The SETI Debate:
In Defense of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
The Abundance of Life-Bearing Planets
(This originally appeared in The Bioastronomy News, vol. 7, no. 4, 1995.)
By Carl Sagan
Editor's note: This is Carl Sagan's response to "A Critique of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence" by Ernst Mayr, which appeared in The Bioastronomy News, vol. 7, no. 3, 1995.
We live in an age of remarkable exploration and discovery. Fully half of the nearby Sun-like stars have circumstellar disks of gas and dust like the solar nebula out of which our planets formed 4.6 billion years ago. By a most unexpected technique -- radio timing residuals -- we have discovered two Earth-like planets around the pulsar B1257+12. An apparent Jovian planet has been astrometrically detected around the star 51 Pegasi. A range of new Earth-based and space-borne techniques--including astrometry, spectrophotometry, radial velocity measurements, adaptive optics and interferometry-- all seem to be on the verge of being able to detect Jovian- type planets, if they exist, around the nearest stars. At least one proposal (The FRESIP[Frequency of Earth Sized Inner Planets] Project, a spaceborne spectrophotometric system) holds the promise of detecting terrestrial planets more readily than Jovian ones. If there is not a sudden cutoff in support, we are likely entering a golden age in the study of the planets of other stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
Once you have found another planet of Earth-like mass, however, it of course does not follow that it is an Earth- like world. Consider Venus. But there are means by which, even from the vantage point of Earth, we can investigate this question. We can look for the spectral signature of enough water to be consistent with oceans. We can look for oxygen and ozone in the planet's atmosphere. We can seek molecules like methane, in such wild thermodynamic disequilibrium with the oxygen that it can only be produced by life. (In fact, all of these tests for life were successfully performed by the Galileo spacecraft in its close approaches to Earth in 1990 and 1992 as it wended its way to Jupiter [Sagan et al., 1993].)
The best current estimates of the number and spacing of Earth-mass planets in newly forming planetary systems (as George Wetherill reported at the first international conference on circumstellar habitable zones [Doyle, 1995]) combined with the best current estimates of the long-term stability of oceans on a variety of planets (as James Kasting reported at that same meeting [Doyle, 1995]) suggest one to two blue worlds around every Sun-like star. Stars much more massive than the Sun are comparatively rare and age quickly. Stars comparatively less massive than the Sun are expected to have Earth-like planets, but the planets that are warm enough for life are probably tidally locked so that one side always faces the local sun. However, winds may redistribute heat from one hemisphere to another on such worlds, and there has been very little work on their potential habitability.
Nevertheless, the bulk of the current evidence suggests a vast number of planets distributed through the Milky Way with abundant liquid water stable over lifetimes of billions of years. Some will be suitable for life--our kind of carbon and water life--for billions of years less than Earth, some for billions of years more. And, of course, the Milky Way is one of an enormous number, perhaps a hundred billion, other galaxies.
Need Intelligence Evolve on an Inhabited World?
We know from lunar cratering statistics,
returned Apollo samples, that Earth was under hellish bombardment by
large worlds from space until around 4 billion years ago. This
sufficiently severe to drive entire atmospheres and oceans into space.
the entire crust of Earth was a magma ocean. Clearly, this was no
ground for life.
Yet, shortly thereafter--Mayr adopts the number 3.8 billion years ago--some early organisms arose (according to the fossil evidence). Presumably the origin of life had to have occupied some time before that. As soon as conditions were favorable, life began amazingly fast on our planet. I have used this fact (Sagan, 1974) to argue that the origin of life must be a highly probable circumstance; as soon as conditions permit, up it pops!
Now, I recognize that this is at best a plausibility argument and little more than an extrapolation from a single example. But we are data constrained; it's the best we can do.
Does a similar analysis apply to the evolution of intelligence? Here you have a planet burgeoning with life, profoundly changing the physical environment, generating an oxygen atmosphere 2 billion years ago, going through the elegant diversification that Mayr briefly summarized-- and not for almost 4 billion years does anything remotely resembling a technical civilization emerge.
In the early days of such debates (for example, G.G. Simpson's "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids") writers argued that an enormous number of individually unlikely steps were required to produce something very like a human being, a "humanoid"; that the chances of such a precise repetition occurring on another planet were nil; and therefore that the chance of extraterrestrial intelligence was nil. But clearly when we're talking about extraterrestrial intelligence, we are not talking--despite Star Trek--of humans or humanoids. We are talking about the functional equivalent of humans-- say, any creatures able to build and operate radio telescopes. They may live on the land or in the sea or air. They may have unimaginable chemistries, shapes, sizes, colors, appendages and opinions. We are not requiring that they follow the particular route that led to the evolution of humans. There may be many different evolutionary pathways, each unlikely, but the sum of the number of pathways to intelligence may nevertheless be quite substantial.
In Mayr's current presentation, there is still an echo of "the non-prevalence of humanoids." But the basic argument is, I think, acceptable to all of us. Evolution is opportunistic and not foresighted. It does not "plan" to develop intelligent life a few billion years into the future. It responds to short-term contingencies. And yet, other things being equal, it is better to be smart than to be stupid, and an overall trend toward intelligence can be perceived in the fossil record. On some worlds, the selection pressure for intelligence may be higher; on others, lower.
If we consider the statistics of one, our own case--and take a typical time from the origin of a planetary system to the development of a technical civilization to be 4.6 billion years--what follows? We would not expect civilizations on different worlds to evolve in lock step. Some would reach technical intelligence more quickly, some more slowly, and-- doubtless--some never. But the Milky Way is filled with second- and third-generation stars (that is, those with heavy elements) as old as 10 billion years.
So let's imagine two curves: The first is the probable timescale to the evolution of technical intelligence. It starts out very low; by a few billion years it may have a noticeable value; by 5 billion years, it's something like 50 percent; by 10 billion years, maybe it's approaching 100 percent. The second curve is the ages of Sun-like stars, some of which are very young-- they're being born right now--some of which are as old as the Sun, some of which are 10 billion years old. If we convolve these two curves, we find there's a chance of technical civilizations on planets of stars of many different ages--not much in the very young ones, more and more for the older ones. The most likely case is that we will hear from a civilization considerably more advanced than ours. For each of those technical civilizations, there have been tens of billions or more other species. The number of unlikely events that had to be concatenated to evolve the technical species is enormous, and perhaps there are members of each of those species who pride themselves on being uniquely intelligent in all the universe.
Need Civilizations Develop the Technology for SETI?
It is perfectly possible to imagine civilizations of poets or (perhaps) Bronze Age warriors who never stumble on James Clerk Maxwell's equations and radio receivers. But they are removed by natural selection. The Earth is surrounded by a population of asteroids and comets, such that occasionally the planet is struck by one large enough to do substantial damage. The most famous is the K-T event (the massive near- Earth-object impact that occurred at the end of the Cretaceous period and start of the Tertiary) of 65 million years ago that extinguished the dinosaurs and most other species of life on Earth. But the chance is something like one in 2,000 that a civilization-destroying impact will occur in the next century.
It is already clear that we need elaborate means
detecting and tracking near-Earth objects and the means for their
and destruction. If we fail to do so, we will simply be destroyed. The
Radiotelemetry, radar monitoring of asteroids, and the entire concept of the electromagnetic spectrum is part and parcel of any early technology needed to deal with such a threat. Thus, any long-lived civilization will be forced by natural selection to develop the technology of SETI. (And there is no need to have sense organs that "see" in the radio region. Physics is enough.)
Since perturbation and collision in the asteroid and comet belts is perpetual, the asteroid and comet threat is likewise perpetual, and there is no time when the technology can be retired. Also, SETI itself is a small fraction of the cost of dealing with the asteroid and comet threat.
(Incidentally, it is by no means true that SETI is
"very limited, reaching only part of our galaxy." If there were
sufficiently powerful transmitters, we could use SETI to explore
galaxies; because the most likely transmitters are ancient, we can
to be powerful. This is one of the strategies of the Megachannel
Extraterrestrial Assay [
Is SETI a Fantasy of Physical Scientists?
Mayr has repeatedly suggested that proponents of SETI are almost exclusively physical scientists and that biologists know better. Since the relevant technologies involve the physical sciences, it is reasonable that astronomers, physicists and engineers play a leading role in SETI.
But in 1982, when I put together a petition published in Science urging the scientific respectability of SETI, I had no difficulty getting a range of distinguished biologists and biochemists to sign, including David Baltimore, Melvin Calvin, Francis Crick, Manfred Eigen, Thomas Eisner, Stephen Jay Gould, Matthew Meselson, Linus Pauling, David Raup, and E.O. Wilson. In my early speculations on these matters, I was much encouraged by the strong support from my mentor in biology, H.J. Muller, a Nobel laureate in genetics. The petition proposed that, instead of arguing the issue, we look:
We are unanimous in our conviction that the only significant test of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is an experimental one. No a priori arguments on this subject can be compelling or should be used as a substitute for an observational program.
Answer to "The Abundance of Life-Bearing Planets"
By Ernst Mayr
I fully appreciate that the nature of our subject permits only probabilistic estimates. There is no argument between Carl Sagan and myself as to the probability of life elsewhere in the universe and the existence of large numbers of planets in our and other nearby galaxies. The issue, as correctly emphasized by Sagan, is the probability of the evolution of high intelligence and an electronic civilization on an inhabited world.
Once we have life (and almost surely it will be very different from life on Earth), what is the probability of its developing a lineage with high intelligence? On Earth, among millions of lineages of organisms and perhaps 50 billion speciation events, only one led to high intelligence; this makes me believe in its utter improbability.
Sagan adopts the principle "it is better to be smart than to be stupid," but life on Earth refutes this claim. Among all the forms of life, neither the prokaryotes nor protists, fungi or plants has evolved smartness, as it should have if it were "better." In the 28 plus phyla of animals, intelligence evolved in only one (chordates) and doubtfully also in the cephalopods. And in the thousands of subdivisions of the chordates, high intelligence developed in only one, the primates, and even there only in one small subdivision. So much for the putative inevitability of the development of high intelligence because "it is better to be smart."
Sagan applies physicalist thinking to this
constructs two linear curves, both based on strictly deterministic
Such thinking is often quite legitimate for physical phenomena, but is
inappropriate for evolutionary events or social processes such as the
civilizations. The argument that extraterrestrials, if belonging to a
long-lived civilization, will be forced by selection to develop an
know-how to meet the peril of asteroid impacts is totally unrealistic.
would the survivors of earlier impacts be selected to develop the
know-how? Also, the case of Earth shows how impossible the origin of
civilization is unless high intelligence develops first. Earth
shows that civilizations inevitably are short-lived.
It is only a matter of common sense that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence cannot be established by a priori arguments. But this does not justify SETI projects, since it can be shown that the success of an observational program is so totally improbable that it can, for all practical purposes, be considered zero.
All in all, I do not have the impression that Sagan's rebuttal has weakened in any way the force of my arguments.
Is Earth-Life Relevant? A Rebuttal
By Carl Sagan
The gist of Professor Mayr's argument is essentially to run through the various factors in the Drake equation (see Shklovskii and Sagan, 1966) and attach qualitative values to each. He and I agree that the probabilities concerning the abundance of planets and the origins of life are likely to be high. (I stress again that the latest results [Doyle, 1995] suggest one or even two Earth-like planets with abundant surface liquid water in each planetary system. The conclusion is of course highly tentative, but it encourages optimism.) Where Mayr and I disagree is in the later factors in the Drake equation, especially those concerning the likelihood of the evolution of intelligence and technical civilizations.
Mayr argues that prokaryotes and protista have not "evolved smartness." Despite the great respect in which I hold Professor Mayr, I must demur: Prokaryotes and protista are our ancestors. They have evolved smartness, along with most of the rest of the gorgeous diversity of life on Earth.
On the one hand, when he notes the small fraction of species that have technological intelligence, Mayr argues for the relevance of life on Earth to the problem of extraterrestrial intelligence. But on the other hand, he neglects the example of life on Earth when he ignores the fact that intelligence has arisen here when our planet has another five billion years more evolution ahead of it. If it were legitimate to extrapolate from the one example of planetary life we have before us, it would follow that
1. There are enormous numbers of Earth-like planets, each stocked with enormous numbers of species, and
2. In much
than the stellar evolutionary lifetime of each planetary system, at
of those species will develop high intelligence and technology.
Alternatively, we could argue that it is improper to extrapolate from a single example. But then Mayr's one-in-50 billion argument collapses. It seems to me he cannot have it both ways.
On the evolution of technology, I note that
bonobos have culture and technology. They not only use tools but also
manufacture them for future use (see Sagan and Druyan, 1992). In fact,
bonobo Kanzi has discovered how to manufacture stone tools.
It is true, as Mayr notes, that of the major human civilizations, only one has developed radio technology. But this says almost nothing about the probability of a human civilization developing such technology. That civilization with radio telescopes has also been at the forefront of weapons technology. If, for example, western European civilization had not utterly destroyed Aztec civilization, would the Aztecs eventually--in centuries or millennia--have developed radio telescopes? They already had a superior astronomical calendar to that of the conquistadores. Slightly more capable species and civilizations may be able to eliminate the competition. But this does not mean that the competition would not eventually have developed comparable capabilities if they had been left alone.
Mayr asserts that plants do not receive "electronic" signals. By this I assume he means "electromagnetic" signals. But plants do. Their fundamental existence depends on receiving electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. Photosynthesis and phototropism can be found not only in the simplest plants but also in protista.
All stars emit visible light, and Sun-like stars emit most of their electromagnetic radiation in the visible part of the spectrum. Sensing light is a much more effective way of understanding the environment at some distance; certainly much more powerful than olfactory cues. It's hard to imagine a competent technical civilization that does not devote major attention to its primary means of probing the outside world. Even if they were mainly to use visible, ultraviolet or infrared light, the physics is exactly the same for radio waves; the difference is merely a matter of wavelength.
I do not insist that the above arguments are compelling, but neither are the contrary ones. We have not witnessed the evolution of biospheres on a wide range of planets. We have not observed many cases of what is possible and what is not. Until we have had such an experience--or detected extraterrestrial intelligence--we will of course be enveloped in uncertainty.
The notion that we can, by a priori arguments, exclude the possibility of intelligent life on the possible planets of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way has to my ears an odd ring. It reminds me of the long series of human conceits that held us to be at the center of the universe, or different not just in degree but in kind from the rest of life on Earth, or even contended that the universe was made for our benefit (Sagan, 1994). Beginning with Copernicus, every one of these conceits has been shown to be without merit.
In the case of extraterrestrial intelligence, let us admit our ignorance, put aside a priori arguments, and use the technology we are fortunate enough to have developed to try and actually find out the answer. That is, I think, what Charles Darwin--who was converted from orthodox religion to evolutionary biology by the weight of observational evidence--would have advocated.
L.R. Doyle, ed., Circumstellar Habitable Zones:
of the First International Conference, Travis House Publications,
Carl Sagan, "The Origin of Life in a Cosmic Context," Origins of Life, vol. 5, 1974, pp. 497-505.
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Shadows of Forgotten
Search for Who We Are, Random House,
Carl Sagan et al., "A Search for Life on Earth from the Galileo Spacecraft," Nature, vol. 365, 1993, pp. 715-721.
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human
Space, Random House,
I.S. Shklovskii and Carl Sagan, Intelligent Life
G.G. Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," Science, vol. 143, 1964, pp. 769-775.
Carl Sagan died in 1997.
He was the David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space
Director , Laboratory for Planetary Studies , at