12 Leaders The EconomistFebruary 13th 2021
2M
ost scientificresearch has practical ends. But some still
pursues goals better described by the field’s original name:
“natural philosophy”. One of its most philosophical questions is,
“Is there life elsewhere in the universe?”
It is philosophical for two reasons. One is its grand sweep. If
there is life elsewhere, particularly of the intelligent sort, that
raises the question of whether humans might ever encounter it,
or its products (see Books & arts section). If there is not—if all the
uncountable stars in creation waste their light on sterile, lifeless
worlds—then life on Earth must be the result of a stroke of the
most astronomically improbable good luck. As Arthur C. Clarke,
a science-fiction author, is reputed to have said: “Two possibili-
ties exist. Either we are alone in the cosmos or
we are not. Both are equally terrifying.”
The other reason the question is philosophi-
cal is that there has, historically, been too little
evidence to settle it. Arguments about life in the
cosmos must extrapolate from a single example
that is itself poorly understood. Biologists still
lack a bulletproof theory of how earthly life be-
gan. Other planets are far away and hard to
study. That leaves room for all sorts of theories. Perhaps life is
rare. Perhaps it is common, but intelligence is not. Or perhaps
even intelligent life is common, but the technology that lifts it
up ends by destroying it (a popular line of thinking after the de-
velopment of nuclear weapons).
This paucity of data will soon change. A variety of telescopes
and spacecraft are, or soon will be, looking for signs of life in
places ranging from the moons and planets of the solar system to
other stars in Earth’s corner of the Milky Way (see Briefing). In
particular, this search will employ powerful telescopes to try to
find chemical signatures of life in the atmospheres of planets or-
biting stars other than the sun. An alien astronomer looking atEarth, for instance, would be struck by the persistence of both
oxygen and something that it reacts with in the atmosphere, and
might conclude—correctly—that living organisms were respon-
sible for keeping them there.
An unambiguous detection of alien life would count as one of
the momentous discoveries in the history of science. Exactly
what would happen next would depend on what was found.
News of a “biosignature” on a planet dozens of light-years away
would shake the world. It would be strong evidence that life is in-
deed common in the cosmos. That conclusion could upend hu-
manity’s understanding of its place in the universe.
A few adventurous scientists might suggest using a radio tele-
scope to beam a message, in the hope that, if
anything intelligent lives there, it will, decades
later, send a reply. Still, the sheer distances in-
volved mean that there would be few immedi-
ate, practical consequences. By contrast, finding
life closer to home—beneath the Martian rego-
lith, say, or in the oceans under the frozen sur-
faces of the solar system’s icy moons—would
lead to a flurry of action. A sample-return mis-
sion would give biologists the ability to compare earthly life with
the unearthly sort, a process that could shed new light on the
workings and origins of both.
And if nothing is found? That too would be a piece of data, al-
beit of a less dramatic sort. It would not prove that no life exists
elsewhere in the cosmos, but it would be evidence that it is, at
least, rather uncommon.
Half a century ago, returning from the arid and sterile lunar
surface, the Apollo astronauts found a new appreciation for
Earth’s joyous blooms of life and colour. If there are no aliens
nearby, such sentiments might grow stronger. A jewel is all the
more valuable for being rare. 7Alien dreams
The search for etmay soon yield an answerLife, the universe and everythingHouse version). The thresholds at which these payments are
withdrawn are set so high that most Americans with children
would receive them. This helps with the politics and also avoids
punishing low-income people with high effective marginal tax
rates if they receive a pay rise. Mr Romney’s plan involves start-
ing payments before a child is born, which ought to please pro-
life conservatives, and it pays for itself by cutting other pro-
grammes, which ought to please fiscal conservatives. Mr Biden’s
plan does not pay for itself with cuts elsewhere.
Mr Romney’s plan would probably cut child poverty by a
third; Mr Biden’s by a half. One reason this can be said with confi-
dence is that many other developed countries already have simi-
lar schemes. Canada, a country not too dissimilar from its south-
ern neighbour, introduced a child benefit in 2015 that decreased
poverty by 20% in just two years. Many European countries be-
gan paying cash child benefits after the second world war. Pro-
grammes enjoyed support from the left, which saw them as a
plank in the expanding welfare state, and also from the right,
which saw them as strengthening the family (and, in pre-femi-
nist days, as sparing women from having to work). As the inter-national comparisons attest, they still make a difference.
The main economic worry associated with child benefits paid
in cash (as opposed to tax breaks) is the risk of discouraging
women, who tend to be the chief caregivers, from taking a job. In
Germany a reform of 1996 that made benefits more generous led
many low-income women with partners to shift from full-time
to part-time work. In Poland the initial version of one scheme re-
duced women’s labour-force participation by one percentage
point. But that was largely because poor families lost eligibility
for their first child when they crossed the poverty threshold, re-
ducing their income. When the programme was expanded to
cover all first children in 2019, the labour-force effect disap-
peared. Canada has seen very little drop-off.Suffer the little children
In a country that has only a threadbare social safety-net and a po-
litical system which is plagued by extreme polarisation, crafting
good anti-poverty policies is a struggle. Against that back-
ground, the proposals for direct monthly payments per child are
a big step forward. They deserve to win broad support. 7