Pith. sign in

REVIEW

SETI and Democracy

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2007.13515 v2 pith:LOKCBM3R submitted 2020-07-27 physics.pop-ph physics.hist-ph

classification physics.pop-phphysics.hist-ph
keywords responseshouldconsultationdiscussdoneextraterrestrialfinallyseti
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

There is a wide-ranging debate about the merits and demerits of searching for, and sending messages to, extraterrestrial intelligences (SETI and METI). There is however reasonable (but not universal) consensus that replying to a message from an extraterrestrial intelligence should not be done unilaterally, without consultation with wider society and the rest of the world. But how should this consultation actually work? In this paper we discuss various ways that decision making in such a scenario could be done democratically, and gain legitimacy. In particular we consider a scientist-led response, a politician-led response, deciding a response using a referendum, and finally using citizens' assemblies. We present the results of a survey of a representative survey of 2,000 people in the UK on how they thought a response should best be determined, and finally discuss parallels to how the public is responding to scientific expertise in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools