First of all, there were such transmissions already.
Moreover, there are Pioneer's and Voyager's disks . So I would say it's little late to make such statements.

Indeed, we Earthlings have already detected spectroscopic signatures on giant exoplanets, and surely will be able to do the same for Earth-sized planets on this century. Imagine what an allien civ capable of sending an army here could detect. Certainly they already detected our strange atmosphere, with all that free oxygen and a gas mix very far from chemical equilibrium.

Another example, one of the signataries of the statement, Claudio Maccone, is the strongest supporter of a mission called FOCAL that will send a small telescope to 550 AU from the Sun. At that distance there is the focal point of Sun's gravitational lens. A telescope there would have so high magnification, thanks to gravitational lensing, as to be capable of seeing towns and cities in Alpha Centauri Bb.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=785

We can fear alliens, but certainly we can't hide.

I think you're reading it wrong. It doesn't state anywhere that transmitting isn't intelligent.

It doesn't say it with that word, but in essence that is what it says. For example:

Be careful about reading too much into things. "In essence" simply means by your interpretation, which I've been trying to tell you doesn't seem to jive with my interpretation.

So METI is "not prudent" nor "bona fide scientific endeavor" and it is "confusing the public". That seems to me a declaration that METI is a foolish, stupid and dangerous course of action.

This was already addressed by another poster and I have nothing further to add to what they said.

The argument being made is that more public discourse should be taken into account before people start doing conducting such experiments and research.

We had already half a century of METI activities and debate. How much will be needed?

This is the first time I've engaged in such public discourse. I would imagine it would be a first for many others as well.

Why should aliens transmit a message? Maybe they won't. Maybe they're advanced enough to know they could defend themselves from most aggressors. Maybe there's a mostly peaceful alliance of races that are looking for new races and species to join their friendly alliance by actively sending a signal. There's plenty of reasons why they would. However, none of this has anything to do with whether or not we should send a message ourselves.

Why an ETI capable and willing to travel insterestellar distances to kill the intelligent beings there, would be incapable of detecting us without METI? If you are searching for falacies this is a good one.

Of course it's not a logical fallacy. I do not think that traits that cause humans to kill are unique to humans. Indeed, if we agree that an evolutionary process is common for any species to evolve and progress, that there is a possibility that some species will come out very warlike, or at least with a conquering mindset of anything they view as lesser than them.

The entire idea that an advanced civilization that can travel the cosmos wouldn't want to harm anyone seems to biggest fallacy of all.

I'm only following the 'logic' of the statement.

But you're not following the logic of the statement at all. You've misinterpreted the statement to fit your own disappointment and your responses convey irritation at what you think you've read.

If it's unwise to send messages to civillizations millions of years older than our own, the same reasoning also applies to ETI, so ETI should wait millions of years before transmitting. But, hey, then there will be also other civillizations older than theirs, so they must still wait. The result: everybody is listening but nobody is talking. It's no surprise that SETI didn't find anything yet.

But of course you can't possibly know that other civilizations aren't transmitting even though we aren't. We can't assume that every action we take will be the same action another civilization would take.

Finally, the statement says:

We feel the decision whether or not to transmit must be based upon a worldwide consensus, and not a decision based upon the wishes of a few individuals with access to powerful communications equipment.

Well, already a few individuals have made the decision that nobody on Earth should engage in METI, and they wrote an statement about that.

Again, you're reading too much into it. They have not made the decision "that nobody on Earth should engage in METI" indefinitely or absolutely. They have simply stated that out of 7 billion people on the planet, how many are actually aware of these efforts? Shouldn't this be brought to more people's attention to see if this is what we all want?

We can fear alliens,

I wouldn't say "fear" them, rather simply be cautious.

but certainly we can't hide.

Indeed. But we don't have to announce it either.

The Sooner 'They' Know We are Here, The Sooner 'They' can Come Kill Us and Eat Us. Or Would 'They' Eat Us Alive? I Go with Alive.

I'm sure A New Guinean, way Up in The Mountains or In A Deep Hidden Valley, Gives A Shat. And No, we Don't Discuss and Decide for Them.

'It's' A Discussion and Decision, So Far from Mattering, 'it' is In Line with The Astronomical Odds of A Signal Observation from 'Them'. Who 'if' They Exist, Care Less than The New Guinean.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Arecibo:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Arecibo_message_bw.svg

So, train already departured, hehe.

Come to think of it, yeah I it is wise to listen before we transmit. So I agree.

---

In conjunction with other interested members of the SETI community, we've written a statement on beaming messages to other planets.

The essence of the conclusion is that a few people shouldn't be making this decision for an entire planet.

Agreed 100%.

---

Maybe this explains the timing and nature of the Statement http://www.cracked.com/funny-5087-aliens-trying-to-avoid-earth/

---

A totally conservative and rational viewpoint.

Only for cowards and drones.

If they are out there, they must know we are here (if more advanced than us). If they wanted to croak us, they would have already.

(maybe that's where Leftism comes from?)

If you don't take a chance, you never have progress. ANY progress.

Let's just go back to our caves and dance around the fire some more. Yeah, that's the ticket!

---

Let's just go back to our caves and dance around the fire some more.

That was bred into us, that is how our specie evolved. Caution increase the chances of survival.

---

Let's just go back to our caves and dance around the fire some more.

That was bred into us, that is how our specie evolved. Caution increase the chances of survival.

Actually, no. The cautious acquire no new knowledge, so they are less likely to survive. Of course, the foolhardy have the opposite problem.

So what's a species gonna do?

---

N9JFE David S wrote:

You are still reading it wrong.

The second quoted sentence above actually says that METI is a bona fide scientific endeavor that its opponents will try to scare the public into thinking is not bona fide so they will oppose funding it.

Ok, I read it wrong. Sorry. Anyway, the manifest still says that doing METI is unwise.

By our way of thinking, yes. Maybe they came to a different conclusion.

It's not my way of thinking, it's the reasoning of the statement. If the reasoning is right, as surely the signataries think, the ETI will reach the same conclusion, and then the scenario I wrote about follows.

No, the few individuals have made the decision that there should be a much larger discussion before it happens. They did not decide that it should never happen.

They said we should wait an undefinite amount of time. We already discussed the issue during half a century. The signataries don't say anything about how much discussion will be enough. If half a century of international discussion doesn't suffice, probably nothing will suffice to them.

And, until now, they haven't presented any solid argument against METI. As I said, if there is some advanced ETI out there, they probably detected Earth life long ago, and our civilization centuries ago.

OzzFan wrote:

This is the first time I've engaged in such public discourse. I would imagine it would be a first for many others as well.

Not for the SETI/METI community:

http://www.setileague.org/editor/index.html (search for "Active SETI" and "METI")

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?s=METI

Read the articles. The issue has been discussed in conferences and papers. Every time a METI transmission project is anounced, there is again discussion on the issue. A commitee of the International Academy of Astronautics discussed the issue several times, never banning or discouraging METI:

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/12/08/douglas-vakoch/importance-active-seti

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meti-should-we-be-shouting-at-the-cosmos

Of course it's not a logical fallacy. I do not think that traits that cause humans to kill are unique to humans. Indeed, if we agree that an evolutionary process is common for any species to evolve and progress, that there is a possibility that some species will come out very warlike, or at least with a conquering mindset of anything they view as lesser than them.

The entire idea that an advanced civilization that can travel the cosmos wouldn't want to harm anyone seems to biggest fallacy of all.

You missed the point entirely. I was talking about the impossibility of the existence of an ETI than is dangerous (that is, "capable and willing to travel insterestellar distances to kill" other ETI) but unable to find us if we don't transmit METI. It has nothing to do with their will of killing or not killing us, but with the absurdity of a technological civilization than is able to travel interestellar distances to kill us but is unable to find us if we don't actively transmit a message to them.

But of course you can't possibly know that other civilizations aren't transmitting even though we aren't. We can't assume that every action we take will be the same action another civilization would take.

But we can at least suppose that civilizations want and try to survive (if not, they would not exist now) and they are logical (if not, they would not have developed science an technology to travel here). So, if the statement's logic were sound, the Great Silence follows.

Again, you're reading too much into it. They have not made the decision "that nobody on Earth should engage in METI" indefinitely or absolutely. They have simply stated that out of 7 billion people on the planet, how many are actually aware of these efforts? Shouldn't this be brought to more people's attention to see if this is what we all want?

I already replied to this in the reply to the other poster.

Indeed. But we don't have to announce it either.

What? If we can't hide why should we refrain to announce us? Another fallacy. You are proposing that we bury our head in the sand like ostriches.

A totally conservative and rational viewpoint.

Only for cowards and drones.

If they are out there, they must know we are here (if more advanced than us). If they wanted to croak us, they would have already.

(maybe that's where Leftism comes from?)

If you don't take a chance, you never have progress. ANY progress.

Let's just go back to our caves and dance around the fire some more. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Indeed.

OzzFan wrote:

This is the first time I've engaged in such public discourse. I would imagine it would be a first for many others as well.

Not for the SETI/METI community:

That's great, but the statement is suggesting that the larger population have a say as well, not just the METI community that obviously agree with each other, or they wouldn't be a part of that community.

Of course it's not a logical fallacy. I do not think that traits that cause humans to kill are unique to humans. Indeed, if we agree that an evolutionary process is common for any species to evolve and progress, that there is a possibility that some species will come out very warlike, or at least with a conquering mindset of anything they view as lesser than them.

The entire idea that an advanced civilization that can travel the cosmos wouldn't want to harm anyone seems to biggest fallacy of all.

You missed the point entirely. I was talking about the impossibility of the existence of an ETI than is dangerous (that is, "capable and willing to travel insterestellar distances to kill" other ETI) but unable to find us if we don't transmit METI. It has nothing to do with their will of killing or not killing us, but with the absurdity of a technological civilization than is able to travel interestellar distances to kill us but is unable to find us if we don't actively transmit a message to them.

...and again you miss my position entirely. Even if they are advanced enough to find us one way or the other, doesn't mean we have to go about broadcasting our position. If they happen to find us, then they happen to find us. There's little that can be done about such a scenario. That still doesn't mean we have to go about broadcasting our position simply because "they'll find us one way or the other".

But of course you can't possibly know that other civilizations aren't transmitting even though we aren't. We can't assume that every action we take will be the same action another civilization would take.

But we can at least suppose that civilizations want and try to survive (if not, they would not exist now) and they are logical (if not, they would not have developed science an technology to travel here). So, if the statement's logic were sound, the Great Silence follows.

Not at all. You are only seeing this from a binary logical perspective (either we do it and they'll do it, or we don't do it and they won't do it). Again, you make absolutist assumptions on ETI's part based upon what I am saying we should do. Literally, the choices are:

We broadcast, they broadcast.
We don't broadcast, they broadcast.
We broadcast, they don't broadcast.
We don't broadcast, they don't broadcast.

There are four possible scenarios here, and only one of them fits your Great Silence conclusion. There are still three other possible scenarios, which means you only have a 25% chance in being correct about your Great Silence. There's still a 75% chance things could happen another way.

Indeed. But we don't have to announce it either.

What? If we can't hide why should we refrain to announce us? Another fallacy. You are proposing that we bury our head in the sand like ostriches.

Have you ever played "hide-and-go-seek"? Sometimes you give your own position away by accident, or because your legs cramped up, or whatever. Just because we can't hide absolutely, doesn't mean the only alternative choice is to give our position away, nor does it mean burying your head in the sand either.

I agree with Eric. But I have a confession -- after the elections in November, I took my laser pointer out into my backyard and signaled SOS to the sky till the batteries died...



.

---

Helping where I can. Hindering everywhere else.

Let's just go back to our caves and dance around the fire some more.

That was bred into us, that is how our specie evolved. Caution increase the chances of survival.

Actually, no. The cautious acquire no new knowledge, so they are less likely to survive. Of course, the foolhardy have the opposite problem.

Incorrect. The cautious remain alive to build upon each other's knowledge. The foolhardy do not take proper precautions and end up dead. Can you imagine what would have happened if no caution were exercised during any scientific experiment?

I think far too many here are confusing cautious with lack of interest in new knowledge. Indeed this is the only way we've survived.

N9JFE David S wrote:

By our way of thinking, yes. Maybe they came to a different conclusion.

It's not my way of thinking, it's the reasoning of the statement. If the reasoning is right, as surely the signataries think, the ETI will reach the same conclusion, and then the scenario I wrote about follows.

You quoted me out of context. When I said "they," I was referring to ETI, not Human METI experts.

You make a good case that if we think it's a bad idea to actively send messages, other civilizations will also think that. But only if you take it as an absolute can you follow it to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of our time and effort to listen for any messages they might send. I certainly do not take it as an absolute.

---

David
Sitting on my butt while others boldly go,
Waiting for a message from a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri.

N9JFE David S wrote:

By our way of thinking, yes. Maybe they came to a different conclusion.

It's not my way of thinking, it's the reasoning of the statement. If the reasoning is right, as surely the signataries think, the ETI will reach the same conclusion, and then the scenario I wrote about follows.

You quoted me out of context. When I said "they," I was referring to ETI, not Human METI experts.

You make a good case that if we think it's a bad idea to actively send messages, other civilizations will also think that. But only if you take it as an absolute can you follow it to the conclusion that it's a complete waste of our time and effort to listen for any messages they might send. I certainly do not take it as an absolute.

Nor do I.

OzzFan wrote:

This is the first time I've engaged in such public discourse. I would imagine it would be a first for many others as well.

Not for the SETI/METI community:

That's great, but the statement is suggesting that the larger population have a say as well, not just the METI community that obviously agree with each other, or they wouldn't be a part of that community.

I didn't say METI community, I said SETI/METI community, and no, that community doesn't agree with each other.

As for the larger population, I consider it very unlikely that they will find better arguments for/against METI than the scientists that work on SETI/METI.

...and again you miss my position entirely. Even if they are advanced enough to find us one way or the other, doesn't mean we have to go about broadcasting our position. If they happen to find us, then they happen to find us. There's little that can be done about such a scenario. That still doesn't mean we have to go about broadcasting our position simply because "they'll find us one way or the other".

You insist on your fallacy. It's much much much easier to detect us than to come here to kill us. So, if they want to find some ETI to kill, they will find us quickly and easy, no matter what we do. They don't need our METI to find us and they will not find our messages by chance. The jungle analogy is fundamentally wrong. ON THE OTHER HAND, if they are non-hostile and we don't engage in METI, they can think we don't want to be visited or don't want to talk by radio.

To sum it, we have nothing to gain from staying silent and much to lose. Without METI, we all lose (we and they).

But we can at least suppose that civilizations want and try to survive (if not, they would not exist now) and they are logical (if not, they would not have developed science an technology to travel here). So, if the statement's logic were sound, the Great Silence follows.

Not at all. You are only seeing this from a binary logical perspective (either we do it and they'll do it, or we don't do it and they won't do it). Again, you make absolutist assumptions on ETI's part based upon what I am saying we should do. Literally, the choices are:

We broadcast, they broadcast.
We don't broadcast, they broadcast.
We broadcast, they don't broadcast.
We don't broadcast, they don't broadcast.

You are supposing that all communication is broadcast. Energetically, this is very problematic. I think it was James Bendford (one of the signataries) the one that calculated that a Kardashev type I civilization can't do that. It's much more intelligent to beam messages to the stars only.

There are four possible scenarios here, and only one of them fits your Great Silence conclusion. There are still three other possible scenarios, which means you only have a 25% chance in being correct about your Great Silence. There's still a 75% chance things could happen another way.

Do you know that 83% of statistics are made up? 94% of people know that!

Indeed. But we don't have to announce it either.

What? If we can't hide why should we refrain to announce us? Another fallacy. You are proposing that we bury our head in the sand like ostriches.

Have you ever played "hide-and-go-seek"? Sometimes you give your own position away by accident, or because your legs cramped up, or whatever. Just because we can't hide absolutely, doesn't mean the only alternative choice is to give our position away, nor does it mean burying your head in the sand either.

Very bad analogy. Our situation is like someone in a party refusing to talk to anyone and even making eye contact, sitting alone in a corner looking at his glass of whiskey, waiting for someone to come and talk to him.

As several posters have said, it's very easy to find us for a civilization that can kill us. If someone wanted to and could kill us, we would be already dead.