9:20-9:40 Julia DeMarines The Morality of Interstellar Messaging
09:11:52 From Josh Gladden, UM VCRSP : Have to run - hope everyone has a wonderful conference!
09:20:07 From Neil A. Manson : Everyone - if you need proof this is happening, here's a press release you can forward.
09:20:08 From Neil A. Manson :
09:30:55 From William Alba : Both government and private entities send artifacts but AFAIK they are limited to spacecraft staying within the solar system.
09:32:19 From David DeGraff (he/him) : NSF has been threatening to
shut down Aricebo for years. It’s future is bleak.
09:32:51 From Kathryn Denning : William, yeah... hard to say how long that limitation will hold, e.g. eventually private interstellar probe possibilities
09:33:18 From Ted Peters : I like your distinction, Sheri, between
risk and loss of benefit.
09:33:51 From Lodder : SOS? If we were going to send out a Planetary Distress Call, we probably should have done it in 2016.
09:35:44 From Ted Peters : I don't see the connection between discounting the future and loss of benefit.
09:36:42 From Ted Peters : Neil, it sounds like you advocate discounting the future.
09:36:49 From Joe Gottlieb : In principle, even the message itself
(travelling at the speed of light) could harm us
09:37:22 From Lucas Mix, Durham/Harvard : I'm also interested in the question of whether our signal might hurt the recipient.
09:37:40 From Robert.Kennedy : discounting used in traditional economic analysis reduces everything (good or bad) beyond t ~30 years to infinitesimal value. We need better math tools for evaluating high-impact / very-low-prob | long-time-away events
09:39:04 From Lodder : In a mathematical sense, in the limit, the risk approaches infinity for us, while the probability of communication approaches zero. Since risk is the product of the severity and the probability, and the product of the limits is undefined, we are doomed to discuss METI risk without formal resolution until contact is actually made.
09:39:42 From Neil A. Manson : I think we obviously need to be flexible regarding the time scale of discounting when talking about these issues, but there needs to be *some* level of discounting. We're paralyzed if we have to count potential harms from 10,000 years in the future.
09:39:51 From Carlos Mariscal : Another way of posing Sheri/Erik’s question is in terms of what transhumanists call the “proactionary principle,” which is supposed to ignore default situations. In other words, the burden of proof is on everybody, not just those advocating change.
09:41:01 From Sabine Heinz : I think it is too late to ask for harm or Benefits because we have sent messeges yet.
09:41:24 From Joe Gottlieb : I didn't get to ask my question, so I'll pose it here: in the presentation, it was noted that we need to "interact with the thing" to assess the risk. But in the Three-Body problem novel--also cited by the authors--gives an argument otherwise! The Dark forest theory is an *a priori* argument against METI.
09:42:53 From Daniela de Paulis : Hi Julia, Chelsea, great topic! What do you think was the perception of messaging E.T. was when the Arecibo message was transmitted and how and why has this perception changed? Julia, you mentioned we are evolving morally but could this be also be more profound, for example related to other aspects of how our society has been changed over the past 60 years? Thanks :-)