I listen to quite a variety of podcasts, often get drawn towards futurology, science and sci-fi. One of the subjects I find most fascinating is the universe - and life.
Since Nasa began making a concerted effort to find planets out there, aided by the fantastic James Webb telescope- the Caltech tracker which follows Nasa's successes lists nearly 6,000 exoplanets! It is likely this number is just a drop in the Universal ocean. We're yet to find evidence of any life, let alone civilisations - and, of course, the distances are massive and it's a whole lot of space to explore.
Planet Names are boring
Ever since the first exoplanet was discovered in 1992 (in fact two were found, followed by a dwarf planet) - astronomers have followed a rigid scientific nomenclature.
These first three planets were so-named Phobetor, Poltergeist and Draugr. They orbited the rather tediously named PSR B1257+12 pulsar. Yet since then planets have been named more formerly after the instrument or project that discovered them. Planets like 51 Pegasus B. Seriously? What went wrong!
We're getting good at finding them
As the numbers grow, more and more evidence is mounting that life is not abundant - perhaps rarer than we expected or hoped. In the absence of evidence, science has debated this issue extensively.
Two principles seem to bracket the thinking - the Copernican Principle and the Anthropic Principle(s). Each takes a position on just how "special" humanity is in the sea of universal nothingness. One possets that this universe is totally tuned for us, and us alone to form intelligent society. Copernican, however, states that Earth is normal - nothing special. Making life out there far more probable, perhaps.
Neither matter. That bears repeating: Absent of proof - neither matter! Not to be crass, of course the science and the philosophy matters - it's just that we won't know until we establish proof. In the meantime - what to do? We could stand on this paradise scratching our heads as we gaze at the stars - or we could think faster.
Are we alone, and does it matter?
For me, it's quite simple - we must state the potential realities together and find a common motivation, a common incentive to take humanity forward. I think i'd call it the Strategic Imperative.
The Strategic Imperative:
Whichever reality is true, all require humanity to urgently strive for space.
1) Humanity is the first sentient civilisation in the Universe
2) Humanity is the last sentient civilisation in the Universe
3) Humanity is one of many [forms of] sentient civilisations in the Universe.
Given all of these may be equally true - each points to the fact humans have a huge responsibility. In the case of 1) and 2), the responsibility is literally astronomical! If we are either the first or the last - perhaps life will only proliferate further if we intervene out there in the cosmos.
If we're one of many - does our place in the Universe hold a diplomatic or contributory destiny? How would our addition to a Universal Community affect the Universal balance of power? If aggressor species exist, are we overly vulnerable if we remain only here - or does venturing our render us a target?
We also don't know about scale. Mega Earth's may exist - would their sentient beings be the same size and have the same physical prowess as us? Or would they be five times our size? We have no idea of the context of sentient life. It also may not be humanoid, mammalian, bipedal or even organic at all. The possibilities are as dizzying as they are unsettling.
Types of civilisation
Kardashev's work - made prominent by Carl Sagan - began to shape what "types" of civilisations might be out there. The work is focused on thermodynamic energy needs. It's an interesting way to consider and classify universal life - the more power being available to the civilisation, the more advanced and powerful it is likely to be.
Type I - civilisation harnesses all energy reaching it from its parent star
Type II - civilisation harnesses the entire energy output of nearest star
Type III - civilisation harnesses all the energy output of a Galaxy
Type IV (Kaku) - civilisation harnesses extragalactic radiation
Considering that humanity is on the cusp of becoming a Type I - it may be that we are able to leap through the types of civilisation. Much as Moore's Law increases our chip capability by double every two years - the "singularity" of energy abundance, quantum and AI technology may coalesce to offer exponentially to our interstellar progress.
If Types I-IV do exist, they may only react to civilisations that are peers to them - either peacefully or considered a threat. Equally, if Type IV civilisations could exist - their technology and power would be so great as to render us barbarian in their eyes. It's therefore imperative that we aspire to be the most powerful version of civilisation that we can theoretically perceive. It's just good insurance.
Time is our shield
We are presently, though, insulated somewhat by our own ignorance. Our physics currently theorises that [Faster Than] Light Speed is impossible. Therefore, even if life is abundant - and more advanced than us "by type" - it is currently marooned by the time it would take to get to us or us get to it. Until we disprove our intellectual speed limit, it seems the existence of life is rather irrelevant. (Perhaps Time is the true variable we need to understand better?)
Regardless, what is clear, is that our star system is a vast trove of resources, and exploiting them carries far less existential risk than the exploitation of hyper local resources here on a planet that's already had 5,000 years of civilisation and hundreds of years of advancing civilisation.
Thus, we must conclude that our Strategic Imperative is to assume 1)-3) are all equally true and possible - and that, in particular, if 3) is true, we may find ourselves extremely vulnerable as and when they notice us or choose to make us aware they have already noticed us.
We must act accordingly. We must hurry up and space.
