Hello and welcome back.
Today we are going to discuss the report
from the 1960s called Proposed Studies on the
Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs,
also known as the Brookings Report.
The Brookings Report was created by the Brookings
Institute for NASA in 1960 and according to
the report itself it was created to understand
the consequences of peaceful space activities.
The report itself can be found on the
home page of NASA if you like.
It's still there as pdf and you can
just download it.
But the purpose of the report was to
understand the consequences of peaceful space activities.
Basically what happens if you find life in
space?
How will people react?
How will religion react?
How will politics be changed etc?
What kind of social and cultural consequences will
this have also back on the peaceful space
activities?
It has an additional purpose and that was
also to help NASA with future decisions.
The report should be used for long-term
planning, for policies and for statistical, strategical choices.
But also it has another purpose that was
to inspire additional science both in academia, in
industrial as well as in governments.
So it was not just an analysis but
an agenda for future explorations.
The report methodology itself was quite comprehensive and
serious.
It has more than 200 interviews with all
kinds of experts on all major areas.
So workshops and conferences etc was all hosted
by the Brookings Institute in order to create
this report.
The purpose of the analysis was to understand
the society consequences.
So how will new technology change the society?
How will the reaction be on scientific discoveries?
But also to understand human behavior.
How will people react on the unknown?
For instance if we discover that we are
not alone in the universe.
It includes the cultural as well as psychological
effects.
But also institutions and politics was under the
scrutiny of the report.
Because how will governments react on this new
knowledge if for instance we are not alone
in the universe?
But also in terms of international relations.
We could also look at the communication and
information.
How should information be shared?
And what about the risk for panic or
misinformation?
As you probably heard there was in 1938
a well-known radio program by Wells called
War of the World.
I will return to it but basically it
started some panic.
And the thing was that in the 1960s,
which was only 20 years later, there was
an understanding that we need to spend some
time in investigating this.
Because if rumors actually could start panics around
in the US, perhaps we should investigate some
resources in this.
If we look at today, more than 60
years later, almost 70, you could argue that
big changes have happened since.
But interestingly enough some of the founding problems
are still the same.
If we do a small comparison, in the
1960s there was a space race between the
Soviet Union and USA.
There was also a possibility of life in
space.
And we need to discuss how humans will
react on, should we say, big scientific discoveries.
But also how the state itself should handle
this new knowledge.
So we have a lot of uncertainty.
We have a Cold War and we got
a lot of what-if scenarios.
Today things are, should we say, more practical.
Because at that time the question was, what
if we find life?
Today we are working with Mars missions, satellites,
economics in space, etc.
So you could say that the focus has
gone from theory to practical stuff.
Also today we have multiple operators.
We do not only have the state, because
at that time we have NASA and the
Soviet Union, that was it.
But today we have private actors like SpaceX,
Blue Origin, Starlink.
So you could say that the space exploration
has become commercial and global.
But we also have new, should we say,
problems.
In the 60s, the bookings report were concerned
about, should we say, a cultural shock, religion
and physiological reactions.
Today the concern is more about surveillance from
satellites, internet control, for instance Starlink.
We got garbage in space.
We got ownership of space, for instance, is
it allowed to own the moon?
The problem has been more, should we say,
concrete and political.
And then we have something entirely new.
We got AI.
At the time in the bookings report, we
do not have artificial intelligence, but we have
it now.
And that means that AI is assisting a
lot of, should we say, pictures of space
in terms of analysis.
It is automating a lot of science tasks
and it helps in decision making.
So you could say today, if we're riding
a little up, today we do not have
the same fear for panic.
At that time the bookings report was very
concerned, will people panic if we find life?
Today we could say that humans, we are
more hardened in terms of new knowledge.
The internet and global information, should we say,
makes us more robust in terms of new
knowledge.
So you could say that the focus has
gone from psychological shock to governance and ethics.
But what has not changed?
Well, today we are still very much, in
terms of new technology that change the society,
we are still 100%.
We do not know all consequences and that's
still the same.
Instances take out the physical intelligence and the
space.
We still have a need for science across
sectors and that is not only technology, it's
also sociology and politics.
So yes, a lot of things has changed.
Space and space activities has been, should we
say, every day's work and industry.
And the problem has been more concrete and
political.
New technologies like AI is having a central
role in this.
But the, should we say, the main ideas
from the 1960s are still relevant.
Because when new technology occurs, we must understand
the impact for society.
Okay, let's challenge the bookings report a little.
Imagine this, would panic break out like in
the radio show in 1938 if we, for
instance, discovered aliens?
Or imagine that, for instance, what if our
gods was just astronauts that was passing through?
So let's work with that.
We start with the aliens as gods.
Is that idea still valid?
Yes, it is.
But in a different way.
In the 1950s and the 1960s, you are
seriously concerned about that the discovery of aliens
could, you know, challenge religion, could create existential
crisis, because people could think, our gods is
not gods, but aliens.
And that was why the report at that
time was cultural and religious investigating, you could
say, because you want to analyze the shot
of the culture and religion, if you found
out that it was not gods, it was
simply just, you know, aliens, ancient aliens.
Today, these thoughts are still there, but it's
a lot more mainstream.
Because today we have ancient aliens theories, we
got a lot of conspiracy theories.
But it's also a fact that a lot
of religions has actually changed to the idea
that there's life in space.
And the main conclusion is basically that this
does not change anything.
So today, you could say that there's less
shock, and more, you know, one among multiple
explanations.
So you could say that what they were
concerned about in the 1950s and 1960s is
today already absorbed in culture and debate, simply
by, you know, look at all the movies
where we have aliens, look at all the
different, not only reports, but all kind of,
not only movies, but TV shows and all
these kind of things where we have absorbed
this idea.
So you could say we are a lot
more hardened there.
One of the things, if you return back
to the War of the World in 1938,
that was a radio theater, and it was
sent in, should we say, in news style.
So some people actually thought that the Earth
was being invaded, and they were scared.
But today we know that it was saturated
a lot in the medias, and it was
far less that actually went into panic than
you initially thought.
One of the key things here is actually
that the radio was in competitions of, should
we say, users with the written press.
Traditional papers was actually exaggerating the effects quite
a lot, probably because they want to sell
more newspapers, and that's probably why it was
exaggerated.
If we look at the concerns of the
Perugin's Report from 1960, they were actually using
these kind of examples to ask questions like,
will people be able to absorb this shocking
new knowledge, or should we basically control information.
At that time it was a real concern
in the report.
Today I think that the most scientists will
think, no, we will not be going to
panic if somebody is discovering, listen, we are
not alone in the universe, we have, I
don't know, four different races here, 10 different
races, 2000.
It will not be the same shock as
it would be at that time.
But also today we have an information society
where news is spreading fast.
But also you have a lot of sources,
so that means that it's less likely that
you will just take one story and then
blow it out of, should we say, what
it is, and today we're also a lot
more skeptical.
I mean, fake news is today something that
is, you know, a part of everyday life.
I live in Europe, we have fake news
all over, the Russians are flooding us with
this kind of things.
So today we have a lot of conspiracy
theories, we have social media that actually can,
you know, go crazy, we have uncertainty and
we also have fear in some groups, and
we also have political and religious debate.
It will not be panic like in 1938,
but it will be chaotic, no doubts about
that.
So in the 1960s we have a real
fear for shock and panic.
Today it's more about misinformation and chaotic.
Will people panic today?
Probably not.
But the reaction could be more complex, it
will probably be digital and there will be
a lot of fragments.
You could also ask if NASA was spending
money on a report with 200 interviews, with
conferences, etc.
That cannot be cheap and it probably wasn't.
So I think that the fear was not
without reason, but it might not be realistic
in the form that you initially, you know,
thought.
So if we start why NASA actually took
this serious, it is correct that NASA used
resources, for instance on the Brookings report before
the moon landing.
It says something important because NASA took the
uncertainty regarding new discoveries very serious.
And one other thing was actually in terms
of technology, we think that today we have
a lot of new technology, but you know,
in the 50s and 60s a lot of
the population, you know, they went to see
the atomic bomb.
We have space rockets, we have satellites, we
have possibilities of life in space.
We have that from the White Brothers to
jet, to space flight, all in a single
life.
So you could say that people, they have
discovered on their own body that science could
change the world dramatically and also in a
dangerous way.
So if technology has created the global fear,
you know, atomics, why not on space exploration?
And I think that's a valid point.
Furthermore, at that time we have the Cold
War.
The Soviet Union was actually quite expansive.
So in that context, it was US versus
the Soviet Union.
We had a lot of propaganda and psychological
warfare and also a fear for destabilization.
So if you had, should we say, an
alien's discovery, in theory it could be a
part of that game.
So bottom line was that NASA's conclusion was
we needed knowledge about human reaction.
How will people react on world changing information?
So was the fear realistic?
I would say yes, because you stood here
on something entirely new.
We had a history that showed that people
could react irrationally, like in the War of
the Worlds scenarios, and communication was slower and
less controlled.
So you could say this was responsible risk
management.
But it was also, I mean, there was
no mass panic.
So the War of the Worlds scenario was
exaggerated.
People was a lot more stable than initial
thought.
There was no religious collapse.
Today we see religions that, should we say,
adopt new knowledge and faith does not evaporate.
For instance, the Vatican has an observatory, I
think it's in Montana, but if I'm wrong,
it's one of the other northern states in
the US.
Bottom line is that what is, should we
say, what is the spiritual explanation of having
an observatory looking at the stars for the
Vatican?
Anyway, it's there.
But also that today a single shock will,
yeah, perhaps create a global reaction, but it
will not be, you know, a global disaster.
And I think the most important was here
that if we look at the report, the
Brookings report, it is not primarily about fear
for aliens.
It is about how society reacted on large
scientific breakthroughs.
So you could say alien was just the
most extreme example.
If I go further down the rabbit hole
and we could, you know, ask what if
aliens was massive technological ahead of us and,
for instance, eat humans in the same way
as we are having, you know, kettles and
so on.
Was that investigated?
And the short answer is no, it was
not.
It was not about how alien was, but
how people would react if we discovered aliens.
So the purpose of the report was to
investigate the social consequences, the political consequences, the
psychological reactions, and of course, cultural and religious
changes.
And it was only indirect, you know, if
it was, should we say, dangerous or aliens.
The report does mention that contact with aliens,
but they will probably say something like, this
extreme examples does not make sense to do
science in.
For instance, they mentioned that extraterrestrials are something
that is out of, you know, practical science.
So you could say, in other words, that
they were actually rejecting to analyze concrete alien
scenarios.
So it was very indirect, this analysis in
terms of dangerous aliens.
If I should go a step further and
say, how would science actually describe this?
I think they would say something like that,
you know, we are working with science, this
is no speculations.
They would focus on what they believe as
realistic problems.
They will not do it, go into science
fiction.
So stories regarding that, you know, aliens that
eat humans, that is not something you can
do a policy about.
So that we will not waste time on.
They will probably say something like that.
And they will also say something like that,
you know, the focus is on information, not
on contact.
What they were interested in, what is, what
if we discover sickness, what if we find
microorganisms and so on.
It was not a very, in terms of
what if we are getting invaded and things
like that.
And the last thing I would say here
is that they would also probably say something
like that, despite that NASA is actually on
the Department of Defense, or should I say
the Department of War, despite that NASA is
a civil institution and by definition a peaceful.
So the report was quite explicit regarding peaceful
space activities.
That is about science, it's about cooperation and
technology.
That is not war against aliens.
And that is why they would not waste
money and time of this hostile alien scenario.
And they will also probably say something like,
you know, the most important in this is
not the different scenarios, but that is the
human reactions on the unknown.
That is far more important than the unknown
itself.
And that's why they would analyze attitudes, values,
institutions and so on, but not aliens' biology
or intentions.
But you would also say, what is different
from today versus that time?
Has NASA changed its policies?
Yes, NASA has changed the policies, but not
the total change.
I think it's fair to say that NASA
is still thinking about the consequences, but how
they do it and what the focus is
has changed significantly, if you ask me.
In the 1960s, NASA's focus was about what
if we discover life, how would humans react?
At that time, they were doing, should we
say, large analysis.
They were using different kinds of sciences.
And the way of thinking was created by,
you know, a lot of concern that the
Cold War and the fear for society's reactions.
That was why they created a report that
was, you know, basically, let's prepare for all,
also the unknown.
If we look at it today, you could
say that, at least that's my impression, that
there's a lot less focus on human panic.
NASA does, at least to my knowledge, no
longer create reports like the Brookings that ask,
you know, basically, will people go into panic?
Today, they are more general.
You would say that the society is a
lot more robust and is used to new
knowledge.
But also, NASA has the focus on concrete
systems.
Today, NASA is working with, you know, Mars
missions, with exoplanets, search for possible life, astrobiology,
and so on.
But the focus is how do we find
life, not what it does with religion.
But also, they have clear protocols, and that,
I think, is a new one.
So, instead of broad speculations, you now have,
should we say, detection and announcement protocols.
If NASA finds life, results should be verified,
the data should be shared openly, and society
should be informed, should we say, controlled.
But back in the 60s, in reality, there
was only US and Soviet Union.
Today, you have international cooperation with ESA in
Europe, and you have different international society networks,
and you basically got a lot less paranoia
and a lot more cooperation.
But you also have today new concerns.
Today, NASA is, you know, very much concerned
about, you know, contamination.
Can we bring bacteria to Mars, and can
we bring something back?
It's about data and evidence, it's about climate
and Earth observation, and so on.
So, you could say that today the risk
is about biology and technology, not about science
fiction.
You could also ask, has NASA entirely dropped
the Brookings report's way of thinking?
Not completely.
I think that the founding idea is still
living there.
We are still thinking about, or sorry, NASA
is still thinking about consequences, about being prepared,
about cooperation with other sciences.
So, if we sum this up, you could
say that the official line of NASA is
now focused on microbiology, microbiology, yeah, I can't
say that, I'll try again, microbiology, life, and
biosignature, and not on intelligent civilization or alien
invasions and things like that.
Not because it's impossible, but because it's outside,
should we say, practical science.
That, I think, this is what they would
say.
One of the, should we say, critical questions
you could ask is that, imagine that aliens
does exist, what does the report say about
the negative effects about, you know, publicizing this
into the public?
But I think it is fair to say
that the report does not conclude that you
should hide the evidence of aliens.
It's more, should we say, nuanced.
And I think that we need to discuss
this a little more thoroughly.
The report says we do not know how
people will react, and that's why we need
to investigate it further.
The report says some groupings could react negatively,
especially if their, should we say, worldview is
challenged.
And that is one of the, should we
say, most cited points.
It is that, from the report, it is
that some societies or groupings could have problems
with, you know, handling this new knowledge.
But this hypothesis is not a recommendation.
The report does not say, okay, then we
don't tell them.
That is not what the groupings report says.
But it works with questions like, who will
react negatively, under what circumstances, and how do
we communicate this on the best possible way?
So you could say that the focus is
about how do we inform this in a
responsible way, and not to, you know, to
hide the information.
But if I'm going to be the devil's
advocate, I would say something like that the
Brookings Institute report from 1960s is actually a
recipe in how to control information.
Because I think it's a valid point to
discuss that the US military, especially, but not
only US military, all militaries in the Western
world, has, you know, been keeping back recordings
of, you know, UFOs and UAPs and so
on.
And if I read the Brookings report, it
is as a recommendation to, you know, control
information of aliens.
And if that is the case, that's happened
for over 60 years.
And I think that's a valid point.
They will probably say, if we ask the
writers of the report, if possible, that they
will probably say that, to some degree, it's
correct that the US has, you know, kept
back UFO recordings.
Because for many years, US military has classified
observations of UFOs and UAPs.
They have not published the data.
And they, for instance, in the Pentagon videos
from, I believe it's 2017 and 2020.
And to some extent, they might be right
there.
Because I think that the primary reason was,
you know, basically military security.
It was also in terms of technology.
And that could also be uncertainty, what it
is that you've actually seen.
But that's not the same as to say
that the military itself, you know, knew if
this was aliens.
But does it mean that the Brookings reports
was followed as, you know, as a manual
for secrecy?
I would say that they would probably answer
that the Brookings report does not recommend secrecy.
It would say something like, you know, that
investigate reactions, prepare communication, and you should be
probably be aware of consequences.
So I think the writers would say this
is an analysis.
It's not, you know, how to keep it
secret policy.
But even if we have no aliens in
the picture, there could be valid reasons for,
you know, to hide military technology.
Because in some of this video, you can
actually see some, you know, radar and sensor
systems.
They are secret.
And if you show this, you actually, you
know, tell your enemy what your capacities are.
And then there's also the uncertainty, you know,
a lot of observation is not explained.
And you could argue that the military was,
you know, trying to avoid spread false information,
and, you know, basically to create uncertainty.
But it's also in terms of intelligence, you
know, some of this unknown object, they could
be, you know, enemy systems, it could be
test airplanes, it could be drones, etc.
So I think that the secrecy is not
the same as proof of aliens.
But the thing is here, how do we
know?
And that is actually one of, I think,
the key problems.
Because we know that, for fact, that especially
in US, where you have the Freedom of
Information Act, I think it's a well known
factor that the especially the military, but also
the government itself, you know, they keep things
secret.
And the thing is that we do not
know what's secret and what is not.
And what is valid and what is not.
Because how can we as society, you know,
raise the right Christians, if we, if we
are not informed about what is happening.
But, and that is actually, I think, the
key thing in science, because science will say
that, you are keeping things secret, because we
are used to work with not having all
the information.
I would say one of the key problems
in terms of, you know, the state, that
is that if the state keeps something secret,
how can we trust anything?
Because, you know, if important knowledge is hidden,
how can we verify what, you know, what
the picture is?
We cannot, you know, use open evidence, because
what we know is based on data that
can be tested.
But if we have no data to test
because they are kept secret, how can we,
you know, do open evidence?
The same goes with repetition, or should I
say replication?
Because if other scientists should be able to
do the same result, that is required that,
you know, we basically have, you know, sensors,
it's open, what's happened in this, the specification
of the sensor is known.
So we can, you know, basically test this
again.
If the sensors is redacted or perhaps hidden
in secret files and so on, how can
we, you know, do this kind of things?
And how can we be sceptic in terms
of science, if we don't know what to
be sceptic about?
And that is what I think here.
If you ask a science, they will probably
say, no, it does not destroy anything from
science, but it creates some, should we say,
limitations.
So if the data, sorry, if the military
has data that the scientist does not see,
then science, you know, will miss this information.
But science can still work with what is
accessible and what can be tested.
And that is, I think, a false idea.
I think that if we do not need
to know everything, but secrecy is generating a
problem.
I think also it's fair to say that
it does not destroy science, but it limits
it quite severely.
I don't think it necessarily works anymore, because
it's built on what is able to be
tested and to be shared.
But if not everything is, you know, on
the table, then how can we do this?
And that is actually why I think that
the Brookings report is actually, you know, a
recipe in order how to control information.
Because the thing is, by the end of
the day, we have the war of the
world scenarios in 1938.
We have the report created in the 1960s.
And the thing is that even if it
does not say that information should be controlled,
it does say that, you know, it should
be investigated further.
We do not know as citizens if this
report was created.
Was it investigated further?
And what was the recommendation of that?
And that, I think, is a little troublesome
in terms of, you know, checking these things.
Because how would we know the right questions
to ask if nobody tells us and if
anything related to this is kept secret?
And that's the main thing.
Actually, I think that the Brookings report was
a quite important contribution in how to control
knowledge.
Because it basically says that if we do
not control knowledge, we can end up in
all these scenarios.
And that, I think, is a little understated
in the analysis of the Brookings reports.
Because it says what happens to society, but
it's also pinpoint a recipe in order to
make sure that the society does never get
the information that is required.
Thank you for listening.