The Bubble Nebula

This is a NASA photo taken by the Hubble Telescope.

UFO Unknowns—Part 2

In the late 20^th century a number of credible sightings by civilian and military pilots—especially American—occurred. These were not amateurs on the ground who might be prone to lively imaginations; they were trained pilots whose onboard sensors (such as radar) indicated something more than just a blinking light in the sky. Many of these pilots were leery of reporting their experiences, because of a concern that they might be considered unreliable or even to be unstable.

Then UFO sightings again increased in the early 21^st century, for reasons unknown. The incidents by reliable pilots also increased. Pressure on the US government intensified as a number of established institutions began to demand a report. This resulted in the government releasing a report in 2021—summarizing and revealing what had been found. The report, however, was incomplete, cryptic, unscientific, confusing, and very unsatisfying. In over 70 years of investigation, the authorities had little to offer in the way of explanations.

So yet another phase of government study has recently been launched. This time qualified scientists are involved, with the intent of conducting a more sound, rigorous study. The more credible military pilot encounters will be given particularly careful attention. The UFO (or now officially named UAP, unidentified aerial phenomena) community once again stands by waiting—but this time a more open and scientific process is expected.

One consistent point has repeatedly been made throughout the modern UFO era, however: despite thousands of interesting sightings and endless speculation, there has not once been any material object found or unequivocal photo been taken. Just one piece of spacecraft or even space trash from aliens would cast a completely different  light on the subject. It would lend a credibility far beyond anything we have now.

UFO Unknowns—Part 1

The mystery of UFOs (unidentified flying objects) has been with us for millennia—ever since humans looked up in the night sky and saw strange lights. Long before we were able to fly, these sightings probably seemed more like apparitions—ghostlike or godlike in origin. It wasn't until we developed flying craft that we began to interpret these phenomena as flying objects. In fact, they did not acquire the designation UFO until well into the 20^th century.

The modern era of UFOs began in1947, when someone spotted an object in New Mexico that was described as something like a saucer skipping across the sky—giving birth to the alternative designation “flying saucer.” The late 1940s was the beginning of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA, which included a race to arm each side with nuclear weapons. Americans were fearful, if not paranoid, of the Soviets, and so were often inclined to shudder at the possibility of the enemy having developed a secret flying weapon that threatened our existence.

UFO sightings proliferated in the USA in the mid 20^th century's Cold War atmosphere. As evidence that most of these events may be traced to American fears, analysts have pointed out that the number of North American sightings dropped off dramatically, north and south of the US border. Neither Mexicans nor Canadians reported anywhere near the incidents recorded in America.

I think this factor of public perception is crucial in framing the UFO phenomenon in the US, as well as the rest of the world. A persistent question throughout these sightings is, What are they? Russian craft? Public hallucinations? Extraterrestrial visitors? Weather balloons? Natural aerial events? Airplanes? Planets? (Venus has caused many reports.)

In fact, some 95% of incidents have been shown to be explained, not by human or alien craft, but due to some of the other causes listed above. There is no reason, for example, why UFOs should cluster around the USA—regardless of their origin. Fears and insecurities can play a major role in people’s reactions and imaginations.

Due to the concerns that these reports might possibly be caused by Soviet technological advances, the response of the US government in the early UFO days was assigned to the military. The investigations were held behind secretive doors, which fed public rumor that the truth was being suppressed. Conspiracies bloomed: a UFO had crashed in the American desert and the incident was being covered up by the military. The controversy simmered along, for the remainder of the 20^th century.

Many analyses were conducted, and the vast majority (that 95%) were shown to be explained by natural events and human craft. But the unresolved 5% continued to cause legitimate concern. Because the study of UFOs was being conducted by the US military, rather than a systematic scientific investigation, little progress was made. The US military established several programs in the last half of the 20^th century—each one with a different perspective. Each one was headed by a military officer who had his own biased slant on the issue. One program after another concluded its study with a different opinion, and none of them shed any light on the issue—let alone informed the public of its findings. The public was free to speculate about the truth of UFOs, in the absence of government candor on the issue.

Culture's Characteristics

In today's globe-trotting world we have become increasingly aware of the planet’s wide variety of cultures. Anthropologists have made the study of different cultures their purview, as they have traveled the world, seeking the customs and habits of various peoples—in order to understand the range of human civilizations.

I am currently taking an online course from St. Petersburg University in Russia, with the intent of developing a better understanding of Russian culture. The course begins with a succinct and useful definition of culture—consisting of a group's common and dominant (1) values, (2) beliefs, (3) attitudes, and (4) behaviors. Using that definition, several aspects of a people's culture that can be delineated are (1) collective—it is generally common across the populace, (2) situational—culture depends on several particular circumstances of the group, (3) learned—we are born culture-free and gradually assimilate our group's customs, (4) complex—there is considerable variation within any one group, and (5) dynamic—culture evolves.

When we examine the behaviors of a group of people, we can immediately note several obvious and visible aspects of its culture, such as (1) dress and fashions, (2) gestures, (3) speech and language, (4) dance, music, and other arts, (5) manners, etc. But there are also several subtle and hidden aspects that take time to understand, such as (1) how time is experienced, (2) their concept of authority, (3) how they solve problems, (4) what is considered beautiful or ugly, (5) how truth is perceived, (6) the difference between good and evil, etc.

So, back to the definition of culture: the first factor on the list above is the values held by a people. Research has shown that, while values differ between populaces, there is still a strong similarity in the values held across different populations. In order of priority, the commonalities of all cultures are (1) family life, (2) honesty, (3) health, (4) self-esteem, (5) self-reliance, (6) freedom and justice, (7) friendship, and (8) knowledge and learning. Thus it seems, that despite cultural differences, there is quite a bit of similarity across diverse populations.

There is a new cultural phenomenon emerging in the last couple of decades—something that can be described as global culture. Fostered by the internet, this world-wide culture spans political borders. Its values are being commonly held by an increasing number of people, who have taken on and share global concerns, such as ecological sustainability and concern for the welfare of the planet. Despite our many differences, our fear and suspicion of the other, and our propensity to turn to violence, I wonder if this global culture could possibly pull people together to take action on the climate crisis. Wouldn't that be nice?

Same Boat Significance

The expression “we're all in the same boat” is a crucial factor in determining whether a group of people pulls together to successfully face a challenge or splinters into factions and fails. When a group—from a handful of people to a full society—coheres, they are able to cooperate with one another to keep the group strong and resilient. Many philosophers, such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, have described such a society as one that has created a “social contract.” This term describes an agreement among society members to cooperate with each other and with the government, in order to create benefits for all. Those benefits can be crucial for the society to be able to provide for the welfare of its members.

History has shown that small groups have been more successful than large groups in creating and perpetuating the social contract. This is because a small group of people can actually feel that they are in the same boat. For example, when a band of our hunter-gatherer ancestors faced a crisis such as a flood, a troop of lions, or starvation, they naturally pulled together in order to survive. Additionally, everyone knew everyone... they all were literally in the same boat. That cohesiveness is much harder to sustain in large societies. So Rousseau and other philosophers described how large groups inevitably tend to disintegrate and descend into chaos, when members do not feel as if they are in the same boat.

One unfortunate example of when a large society can develop a strong bond is when its country goes to war. The exterior threat causes them to pull together to defend the homeland. The situation then creates an atmosphere of comradeship, that overpowers internal dissensions. Manipulative political leaders know how to unite the populace, by posing another country or people as a threat. This is often done today, for example, in the context of rallying citizens against immigration.

Throughout history the world has been divided into separate geopolitical states that often engaged in war with each other, either because they saw no reason to feel in the same boat with a neighboring country, or they feared it or wanted it. Now we have a global society linked tightly by commerce and the internet. Our communication abilities keep us closely and instantly connected, and yet fragmentation, competition, and polarization can make us feel that we are not at all in the same boat. While the global community should feel more connected, we in fact are fragmented even more.

Societies like the United States are suffering from a severe case of polarization. Rousseau and his colleagues would recognize this process as the disintegration of the social contract and the danger of descent into chaos. Will current societies be able to bridge the polarizing gaps and show their citizens that they are in the same boat, or will we tread farther down the path of disintegration?

Rousseau’s Covenant

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed ideas in the 18^th century about the fundamental nature of humans and their societies. While his views on individual human nature were generally optimistic, he was quite pessimistic about the qualities of society. He wrote that, while we are born virtuous and free, civilization will inevitably make our lives unpleasant. The opening statement of his famous work, On the Social Contract, reflects this sentiment: “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”

Much of Rousseau's philosophical work was about how to counteract society's and governments’ harmful influence on each of us. His concept of the “social contract” was a way protect our freedom. It is basically a covenant between the populous and the government which assures that citizens have the ability and right to rein in government, when it threatens to break that contract. Such a well-ordered society cannot endure, however, if there does not exist some kind of common will of the people. There needs to be some cohesion among citizens… some coming ground. Once citizens begin to fragment, however, they will lose their authority and their control, allowing the government to seize power and begin to violate the general will and harm the populace.

Whatever kind of regime is established—that is, whatever form of government is created—in order to be legitimate it must implement the will of the people, by creating a just society that provides for the common good. In this manner the government becomes the executive, while the people are literally sovereign. In fact, the people should be the source of laws that govern society... because those laws must be formulated in the interest of citizens. If instead, the government makes laws, then the people ought to have the authority to accept or reject them. The critical point is that the government should be implementing the will of the people—not dominating or controlling it.

The USA Constitution enshrines this concept by its very opening words: “We the people of the United States...” The Constitution goes on to define the government as being formed into three balanced branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Yet the core of the Constitution is the concept that all three branches must still be subservient to the will and welfare of the people. It is, after all, “We the people…"

Rousseau was concerned—if not convinced—that governments so justly conceived, will inevitably violate that contract by seizing inordinate power and responding chiefly to the desires of the rich and powerful. I think one could make a good argument that that is exactly what is happening in the US today. Things are out of balance. The needs and welfare of the people are being disregarded by the rich and powerful in Washington, DC, as well as in state capitals across the country.