Page Content (OCR)
369 nearly overwhelming. People with access to transmitters might fire a barrage of signals into space. Whether their messages would reach their destination would depend on the power of the transmitters, on the distance of the other civilization, and on the sensitivity of its receivers. A remote civilization may be far beyond the range of most radio operators. The real issue may be whether superior transmitters such as large radio telescopes would be used to send messages. Nearly all of those facilities are funded by governments. Depending on the nature of the contact, policy-makers might have an opportunity to make conscious decisions about sending powerful signals from Earth. Should Humankind speak with one voice, or many? Most people involved in this debate have supported a collective message, believing that the human end of the communications process should speak for all Human- kind, not a particular political or occupational subdivision. Drake, for one, believed that any reply should be crafted on a worldwide basis. Others argue that anyone with access to a transmitter should have the right to send separate messages. Some see this as freedom of speech; others believe that many individual messages would more correctly reflect human An diversity. A Mirror Image. Having Humankind speak with many voices may be congruent with individual rights and cultural diversity, but may be bad policy. Imagine yourself in the place of extraterrestrials who receive thousands of uncoordinated messages from Earth. How could you conduct arational dialogue with such mixed signals? Which ones matter the most? Which most accurately reflect human policy? Who would you believe, those humans who seek an exchange of scientific information, those who want to convert you to the true faith, or those who announce their intent to exterminate you? Donald Tarter proposed that we send a brief initial reply that says “we have received your message and will communicate with you in the near future.” The intent would be to establish an “official” channel of commu- nication. If this signal were sent with the most powerful transmitter avail- able, the power and priority of this transmission would differentiate it from others.* Communication is not the only barrier to non-zero-sum interactions between civilizations; the other barrier is trust.** Using a preferred channel could help to establish greater mutual confidence. In the absence of an agreed process, our response is likely to be ad hoc. Nations with the needed technical capabilities might act in an uncoordi- nated way, sending different messages. If Humankind chooses to send a collective response, the best way to assure acceptance is to make the process as inclusive as possible, both among nations and within them. That process may be laborious and slow; impatient organizations or groups might short-circuit the procedure. Who Speaks for the Earth?