org/

[Dunér(2017)] D. Dunér, “On the Plausibility of Intelligent Life on Other Worlds: A Cognitive-Semiotic
Assessment of fi · fc · L,” Environmental Humanities, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 433–453, 11 2017. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-4215379
[U.S. Space Command(2021)] P. U.S. Space Command, “Russian direct-ascent anti-satellite
missile test creates significant, long-lasting space,” Nov 2021. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.spacecom.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2842957/russian-direct-ascent-anti-
satellite-missile-test-creates-significant-long-last/
[Donovan(2020)] J. Donovan, Shoot for the Moon: The Space Race and the Extraordinary Voyage of Apollo
11. Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company, 2020.

[van Dijk and Zeelenberg(2007)] E. van Dijk and M. Zeelenberg, “When curiosity killed regret:
Avoiding or seeking the unknown in decision-making under uncertainty,” Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 656–662, 2007. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103106000990

11