From Obama and Zuckerberg to Oumuamua and ZuckerBorg

Did you know that this image is "fake news"? Until last week, I unconsciously assumed that images like this in the press of the strange object Oumuamua which recently passed through our solar system were "real" pictures, as real as the carefully constructed map of dark matter in the cosmos which I have used many times lately. But no, they are all a kind of artist's imagination. (My thanks to the artist who did label HIS version as what it is.) I woke up to this this past week, when I finally listened to google constantly asking me to click on a new piece from Scientific American:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/. From that piece, I saw that we don't even know the SIZE of the object within a factor of two, let alone the details of its shape. And so, it is not so impossible that it MIGHT have been an alien starship after all. (I certainly know to filter out all the  nonsense placebo propaganda out there, trying to keep everyone on earth calm about everything except for whatever wars are desired by local apparatchiks.)

Real science demands that we find it easy to engage in "what if?" thinking, even though it also demands that we not get too committed to any of the possibilities. (There is a great little new book, Out of The Maze by Johnson, which is really clear in explaining some things I wish that everyone knew. Levitin's book, The Organized Mind, is more balanced but also more complicated, and not as clear on these particular basic points.)

And so, by reflex, I asked myself "What IF this were a spacecraft? What might it be doing?"
More precisely, when a friend far away asked me that question, I replied:

**IF** Oumaumau was a spacecraft, I could make up three stories...

First: mission: search for intelligent life and make contact if so. After six months of seeing CNN, Fox News, RT and CCTV, it decides there is no intelligent life on earth. Due diligence almost complete. Open notice to potential developers that the land is clear. 

(Later she raised the question: why did you leave out the possibility of a big alien invasion, which even Hawkings and Cixin Liu and Orson Scott Card warn about?  Would the new censors at Facebook, still quite active, allow Ronald Reagn to post his views of this: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/reagan-and-gorbachev-agreed-pause-cold-war-case-alien-invasion-180957402/. She said "I suppose a high culture galaxy might have rules about such things?" That's my point. Human developers sometimes need a permit from surveyers, who come and verify that the land is not already occupied. If there is nothing more conscious or intelligent than a rabbit, they may give notice that developers can do anything they want, rabbits or no rabbits. If the gap between human adults and a true sapient is greater than the gap between humans and rabbits...  who knows?)

Second story: like Three Body Problem and Dark Forrest, which Obama and Zuckerberg strongly urged us all to read. (I did after my wife concurred.)

Mission: detect possible threats or competition to wipe out. Outcome: leave them alone, they are no threat to anyone else. They possess the core technologies and science to be a real force, but their lack of affective evolution makes them threats only to themselves, not to anyone else.

Third story: left for the imagination, albeit more plausible.

At the end of the day, I would lean towards a different story, even assuming in the "what if" context of assuming that it really was an alien spacecraft. I would tend to expect a level of intelligence and complex thinking beyond either story one and story two, including even some knowledge of quantum mechanics and macroscopic Schrodinger cats and noospheres (plural). But it would be closer to story one than story two. After all, there is no law against surprise either in physics or in human history. 

Related to story one, I was deeply disappointed when facebook refused to allow me to link to my prior blog post, written in a hurry, responding to the really scary urgent drumbeat to side with Erdogan over Prince Mohammed, in the prince's struggle to stay alive and in powder despite really scary pressure from people responsible for more than one murder. (I even got invited somehow a few months back to an out-of-the-office meeting organized by a key figure in US intelligence, where we learned a lot about Erdogan's own crimes and attempted crimes. I know not to say TOO much more,  but I gave citations.) I was very much relieved when the Financial Times explained a bit more:

https://www.ft.com/content/041d9b1c-e994-11e8-885c-e64da4c0f981

(Hey, guys, why try to censor THAT link? More folks read FT than read even my Facebook page, no?) Definers Public Affairs, a conservative group... but what kind of conservative group would outlaw posts agreeing with Trump, and sharing one of his key concerns? What kind of conservative group wants a war between US and Israel versus Russia and Iran? And how did Zuckerberg let that happen?

Well, I have a pretty good idea how that happened. I saw his face in front of Congressional grilling. (I have learned a whole lot simply by watching faces at Congressional hearings, which I did attend a whole lot in 2009 when I was a staffer sitting behind senators.)  The same kind of pressure was applied in past years to a number of government agency heads.

The pressure reminded me of the Borg in Star Trek. "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." So he let them install wires into... not his head, but his organization, as did certain agency heads I could actually name. NOT Joe Bordogna; they really hated him for having the spine to say "no." One of our last true patriots? Story one MIGHT  change if they brought him back and, more important, brought in surgeons and forensics fully able to burn out all those Borg wires, trace them to their source, and burn them out of other agencies as well. Anyone who truly supports freedom in America, and the basic principles of John Stuart Mills, would agree. But will Facebook allow me to link to THOSE sentiments? Are THESE IDEAS prohibited? A rather interesting "what if" question, perhaps more actionable than the first one in this post. Though FT already has taken some action...

By the way, the woman I mentioned raised an important if awkward question: 

"As a Quaker, you would naturally be suspicious of folks who want an immediate gung ho war between US and Israel versus Russia and Iran. OK, you agree with Trump about Russia and Prince Mohammed, but what about Iran?"

My reply: yes, that's an important complication here. Years ago, I was struck by some amazing similarities between US and Iran (though we don't quite have a fundamentalist theocracy installed in our legal system YET... close enough). Very spiritually attuned, good people, with a tradition of very high culture and free thought, and social strength. But both oppressed by really grotesque gestapos which pose a problem for the entire world, themselves included. Both "headed" by presidents who, despite differences in personalities, mean well but have problems in controlling their respective gestapos. On balance, the Iranian guy may have a better idea of what is really going on; if HIS gestapo let HIM have a deep conversation with Prince Mohammed, in a secure place without fear of what Brezhnev did to Khrushchev (see the movie "grey wolves"), maybe there would be some hope for sanity and even self-rule on this planet. 

Also: an important clarification. I do NOT hold that the "wires" are controlled by civil servants, by the deep state. Rather, from observing what goes on in many US government agencies, I know that there are many new "wires" which are controlled from outside the agencies themselves.