Our Search for Aliens Is All Vibes-Based
Image; Kevin Gill from Los Angeles, CA, United States
The modern hunt for extraterrestrials was partially inspired by aliens rumored to crash land in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947, but the speculation of their existence dates back far earlier. The Greek philosopher Epicurus not only thought other worlds beyond ours existed but speculated that “other breeds of men” might dwell there.
While such speculations have made for excellent science fiction, we simply do not have much evidence either way. Some scientists claim it's only a matter of time, but others are less certain. The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been going on for decades, and no “smoking gun” has appeared to confirm such beings' existence.
The most famous “tool” used by the SETI community to discuss the statistical likelihood of advanced extraterrestrial life is the Drake Equation, a mathematical formula said to map this out (more on this later).
And like many aspects of the SETI community, it does not appear to be very scientific at all, but entirely based on vibes.
The Drake Equation is nonsense
The Drake Equation is named after scientist Frank Drake, who, in 1961, wrote down an equation that could estimate the number of communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy.
This equation reads as follows:
N = R (the rate of star formation in the galaxy) * fp (the fraction of stars with planets or systems) * ne (the average number of habitable planets per star) * fl (the fraction of habitable planets where life arises)* fi (the fraction of habitable planets where intelligent life arises) * fc (the fraction of civilizations that exhibit a detectable technosignature) * L (the length of time these civilizations tend to emit such signatures)
The SETI community, which is made up of a number of organizations and institutions, has used the Drake Equation, particularly its assumption that there will be some form of “technosignature,” to run experiments to search for such life. These have ranged from experiments on wavelengths to radio to visible light to much more. The Drake Equation is seen by some portions of the scientific community as a legitimate framework (though not an actual equation) for such inquiries. As controversial science educator Neil deGrasse Tyson remarked in an interview over ten years ago on why some find it convincing:
“…even if you take pessimistic numbers [from the Drake equation], you get a huge number of planets with technology left over in the galaxy because you start with such a large number to begin with.”
And yet this certainty is a lie.
We are working off a data point of one and have no way to presently affirm the many potential manifestations life can and cannot appear. There might be a dizzying area of factors (not all of them necessarily required) that could prevent or hinder “intelligent” life from forming. In the words of physicist Tom Hartsfield in his essay Why the Drake Equation Is Useless, which calls into question each metric cited above:
“The worst thing about the Drake equation is that it gives us a false idea of grasping the problem we are trying to solve. A mathematical equation connotes some scientific study or understanding of a subject. But this is misleading: SETI is simply NOT a scientific endeavor. It’s entirely a leap of faith, albeit a leap that uses tools devised by science. It’s like searching for paranormal activity with an electronic sound recorder.”
There is not a single figure in the Drake Equation that we know with great certainty. The first two—the rate of star formation and the fraction of stars with planets—are vastly limited by our ability to observe the known universe. We can see more exoplanets and stars than we used to, making an educated estimate possible, but there are still profound limitations, as even a sun-sized star might be too difficult to detect from afar with current technology.
The other figures in this equation are not guessable. What counts as a technosignature? How do you define intelligence? What makes an environment habitable for not just the life on Earth but across the universe? These are questions we cannot even begin to answer because our knowledge is just too limited. This is something Neil deGrasse Tyson (who was accused of sexual harassment back in 2018) alludes to in that initial interview, saying:
“Those [figures] are completely unknown and you can just express your bias in what those fractions are.”
Our biases not only reflect how we can estimate these figures, but if we believe they are a useful framework in the first place. Frank Drake was using figures that, at the time, he considered useful topics of inquiry but have since been criticized, even by supporters, for needing an overhaul.
Take the example of star formation. It changes over time, and varies depending on the star type, making it not the best figure to even use for SETI. The ubiquity of planets likewise calls into question the need to factor in the number of stars that have a planet or system orbiting them.
It’s possible that as we learn more about the universe, we will not just refine these parameters but discard most of them entirely.
The Drake Equation is one of those premises that makes for great science fiction—and the ubiquity of intelligent life in the universe is one of my favorite tropes in film and television—but it’s only a story we tell ourselves, a vibe, using a scientific veneer.
An unscientific conclusion
Now, you may still believe aliens are out there, and I am not here to challenge that belief. I am merely here to underscore the reality that, given our present understanding of the cosmos, it is one not based on certainty but on faith.
A vibe.
Maybe the moment I publish this article, aliens will descend from the sky, affirming everything the SETI community suspects about extraterrestrial life. Feel free to make fun of me if that happens — I will also find it funny.
Yet maybe that will never happen.
As one character remarks in my favorite fiction podcast, Unwell, which is just as solid “evidence” as anything else:
“It doesn’t sound like math. It sounds like hope with the lightest dusting of math flavoring. The equation is not an equation at all…It’s not rational analysis, it’s a short story. A misleadingly named thought experiment.”