The Precautionary Principle: Egoism, Altruism, and the Active SETI Debate

Abstract

At its crux, the debate whether Active SETI is a dangerous endeavor focuses on differences of opinion as to whether ETI would engage in ethical egoism (selfishness) toward humanity or ethical altruism (benevolence). Many critics of Active SETI employ a line of reasoning similar to the Precautionary Principle often utilized in the regulation of health and the environment. Several aspects of human behavior actually render the Precautionary Principle and related risk-balancing methods of dubious utility in sorting out competing risks. These same flaws apply equally to the Active SETI debate, in particular to the question of ETI egoism versus altruism. The Precautionary Principle encourages those engaged in the Active SETI debate to focus solely on one risk (egoistic and dangerous ETI) while ignoring other risks that are at least as likely if not more likely (such as lost “opportunity benefits” from contact with altruistic and benevolent ETI). Active SETI critics also ignore the very real political risks to science in general and SETI in particular that are created by possibly unfounded assertions of danger.