The existence of extraterrestrial life is a fairly well-established proposition at this point, at least in theory. There is such an incomprehensibly vast multiplicity of planets in our galaxy alone—more than 100 billion, by some estimates—that simple probability should have us believe that we aren't alone in the universe. The existence of intelligent, technologically-advanced life is an order of magnitude less probable, but given the scale and age of the universe, it's still likely, in my estimation.
But has intelligent life visited us on Earth? In this case, the enormity of the universe works against the proposition; there may be billions of planets, but they are tiny islands in the vast ocean of space, unlikely to reach appreciably far into the cosmos. We've had to content ourselves with the likelihood that we won't ever make contact. We are functionally alone.
That entire conception may be about to change, however. Or at least, it should.
As I write this, the Pentagon is due to report to Congress on its knowledge of UAPs (or "unidentified aerial phenomena," the Pentagon's preferred term for UFOs) any day now. The report is expected to shed light on several high-profile UAP sightings by U.S. Navy pilots over the past two decades—sightings which have captivated the public since they leaked in 2017 and started a cultural conversation about UFOs.
The report is expected to conclude that the Pentagon simply has no explanation for most of these UFO encounters, and that, while there's no evidence that "it's aliens," there's no evidence that it isn't aliens, either. If true, this would be an extraordinary admission by the Department of Defense—it represents the most powerful nation on Earth admitting its technological inferiority in the presence of mysterious and potentially dangerous objects that it can't explain. The implications of this are enormous, and should compel us to rethink whether we're alone in the universe or, indeed, on this planet.
I hasten to add that I'm a UFO skeptic. I find that most sightings—and tales of alien "abductions"—simply aren't credible, the products of fevered imaginations. And of those that are credible, most have mundane explanations. We now know, for example, that many UFO sightings in the 1970s and 80s were, in fact, secret U.S. government technology, such as the F-117 stealth fighter, then being developed and tested in secret.
The difference this time is that the Pentagon is expected to report that most of its UAP sightings are not, in fact, secret U.S. technology. Much depends on whether you believe this or not, however. After all, this is exactly what the Pentagon would say if it was secret U.S. technology. But do we really think the United States—or China or Russia, for that matter—possess technology that defies our understanding of physics? These are craft with no detectable means of propulsion ascending and descending tens of thousands of feet near-instantaneously, and seeming to appear and disappear at will, according to highly-credible witnesses.
Under these circumstances, a skeptic like me is left with very few plausible explanations. Secret U.S. or foreign adversarial technology—usually a go-to explanation for such things—appears unlikely in this case, for the reasons I've said. It's always possible that the UAP sightings recorded on cockpit cameras could be optical illusions. But the Pentagon's report is expected to confirm that these are, in fact, real objects in the sky (and in some cases, in the ocean, or both). At long last, it's time to take "the extraterrestrial hypothesis" seriously.
The problem with asserting that "it's aliens," though, is that it's what's known in science as an "unfalsifiable claim." That is, there's no experiment we can do that could conceivably prove it false. (The existence of a god or gods is another unfalsifiable claim, for example. I can't prove that god doesn't exist.) Scientists generally don't take such claims seriously, and neither do I. But these UAP sightings demand at least a working explanation. After all, they are potential threats to us in our airspace.
But what does it mean to "take the extraterrestrial hypothesis seriously"? Two things: 1.) we must have a sense of urgency and invest the money and resources into identifying what these objects are, and keep pressure on our politicians to do this, and 2.) we should begin new, open-minded, open-ended conversations in academia and elsewhere about the cultural and political implications of extraterrestrial life.
We should ask ourselves what the existence of aliens would mean for how we organize our society, and develop a concept of "planetary priorities" in international relations to address climate change, nuclear and biological weapons, and other threats to our species—yes, including aliens. The news media should stop treating these stories like playful curiosities and see them as credible avenues of inquiry. And popular media should continue to prepare the public for the possibility of contact with aliens, as it has already begun to do over the past 50 years.
I am increasingly viewing this subject, not quite with alarm, but with a sense of great import. There's no question that a significant amount of hype has built up to this moment over the past 4 years, and it's possible I've simply bought into it. It may be the case that the Pentagon's report won't contain any paradigm-shifting revelations. I try, as always, to maintain a healthy—but not unhealthy—skepticism. However, all of the things I mentioned above are things we should be doing regardless of what the Pentagon's report says. Whether the recent UAP sightings prove to be credible or not, it's time to take aliens seriously.