Seth Shostak: ET is (probably) out there — get ready

Translator: Morton Bast Reviewer: Thu-Huong Ha

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Christian K. Vinther

Is E.T. out there?

Er E.T. derude?

Well, I work at the SETI Institute.

Jeg arbejder ved SETI instituttet.

That's almost my name. SETI:

Jeg hedder næsten SETI:

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

In other words, I look for aliens,

Jeg søger altså efter rumvæsener,

and when I tell people that at a cocktail party, they usually

og når jeg siger det til fester, kigger folk som regel

look at me with a mildly incredulous look on their face.

på mig med et skeptisk blik.

I try to keep my own face somewhat dispassionate.

Jeg prøver at holde et neutralt udtryk

Now, a lot of people think that this is kind of idealistic,

Mange mener, dette er lidt idealistisk,

ridiculous, maybe even hopeless,

latterlig, måske endda håbløst,

but I just want to talk to you a little bit about why I think

men jeg vil bare tale lidt om, hvorfor jeg mener

that the job I have is actually a privilege, okay,

at det job jeg har faktisk er et privilegium, okay,

and give you a little bit of the motivation for my getting into

og fortælle jer om motivationen for at starte

this line of work, if that's what you call it.

denne karriere, hvis man kan kalde det sådan.

This thing — whoops, can we go back?

Denne ting -- oops, kan vi gå tilbage?

Hello, come in, Earth.

Hallo Jord, kom ind.

There we go. All right.

Sådan. Okay.

This is the Owens Valley Radio Observatory

Dette er Owens Valley Radio Observatory

behind the Sierra Nevadas, and in 1968,

bag Sierra Nevadaerne, og i 1968,

I was working there collecting data for my thesis.

arbejdede jeg der og indsamlede data til mit speciale.

Now, it's kinda lonely, it's kinda tedious, just collecting data,

Det er temmelig ensomt arbejde, temmelig ensformigt at indsamle data,

so I would amuse myself by taking photos at night

så jeg underholdte mig selv med natlig fotografering

of the telescopes or even of myself,

af teleskoper eller af mig selv endda,

because, you know, at night, I would be the only hominid

fordi jeg om natten, var jeg den eneste hominide

within about 30 miles.

i cirka 50 kilometers omkreds.

So here are pictures of myself.

Her er billeder af mig selv.

The observatory had just acquired a new book,

Observatoriet havde lige fået en ny bog,

written by a Russian cosmologist

skrevet af en russisk kosmolog

by the name of Joseph Shklovsky, and then expanded

der hed Joseph Shklovsky, og derefter udvidet

and translated and edited by a little-known

og oversat og redigeret af en ukendt

Cornell astronomer by the name of Carl Sagan.

astronom fra Cornell, der hed Carl Sagan.

And I remember reading that book,

Og jeg kan huske at have læst den.

and at 3 in the morning I was reading this book

Jeg læste den klokken 3 om morgenen

and it was explaining how the antennas I was using

og den forklarede, hvordan de antenner, jeg brugte

to measure the spins of galaxies could also be used

til at måle galaksers rotation, også kunne bruges

to communicate, to send bits of information

til at kommunikere, og sende information

from one star system to another.

fra et stjernesystem til et andet.

Now, at 3 o'clock in the morning when you're all alone,

Klokken 3, når man er alene,

haven't had much sleep, that was a very romantic idea,

og ikke har fået meget søvn, var det en meget romantisk ide,

but it was that idea -- the fact that you could in fact

men det var den ide, det faktum at man faktisk kunne

prove that there's somebody out there

bevise at der er nogen derude

just using this same technology --

ved hjælp af den samme teknologi --

that appealed to me so much that 20 years later I took a job

der 20 år senere fik mig ind i jobbet

at the SETI Institute. Now, I have to say

ved SETI Institut. Nu må jeg så sige

that my memory is notoriously porous, and I've often

at min hukommelse er notorisk porøs, og jeg har tit

wondered whether there was any truth in this story,

tænkt på, om historien er sand

or I was just, you know, misremembering something,

eller om jeg husker forkert,

but I recently just blew up this old negative of mine,

men for nyligt forstørrede jeg dette gamle negativ,

and sure enough, there you can see

og søreme så, der kan man se

the Shklovsky and Sagan book underneath that

Shklovsky og Sagan bogen der ligger under

analog calculating device.

analog regnemaskinen.

So it was true.

All right. Now, the idea for doing this, it wasn't very old

Det var sandt!

Idéen bag var ikke særlig gammel,

at the time that I made that photo.

da jeg tog billedet.

The idea dates from 1960, when a young astronomer

Ideen stammer fra 1960, da en ung astronom,

by the name of Frank Drake used this antenna

der hed Frank Drake brugte sin antenne

in West Virginia, pointed it at a couple of nearby stars

og stillede den ind på et par nærliggende stjerner

in the hopes of eavesdropping on E.T.

i håbet om at smuglytte på E.T.

Now, Frank didn't hear anything.

Nu hørte Frank ikke noget.

Actually he did, but it turned out to be the U.S. Air Force,

Eller jo, men det viste sig at være U.S. Air Force,

which doesn't count as extraterrestrial intelligence.

altså ikke udenjordisk intelligens.

But Drake's idea here became very popular

Men Drakes ide blev meget populær,

because it was very appealing — and I'll get back to that —

fordi den var meget tiltalende,

and on the basis of this experiment, which didn't succeed,

og på baggrund af det eksperiment, som ikke lykkedes,

we have been doing SETI ever since,

har vi udført SETI lige siden,

not continuously, but ever since.

ikke uafbrudt, men lige siden.

We still haven't heard anything.

Vi har stadig ikke hørt noget.

We still haven't heard anything.

Vi har stadig ikke hørt noget.

In fact, we don't know about any life beyond Earth,

Vi kender ikke til liv andre steder,

but I'm going to suggest to you that that's going to change

men jeg tror, det vil ændre sig

rather soon, and part of the reason, in fact,

temmelig snart, og en del af grunden til det...

the majority of the reason why I think that's going to change

Ja, størstedelen af grunden, er...

is that the equipment's getting better.

at udstyret bliver bedre.

This is the Allen Telescope Array, about 350 miles

Dette er Allen Telescope Array, omkring 560 kilometer

from whatever seat you're in right now.

fra hvor i sidder lige nu.

This is something that we're using today

Dette er noget, vi bruger i dag

to search for E.T., and the electronics have gotten

til at søge efter E.T. og elektronikken er

very much better too.

også blevet meget bedre.

This is Frank Drake's electronics in 1960.

Dette er Frank Drakes elektronik tilbage i 1960.

This is the Allen Telescope Array electronics today.

Dette bruges af Allen Telescope Array.

Some pundit with too much time on his hands

En ekspert med for meget tid

has reckoned that the new experiments are approximately

har regnet ud, at de nye eksperimenter cirka er

100 trillion times better than they were in 1960,

100 billioner gange bedre end de var i 1960,

100 trillion times better.

100 billioner gange bedre.

That's a degree of an improvement that would look good

Der er en grad af forbedring der ville pynte

on your report card, okay?

i ens karakterbog, ikke?

But something that's not appreciated by the public is,

Men noget, der ikke er værdsat af offentligheden, er,

in fact, that the experiment continues to get better,

at eksperimentet stadig bliver bedre.

and, consequently, tends to get faster.

og derfor har tendens til at blive hurtigere.

This is a little plot, and every time you show a plot,

Hver gang man viser et diagram,

you lose 10 percent of the audience.

mister man 10 % af publikum.

I have 12 of these. (Laughter)

Jeg har 12 af disse. (Latter)

But what I plotted here is just some metric

Men det jeg optegner her er bare et diagram,

that shows how fast we're searching.

der viser, hvor hurtigt vi søger.

In other words, we're looking for a needle in a haystack.

Vi søger altså nålen i høstakken.

We know how big the haystack is. It's the galaxy.

Vi ved, hvor stor høstakken er. Det er galaksen.

But we're going through the haystack no longer

Men vi kigger ikke længere gennem den

with a teaspoon but with a skip loader,

med en teske, men med en liftdumper,

because of this increase in speed.

på grund af denne stigning i hastighed.

In fact, those of you who are still conscious

De af jer, der stadig er vågne

and mathematically competent,

og matematisk kompetente, ved -

will note that this is a semi-log plot.

at dette er en semilogaritmisk afbildning.

In other words, the rate of increase is exponential.

Med andre ord er stigningstakten eksponentiel.

It's exponentially improving. Now, exponential is an

Det forbedres eksponentielt. Nu er eksponentiel et

overworked word. You hear it on the media all the time.

slidt ord. Man hører det i medierne hele tiden.

They don't really know what exponential means,

De ved ikke, hvad det betyder,

but this is exponential.

men dette er eksponentielt.

In fact, it's doubling every 18 months, and, of course,

Faktisk fordobles det hver 18. måned, og, selvfølgelig,

every card-carrying member of the digerati knows

enhvert kortbærende medlem af digerati ved,

that that's Moore's Law.

at det er Moore's Law.

So this means that over the course of the next

Det betyder, at vi i løbet af

two dozen years, we'll be able to look at a million star systems,

en række år vil være i stand til at kigge på en million stjernesystemer,

a million star systems, looking for signals

for at se på tegn,

that would prove somebody's out there.

der beviser liv derude.

Well, a million star systems, is that interesting?

En million stjernesystemer, er det interessant?

I mean, how many of those star systems have planets?

Hvor mange af de stjernesystemer har planeter?

And the facts are, we didn't know the answer to that

Og faktum er, det vidste vi ikke

even as recently as 15 years ago, and in fact, we really

for selv 15 år siden, og ej heller

didn't know it even as recently as six months ago.

for blot seks måneder siden.

But now we do. Recent results suggest

Men det ved vi nu. Nylige resultater indikerer,

that virtually every star has planets, and more than one.

at faktisk alle stjerne har planeter, og mere end én.

They're like, you know, kittens. You get a litter.

Det er ligesom killinger. Man får et kuld.

You don't get one kitten. You get a bunch.

Man får ikke én. Man får mange.

So in fact, this is a pretty accurate estimate

Det er faktisk et temmelig nøjagtigt skøn

of the number of planets in our galaxy,

på antallet af planeter i vores galakse,

just in our galaxy, by the way,

kun i vores galakse, for øvrigt,

and I remind the non-astronomy majors among you

og jeg vil minde de ikke-astronomstuderende om,

that our galaxy is only one of 100 billion

at vores galakse kun er én ud af 100 milliarder

that we can see with our telescopes.

der kan ses med vores teleskoper.

That's a lot of real estate, but of course,

Det er meget fast ejendom, men

most of these planets are going to be kind of worthless,

de fleste planer er temmelig værdiløse,

like, you know, Mercury, or Neptune.

som f.eks. Merkur, eller Neptun.

Neptune's probably not very big in your life.

Neptun er nok ikke så stor i jeres liv.

So the question is, what fraction of these planets

Så spørgmålet er, hvilken del af disse planeter

are actually suitable for life?

er faktisk egnet til liv?

We don't know the answer to that either,

Det ved vi heller ikke,

but we will learn that answer this year, thanks to

men det kommer vi til i år, takket være

NASA's Kepler Space Telescope,

NASAs Keplerteleskopet.

and in fact, the smart money, which is to say the people who work on this project,

Et fornuftigt gæt, altså folkene, der arbejder på projektet,

the smart money is suggesting that the fraction of planets

er at foreslå, at den del af planeter,

that might be suitable for life is maybe one in a thousand,

der muligvis er egnede til liv, måske er én ud af tusinde,

one in a hundred, something like that.

én ud af hundrede, noget i den stil.

Well, even taking the pessimistic estimate, that it's

Selv hvis vi giver et pessimistisk skøn,

one in a thousand, that means that there are

som én ud af tusinde, betyder det, at der er

at least a billion cousins of the Earth

minimum en milliard slægtning til jorden

just in our own galaxy.

bare i vores egen galakse.

Okay, now I've given you a lot of numbers here,

Okay, nu har jeg givet jer en masse tal,

but they're mostly big numbers, okay, so, you know,

men det er mest store tal,

keep that in mind. There's plenty of real estate,

Det er masser af fast ejendom,

plenty of real estate in the universe,

masser af fast ejendom i universet,

and if we're the only bit of real estate in which there's

og hvis vi besidder det eneste stykke fast ejendom, hvor der er

some interesting occupants, that makes you a miracle,

interessante beboere, gør det os til mirakler.

and I know you like to think you're a miracle,

Jeg ved, i gerne vil opfatte jer selv som mirakler,

but if you do science, you learn rather quickly that

men er man forsker, lærer man

every time you think you're a miracle, you're wrong,

at man ofte tager fejl.

so probably not the case.

Så det er nok ikke tilfældet.

All right, so the bottom line is this:

Okay, så det, der tæller, er følgende:

Because of the increase in speed, and because of the

På grund af stigningen i hastighed, og på grund af den

vast amount of habitable real estate in the cosmos, I figure

enorme mængde beboelig fast ejendom i kosmos, regner jeg med,

we're going to pick up a signal within two dozen years.

at vi finder et signal inden for en årrække.

And I feel strongly enough about that to make a bet with you:

Og derfor er jeg villig til at indgå et væddemål med jer:

Either we're going to find E.T. in the next two dozen years,

Enten finder vi E.T. i løbet af en årrække,

or I'll buy you a cup of coffee.

eller også køber jeg en kop kaffe.

So that's not so bad. I mean, even with two dozen years,

Det er ikke så dårligt. Om en række år

you open up your browser and there's news of a signal,

finder man enten nyt om et signal,

or you get a cup of coffee.

eller man får en kop kaffe.

Now, let me tell you about some aspect of this that

Lad mig fortælle jer om et aspekt af dette, som

people don't think about, and that is,

folk ikke tænker over:

what happens? Suppose that what I say is true.

Hvad sker der? Lad os sige, at det, jeg siger, er sandt.

I mean, who knows, but suppose it happens.

Hvad nu, hvis det skete?

Suppose some time in the next two dozen years

Hvis vi i løbet af en række år

we pick up a faint line that tells us

finder et svagt signal, der fortæller os,

we have some cosmic company.

at vi har kosmisk selskab.

What is the effect? What's the consequence?

Hvad er effekten? Hvad er konsekvensen?

Now, I might be at ground zero for this.

Jeg har måske ramt noget her.

I happen to know what the consequence for me would be,

Jeg ved, hvad følgerne ville være,

because we've had false alarms. This is 1997,

for vi har haft falske alarmer. Dette er 1997:

and this is a photo I made at about 3 o'clock in the morning

Jeg tog dette billede cirka klokken 3 om natten

in Mountain View here, when we were watching

her i Mountain View, da vi kiggede på

the computer monitors because we had picked up a signal

computerskærmene, fordi vi havde et signal,

that we thought, "This is the real deal." All right?

hvor vi troede, "Dette er den ægte vare." Okay?

And I kept waiting for the Men in Black to show up. Right?

Og jeg blev ved med at vente på at Men in Black dukkede op. Ikke?

I kept waiting for -- I kept waiting for my mom to call,

Jeg ventede på... at min mor skulle ringe,

somebody to call, the government to call. Nobody called.

at nogen ringede, at regeringen ringede. Ingen ringede.

Nobody called. I was so nervous

Ingen ringede. Jeg var så nervøs.

that I couldn't sit down. I just wandered around

Jeg kunne ikke finde ro og gik rundt

taking photos like this one, just for something to do.

og tog de her billeder, bare for at have noget at lave.

Well, at 9:30 in the morning, with my head down

Klokken 09.30 om morgenen, med hovedet nede

on my desk because I obviously hadn't slept all night,

på bordet, fordi jeg ikke havde sovet,

the phone rings and it's The New York Times.

ringede telefonen. Det var New York Times.

And I think there's a lesson in that, and that lesson is

Og hvad kan man så lære af det?

that if we pick up a signal, the media, the media will be on it

Fanger man et signal, kaster medierne sig over det

faster than a weasel on ball bearings. It's going to be fast.

hurtigere, end man kan tælle til ti. Altså, meget hurtigt.

You can be sure of that. No secrecy.

Ingen hemmelighedskræmmeri.

That's what happens to me. It kind of ruins my whole week,

Det ødelægger på en eller anden måde hele min uge,

because whatever I've got planned that week is kind of out the window.

for alt, jeg har planlagt, ryger i vasken.

But what about you? What's it going to do to you?

Men hvad med jer? Hvad ville det gøre for jer?

And the answer is that we don't know the answer.

Og svaret er, at vi ikke kender svaret.

We don't know what that's going to do to you,

not in the long term, and not even very much in the short term.

Vi ved det ikke.

Hverken på lang eller kort sigt.

I mean, that would be a bit like

Jeg mener, det ville være lidt ligesom

asking Chris Columbus in 1491, "Hey Chris,

at spørge Chris Columbus i 1491: "Hey Chris,

you know, what happens if it turns out that there's a

hvad sker der, hvis der viser sig et

continent between here and Japan, where you're sailing to,

kontinent mellem her og Japan, hvor du sejler hen?

what will be the consequences for humanity

hvad vil konsekvensen da være for menneskeheden,

if that turns out to be the case?"

hvis det viser sig at være sandt?"

And I think Chris would probably offer you some answer

Og Chris vil nok give jer et svar

that you might not have understood, but it probably

som i nok ikke ville forstå, men det havde sikkert

wouldn't have been right, and I think that to predict

ikke været rigtigt, og jeg tror det, at forudsige

what finding E.T.'s going to mean,

hvad det vil betyde at finde E.T.

we can't predict that either.

heller ikke går.

But here are a couple things I can say.

Men det her kan jeg dog sige:

To begin with, it's going to be a society that's way in advance of our own.

Til en start vil det være et samfund meget mere avanceret end vores eget.

You're not going to hear from alien Neanderthals.

Ikke fremmedartede Neandertalere.

They're not building transmitters.

De bygger ikke radiosendere.

They're going to be ahead of us, maybe by a few thousand

De vil være foran os, måske tusinder af

years, maybe by a few millions years, but substantially

år, måske med et par millioner år, men betydeligt

ahead of us, and that means, if you can understand

foran os, og det betyder, at vil man kan forstå

anything that they're going to say, then you might be able

noget af det, de siger, vil man måske være

to short-circuit history by getting information from a society

i stand til at omgå historien ved at få information fra et samfund,

that's way beyond our own.

der er meget længere fremme.

Now, you might find that a bit hyperbolic, and maybe it is,

I finder det måske en smule overdrevent, og det er det måske,

but nonetheless, it's conceivable that this will happen,

men det kan dog ske.

and, you know, you could consider this like, I don't know,

Man kunne sige, det er,

giving Julius Caesar English lessons and the key

som at give Cæsar engelskundervisning og nøglen til

to the library of Congress.

Library of Congress.

It would change his day, all right?

Det ville ændre hans dag, ikke?

That's one thing. Another thing that's for sure

En anden ting, der helt sikkert

going to happen is that it will calibrate us.

vil komme til at ske, er, at det vil kalibrere os.

We will know that we're not that miracle, right,

Vi får vished om, at vi ikke er et mirakel,

that we're just another duck in a row,

men bare endnu et nummer i rækken.

we're not the only kids on the block, and I think that that's

Vi er ikke de eneste børn i kvarteret.

philosophically a very profound thing to learn.

Filosofisk set er det en meget dybsindig ting at lære.

We're not a miracle, okay?

Vi er ikke noget mirakel, okay?

The third thing that it might tell you is somewhat vague,

Den tredje ting, det måske fortæller en, er temmelig uklart,

but I think interesting and important,

men jeg mener, det er interessant og vigtigt:

and that is, if you find a signal coming from a more

Fanger man et signal, der kommer fra et mere

advanced society, because they will be,

avanceret samfund, for det vil det være,

that will tell you something about our own possibilities,

vil det fortælle noget om vores egne muligheder,

that we're not inevitably doomed to self-destruction.

at vi ikke er dødsdømte til selvødelæggelse.

Because they survived their technology,

For hvis de overlevede deres teknologi,

we could do it too.

kan vi også gøre det.

Normally when you look out into the universe,

Når man plejer at kigge ud i universet,

you're looking back in time. All right?

ser man tilbage i tiden. Okay?

That's interesting to cosmologists.

Det er interessant for kosmologer.

But in this sense, you actually can look into the future,

Men på denne måde, kan man faktisk se ud i fremtiden,

hazily, but you can look into the future.

vagt, men man kan se ud i fremtiden.

So those are all the sorts of things that would come from a detection.

Det er den slags ting, der vil komme fra en opdagelse.

Now, let me talk a little bit about something that happens

Lad mig tale lidt om noget der sker

even in the meantime, and that is,

i mellemtiden.

SETI, I think, is important, because it's exploration, and

SETI, synes jeg, er vigtig, fordi det er udforskning, og,

it's not only exploration, it's comprehensible exploration.

ikke kun udforskning, men forståelig udforskning.

Now, I gotta tell you, I'm always reading books about

Jeg læser altid bøger om

explorers. I find exploration very interesting,

opdagelsesrejsende. Jeg finder det meget interessant.

Arctic exploration, you know, people like Magellan,

Arktisk udforskning. Mennesker som Magellan,

Amundsen, Shackleton, you see Franklin down there,

Åmundsen, Shackleton, man kan se Franklin dernede,

Scott, all these guys. It's really nifty, exploration.

Scott, dem alle. Det er virkelig dygtig udforskning.

And they're just doing it because they want to explore,

Og de gør det kun, fordi de vil udforske.

and you might say, "Oh, that's kind of a frivolous opportunity,"

og man siger måske, "Hvor ligegyldigt!"

but that's not frivolous. That's not a frivolous activity,

men det er ikke ligegyldigt. Det er ikke en ligegyldig aktivitet,

because, I mean, think of ants.

Tænk bare på myrer.

You know, most ants are programmed to follow one another

De er skabt til at følge efter hinanden

along in a long line, but there are a couple of ants,

i en lang række, men der er et par myrer,

maybe one percent of those ants, that are what they call

måske en procent af de myrer, dem, man kalder

pioneer ants, and they're the ones that wander off.

pioner myrer, der vandrer afsted.

They're the ones you find on the kitchen countertop.

Det er dem, man finder i køkkenet.

You gotta get them with your thumb before they

Man skal fange dem med fingeren, før de

find the sugar or something.

finder sukker, eller noget.

But those ants, even though most of them get wiped out,

Men de myrer, skønt de fleste bliver dræbt,

those ants are the ones that are essential to the survival

er essentielle for overlevelse

of the hive. So exploration is important.

af tuen. Så udforskning er vigtigt.

I also think that exploration is important in terms of

Jeg mener også, at udforskning er vigtigt med hensyn til

being able to address what I think is a critical

at kunne udtrykke det, jeg mener, er en kritisk

lack in our society, and that is the lack of science literacy,

mangelvare i vores samfund: Videnskabelig kompetence.

the lack of the ability to even understand science.

Manglende evnen til selv at forstå videnskab.

Now, look, a lot has been written about the

Hør engang. Meget er blevet skrevet om den

deplorable state of science literacy in this country.

videnskabelige kompetences sørgelige tilstand her i landet.

You've heard about it.

I har hørt om det.

Well, here's one example, in fact.

Der er faktisk et eksempel.

Polls taken, this poll was taken 10 years ago.

Meningsmålinger, denne her lavet for 10 år siden,

It shows like roughly one third of the public thinks

viser, at ca. en tredjedel mener,

that aliens are not only out there, we're looking for them

at rumvæsener ikke kun er derude,

out there, but they're here, right?

men at de er her, ikke?

Sailing the skies in their saucers and occasionally

De flyver rundt i deres UFOer og bortfører

abducting people for experiments their parents wouldn't approve of.

folk til eksperimenter, deres forældre ikke ville give lov til.

Well, that would be interesting if it was true,

Jamen, det ville være interessant, hvis det var sandt.

and job security for me, but I don't think the evidence is

Sikkert job til mig! Men beviserne er

very good. That's more, you know, sad than significant.

ikke gode. Det er mere sørgelige end vigtige.

But there are other things that people believe

Men der er andre ting, som folk tror på,

that are significant, like the efficacy of homeopathy,

der er vigtige, som effekten af homøopati.

or that evolution is just, you know, sort of a crazy idea

Eller at evolutionen bare er en fiks idé

by scientists without any legs, or, you know, evolution,

hos forskere uden ben, eller, evolution,

all that sort of thing, or global warming.

den slags ting, eller global opvarmning.

These sorts of ideas don't really have any validity,

Den slags ideer har i virkeligheden ikke nogen validitet,

that you can't trust the scientists.

at man ikke kan stole på forskere.

Now, we've got to solve that problem, because that's

Det er et problem vi skal løse, fordi det er

a critically important problem, and you might say,

et vigtigt problem, og man kunne sige,

"Well, okay, how are we gonna solve that problem with SETI?"

"Hvordan skal vi løse det problem med SETI?"

Well, let me suggest to you that SETI obviously can't

Jamen, lad mig sige, at SETI absolut ikke kan

solve the problem, but it can address the problem.

løse det, blot tage hånd om det.

It can address the problem by getting young people

Det kan tage hånd om problemet ved at få unge mennesker

interested in science. Look, science is hard, it

til at blive interesseret i videnskab. Videnskab er svært.

has a reputation of being hard, and the facts are, it is hard,

Sådan rygtes det, ihvertfald. Og faktum er, at det er svært,

and that's the result of 400 years of science, right?

og det er resultatet af 400 års videnskab, ikke?

I mean, in the 18th century, in the 18th century

I det 18. århundrede

you could become an expert on any field of science

kunne man blive ekspert på ethvert videnskabsområde

in an afternoon by going to a library,

på en eftermiddag ved at gå på biblioteket,

if you could find the library, right?

hvis man kunne finde biblioteket, ikke?

In the 19th century, if you had a basement lab,

I det 19. århundrede, hvis man havde et laboratorium i kælderen,

you could make major scientific discoveries

kunne man gøre kæmpestore videnskabelige opdagelser

in your own home. Right? Because there was all this

i ens eget hjem. Fordi der var al den

science just lying around waiting for somebody to pick it up.

videnskab, der bare ventede på, at nogen samlede det op.

Now, that's not true anymore.

Det er ikke sandt mere.

Today, you've got to spend years in grad school

I dag skal man bruge flere år på universitetet

and post-doc positions just to figure out what

og Ph.d. stillinger bare for at finde ud af, hvad

the important questions are.

de vigtige spørgsmål er.

It's hard. There's no doubt about it.

Det er svært. Det er der ingen tvivl om.

And in fact, here's an example: the Higgs boson,

Og faktisk er dette et eksempel: Higgs-partiklen,

finding the Higgs boson.

at finde Higgs-partiklen.

Ask the next 10 people you see on the streets,

Spørg de næste 10 mennesker i møder:

"Hey, do you think it's worthwhile to spend billions

"Hej, synes du, det er iorden at bruge milliarder

of Swiss francs looking for the Higgs boson?"

schweiziske francs på at lede efter Higgs-partiklen?"

And I bet the answer you're going to get, is,

Og jeg vil væde med at svaret er:

"Well, I don't know what the Higgs boson is,

"Jeg ved ikke, hvad det er,

and I don't know if it's important."

eller om det er vigtigt."

And probably most of the people wouldn't even know

Og de fleste ved sikkert ikke

the value of a Swiss franc, okay?

hvad værdien af en schweizisk franc er, vel?

And yet we're spending billions of Swiss francs on this problem.

Og alligevel bruger vi milliarder på dette problem.

Okay? So that doesn't get people interested in science

Mennesker interesserer sig ikke for videnskab,

because they can't comprehend what it's about.

når de ikke aner, hvad det går ud på.

SETI, on the other hand, is really simple.

SETI er dog meget simpel.

We're going to use these big antennas and we're going to

Vi vil bruge disse store antenner

try to eavesdrop on signals. Everybody can understand that.

og prøve at lytte efter signaler. Alle kan forstå det.

Yes, technologically, it's very sophisticated,

Teknologisk set er det meget sofistikeret,

but everybody gets the idea.

men alle forstår ideen.

So that's one thing. The other thing is, it's exciting science.

Den anden ting er, at det er spændende videnskab.

It's exciting because we're naturally interested

Fordi vi naturligt er interesserede

in other intelligent beings, and I think that's

i andre intelligente væsner.

part of our hardwiring.

Sådan er vi bygget op.

I mean, we're hardwired to be interested

Skabt til at have interesse

in beings that might be, if you will, competitors,

for væsner, der kunne være konkurrenter, om man vil.

or if you're the romantic sort, possibly even mates. Okay?

eller, er man optimistisk, måske endda kammerater.

I mean, this is analogous to our interest in things that

Dette er parallelt med vores interesse

have big teeth. Right?

for det med store tænder.

We're interested in things that have big teeth, and you

Vi forsker i store tænder,

can see the evolutionary value of that, and you can also see

og du kan se den evolutionære værdi. Du kan også

the practical consequences by watching Animal Planet.

se de praktiske konsekvenser, når du ser Animal Planet.

You notice they make very few programs about gerbils.

F.eks. laver de få programmer om ørkenrotter.

It's mostly about things that have big teeth.

Mest om ting med store tænder.

Okay, so we're interested in these sorts of things.

Så vi er interesserede i de her ting.

And not just us. It's also kids.

Og ikke kun os. Det er også børn.

This allows you to pay it forward by using this subject as a

Man kan altså give det videre ved at bruge emnet som

hook to science, because SETI involves all kinds of science,

en forbindelse til videnskab, fordi SETI inddrager mange slags emner

obviously biology, obviously astronomy,

Selvfølgelig biologi og astronomi,

but also geology, also chemistry, various scientific

men også geologi, kemi... Forskellige videnskabelige

disciplines all can be presented in the guise of,

discipliner, der alle kan præsenteres under overskriften:

"We're looking for E.T."

"Vi leder efter E.T."

So to me this is interesting and important, and in fact,

For mig er dette interessant og vigtigt, og faktisk,

it's my policy, even though I give a lot of talks to adults,

er det mit mål, selvom jeg holder mange foredrag for voksne.

you give talks to adults, and two days later they're back where they were.

To dage senere er de dog tilbage ved udgangspunktet.

But if you give talks to kids, you know,

Men hvis man holder foredrag for børn,

one in 50 of them, some light bulb goes off, and they think,

tændes en pære i én ud af 50, og de tænker,

"Gee, I'd never thought of that," and then they go,

"Nøj, det har jeg aldrig tænkt på."

you know, read a book or a magazine or whatever.

Og så læser de en masse om det.

They get interested in something.

De bliver interesserede i noget.

Now it's my theory, supported only by anecdotal,

Okay, så det er min teori, kun understøttet af anekdoter,

personal anecdotal evidence, but nonetheless,

men ikke desto mindre,

that kids get interested in something between the ages

at børn bliver interesserede i noget, når de er

of eight and 11. You've got to get them there.

mellem 8 og 11. Det er der, man skal have fat i dem.

So, all right, I give talks to adults, that's fine, but I try

Det er fint at holde foredrag for voksne, men jeg prøver

and make 10 percent of the talks that I give,

at holde 10 % af dem...

I try and make those for kids.

Jeg prøver at holde dem for børn.

I remember when a guy came to our high school, actually,

Jeg kan huske den her fyr i skolen...

it was actually my junior high school. I was in sixth grade.

i 6. klasse.

And he gave some talk. All I remember from it

Han holdt et foredrag. Alt, jeg husker,

was one word: electronics.

er et ord: elektronik.

It was like Dustin Hoffman in "The Graduate," right,

Det var som Dustin Hoffman i "Fagre voksne verden,"

when he said "plastics," whatever that means, plastics.

da han sagde "plastik".

All right, so the guy said electronics. I don't remember

Fyren sagde elektronik. Jeg husker ikke

anything else. In fact, I don't remember anything

andet end det. Faktisk husker jeg ikke,

that my sixth grade teacher said all year,

hvad min lærer ellers sagde hele året,

but I remember electronics.

men jeg kan huske elektronik.

And so I got interested in electronics, and you know,

Så jeg blev interesseret i elektronik,

I studied to get my ham license. I was wiring up stuff.

jeg studerede for at få amatørradio tilladelse.

Here I am at about 15 or something, doing that sort of stuff.

Som ca. 15-årig, laver jeg altså den slags ting.

Okay? That had a big effect on me.

Det havde stor indflydele på mig.

So that's my point, that you can have a big effect

Man kan altså have stor indflydelse

on these kids.

på disse børn.

In fact, this reminds me, I don't know, a couple years ago

Faktisk minder det mig om, at jeg for et par år siden

I gave a talk at a school in Palo Alto

holdt et foredrag ved en skole i Palo Alto

where there were about a dozen 11-year-olds

hvor der var en flok 11 årige

that had come to this talk.

til foredraget.

I had been brought in to talk to these kids for an hour.

Jeg skulle tale med børnene i en time.

Eleven-year-olds, they're all sitting in a little semi-circle

Elleve årige, siddende i en lille halvcirkel,

looking up at me with big eyes, and I started,

der kigger op på mig med store øjne.

there was a white board behind me, and I started off

Der var en tavle, og jeg skrev

by writing a one with 22 zeroes after it, and I said,

et et-tal med 22 nuller bagefter og sagde:

"All right, now look, this is the number of stars

"Okay, ser her, det her er det antal stjerner

in the visible universe, and this number is so big

i det synlige univers, og tallet er så stort

there's not even a name for it."

at der ikke engang er et navn for det."

And one of these kids shot up his hand, and he said,

Og et af disse børn rakte hånden op og sagde:

"Well, actually there is a name for it.

"Der et navn for det.

It's a sextra-quadra-hexa-something or other." Right?

Det er et sextra-quadra-hexa eller sådan noget"

Now, that kid was wrong by four orders of magnitude,

Nu tog det barn fejl i kæmpestor størrelsesorden,

but there was no doubt about it, these kids were smart.

men de her børn var helt sikkert kloge.

Okay? So I stopped giving the lecture.

Så jeg stoppede med foredraget.

All they wanted to do was ask questions.

De ville bare stille spørgsmål.

In fact, my last comments to these kids, at the end I said,

Min sidste kommentar til dem var:

"You know, you kids are smarter

"Ved I hvad, I børn er klogere

than the people I work with." Now — (Laughter)

end de folk, jeg arbejder med." Men -- (Latter)

They didn't even care about that.

Det var de ligeglade med.

What they wanted was my email address

De ville have min email adresse.

so they could ask me more questions. (Laughter)

Så de kunne stille flere spørgsmål. (Latter)

Let me just say, look, my job is a privilege

Jeg har et privilegeret job,

because we're in a special time.

fordi vi lever i en speciel tid.

Previous generations couldn't do this experiment at all.

Tidligere generationer kunne ikke lave samme eksperimenter.

In another generation down the line,

På et senere tidspunkt

I think we will have succeeded.

tror jeg, det lykkes for os.

So to me, it is a privilege, and when I look in the mirror,

Så for mig, er det et privilegium, og når jeg kigger i spejlet,

the facts are that I really don't see myself.

ser jeg ikke rigtig mig selv.

What I see is the generation behind me.

Jeg ser generationen før mig.

These are some kids from the Huff School, fourth graders.

Børn fra Huff Skolen, fjerde klasse.

I talked there, what, two weeks ago, something like that.

Jeg holdt et foredrag der for to ugers tid siden.

I think that if you can instill some interest in science

Kan man indpode lidt interesse for videnskab

and how it works, well, that's a payoff

og hvordan det fungerer, giver det gevinst.

beyond easy measure. Thank you very much.

udover det sædvanlige. Mange tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)