Seth Shostak On UFOs: A Few Comments: Part Three

Dr. Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute in California has authored or co-authored a trio of books to date about life in the universe in general and extraterrestrial intelligence in particular. It’s difficult to address these topics without having to mention either in passing or at length the subject of UFOs and possible association with extraterrestrials. This Dr. Shostak has done, but painted with a very skeptical, perhaps in places with a misleading, paint brush. This trilogy and my abbreviations for them throughout this essay are as follows.

Sharing the Universe (STU)

Cosmic Company (CC)

Confessions of an Alien Hunter (CAH)

For complete bibliographic details, see at bottom.

While Dr. Shostak’s book trilogy isn’t the sum total of his opinions on the UFO phenomena, they no doubt represent a solid representation of his UFO philosophy, and since these tomes are readily accessible to the general public, they form as good a source as any.

Continued from Part Two.

Roswell, July 1947 (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak is a Roswell skeptic, at least so far as ET is concerned. What Dr. Shostak doesn’t answer or otherwise come to terms with is how experienced military officers (plural) could mistake balloon materials (weather or Mogul) for a metallic crashed ‘flying disk’. I maintain they couldn’t make that oops. I would maintain that Dr. Shostak himself could distinguish between the two and he’s no military officer in the air force or a balloon expert. I’d expect even the little old lady from Pasadena would detect the difference. In fact the discovery of any bit of balloon material in that Roswell debris would give the game away immediately. See also my comments on government cover-ups/censorship above. Dr. Shostak also made a minor mistake in attributing the Roswell incident as involving USAF instead of USAAF (Army Air Force) personnel (STU).

As related above, Dr. Shostak wants hard physical stuff to place on the slab-in-the-lab. That’s the only evidence he will accept for the UFO ETH. The only bona-fide UFO case we know of for absolute certain involving hard physical stuff is Roswell. Since Dr. Shostak acknowledges that Roswell is associated with hard physical evidence that’s testable on the slab-in-the-lab (that Roswell debris or wreckage), perhaps he could politely ask the USAF to loan him some of those Roswell bits and pieces for his analysis since he knows the debris exists. Where is the Roswell wreckage now and why can’t Dr. Shostak be loaned some? 

Of course Dr. Shostak, if successful, would have to take it on pure faith and trust that he’d be getting the Right Stuff; the Real Deal; the Real McCoy to test. Not a given I’d suspect.

Project Mogul (STU, CAH)

Dr. Shostak has swallowed hook, line and proverbial sinker the new and improved 1995 USAF explanation for the July 1947 Roswell incident and debris. It was a Top Secret Project Mogul balloon (just a variation or upgrade on the previous weather balloon explanation). However, even that massive (lots of unnecessary filler of no relevance) 1995 USAF report pointing the Project Mogul finger at Roswell could only conclude that a Mogul balloon or balloon train was the most likely maybe explanation. The 1995 USAF report could not provide any actual evidence that Roswell WAS a Mogul balloon. Thus, the Roswell case is still open, although Dr. Shostak would have us apparently believe otherwise.  

Roswell: Reverse Engineering (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak maintains that if Roswell were true, that the powers-that-be actually obtained real extraterrestrial materials and thus alien technologies, that America should be light years ahead of the rest of the world in high-tech, especially aerospace technologies, since those powers-that-be would have reversed engineered those alien technologies and put them to American use – good old American know-how strikes again. Of course Dr. Shostak assumes we could actually reverse engineer alien technologies, but that is not a given. One hundred plus years ago, even a team of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi couldn’t have reverse engineered today’s ever present Smart Phone. 

I quite agree with Dr. Shostak however that lasers and fiber optics and the transistor, etc. were human inventions and not reverse engineered from alien technologies despite some claims to the contrary by some UFO buffs. Even UFO buffs can go a bit over-the-top with their claims.

Abductions (STU, CC, CAH)

If you stop and think about this abduction facet rationally, you’ll see a parallel with our own wildlife biologists who often (via a trap or a tranquiller dart) capture, transport, examine, measure, take samples (blood, tissues, etc.), tag, then transport back and release their wildlife specimens. Substitute aliens for wildlife biologists and humans for wildlife, and it makes scientific sense. Why millions of humans? Isn’t that overkill? Why do we do unmentionable things to millions of lab rats and fruit flies? Isn’t that overkill too?

Human-Alien Sex (STU)

Dr. Shostak notes that in the UFO abduction literature there is an emphasis on sex and reproduction and that from a biological point of view, this is as absurd as a pussy cat mating with a petunia. We’ll ignore Mr. Spock’s parentage here since he’s a fictional character.

Well actually the sex or reproduction referred to is not really akin to what happens in human bedrooms, on top of the kitchen table or in the back seats of automobiles. It’s more akin to what happens in fertility clinics. The scenario is more like aliens manipulating human eggs and sperm and genetic material that’s been removed from their unwilling human hosts than actual alien-human intercourse. Admittedly, this is still pretty far out stuff and one is hard pressed to come up with an alien motive for this behavior. What could the motivation really be? I don’t profess to understand this, but I can point out that we have a lot of trouble understanding motivation at times in our fellow life forms. I’m damned if I can comprehend at times what goes on in that brain thingy that’s housed between my pet cat’s ears. On the flip side of that coin, probably 95% of what I do is no doubt unexplainable and meaningless to the felines. Trying to comprehend alien motivations when it’s difficult to come to terms with our companion animals’ behavior is fraught with danger.  

Crop Circles (STU, CC, CAH)

Dr. Shostak likes to ridicule and poke fun at the UFO ETH by pointing out the absurdity of aliens coming all the way to Planet Earth across the void of interstellar space just to do agricultural graffiti in the crop fields of southeastern England (in particular). And some people do make a UFO/crop ‘circle’ connection. I’m not one of those people. Crop ‘circles’ are a huge anomaly. They aren’t natural formations, but while some are hoaxes, there’s sufficient evidence that not all of them could be. There really is something screwy somewhere. I just can’t figure out a motive (again, dangerous to try one’s hand at alien psychology) for ET to do crop ‘circles’ unless they share a common trait with humans – a sense of humor, a sense of the absurd, a love of pulling pranks and causing mischief for its own sake. So, to make a long story short, I just shunt crop ‘circles’ to one side as an interesting anomaly but one which probably has bugger-all to do with any ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) connection. 

The ‘Face’ on Mars (CAH)

Dr. Shostak goes on for some length about the so-called ‘face’ on Mars photographed by the Viking mission in 1976, and re-photographed in 1998, 2006 and 2007 and probably many times thereafter given all the probes orbiting Mars today. Conclusion – close, but no cigar. Mother Nature played a trick (of the lighting) on us. There is no artificially constructed ‘face’ on Mars. In this I totally agree with Dr. Shostak. But the ‘face’ is just a diversion from there real issue at hand here – UFOs.  

Hostility (CAH)

Apparently, though overall a sweeping generalization, SETI (and other physical) scientists are way less hostile to UFO buffs (a few of which are also scientists) than the other way around (and that imbalance probably applies to other ‘fringe’ buffs as well like inventors of perpetual motion machines who get cranky at the Patent Office and creationists who bucket evolutionary biologists). And I sympathize and feel for those scientists on the receiving end of nasty and personal comments just because they don’t share the exact same worldview as their antagonists. There’s no excuse for that.

However, for Dr. Shostak to suggest that UFO buffs are overly hostile to SETI and therefore SETI scientists who aren’t UFO buffs just because SETI might succeed in proving the existence of ET first, thus leaving the UFO buffs in PR limbo, can cut both ways. How would Dr. Shostak feel if after decades of fruitless dedication to traditional radio SETI along with the spending of multi-millions of dollars on sophisticated equipment, Mary Citizen holds a press conference and walks in with her arm around a bona-fide ‘Grey’ alien?

In any event, a positive SETI hit doesn’t of necessity negate the UFO ETH and Mary Citizen’s press conference doesn’t mean SETI won’t get a positive hit a day later. Even though I don’t see the UFO ETH and SETI in competition, rather as being complementary, if there’s a Nobel Prize or any other public recognition at stake, defending their turf and their claim to priority, even scientists have been known to behave badly towards each other, a trait hardly confined to recent times – scientist-to-scientist hostility goes back centuries - so I’ll cut a bit of slack, but only a bit, for the less professional UFO enthusiast.

My Personal Conclusions

IMHO, Dr. Shostak has a rather shallow comprehension of the entire UFO issue and I doubt that he has really studied the field, at least relative to many that he has debated. He apparently hasn’t gotten his hands dirty doing any actual onsite fieldwork and interviewing witnesses and doing photographic analysis. Further, based on his written works, I don’t believe he has adequately thought through many of the various facets of the phenomena and how those jigsaw puzzle pieces might fit together.

Dr. Shostak might argue that it’s not his job to be on top of the UFO topic and research same, but I suggest otherwise if for no other reason than to play fair with the great unwashed that go to him for advice and information on the subject. It is his job if he is going to write and speak on the subject for the public’s consumption and voice professional opinions for their benefit.

I get the impression that he uses his public profile and his scientific authority as a senior astronomer to convincingly wax lyrical on a subject to Joe and Mary Citizen who know less about UFOs that he does and who aren’t by nature skeptical enough or knowledgeable enough to think the issue through themselves. We tend to rely on authority figures to tell us what’s what.

That aside, there’s nothing in the “S” in SETI which specifies how to search or what to search when it comes to pinning the tail on ET. UFOs are as legit as radio telescopes, so by ignoring any active participation in UFO investigation he’s effectively tying one hand behind his back. To profess an interest in ETI and yet ignore UFOs in the same breath is strange scientific behavior IMHO.

Finally, to end on a positive note, Dr. Shostak has made some valid points as related above; he has put his ‘money’ where his mouth is and been willing to engage politely in dialog with those who hold alternate worldviews.

Bibliographic Details:

Shostak, Seth; Sharing the Universe: Perspectives on Extraterrestrial Life; Berkeley Hills Books, Berkeley, California; 1998:

Shostak, Seth & Barnett, Alex; Cosmic Company: The Search for Life in the Universe; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.; 2003:

Shostak, Seth; Confessions of An Alien Hunter: A Scientist’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence; National Geographic, Washington, D.C.; 2009:



Gods of the Chariots

One telltale sign that the ‘gods’ were really extraterrestrials would be if they displayed advanced high technology before humans could have come up with those same high-tech goodies. An obvious electronic circuit; a diagram of some sort of particle physics interaction; an aerodynamically sound aircraft, even a depiction of Saturn’s rings represented as a 50,000 year old  petroglyph or as cave art would just about be proof positive to convince the most strident of ancient astronaut sceptics. Alas, no such evidence – yet at least. But we do have those ‘chariots of the gods’, a topic worthy of further exploration.

When it comes to high-tech in our ancient history, few things impress me as representing extraterrestrial technology, such as the Baghdad (Parthian) battery or the Antikythera mechanical/astronomical ‘computer’. While impressive in their own terrestrial right, they are hardly the stuff of which extraterrestrial influences on our home planet are made. Ditto that for most of the megalithic structures like Stonehenge or massive building works like the Egyptian or Mesoamerican pyramids. Terrestrially impressive as representing massive undertakings involving lots of hard labour over long periods of time – yes. As extraterrestrial structures they leave a bit to be desired. You tend to think of alien stuff as a lot more futuristic looking – polished metals, weird designs, next generation computers, lots of flashing lights and unexplainable gizmos. If ET builds a building on Earth you’d hope for something more imaginative than a pyramid built with blocks of stone.

What else is there to consider? Well, machines that fly seem to be futuristic gizmos that were beyond the capabilities of the ancients to build and operate.

We have those vimanas (flying machines in Hindu mythology)  and the ‘Wheel of Ezekiel’ (in Biblical mythology) and those Pre-Columbian little gold model ‘aeroplanes’ from Central and South America, not to forget to mention those ancient Egyptian wooden ‘birds’, so-called, and pigeon-holed as such, yet ‘birds’ aerodynamically perfect as rigid fixed-wing  models that could really fly when scaled-up. While these and more have occupied much attention from ancient astronaut theorists, more traditional ‘chariots’ from much better known mythologies haven’t really captured their attention despite that title of Erich von Daniken’s best selling book. Alas, Erich didn’t provide an index entry for “chariots” in that tome of his, so maybe not even he was willing to put money where his mouth was when it came to just plain every old day aerial ‘chariots’.    

There’s nothing overly high-tech about a chariot, apart from those cultures like those of the Americas (North, Central and South) for example that never invented the wheel or cultures who hadn’t domesticated a horse to pull one. I guess to the Incas a horse-drawn land chariot of the ancient Egyptians might have seemed high-tech indeed.

But to the ancient Europeans, especially southern Europeans like the Greeks, Romans, and other cultures in the Mediterranean and nearby regions like Mesopotamia, and of course the Egyptians, even unto India and China, chariots were part and parcel of their transport and means of waging war.

But chariots that fly, aerial ‘chariots’, are a whole new ballgame, yet those ancient cultures and more had aerial ‘chariots’, often described as ‘fiery’, contained within their mythologies. Of course these winged ‘chariots’ weren’t meant as a public transport network for the great unwashed (like a subway or bus system), rather as limousines reserved for the gods, goddesses and just plain deities in general. Are they fact or fiction?

There’s no shortage of ‘gods’ who make use of aerial transport in the form of ‘chariots’. They tend to read like a who’s who of deities in mythology. They can be sky gods like Zeus; Thor (of the Norse) is obviously another; Apollo (Greece) ditto that; the Greek Moon goddess Selene (Luna if you’re Roman) is another as is the Greek goddess of the dawn Eos (the Roman’s Aurora). Most mythological Sun gods are associated with aerial chariots like the Nordic god Sol and the Hindu god Surya, or a solar barge (or boat) as in ancient Egypt.

Now you might think it obvious that chariots (or a boat) would be associated with a Sun god or a Moon goddess (or a sky deity in general).  Something has got to pull those celestial orbs along (recall this was way before Newton and that falling apple that came down with gravity). But, do you see a chariot (or a boat) associated or in proximity with the Sun and the Moon? You don’t? Well the ancients had eyesight equal to us moderns, so no doubt they didn’t see any chariots associated with the Moon or Sun, any more than you do. So there has to be another explanation for those ‘chariots’. Perhaps one needs to separate the god or goddess or deity from what they represent. Selene may be the goddess of the Moon, but she is not actually the Moon and it’s her ‘chariot’ not the Moon’s ‘chariot’ that is an issue here. Translated, the Moon doesn’t need transport; the goddess does.

Now following the Greek god’s War of the Titans, Zeus divided up the cosmos among his clan by their drawing of lots for the various portfolios and spoils of war that go to the victors. The Greek Sun god Helios, though well respected by Zeus, missed out on the spoils being fully occupied at the time with solar duties. However, Helios did take a ‘shine’ to a new piece of real estate that popped up in the Aegean Sea, so Zeus gave him title to that. It was called Rhodes and the locals later erected a statue of Helios in his honour – one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World – the famed ‘Colossus of Rhodes’. Now mortals do not go to that sort of time and trouble, expend vast amounts of money and energy, on constructing gigantic statues of and to imaginary beings. There’s no benefit of doing so, either personally or for the community. Conclusion: Helios was real.

Now Helios, like nearly the entire ancient Greek pantheon of deities, had his share of offspring. Helios had various offspring-producing lovers like Rhode (the nymph of his island) and Clytie (another nymph) as well as his wife Perse (or Perseis), an Oceanid. [Talk about girls having a really hot time in bed – it doesn’t get any hotter than with the Sun god!] Among his kids were Circe (a sorceress) and Pasiphae, Queen of Crete, who had herself an affair with a bull (but that’s another story). Helios also had a fling with the Oceanid Clymene, resulting in a son Phaeton; setting the stage for the tragedy to follow.  

Now after that little interlude, let’s return back to those ‘chariots’. There’s one ‘chariots’ case history that really stands out and that’s the story of that Greek Sun god Helios, and especially the story of Helios and his son Phaeton. Now daddy very unwisely grants his son a wish. That wish is to drive the family car without benefit of a driver’s license or even any driving lessons. Now the family car is of course an aerial ‘chariot’. The end result was that the son suffered a bit of a prang – well that’s actually quite the understatement. Let’s just say modern Greeks even today could be finding pieces of the wreckage. Shades of Roswell! In fact, this might be the ancient Greek or Mediterranean version of Roswell!

Being a bit of a typical teenage hoon with a yen for fast ‘chariots’ (some things are probably universal even across extraterrestrial societies), Phaeton put the pedal to the metal, doing burnouts in the sky, and of course he lost control. Passing too close to ground level, the out of control ‘chariot’ scorched fertile plains, burned mountains and forests, turned lands into deserts, destroyed towns while burning the locals to a brownish crisp. No wonder Helios’s ‘chariot’ was thought to be the personification of the Sun!   

With the fate of the Earth at stake, a rather pissed-off Zeus brought this unhappy state of affairs to a quick conclusion by blasting the ‘chariot’, Phaeton and all, out of the sky via one of his famous thunderbolts. The ‘chariot’, trailing fire like a shooting star, fell from the heavens. The ‘chariot’ crashed and Phaeton’s dead body ended up in the River Eridanus. Good riddance to bad rubbish Zeus and no doubt the rest of ancient Greek society probably concluded. It doesn’t seem to be recorded what Helios thought – probably a silent “I told you so”. And that’s the story of the ancient Greek version of what I conclude as their Roswell.

In a further conclusion, the ancients could only label unknown exotic flying machines (UFOs) by what they were familiar with – like boats and chariots. In that sense I guess they, those aerial ‘chariots’ weren’t really UFOs since they had been identified, albeit incorrectly, in familiar terms.

Gods of the Chariots

One telltale sign that the ‘gods’ were really extraterrestrials would be if they displayed advanced high technology before humans could have come up with those same high-tech goodies. An obvious electronic circuit; a diagram of some sort of particle physics interaction; an aerodynamically sound aircraft, even a depiction of Saturn’s rings represented as a 50,000 year old  petroglyph or as cave art would just about be proof positive to convince the most strident of ancient astronaut sceptics. Alas, no such evidence – yet at least. But we do have those ‘chariots of the gods’, a topic worthy of further exploration.

When it comes to high-tech in our ancient history, few things impress me as representing extraterrestrial technology, such as the Baghdad (Parthian) battery or the Antikythera mechanical/astronomical ‘computer’. While impressive in their own terrestrial right, they are hardly the stuff of which extraterrestrial influences on our home planet are made. Ditto that for most of the megalithic structures like Stonehenge or massive building works like the Egyptian or Mesoamerican pyramids. Terrestrially impressive as representing massive undertakings involving lots of hard labour over long periods of time – yes. As extraterrestrial structures they leave a bit to be desired. You tend to think of alien stuff as a lot more futuristic looking – polished metals, weird designs, next generation computers, lots of flashing lights and unexplainable gizmos. If ET builds a building on Earth you’d hope for something more imaginative than a pyramid built with blocks of stone.

What else is there to consider? Well, machines that fly seem to be futuristic gizmos that were beyond the capabilities of the ancients to build and operate.

We have those vimanas (flying machines in Hindu mythology)  and the ‘Wheel of Ezekiel’ (in Biblical mythology) and those Pre-Columbian little gold model ‘aeroplanes’ from Central and South America, not to forget to mention those ancient Egyptian wooden ‘birds’, so-called, and pigeon-holed as such, yet ‘birds’ aerodynamically perfect as rigid fixed-wing  models that could really fly when scaled-up. While these and more have occupied much attention from ancient astronaut theorists, more traditional ‘chariots’ from much better known mythologies haven’t really captured their attention despite that title of Erich von Daniken’s best selling book. Alas, Erich didn’t provide an index entry for “chariots” in that tome of his, so maybe not even he was willing to put money where his mouth was when it came to just plain every old day aerial ‘chariots’.    

There’s nothing overly high-tech about a chariot, apart from those cultures like those of the Americas (North, Central and South) for example that never invented the wheel or cultures who hadn’t domesticated a horse to pull one. I guess to the Incas a horse-drawn land chariot of the ancient Egyptians might have seemed high-tech indeed.

But to the ancient Europeans, especially southern Europeans like the Greeks, Romans, and other cultures in the Mediterranean and nearby regions like Mesopotamia, and of course the Egyptians, even unto India and China, chariots were part and parcel of their transport and means of waging war.

But chariots that fly, aerial ‘chariots’, are a whole new ballgame, yet those ancient cultures and more had aerial ‘chariots’, often described as ‘fiery’, contained within their mythologies. Of course these winged ‘chariots’ weren’t meant as a public transport network for the great unwashed (like a subway or bus system), rather as limousines reserved for the gods, goddesses and just plain deities in general. Are they fact or fiction?

There’s no shortage of ‘gods’ who make use of aerial transport in the form of ‘chariots’. They tend to read like a who’s who of deities in mythology. They can be sky gods like Zeus; Thor (of the Norse) is obviously another; Apollo (Greece) ditto that; the Greek Moon goddess Selene (Luna if you’re Roman) is another as is the Greek goddess of the dawn Eos (the Roman’s Aurora). Most mythological Sun gods are associated with aerial chariots like the Nordic god Sol and the Hindu god Surya, or a solar barge (or boat) as in ancient Egypt.

Now you might think it obvious that chariots (or a boat) would be associated with a Sun god or a Moon goddess (or a sky deity in general).  Something has got to pull those celestial orbs along (recall this was way before Newton and that falling apple that came down with gravity). But, do you see a chariot (or a boat) associated or in proximity with the Sun and the Moon? You don’t? Well the ancients had eyesight equal to us moderns, so no doubt they didn’t see any chariots associated with the Moon or Sun, any more than you do. So there has to be another explanation for those ‘chariots’. Perhaps one needs to separate the god or goddess or deity from what they represent. Selene may be the goddess of the Moon, but she is not actually the Moon and it’s her ‘chariot’ not the Moon’s ‘chariot’ that is an issue here. Translated, the Moon doesn’t need transport; the goddess does.

Now following the Greek god’s War of the Titans, Zeus divided up the cosmos among his clan by their drawing of lots for the various portfolios and spoils of war that go to the victors. The Greek Sun god Helios, though well respected by Zeus, missed out on the spoils being fully occupied at the time with solar duties. However, Helios did take a ‘shine’ to a new piece of real estate that popped up in the Aegean Sea, so Zeus gave him title to that. It was called Rhodes and the locals later erected a statue of Helios in his honour – one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World – the famed ‘Colossus of Rhodes’. Now mortals do not go to that sort of time and trouble, expend vast amounts of money and energy, on constructing gigantic statues of and to imaginary beings. There’s no benefit of doing so, either personally or for the community. Conclusion: Helios was real.

Now Helios, like nearly the entire ancient Greek pantheon of deities, had his share of offspring. Helios had various offspring-producing lovers like Rhode (the nymph of his island) and Clytie (another nymph) as well as his wife Perse (or Perseis), an Oceanid. [Talk about girls having a really hot time in bed – it doesn’t get any hotter than with the Sun god!] Among his kids were Circe (a sorceress) and Pasiphae, Queen of Crete, who had herself an affair with a bull (but that’s another story). Helios also had a fling with the Oceanid Clymene, resulting in a son Phaeton; setting the stage for the tragedy to follow.  

Now after that little interlude, let’s return back to those ‘chariots’. There’s one ‘chariots’ case history that really stands out and that’s the story of that Greek Sun god Helios, and especially the story of Helios and his son Phaeton. Now daddy very unwisely grants his son a wish. That wish is to drive the family car without benefit of a driver’s license or even any driving lessons. Now the family car is of course an aerial ‘chariot’. The end result was that the son suffered a bit of a prang – well that’s actually quite the understatement. Let’s just say modern Greeks even today could be finding pieces of the wreckage. Shades of Roswell! In fact, this might be the ancient Greek or Mediterranean version of Roswell!

Being a bit of a typical teenage hoon with a yen for fast ‘chariots’ (some things are probably universal even across extraterrestrial societies), Phaeton put the pedal to the metal, doing burnouts in the sky, and of course he lost control. Passing too close to ground level, the out of control ‘chariot’ scorched fertile plains, burned mountains and forests, turned lands into deserts, destroyed towns while burning the locals to a brownish crisp. No wonder Helios’s ‘chariot’ was thought to be the personification of the Sun!   

With the fate of the Earth at stake, a rather pissed-off Zeus brought this unhappy state of affairs to a quick conclusion by blasting the ‘chariot’, Phaeton and all, out of the sky via one of his famous thunderbolts. The ‘chariot’, trailing fire like a shooting star, fell from the heavens. The ‘chariot’ crashed and Phaeton’s dead body ended up in the River Eridanus. Good riddance to bad rubbish Zeus and no doubt the rest of ancient Greek society probably concluded. It doesn’t seem to be recorded what Helios thought – probably a silent “I told you so”. And that’s the story of the ancient Greek version of what I conclude as their Roswell.

In a further conclusion, the ancients could only label unknown exotic flying machines (UFOs) by what they were familiar with – like boats and chariots. In that sense I guess they, those aerial ‘chariots’ weren’t really UFOs since they had been identified, albeit incorrectly, in familiar terms.

Zeus, the Extraterrestrial: Part Two

The well known and recognized ancient Greek character Zeus, was either as fictional as Alice in Wonderland, or a supernatural deity as described, or a terrestrial mortal or a flesh-and-blood extraterrestrial. Of the four possibilities, the final one, Zeus the ET, is the most intriguing.

I’ve argued long and loud that the polytheistic gods were not supernatural deities but flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials. I’m not the only person who has come to this conclusion – there’s an entire set of ‘ancient astronaut’ buffs who also have argued equally long and loud that the mythologies of the gods are really the history of extraterrestrials that have influenced humanity over the millennia. Rather than cover generalities yet again, I’ll focus on probably the best known of the polytheistic gods – Zeus, IMHO the extraterrestrial (though one could just about pick any of the thousands of polytheistic deities and perform a similar analysis).

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Evidence for Zeus the Extraterrestrial: Why was this Zeus character an alien?

Well Zeus possessed and frequently used high technology not available to his Greek subjects. That high technology revolved around those famous and fearsome thunderbolts that Zeus liked to chuck around. Zeus and his mates using such high technology (supplied by the way via a trio of Cyclopes – and if they ain’t alien looking I don’t know what is) defeated the Titans (the Titanomachy) thus achieving power after a decade long battle (one of those ‘star wars’ in the heavens). Then Zeus had to use his thunderbolts battling against the mother of all monsters, the Typhon. Zeus suffered grievous injuries but he prevailed, those thunderbolts flashing every which way.

Another form of high-tech was suggested above and refers back to those alien-human demigods and demigoddess hybrids, human-animal hybrids, and those wired ‘births’ like that of Athena and Aphrodite. 

More high-tech could be suggested in that Zeus had the ability to shape-shift, or at least had the technology that allowed him the illusion of shape-shifting. It was through such trickery that he was able to have his wicked way with some of those mortal female humans that produced some of those demigods and demigoddesses.

Zeus was ‘immortal’, yet vulnerable, as the battle with Typhon proved. In theory, Zeus (unlike God), could be bumped off. Very long-lived extraterrestrials might be considered by us mortals to be, for all practical purposes, immortal.

Zeus of course was a sky god in Geek mythology. He came from the sky; he was of the sky. 

Zeus rode around in an aerial chariot (what we might call today a UFO).

A Hard Act to Swallow:

I noted above the ‘birth’ of Athena which gave Zeus a bit of a headache (to say the least)! Recall that Zeus swallowed Metis, his pregnant wife, who gave birth to a fully grown, clothed and armed Athena while in that swallowed condition!

But even before that Cronus swallowed his offspring, but was tricked into swallowing a rock instead of baby Zeus. Later on down the track Cronus was forced to cough up the other five of the siblings of Zeus.

But before even that, and somewhat akin, Uranus stuffed his brats, one of which was Cronus, back into the womb of his beloved mother and sexual partner, Gaia. That didn’t work for long, Gaia finally bursting at the proverbial seams. Gaia then had her revenge getting Cronus to slice off the private parts of Uranus – ouch!

So what do we make of all this swallowing and stuffing? On the surface it was the mechanism for daddy to make sure his offspring wouldn’t survive or be able to be around to ever challenge his power base. While the rational might be true, the biological act can’t be.

So what might the swallowing or the stuffing actually represent? Well, if you get into a vehicle; car, bus, train, plane, submarine, Apollo space capsule, etc. you have, to someone ignorant of the vehicle concept, that vehicle swallowing you. Did Jonah get swallowed by a whale? - Of course not. Jonah entered into some sort of mechanical device. In the same way, Zeus forced Metis into some sort of contraption where she eventually gave birth to and raised her daughter, Athena. Cronus forced his offspring into some sort of contraption, all later to be freed, but Zeus escaped that fate entirely while being raised on Crete. Uranus stuffed his brats into some sort of device, probably along with Gaia, but they escaped and Gaia got her revenge for their imprisonment.

The reverse procedure by the way, vomiting, is a commonplace theme in creation mythologies around the world. 

Where Did Zeus Go? I can not find a satisfactory explanation in classical mythology texts as to what happened to the ancient Greek sky-god.

Unfortunately, the story of Zeus (and the other Greek/Roman pantheon of deities) just stops mid-sentence. There’s no happy ever ending, ending or even a happy never ending, ending. There’s no ending at all, full stop! If the gods are mythical, why no last chapter in their saga? It must have been very frustrating to the ancient Greeks not to get the next and ultimately final installment in “The Amazing Adventures of Zeus, the Sky God”.

If Zeus and his comrades were real, but terrestrial, then it would have been difficult, but probably not impossible, for them to become incognito; disguised for the rest of their ‘immortal’ days, changing jobs and appearances and nationalities every few decades or so. 

But if Captain Zeus of the Starship Olympus and crew decided to pack up and leave and boldly go elsewhere in the cosmos to seek out another primitive civilization to rule over, they being under no obligation to inform and seek permission from the terrestrial authorities first, then it’s understandable why their story stops in mid-verse and why we’ve seen neither hide nor hair of the lot of them in over 2000 years!

One Final Thought: By my reckoning as related above at least demigods and demigoddesses like Gilgamesh, Brahma, and Shiva as non-Greek examples, and Achilles, Helen of Troy, Heracles, and [King] Minos [of Crete] were really human-alien hybrids. Since many of them in turn mated with mortals and produced offspring, and they in turn ditto, right on down the timeline, that means that most of us have probably a tiny percentage of our genetic makeup that is ultimately extraterrestrial in origin. 

Zeus, the Extraterrestrial: Part One

The well known and recognized ancient Greek character Zeus, was either as fictional as Alice in Wonderland, or a supernatural deity as described, or a terrestrial mortal or a flesh-and-blood extraterrestrial. Of the four possibilities, the final one, Zeus the ET, is the most intriguing.

I’ve argued long and loud that the polytheistic gods were not supernatural deities but flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials. I’m not the only person who has come to this conclusion – there’s an entire set of ‘ancient astronaut’ buffs who also have argued equally long and loud that the mythologies of the gods are really the history of extraterrestrials that have influenced humanity over the millennia. Rather than cover generalities yet again, I’ll focus on probably the best known of the polytheistic gods – Zeus, IMHO the extraterrestrial (though one could just about pick any of the thousands of polytheistic deities and perform a similar analysis).

Zeus vs. God: The Greek god Zeus (Jupiter in the Roman pantheon of gods) was a King-of-Kings deity, top of the totem pole, but unlike the monotheistic God…

Zeus was born and had a precarious start in life and childhood. His daddy wasn’t a very friendly father figure. In fact the father of Zeus, the Titan god Cronus (the product of Gaia and Uranus who was later done a mischief by Cronus) really sucked big-time. Cronus swallowed all of his new born kids in order that they, in the future, wouldn’t become rivals and a pain in the ass by challenging his rule. Fortunately, Zeus’s mother, Rhea, came to the rescue and tricked Cronus into swallowing a substitute stone instead of Zeus. Baby Zeus was secluded away to Crete and raised independently by nymphs, coming back eventually to get daddy to vomit up his siblings, and they collectively gave Cronus his just deserts in the war of the Titans vs. the Olympians. 

So Zeus, unlike God, had to work and fight his way to the top job.

Zeus lived on Earth – Mount Olympus. Mount Olympus at least is a really real place one can sink one’s teeth into, unlike the nebulous Godly abode of Heaven. 

Zeus also shared power, in the main with his brothers Poseidon and Hades, but also including various Olympic goddesses - the opposite sex. God does not share power; certainly not with females.  

There are statues of Zeus commissioned while he was still Greek’s all powerful chief cook and bottle washer, so we know today what Zeus looked like (and our imaginations and representations of God’s images are usually molded on images of Zeus).

Zeus and Sex: Zeus is probably more famous for his sexual exploits than anything else!

Unlike God, Zeus ‘married’, two or even three times. Firstly there was the Titaness goddess Metis, who produced Zeus’s daughter Athena via a very unusual mating process. Zeus apparently swallowed his pregnant wife and she gave birth to Athena in Zeus’s head which had to be split open to release the kid; well actually Athena was ‘born’ fully grown and armed (and presumably clothed as well). Now I put to you that no human in even the wildest drug induced state would conjure up such a fantasy. Instead, this is a misinterpretation of some sort of high-tech alien process little understood by the ancient Greek historians. See below for further analysis. 

Secondly, Zeus ‘married’ Themis, yet another Titaness goddess. That union produced the Fates, Dike, and Eirene. Lastly, Zeus ‘married’ Hera – the Queen of Olympus and his sister to boot – from which more offspring came, like Ares. But was Zeus a faithful hubby? Not on your Nellie; not a snowball’s chance in Hades!  

Zeus had sexual desires that just wouldn’t quit. God never lusted after Mother Mary or Eve I bet! Anyway, Zeus, via mortal women (and usually via trickery if not outright force), fathered a who’s who in Greek mythological demigods and demigoddesses – the hybrids that result from the mating of gods/goddesses with mortals. There was Helen of Troy; Heracles (Hercules); Perseus; Castor, Polydeuces, Minos and the Muses for starters. The randy old bugger even mated with another of his own sisters, Demeter producing Persephone (who later had a randy run-in with Zeus’s brother, Hades).

Speaking of Minos (son of Zeus and his rape victim Europa) and hybrids, there’s another example of weird unions; births and resulting offspring that’s suggestive of high-tech. Now it seems Minos pissed off Zeus’s brother Poseidon. Poseidon, ever inventive, caused Mrs. Minos (Pasiphae) to lust after a bull (and presumably the bull to lust after Mrs. Minos). The end product of this union became that human-bovine hybrid, the Minotaur (and that’s no bull!).

As an aside, in case you think Zeus is the sexual exception when it comes to lusting after us mortals and not the sexual rule in mythology, think again. Greek/Roman mythology is full of X-rated amorous tales for the over-18 only. You just have to think of Eros/Cupid and Aphrodite/Venus. The latter also mated with a mortal male producing some of the next generation (lucky guy). Now Aphrodite, like Athena, had a rather odd ‘birth’. She was also ‘born’ thanks to some weird biology between seawater foam and those severed private parts of Zeus’s grandfather, Uranus (see below for more graphic details). 

This is just the tip of the iceberg in the ‘who begat who’ and under what circumstances, and that god-mortal relationship isn’t confined to the Greek (and Roman) pantheon.

God gets into the act in the sense that the Old Testament references those “Sons of God” getting it on with the “Daughters of Men”.

Then there are American Indian tales such as the one from the Algonquin tribe that relates the story of the mortal Algon and the Sky-Girl he fell in love with. There are those from South America (Peru) where you have the mortal Ollantay and the love of his life, Cusicollur, a direct descendent from the Inca Sun-God Viracocha. Also Peruvian, involving a son or incarnation of Viracocha, name of Coniraya, who had it off with Cavillaca, a high-ranking but nevertheless mortal Inca who got pregnant in one of those rather unusual mythological ways – in this case by eating sperm-laden fruit (a case of artificial insemination perhaps?). Then you have the demigod Sigurd (Siegfried) who shacks up with his aunt Brynhildr (Brunnhilde), originally a goddess, a shield-maiden or Valkyrie in Norse mythology, but who was transformed into a mortal before Sigurd met her. These and more mirror the general theme of amorous god-mortal relationships in Greek mythology.

Now there has to be an explanation apart from the obvious one (it’s all fiction) how either supernatural beings and/or aliens can mate with humans. I dismiss the possibility of there being any really real supernatural deities, so that leaves ET as the other option. Now mythologies around the globe record that the ‘gods’ created human beings. The only way that could have been done is by their using incredibly advanced biotechnology, bio-engineering and other genetic manipulation techniques.

Part of that creation process was making sure humans were sexually and genetically compatible with their creators. Why they (deities or aliens) would desire that is for the moment unanswerable. At the least it suggests that various life forms in the cosmos can’t be all that dissimilar at a biochemical level, and might imply that a terrestrial-extraterrestrial connection extends farther back and is deeper than one could on probability expect. 

But back to alien-human genetic technology than enables our sexual and reproductive compatibility, the parallel is, moral and ethical considerations aside, this is genetic technology we ourselves might be capable of in the not all that distant future. In theory, even if a form of rather perverted theory, we could manipulate our genetics, and the genetics of another terrestrial species, to create a human-animal hybrid. In fact this has already been accomplished with less complex life forms. The term ‘Frankenfish’ comes to mind in context, though ‘GloFish’ is more correct. It was the transfer of the gene from a jellyfish into a zebrafish so that the fish became fluorescent. Though not created for the purpose, they can be obtained in the aquarium/pet trade. If GloFish today, translated into our near future, might it really be possible if one really wanted to, to create a really real mermaid? Yes!

To be continued...

UFOs Not, Because E.T. Isn’t: Part Two

Seeing as how the Universe is some 13.7 billion years old, and seeing as how the current human species (defined as Homo sapiens) has been around for only some 100,000 years (give or take), then I have to ask, is it logical to assume that we’re the proverbial ‘It’? If the answer should prove to be ‘yes’, if terrestrial life and humanity is the be all and end all of life in the Universe, then UFOs can’t have anything to do with extraterrestrials.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Technology second:

Okay, we have lots of widely separated planetary abodes throughout the cosmos that have an intelligent species of critter on them. Since we assume your intelligent neighbours are fairly far away and you want to discover, and then maybe communicate with them, that poses a problem. If you want to find them, you or your surrogate, has got to go to them, and/or they (or their surrogate) have to come to you. In a terrestrial analogy, you have a barrier like an ocean or vast desert or mountain range separating you from them so it’s difficult to hike or swim the distance. The surrogate mentioned earlier could be a smoke or radio signal or laser beam, but if you want something more up-close-and-personal then you tend to need boats or planes or four-wheel drives or covered wagons, or in our interstellar scenario, rocket ships, etc. Once you do establish ‘first contact’, you’d like to keep in touch. On Earth, the usual means of keeping in touch other than by face-to-face communication is by snail mail, phone, or email – snail mail apart, its radio or electromagnetic communications in general that’s usually employed (even smoke signals use reflected light waves to deliver the message).

That introduces one additional complication for the UFO ETH; it’s not enough to just be intelligent. You need to have technology (and even snail mail as noted above is still a form of technology). Then, and only then, will the ‘are we alone?’ question be answered to our absolute satisfaction. We need technology if we are to find (maybe communicate with) extraterrestrial intelligence(s); and/or extraterrestrial intelligence(s) will need technology to find us. One or both of us has to have invented engineering to a somewhat sophisticated level - maybe rocket ships, maybe radio telescopes, but something technological is required.

There’s also a hidden assumption here – you actually want to seek out new civilizations. It matters not one jot if you have all the required technology but care not to use it for the purpose of answering that question – ‘are you alone in the Universe?’ I’ll assume here that if you have intelligence, and you’ve been able to construct appropriate technology, then part of your intelligence is devoted to being a curious critter who wants to know and find out things – so that’s a certainty of one. Curiosity and associated intelligence, or intelligence and associated curiosity are two sides of the same coin.

But what’s the level of certainty of developing appropriate technology in the first place? Rather poor judging from all those terrestrial species that have a somewhat reasonable degree of smarts to their credit. There’s the human species of course, and though while we’re not quite a sample of one, there having been other hominoid species with some IQ capacity (like Neanderthals), its pretty close to being a sample of one. There are documentary observations of some animals (primates mainly) not so much manufacturing, but making use of existing ‘tools’ to assist in their survival. Alas, most intelligent species lack the anatomy and/or the right environment to manipulate objects. In the case of dolphins and whales, their ocean environment stymies any way and means of constructing things and making use of fire, for example. So, developing technology has to be rated, judging from our terrestrial sampling, as rather low; otters using rocks to break open clams not withstanding. 

So, for UFOs to be alien spaceships, one needs an extraterrestrial intelligent species to develop appropriate technology, and here’s where I see a bit of a bottleneck. The evolution of technology isn’t inevitable and has a lot of just-so factors attached.

Firstly, your home planet has got to come equipped with the right sorts of materials like oxygen and metallic ores and other objects (rocks, wood, etc.) than can be turned into useful tools, and of course most important a suitable supply of energy sources. That you’ll have at your disposal all the required material and energy resources is not a given.

Water worlds are out of the running since it’s difficult to discover and utilise fire in that sort of environment.

You can’t have all your required locomotive appendages (legs) in contact with the ground – some limbs have to be free to manipulate objects in your environment. Birds have wings that are off the ground, but since wings aren’t good at making tools, that seems to rule out wings, and all birds of a feather, pretty much as well as tool makers.

So, I’ve already ruled out dolphins and whales and the cephalopods (like the octopus) being water based creatures; the birds with their useless wings as far as building things is concerned; and all the four-footed walking mammals (or reptiles or amphibians).

It might be conceivable that you can build up a technology using your mouth parts and/or using a tail (if you have one) to manipulate and build things, but we don’t have obvious terrestrial case studies, although you might argue that bees, wasps, termites, ants and birds can build elaborate structures using just their mouths. So that’s in the ‘maybe’ basket.

Technology is also a double-edged sword. The use of technology has had obvious survival value for the human species. You wouldn’t be hard-pressed to come up with dozens of technological inventions that have enabled us to survive longer and thrive better and be ever more fruitful and multiply. But, our technological genie is also out of the bottle, and unless you’re a hermit, you will have noted by now that technology can also reduce our quality of life, and no doubt you wouldn’t be equally hard-pressed to cite dozens of examples, from handguns to the automobile - which leads nicely into the last consideration. 

To be continued...

The Rare Earth Hypothesis: Part Two

If the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a viable experiment and not a waste of time; if UFOs and ancient astronauts are facets that help document the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, then the very existence of an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence with technology has to be plausible in the first place. Unfortunately, it’s a long hard road to get from inorganic chemistry through to E.T. and there are many possible bottleneck hurdles that have to be overcome before the one evolves into the other. Goldilocks factors – not too this, not too that, but just right – have to be with you every step of the way. IMHO the major bottlenecks are the transition from unicellular to multicellular life and the evolutionary development and use of technology.

It’s been pointed out by others, and based on my readings I tend to have to agree, that astronomers (physical scientists) tend to be much more optimistic and supportive of the notion that advanced life forms in the Universe (extraterrestrial intelligence) are a dime-a-dozen relative to biologists (life scientists), who hedge their bets and who it must be said are presumably better qualified to pass judgments. So, taking things from a more biological perspective, what’s what?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

But now we come to our first and major bottleneck.

It took 0.5 billion years for the unicellular origin of life on Earth, or for microbes from space to take root on Earth, but then it then took nearly another 3.5 billion years between the appearance of that ‘simple’ single proto-cell life form and the eventual evolution and the resultant Cambrian explosion of multicellular (complex) life forms. For some reason(s), it appears to be biologically difficult to go from the simple single cell to a complex multicellular organism based on the only example we have to judge such things. Probably the overall obstacle to the early quick-smart establishment of multicellular (complex) life is that heretofore microbes (single cells) were 100% self-sufficient generalists. Complex organisms require the evolution of single cells to give up being generalists, become specialists, and work as part of a team. That degree of organization apparently takes lots of time, especially to the stage of where it can leave a large fossil presence, if it takes place at all.

Once you get to the multicellular stage, and in order to evolve further, well the trick is to survive, for the Universe is a dangerous place.

Planetary environments tend to be dangerous and rarely stable, and thus you need a lot of factors in place to ensure that even simple life even survives the long term and get the chance to evolve into multicellular life. Or, if you have evolved multicellular life, the odds are pretty good it’s going to get the Big “E” – Extinction.  I mean complex life is very vulnerable to environmental forces. A tornado probably isn’t going to bother bacteria, but it sure could tear you apart. That’s not to say bacteria can survive everything the cosmos can throw at them, but when nasties come, you stand a better chance of survival if you’re a microbe. So, in order to get to the first proto multicellular critter, and from that to us, you need a lot of Goldilocks factors operating in your favour.

But there are apparently just too many planetary Goldilocks factors at play to grant the probability that complex, multicellular, animal, life is common throughout the cosmos. You need to be in a quiet part of the galaxy – no nearby supernovas, black holes to suck you in, gamma ray bursters, etc. You need a long lived stable single star. You need a gravitationally stable solar system so that planets are not gravitationally disturbed out of their orbit and either plunged into the parent star or cast out of the parent system altogether. You should have a good Jupiter(s) to absorb and/or gravitational deflect comets and asteroids that would otherwise slam into your otherwise environmentally-friendly planet causing havoc to established life forms. You need a planet that’s in a pretty circular orbit, one that doesn’t stray too close or too far from the habitable zone surrounding the parent star. The planet must have a fairly stable temperature range over geologic time periods, and so you must have an atmosphere, and thus has to be massive enough to retain an atmosphere, without being so massive that you end up with a brown dwarf - a quasi-stellar body. The axis can’t have an extreme tilt, and it would greatly assist if the planet had a large moon around it to assist its long term stability. You need some sort of plate tectonics to ensure land building and the recycling of materials. If it’s intelligence, with technology you seek, the planet can’t be a water world. The planet must have formed in a region abundant in the heavier chemical elements (oxygen, sulphur, carbon, silicon, nitrogen, various metals, etc.). When you take all those factors (and more) into account, the number of suitable abodes where simple life can slowly evolve into complex life decreases rather quickly. And there’s no guarantee that there is really any directed purpose to evolution in that evolution doesn’t require simple life to become complex life. Survival and leaving offspring is what it’s all about, and if single cell critters do that what more is needed?

One note about planetary disasters or catastrophes is that these cut both ways. They can’t be frequent enough and/or large enough to wipe out the entire biosphere in total, especially the biosphere comprised of complex life forms, but on the other hand, infrequent small disasters can spur on evolutionary change by opening up environmental niches, but depending on who or what you are, when you are, and where you are, a disaster can be a double edged sword. I mean if you’re a T-Rex sixty five million years ago, its bad news. On the other hand, without the bad news for T-Rex, we wouldn’t be here, so for us, an asteroid impact 65 million years ago turned out to be good news!

It’s also difficult to naturally transport complex life around the galaxy, unlike microbial life. If a meteor hit Earth and blasted a chunk of terra firma off towards Mars, pity the poor cockroach going along for the ride. Cockroaches are tough, but not that tough. And even if a cockroach did make it alive to the surface of, say Mars, it wouldn’t survive long.

Anyway, once you have multicellular critters that have survived and thrived in a reasonably stable part of the Universe over many generations, will they evolve intelligence? I mean finding an extraterrestrial equivalent of a trilobite is all well and good, but we want to find beings more like ourselves.

IMHO, intelligence, the ability to figure things out, has evolutionary survival value and will tend to be selected for, and thus over time, there will tend to have evolved life forms with ever higher IQ’s. Here on Earth, just about all mammals and birds, and some exceptional invertebrates (the cephalopods like squid and the octopus), have reasonable IQ’s at least when compared to bacteria, plants, insects, fish, etc. Of course just as some kinds of organisms are faster than others, or have keener senses of sight or smell or hearing, not all advanced organisms are going to end up equal in the IQ stakes. But, the fact remains, the ability to think, to figure things out, can only increase your odds of survival and leaving behind more offspring.

Finally, for SETI to succeed, for UFOs to be alien spaceships, one needs our intelligent species to develop technology, and here’s where I see bottleneck number two. The evolution of technology isn’t inevitable and has a lot of just-so factors attached.

Firstly, your home planet has got to come equipped with the right sorts of materials like oxygen and metal ores and other objects than can be turned into useful tools, and of course a suitable supply of various energy sources. That’s not a given.

Water worlds are out of the running since it’s difficult to discover and utilise fire in that sort of environment.

You can’t have all your required locomotive appendages in contact with the ground – some have to be free to manipulate objects in your environment. Birds have wings that are off the ground, but since wings aren’t good at making tools, that seems to rule out wings and birds of a feather pretty much as well

So, we’ve already ruled out dolphins and whales and the cephalopods being water based creatures, and the birds with their useless wings as far as building things is concerned, and all the four-footed walking mammals.

It might be conceivable that you can build up a technology using your mouth parts and/or using a tail to manipulate and build things, but we don’t have obvious terrestrial case studies, although you might argue that bees and wasps and termites and ants and birds can build elaborate structures using just their mouths.

It’s not all that obvious that technology actually adds all that much value towards ultimate long-term survival. Lots of technological advancements do, like controlling fire, developing agriculture, the rise of modern medicine and food technologies. But then lots of modern technological wonders, the automobile, CDs, sofas, microwave ovens, and thousands of other consumer products don’t really contribute to our overall survival – certainly cars don’t when considering the road toll! Then that brings up the fact that things technological can sometimes work in the opposite direction. Toxic this, pollutant that, nuclear the next thing; then throw in a bit of global warming; the rise of urban city living with overcrowding and in general overpopulation; chemical, biological and radiological warfare/terrorism; instruments of warfare in general, like guns; the overuse of antibiotics and the rise of antibiotic resistant germs; exposure to electromagnetic fields – well, the list of horrors or potential horrors goes on and on.

It makes for an interesting question: would mankind ultimately survive longer had technology never entered the equation, or not? It’s an unanswerable question in that 1) we can’t run the contrary as a controlled experiment, and 2) that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and there’s probably no turning back now.

So, overall, SETI might not be able to detect our technological and communicating kin out there, and UFOs might not be alien spaceships right here, because it’s 1) hard to evolve multicellular organisms, and 2) technology isn’t inevitable and might even be counterproductive. Thus, Earth, with its multicellular critters and humanity with its technology, is quite the rare planet within the Universe – according to some.   

The main proponents of what is now called the ‘Rare Earth Hypothesis’ are the scientists Brownlee and Ward (see below), and they have certainly stirred up an astrobiological hornet’s nest with the idea. That’s good for science in the long term. The belief in an unproved but accepted scientific proposition, in this case that that there are lots of complex alien critters out there, needs to be challenged if fields of inquiry aren’t going to stagnate. However, make no mistake, it is the ‘Rare Earth Hypothesis’, not the ‘Unique Earth Hypothesis’, so religious fundamentalists who have taken this hypothesis to their hearts; who still need Planet Earth, and human beings, as some sort of religious special creation, should really not take comfort from these ideas.  The Copernicus Revolution is still alive and well.

Further reading:

Brownlee, Donald & Ward, Peter D.; Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe; Copernicus Books, New York; 2000:

Burger, William C.; Perfect Planet, Clever Species: How Unique Are We? Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York; 2003:

Morris, Simon Conway; Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans In A Lonely Universe; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2003:

Are We the Proverbial “It”? Part Two

Every one and their great grandmother has apparently had a go at, and calculated a value for the Drake Equation (named after radio astronomer and SETI scientist Frank D. Drake). The Drake Equation estimates (guesstimates is actually more accurate) the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy that could in theory say “Hi” to us and receive our “Hello” in return by examining all the factors that are part and parcel of that scenario. Seeing as how the Universe is some 13.7 billion years old, and seeing as how the current human species has been around for only some 200,000 years (give or take), then I have to ask, is it logical to assume that we’re the proverbial “It”? Here’s my two cents worth.

Are we alone in the Universe? That’s a question that’s been asked by millions over the eons, without, to date resolution. Of course the word ‘alone’ implies alone in the sense of whether or not there exists elsewhere our rough equals, more likely as not betters. We want to get to know our neighbours across the street, not their pets, or their plants. The standard gut-feeling answer to the question usually revolves around how vast the Universe is, and surely, given the billions of stars in our galaxy and the existence of billions of galaxies each with billions of stars, etc. and the vastness of time, surely we can’t be the proverbial “It”. There’s unfortunately one slight flaw in that statistical approach. There’s a rather long chain of events that have to happen, hurdles to be jumped, in order to get from the elements of star-stuff to biological cosmic neighbours. Depending on whom you talk to, that chain can be extremely long indeed. The point is, if any one factor in that chain of causality has a very low probability of coming to pass, it matters not one jot whether or not all the other factors are extremely probable, the overall result is going to be low. If any one factor is as close to zero as makes no odds, then the overall answer will also be a close to zero as makes no odds. Certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by zero multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty multiplied by certainty ultimately equals zero!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Next, let’s assume your intelligent neighbours are fairly far away and the usual means of keeping in touch is by phone (or email). That introduces one additional complication; it’s not enough to just be intelligent. You need to have technology. Then, and only then, will the ‘are we alone?’ question be answered to our absolute satisfaction. We need technology if we are to find extraterrestrial intelligence(s); and/or extraterrestrial intelligence(s) will need technology to find us. One or both of us has to have invented engineering to a somewhat sophisticated level - maybe rocket ships, maybe radio telescopes, but something technological is required. There’s also a hidden assumption here – you actually want to seek out new civilizations. It matters not if you have all the required technology but care not to use it for the purpose of answering that question – ‘are you alone in the Universe?’ I’ll assume here that if you have intelligence, and it’s been able to construct technology, then part of your intelligence is devoted to be a curious critter who wants to know and find out things – so that’s a certainty of one. But what’s the level of certainty of developing technology in the first place? Rather poor judging from those terrestrial species that have some reasonable smarts to their credit. There’s the human species of course, and though while we’re not quite a sample of one, it’s pretty close. There are documentary observations of some animals (primates mainly) not so much making, but making use of existing ‘tools’ to assist in their survival. Alas, most intelligent species lack the anatomy and/or the right environment to manipulate objects. In the case of dolphins and whales, their ocean environment stymies any way and means of constructing things and making use of fire, for example. So, developing technology has to be rated, judging from our terrestrial sampling, as rather low. 

Technology is also a double-edged sword. The use of technology has had obvious survival value for the human species. You wouldn’t be hard-pressed to come up with dozens of technological inventions that have enabled us to survive longer and thrive better. But, out technological genie is out of the bottle, and unless you’re a hermit, you will have noted by now that technology can also reduce our quality of life, and no doubt you wouldn’t be equally hard-pressed to cite dozens of examples - which leads nicely into the last consideration. 

Lastly, there’s the issue of longevity. If your neighbours move in, but then move out again in less than 24 hours, that doesn’t allow much time to meet them and chat over afternoon tea - blink, and they’re gone. But if you’re both on the block for twenty years, that allows lots of time for afternoon teas, philosophical chats and bridge games, etc. So, how long do technological civilizations last?  

Well, the pessimist will look around and cite global warming, probably antibiotic resistant germs giving rise to pandemics, chemical, biological and radiological warfare and/or terrorism, the extinction of species, rampant pollution, and in general an overall quality of life heading rapidly down the gurgler, right down to the point that the human race will to extinct – by our own hand. But if you’re an optimist, then the sky’s the limit.

Longevity – It’s hard to imaging what human civilization, what humans themselves, will be like 1000 years from now, but if you could come back 1000 years hence, would you indeed find a human civilization, indeed find recognizable ‘humans’ at all? Once you have evolved to the stage of being a multicellular critter with intelligence and technology, then physics and chemistry and plain everyday evolutionary biology are no longer in control of your evolution. You are now in control! You are in control not only over the future evolution of other species (artificial selection instead of natural selection) but of your own evolution. The age of the designer baby is already upon us, albeit still in its infancy (pun intended). What will another several more decades bring to this now embryonic field but obviously an ever ongoing and continuing maturity! 

Humans will probably go kaput within 1000 years, not because of a global nuclear war, or pandemic, or asteroid strike, but because they have by their own hand evolved into something else, and the process has already started. In fact, it’s possible that in 1000 years there could be two humanoid species on Earth. One will be an amalgamation of flesh and blood plus ‘iron and silicon’; the other pure ‘iron and silicon’ (robots).

The first is not too difficult a swallow. Just replace or augment flesh and blood bits with ‘iron and silicon’ bits (or wood bits, or ceramic bits, or plastic bits, etc.). Look at most pirate films and you’ll see those beloved peg-legs and hook-hands. Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? What about a hearing aid? Perhaps you have an artificial joint(s) or a heart pacemaker. You surely have a dental filling (or two), maybe even dentures. Then there’s artificial skin and all manner of other internal or external types of technology that have replaced your failed flesh and blood – like kidney dialysis. There’s now serious talk about the development of a bionic eye within a few years (to go with the bionic ear). What further artificial bio-bits will be available in another 20 years, another 50 years, or another 200 years? The era of the “RoboCop” or an actual “Six-Million Dollar Man” (and “Woman”) is nearly upon us.

Within 200 years or so, I can envision that one will be able to download the contents of a human mind into an ‘iron and silicon’ equivalent.  Why? Well, does the word ‘immortality’ (or as close to immortality as makes no odds) suggest a possible reason? You don’t think anything of endlessly replacing worn automobile parts for new parts to extend the useful lifetime of your car. Why not endlessly replace your worn parts. Your mind (brain) won’t last forever. Replace it - transfer it to a more durable technology Do it again, and again and again as is necessary. In fact, one might create a mega-mind or super-mind by merging into an ‘iron and silicon’ body a lot of minds. By merging the minds of say a cosmologist, general relativist, quantum physicist and mathematician, one might speed up the development of the Holy Grail of physics, the Theory of Everything (TOE) – which is a theory of quantum gravity. 

Once your mind is contained in an ‘iron and silicon’ ‘head’, just attach that to an all ‘iron and silicon’ ‘body’. Immortality indeed!

All of which leads to a future Earth inhabited by a humanoid robot species, artificially evolved from today’s human species. That process too has already started. Robotic appliances, even artificial ‘iron and silicon’ ‘pets’ are on the market. Research into artificial intelligence is ever ongoing. Watch that final minute of the final episode of the TV revision of “Battlestar Galactica’! How about those sci-fi “Transformers” or “Terminators”, or Data (from “Star Trek: The Next Generation”)? Then there’s “Doctor Who’s” Cybermen or Daleks (though they’re part machine; part organism). Think of those robots from “Westworld” or “Futureworld” where nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong… Then there’s “The Stepford Wives”, “Cherry 2000”, the original “Battlestar Galactica” Cylons, and many more. It might be just science fiction today – could it be science fact tomorrow? There doesn’t seem to be any violation of physics involved. Everything not forbidden is compulsory! However, some of those sci-fi scenarios suggest that perhaps ultimately there might be a conflict between the (part) machines we become, and the (artificially) intelligent machines that we create!

Of course we’re in control, so a robotic future isn’t of necessity compulsory. But I suspect it will happen. Why? There are rational reasons for humans deliberately abandoning their flesh and blood existence and evolving themselves, if not 100% into ‘iron and silicon’ then at least into something part flesh and blood coupled with part ‘iron and silicon’ – sort of like we have today (recall those dentures and peg-legs). 

Quite apart from immortality arguments, it’s nice having more indestructible bodies and bodies that can be more easily repaired. Death won’t go totally away of course – accidents still happen. Presumably, your mind will be able to absorb 10, 100, 1000 times the amount of experiences and memories and knowledge, etc. than is currently the case. You might be able to explore environments now closed to you, like taking a stroll across the sea bottom – kilometres down – in your robotic ‘birthday’ suit. All of which then opens up the entire ‘boldly going’ experience. What’s the hardest part of going to Mars? – it’s the flesh and blood frailty of the human body – the need for gravity and oxygen and organic food and water, and space suits, and how you can’t carry spare flesh and blood parts along too, etc.  Extrapolate to our exploration of the entire solar system, then our stellar neighbourhood, eventually the galaxy. Even if you don’t want to go yourself, well, there’s artificial intelligence housed in perhaps nanotechnology bodies, spreading throughout the cosmos like so much cancer.  

The ultimate point of all of this is that if eventually us (humans), why not them (extraterrestrials) now? Translated, after a relative short period of biological development, a civilization can obtain longevity that evolutionary development into ‘iron and silicon’ provides, coupled with far easier expansion into the realm of outer space.

This level of technology can also partly undo the bottleneck created by the relative improbability of multicellular evolution. There maybe relatively few multicellular infested planets, but once technology of the ‘iron and silicon’ kind happens on them, then boldly going, being fruitful and mechanically multiplying and colonizing the cosmos rapidly fill that gap.

All of which doesn’t mean that we are, in the here and now, the proverbial “It’. However, there are enough ‘probability one’ or certainty factors that suggest this is rather unlikely. The proof of the pudding will be to find them; or for them to find us.