It's Not the Questions About UFOs That Are Wrong; It's How We Ask

Ravi Kopparapu and Jacob Haqq-Misra's thought provoking opinion piece in the Washington Post May 26, “We’re asking the wrong questions about UFOs,” suggested a redirection of the recently piqued public interest in answering the question of what unidentified aerial phenomena are, to how we can figure out what they are.  I concur that the latter question is more immediately important than the former; however, two more peels of this onion are necessary. The questions which must come before all others are whether we can figure out what they are and so what if we do?

The reason these questions are so important is that the authors and a number of other leading thinkers are advocating the dedication of public resources to the matter of answering the how question. Were they merely putting their own time and energy to the question, I would gladly cheer them on.  Bravo!  After all, who doesn't root for the underdog?  But betting money on the underdog is a different matter, especially when it comes to the wager of other people's money.

Let's be clear-eyed, our world's best scientists are nothing more than underdogs in this endeavor.  I would much rather bet on the champ, the visitors.  I'm betting on them.  Ask yourself, which seems more likely, that we suddenly make such advancements in technology due to some government program that we figure out how to communicate with them (one in a gazillion), or that they suddenly decide to communicate with us (one in a schmazillion)?  Now ask yourself, which bet costs you less, the government program (a bazillion) or waiting (nothing)?

Let me make my case for waiting on the champ.  First, consider the difference in technology between ourselves and a creature from another solar system.  They know how to get from there to here.  According to the our existing science, we believe it is not possible to get from there to here.  Second, consider the difference in knowledge.  They know all about us. We don't know whether they exist.

In fairness, it's also unlikely the champ is going to come through for me.  Consider the difference in interest level. We are doubled over in wonderment, begging for relative morsels of information. They have arrived and, adding insult to insult, incommunicado about the whole affair.  We're gong to have to face facts: They're just not that into us.  What do we have to teach them?  Is it more than our scientists learn from studying bugs?  Would a human entomologist call bugs' dedication of communal resources to communicating with us a good idea?

Maybe you're not convinced that waiting for the champ is a likely winning ticket.  Ok, let me make the my case for sitting out this race.  Let's say you pick a winning horse by throwing a fratillion dollars at the right California laboratory. We figure out what they are.  So now what are you gong to do?  How is our strategic approach to them going to change with that information?  If they were hostile, this letter wouldn't have been published.  If they wanted to communicate, you would be reading their stuff instead.  The only meaningful winning outcome to the public investment strategy is that we somehow glean from them information they have not decided they want us to have.  I don't even know what to say about that, which I believe makes my case.

Waiting isn't easy.  And waiting is not in most politicians' wheelhouse once the national imagination has been captured.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying  the space race wasn't the greatest spectacle in politics.  But, dollar for dollar, a better bet would have been focusing on technologies we already knew had commercial value, rather than counting on serendipitous returns on investment.  And the most efficient means by which to bet on technology is to leave it to the commercial sector. Or in our pockets.  In other words, when it comes to making first contact, I'm betting on them; but when it comes to the investment of resources, I'd rather bet on us.

Mike ter Maat is a police officer in South Florida and the Libertarian Party candidate in the special federal Congressional election race in Florida's District 20.  He holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and three advanced degrees in business and economics.