ICARuSl9,347-349 (1973)

The Zoo Hypothesis

JOHN A. BALL
Oak Hill Road, Harvard, Massachusetts 01451

Received March 1, 1973; revised March 5, 1973

Extraterrestrial intelligent life may be almost ubiquitous. The apparent failure

of such life to interact with us may be understood in terms of the hypothesis that
they have set us aside as part of a wilderness area or zoo.

INTRODUCTION premises are stated below with a discussion

of their origin and references to the
The most interesting scientific problem
literature. Although this discussion is
of our age involves the question of the
brief, these premises are in fact crucial and
existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life.
if any of them proves to be incorrect, then
Arguments summarized below make it
the zoo hypothesis falls.
likely that intelligence exists on many
A. Whenever the conditions are such that
planets throughout our galaxy and that
life can exist and evolve, it will. Life is to be
most of these civilizations are much older understood as a chemical reaction that
than our own. This problem has been the
occurs whenever the necessary reactants
subject of considerable work both theoreti-
are present under the appropriate con-
cal and experimental (see Oparin and
ditions for a sufficient time. This statement
Fesenkov, 1960; Cameron, 1963; Shklov-
represents a considerable extrapolation of
skii and Sagan, 1966; Sagan, 1973; and
our present knowledge. In fact the opposite
other references therein) and our under- hypothesis, that life is statistically un-
standing of the subject has certainly
likely even in ideal conditions, has been
progressed rapidly in the last decade or so.
expressed (e.g., by Tomes, 1971). Dis-
However, this problem has proved to be
covery of primitive life on Mars or Venus
extremely difficult, in part because it
would probably settle this question. Our
involves understanding what a civilization
current understanding of biochemistry
much older than ours might be like. It is
seems to support premise A (Shklovskii
difficult enough to predict our own de-
and Sagan, 1966, Chapter 14; and Calvin,
velopment for a few decades hence, but we
1963).
need to know about other civilizations that B. There are many places where life can
may be older than ours not by decades but
exist. Planets are probably quite common
by eons.
in the universe. As many as 20% of all
Among currently popular ideas about
stars may have planets and as many as
extraterrestrial intelligence, the idea that
10% of these planets may have surfaces on
“they” are trying to talk to us has many
which life can form. (However Oparin and
adherents (see, e.g., Drake, 1963). This
Fesenkov, 1960, think that only one star
idea seems to me to be unlikely to be correct
in lo5 or lo6 has a planet with a surface
and the zoo hypothesis is in fact the anti-
suitable for life. See also von Hoerner,
thesis of this idea.
1963). This statement also represents more
than we know at present; no star other than
STARTINGPREMISES our sun is definitely known to have planets
comparable to the earth. Objects that may
Three working hypotheses or starting be planets have been detected around a
premises are used in most discussions of the few other stars (see Shklovskii and Sagan,
problem of extraterrestrial life. These 1966, Chapter 11; Huang, 1963; and van
Copyright 0 1973 by Academic Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 347
Printed in Great Britain.
348 JOHN A. BALL

de Kamp, 1969), however these objects Also there are many other mixed possi-
are much more massive than the earth. bilities such as partial destruction and
Planets comparable to the earth around rebuilding, and the surprisingly popular
almost any other star would go undetected finite-lifetime idea. These possibilities are
with present techniques. The opposite sketched diagramatically in Fig. 1 with
hypothesis, that the solar system is unique, specific reference to our own extrapolated
was believed by Jeans, 1929, Chapter future. It is likely that some fraction of all
XVI, but is now discredited (see, e.g., civilizations follow each of these possi-
Levin, 1964, for a summary of current bilities. However, analogy with civiliza-
thinking). tions on earth indicates that most of those
C. We are unaware of “them.” civilizations that are behindin technological
development would eventually be en-
WHO IS OUT THERE? gulfed and destroyed, tamed, or perhaps
assimilated. So, generally speaking, we
It is statistically unlikely that there need consider only the most technologi-
exists anywhere in our whole galaxy any cally advanced civilizations because they
other civilization whose level of develop- will be, in some sense, in control of the
ment is at all comparable to ours. We universe.
would expect to find either primitive life Technological progress may be defined
forms, perhaps comparable to those on the as increasing ability to control one’s
earth a few million years ago, or very environment. Already at our level of
advanced life forms, perhaps comparable technology we affect almost everything on
to what will be on earth a few million earth from elephants to viruses. But we
years hence (!) do not always exert the power we possess.
There are three general categories of Occasionally we set aside wilderness areas,
possibilities defining the technological evo- wildlife sanctuaries, or zoos in which other
lution of a civilization : species (or other civilizations) are allowed
(1) Destruction (from within or without) to develop naturally, i.e., interacting very
(2) Technological stagnation. little with man. The perfect zoo (or wilder-
(3) Quasi-continuous technological pro- ness area or sanctuary) would be one in
which the fauna inside do not interact

CONTINUOUS
DEVELOPMENT

MAN

LIFETIME

ORIGIN NO\
OF PLANET TIME-

FIG. 1. This is a sketch of the top level of development, defined in terms of complexity, versatility,
and ability to control the environment, either of the organism itself or of the civilization to which it
belongs. The various possible extrapolations for our future are discussed in the text.
 THE ZOO HYPOTHESIS 349

with, and are unaware of, their zoo- the problem, they are also not new. Science-
keepers. fiction authors, in particular, have toyed with
similar notions for many years. And at least a
THE Zoo HYPOTHESIS few previous writers have suggested such ideas
as a serious possibility.
Premise C above now seems to me to be
I thank Sebastian von Hoerner and Mrs. Lyle
extremely significant. I believe that the
G. Boyd for pointing out relevant background
only way that we can understand the material and for stimulating discussions. I am
apparent non-interaction between “them” grateful to Prof. A. E. Lilley for his encourage-
and us is to hypothesize that they are ment.
deliberately avoiding interaction and that
REFERENCES
they have set aside the area in which we
live as a zoo. CALVIN, MELVIN (1963). Chemical evolution. In.
The zoo hypothesis predicts that we “Interstellar Communication” (A. G. W.
shall never find them because they do not Cameron, ed.), Chapt. 5. W. A. Benjamin, Inc.,
want to be found and they have the New York.
technological ability to insure this. Thus CAMERON, A. G. W., ed. (1963). “Interstellar
Communication.” W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New
this hypothesis is falsifiable, but not, in
York.
principle, confirmable by future observa- DRAKE, FRANK D. (1963). How can we detect
tions . radio transmissions from distant planetary
CONCLUSIONS systems, Project Ozma. In “Interstellar
Communication.” (A. G. W. Cameron, ed.),
The zoo hypothesis as given here is Chapts. 16 and 17. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New
probably flawed and incomplete. I hope York.
that it can provide some sort of inspiration HUANG, Su-SHU (1963). The problem of life in
for further work. Among other hypotheses the universe and the mode of star formation.
that one might consider, the laboratory In “Interstellar Communication.” (A. G. W.
hypothesis is one of the more morbid and Cameron, ed.), Chapt. 7. W. A. Benjamin, Inc.,
New York.
grotesque. We may be in an artificial
JEANS, JAMES H. (1929). “Astronomy and
laboratory situation. However, this hypo-
Cosmogony” Cambridge University Press ;
thesis is outside the purview of science also Dover (1961).
because it leads nowhere, it immediately LEVIN, BORIS (1964). “The Origin of the Earth
calls into question the premises on which it and Planets,” 3rd ed. Foreign Languages
is based, and it makes no predictions. Or Publishing House, Moscow.
one might suppose that extraterrestrial OPARIN, A., AND FESENKOV, F. (1960). “The
civilizations have not yet found us or that Universe,” 2nd Ed. Foreign Languages
they know we are here but they are un- Publishing House, Moscow.
interested in us. These latter two hypo- &4GAN, CARL, ed. (1973). “Communication with
theses are probably incompatible with the Extraterrestrial Intelligence.” MIT Press, to
be published.
high level of technological sophistication
SHKLOVSKII, I. S., AND SAGAN, CARL (1966).
they undoubtedly possess.
“Intelligent Life in the Universe,” Holden-
The zoo hypothesis seems to me to be Day and Delta-Dell, San Francisco and New
pessimistic and psychologically unplea- York.
sant. It would be more pleasant to believe TOWNES, C. H. (1971). In the 1971 Jansky
that they want to talk with us, or that they Lecture at the National Radio Astronomy
would want to talk with us if they knew Observatory, Charlottesville, Virginia, Oc-
that we are here. However the history of tober 4, 1971.
science contains numerous examples of VAN DE KAMP, PETER (1969). Alternate dynami-
psychologically unpleasant hypotheses cal analysis of Barnard’s Star, A&on. J. 74,
757-759.
that turned out to be correct,
VON HOERNER, SEBASTIAN (1963). The search
for signals from other civilizations. 1% “Inter-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS stellar Communication” (A. G. W. Cameron,
Although the ideas in this paper are not in the ed.), Chapt. 27. W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New
mainstream of current scientific thought about York.