One new question that the reading and interviews raised for me was how different sectors of human society, like religious institutions, global financial markets, and scientific communities, interpret and respond to the ambiguous and uncertain nature of a potential extraterrestrial signal before its authenticity is fully confirmed. The interviews really emphasized how much of a scientific process involves uncertainty, iteration, and imagination. In the public and institutional environments, however, people tend to want clarity and finality. If a possible extraterrestrial signal were detected, but with significant uncertainty around its origin, I wonder if that would cause markets to panic or surge based on speculation. I also wonder if it would cause religious groups to split apart or unify in interpreting its meaning, or if scientists would be pressured to draw premature conclusions. This question lies at the intersection of human belief systems, economic incentives, and epistemological humility.
What makes this question particularly difficult to answer is that we don't really have a precedent for contact with extraterrestrial intelligence and, as Jill Tarter emphasized, not even a single confirmed example of life beyond Earth. Unlike other scientific discoveries that emerged incrementally, the detection of a non-natural signal would be cause a massive global outburst, triggering reactions that are more shaped by emotion and narrative than by fact. Also, as Avi Loeb points out, much of science is limited by prejudice, as people assume the future will look like the past. That mindset makes it hard to predict how societies might react to actual alien phenomena. Since there is a level of uncertainty that is embedded into different scientific, social, economic, and existential levels, I think this question resists prediction and invites humility.