Page Content (OCR)
249 If we find the signals of one civilization through a limited search of our neighborhood of the Galaxy, we may conclude that there must be others. It is highly improbable that a search using one technology and one strategy would detect the only other extraterrestrial society emitting signals. If we detect one technological society, Tarter, Davies, and others have argued, we could assume that many others exist, have existed, or will exist.* Finding such a civilization also would imply that intelligent beings without interstellar communication technology may exist at many other locations. Drake even argued that detecting one civilization will prove that there are many others to be found (emphasis added). Scientists almost certainly would broaden the search for technological societies elsewhere in the Galaxy; Drake foresaw a massive listening effort.° Optimists, delighted by the confirmation of multiplicity, almost certainly would want to send some form of communication to connect us with a hoped-for galactic community. Pessimists would worry about the risk of calling attention to ourselves in a socially Darwinian galaxy, and might argue for radio silence. Others would feel that multiplicity rubs in our unimportance. Finding an alien artifact in our solar system would have similar implica- tions. If one civilization were capable of transport across interstellar dis- tances, there might be others with similar capabilities. We would have to broaden our search beyond those stars most likely to have Earth-like planets, and possibly beyond stars in general. One thing we can be sure of is that humans will have a variety of emotional responses to contact. We would perceive the first encounter through the filtering screens of individual and societal values and expectations. Our reactions to a remote detection are likely to be spread across a continuum ranging from indifference to exuberance; some of us would be elated, others depressed. Psychologist Baird expected this pluralism o subside once uncertainty is removed about the exact meaning of the communication—for better or worse.’ Sagan believed that exhilaration at the prospects of new knowledge would by far dominate our response to contact.* That may reflect a scien- ist’s bias. Others might react in religious terms, imagining a voice from he heavens to lead us out of evil times, or a righteous force to punish us or our transgressions. Still others would be fearful, raising nightmares out of science fiction. Mary Connors, a social scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center, ound that the most important predictor of individual reactions will be Emotional Reactions Multiplicity Confirmed Emotional Reactions