The main concern about implanting a computer chip in our brains, as enabled recently by Neuralink, is that it could lead to a `thought police’. We could be penalized unfairly for a thought transmitted by a Bluetooth connected to a `chip on our shoulder’.
As of now, the U.S. legal system penalizes bad behavior but does not forbid abstract thoughts. The respect for freedom of thought by liberal societies was not shared through most of human history. Very often, the “adults in the room” used a ruler to discipline children with forbidden thoughts.
Thinking about extraterrestrials is natural. Yet, when an anomalous physical object from outside the solar system shows up, some scientists use the analog of rulers at their disposal to discipline those who are willing to consider the possibility that the object might be technological in origin. In a five-page paper that I wrote in 2018 with my postdoc, Shmuel Bialy, we included one sentence that stated: “Alternatively, a more exotic scenario is that ‘Oumuamua may be a fully operational probe sent intentionally to Earth vicinity by an alien civilization.” The most important words in this sentence are `exotic’ and `may’. Their use was intended to offer one hypothetical possibility out of many others that should be left on the table until they are ruled-out by additional evidence. After this sentence was widely publicized and even cited verbatim on CNN by Michael Smerconish, the bruises inflicted by some scientists on the young Shmuel traumatized him. Similarly, the first report on the findings from the expedition I led to the Pacific Ocean site of the interstellar meteor, IM1, included 44 pages of data about the unfamiliar chemical composition of the “BeLaU”-type spherules with only one sentence stating: “Another possibility is that this unfamiliar abundance pattern may reflect an extraterrestrial technological origin.” Here again, the most important words are: `unfamiliar’ and `may’. Yet, this one sentence was flagged by critics out of 44 pages of data as a forbidden thought. At the same time, I wrote a paper with my postdoc, Morgan MacLeod, which suggested a natural origin for these spherules. After this paper was peer reviewed and published, its press release was never picked up by any reporter, nor was it ever mentioned by the critics of the forbidden sentence.
Why is a scientific `thought police’ about hypotheses so startling? In the three decades prior to this experience, I wrote more than a thousand papers plus three textbooks and experienced a different scientific culture. When studying the unknown nature of dark matter, it is often encouraged to consider all viable possibilities in order to motivate related empirical tests. Theoretical physicists worked for the past century on extra dimensions with no evidence to support this speculation, yet they are not being disciplined by the same critics for discussing an exotic hypothesis. What is the fundamental difference that makes a hypothesis with no evidence legitimate and a hypothesis regarding anomalous evidence controversial?
To gain a better perspective, consider other controversial hypotheses. Nicolaus Copernicus served as a priest when he realized that the dogma advocated by the Church with the Earth at the center of the Universe, might be wrong. Copernicus saw the final version of `De Revolutionibus’ on his deathbed, before it became a forbidden book until the 19th century. In 1992, the Vatican admitted the oversight 359 years after the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo Galilei to recant his theory that the Earth moves around the Sun. This history led the investigative journalist Ross Coulthart to title his “Reality Check” program on NewsNation: “Is Avi Loeb a modern-day Galileo?”
What is the common thread that runs between the possibility that some interstellar objects might be technological space trash and the anomalies indicating that we might not be at the physical center of the Universe? This thread involves giving up on our deeply-rooted sense of cosmic self-importance. The human ego resists that, being fully aware that we are short lived and fundamentally insignificant. The truth is that our body was given to us like a car from a dealership, and we cannot claim credit for its raw abilities nor privilege for the cosmic scene in which it operates.
Thanks to Copernicus and Galileo, we now know that we are not at the center of the cosmic stage and we also know that the human species emerged in the last 0.01% of cosmic history. Given that we arrived at an unprivileged location at an unprivileged time, it is obvious that the cosmic play is not about us. Nevertheless, we deny this message as much as possible until it becomes undeniable. As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer noted: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” To that I would add: “And there is a final stage in which the original critics argue that they thought about it first.”
The public is curious about forbidden thoughts, because our imagination opens up exciting new opportunities. But when a research paper draws public attention, the scientists who were not part of the research are inclined to dismiss its significance out of jealousy. This attracts further attention by journalists and their audience for the same reason that spectators in the Roman Colosseum were entertained by the bloodbath of gladiators as they were tortured by wild animals.
These traits of human nature extend well beyond science. Yesterday, I was visited at my Harvard office by the parents and three children of a Spanish-Belgian family who were inspired by my writings. The parents, who are public servants and hope their daughters will attend Harvard, explained that in their community — where compensation is standardized, small differentials trigger intense jealousy as much as in academia. Their daughters admitted that social media algorithms amplify negativity because it attracts attention. The people we hate are those that we do not know very well. I added that in wars, soldiers pull the trigger easily because they had never met the person that their rifle is aiming at. Similarly, social media triggers hate towards those whom we do not know personally. This comes back to my family history. In a 1935 gathering at the town of Netze near Frankfurt, Germany, where my grandfather Albert Loeb lived, a member of the Nazi party argued that the Jews are using up the resources of Germany for their own benefit. My grandfather stood up and asked that person: “How dare you make this hateful statement when you personally dodged the draft in the first World War as a communist while I was on the German front for two years?” The speaker replied: “We all know about your patriotic contributions, Mr. Loeb; I was talking about the other Jews.”
What is the best way to improve the practice of science? In the weekly meeting of my research group, we all agreed that meditation is a far better tool than disciplinary rulers. Rather than express prejudice about extraterrestrials on digital screens, we better seek in-person encounters with them or their technological products.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Avi Loeb is the head of the Galileo Project, founding director of Harvard University’s — Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University (2011–2020). He is a former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. He is the bestselling author of “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth” and a co-author of the textbook “Life in the Cosmos”, both published in 2021. His new book, titled “Interstellar”, was published in August 2023.
