BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The effort to contact extraterrestrial life causes humans around the world to think of themselves as one community, with an identity and purpose that transcends borders:

Space exploration fosters a general sense of internationalism. For example, in no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can1. When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the transmissions beamed into space in hopes of contacting extraterrestrials, the messages are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create. Further to this, in seeking to be representative of all humanity, the formers of messages to be sent into space must actively ask the question of what it is to be human. In seeking an answer, people foster greater understanding of one another and of the oneness of human existence. 1 Van de Hulst, H. 1961. "International Space Cooperation". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5). improve this
Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:

Almost every human belief system, religious or secular, is based on an anthropocentric outlook. Humanity is the collective center of its Universe; the cognitively aware being that can interact with physical reality not simply by impulse, but by self-aware, conscious agency. Human belief in itself is based upon its conception of dominion over the physical world. Mankind shapes its own environment; while weaker, slower, and smaller than many other species, the intelligence of Man makes Him the apex predator. Mankind's image of itself is compromised by the existence of other intelligent life, especially more advanced intelligent life. It seems that most religious belief systems could not effectively survive with such knowledge, since the existence of intelligent, advanced extraterrestrials seems to imply the nonexistence of a creator God with any active interest in humanity over any other species1. The realization that we are not the center of the Universe could shake many people to their cores, particularly the religious, many of whom would likely find great difficulty coming to terms with that reality. It would be better that humans not seek out such revelations about the Universe. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Universe, better not to invite it to Earth. The cost to people's beliefs and sense of being is too high. 1 Peters, Ted. 2011. "The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion". Philosophical Transactions of the
The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones:

The Earth is faced with many problems that people should be focusing their efforts on addressing, not on the stars and what may or may not be out there. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, poverty, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems1. The resources poured into space exploration and the contacting of extraterrestrials, which will likely serve no lasting purpose, would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. The search for extraterrestrials serves only as a distraction, keeping people's minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. To make things worse, governments use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like efforts to contact extraterrestrials than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. As is shown by developing countries like China and India having space programs while helping to block progress on climate talks and while they still have millions in poverty. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity's concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on trying to get in touch with worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life. 1 Carreau, Mark. 2009. "NASA Urged to Keep Feet On Earth". The Chronicle.
Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:

Space exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well. 1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. "Benefits of Space
Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:

Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself. 1 Dick, Steven. 2009. "Why We Explore". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html improve this
Extraterrestrials might prove unintelligible, or even hostile toward humanity:

It seems unlikely that humans would not be able to survive a great change of circumstance. The human mind is quite resilient, and while the change in how people viewed themselves and the Universe would likely change substantially, it might well be for the better. In fact, discovery of extraterrestrials might help free people from the shackles of dogmatic religious belief, which has caused untold suffering to many through the ages. improve this
Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money:

There is no need for us to be searching for alien life to be exploring the universe. The dream of contacting aliens seems to be an example of humanity's dreams gone awry. Earth's beamed messages and questing probes have for their efforts received no return signal. Surely if intelligent life were near enough to have received our signals, they would have replied. Alternatively, if they are too far away, there is no physical means by which they could ever reach Earth, due to the constraints of the laws of physics, which deny objects the power of reaching the speed of light. Furthermore, the value of the drive to explore itself should be questioned, since humanity's track record on the subject is far from stellar; the abysmal treatment of the Native Americans by European settlers, for example, shows that the will to explore can come with terrible costs. improve this
There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.

The appreciation for complex life by all reasoning should be universal among intelligent species. It seems intelligent life is a rarity in the Universe, and thus it would be unlikely for any civilization, no matter how advanced beyond our own, not to appreciate the advent of complex life on Earth and the value of humanity, flawed and inferior as it might appear to them1. The time energy necessary to traverse the stars in order to reach Earth would only be worth spending if it were to a peaceful end. War would yield only the resources of this small planet, hardly the spoils worth an interstellar war, however one-sided it might prove. Human civilization, as short as its span has been, has developed far in terms of both physical and social sciences. The wealth of knowledge that might be had from contacting extraterrestrials is too great an opportunity to pass up. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:

The search for extraterrestrial life does not solve the problem of the human propensity toward group distinctions. Even if such projects succeeded in fostering a sense of universal humanity, it only does so at the cost of creating a new in group-out group dynamic, namely humans defining themselves against the out group that is extraterrestrial life. Such redefinition of identity could cause serious problems in the extremely unlikely event that humans ever actually do make contact with extraterrestrial life.
Extraterrestrials might prove unintelligible, or even hostile toward humanity:

Were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, an unlikely event in itself, the ability to share in any form of meaningful communication might well prove more difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they said, even if they could be heard. Language is built largely on frames of reference, and when an extraterrestrial, evolving on an entirely alien world, perhaps possessing an entirely alien thought process, and certainly having an entirely alien linguistic frame of reference, no level of communication might be possible. With no conceptual similarities or cognitive common ground, the potential for sharing knowledge between species would likely prove impossible to decipher. They could simply be too alien. Furthermore, the hope that technologically advanced extraterrestrials would be friendly towards humanity is entirely unfounded. They might well prove hostile, and if they are more technologically advanced, they could prove an existential threat to the survival of mankind1. This is especially true if the extraterrestrials were actually capable of physically reaching Earth, which would require an understanding of physics and engineering centuries ahead of that of mankind. Welcoming such creatures to Earth could well spell ruin for humanity, as so advanced a civilization might well consider humanity to be of no higher an order of life than we might consider insects. It is far better than humanity not make such a habit of broadcasting its position. It could prove dangerous, especially if the Universe is not as friendly a place as scientists hope. 1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation.   improve this
Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money:

Billions of dollars have been spent by a number of countries, principally the United States, on great projects seeking to make contact and signal extraterrestrials. None of these has received so much as a peep in reply. The reason for this is likely that intelligent life is an extreme rarity, with humanity its only exemplar in this part of the galaxy1. If there were intelligent life within receiving range of Earth-based transmissions, the extraterrestrials would have had ample opportunity to respond, or at least make their presence known. The fact that they have not suggests that there are no extraterrestrials within contactable range, or at least none with any interest in talking to Earthlings. If there were extraterrestrials on more distant planets, efforts to contact them would be pointless, as they would be so far away that communication would take many years and would be unreachable physically. Furthermore, the search for extraterrestrials violates reason. Money should only be spent on projects after phenomena worth analyzing have been detected. There is no evidence that intelligent lie other than our own exists at all. Trying to contact little green men in space is just a waste of time. 1 Ward, Peter. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Philadelphia: Springer. improve this
There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.

There is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. 1http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/25/how_do_you_say_realpol... ">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say "realpolitik" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201
The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:

Humanity has built, in the relatively few millennia since formal writing was invented, compiled a truly gigantic quantity of information and knowledge, to which it is constantly adding, at increasingly rapid rates. To imagine the treasure trove of knowledge and experience that would become available to humanity in the event of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life of similar, or even greater, technological and social development is almost impossible1. The wisdom that could be gained, especially considering that alien life would likely have evolved along very different lines than humans, could be of a kind that mankind could never have conceived without such contact. This great potential for the gaining of knowledge is reason enough to devote resources to the effort of making contact. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pinning responsibility on nations is wrong and unhelpful

The very slow progress being made by the international community in its conferences to come up with a framework to prevent climate change shows that relying on the nation state, either developed or developing, is not the way forward.  Instead individual action and changes to lifestyles are the way forward – all governments should be doing is encouraging this by making it possible to choose a low carbon lifestyle and if necessary penalizing the highest emitters. According to Joan Ruddock, former UK Energy and Climate Change Minister “over 40 percent of the UK's CO2 emissions a result of personal choices, [so] there is huge potential for individual behaviour change to lower emissions.”[1] We are already seeing that individual action can happen. There are many ways in which individuals do a little to prevent climate change, carbon offsetting is a good example. Individuals can choose to offset their emissions, either all their emissions or emissions from individual activities such as flying, by paying for projects that reduce emissions elsewhere which usually means either funding renewable energy or tree planting.[2] [1] Reuters Africa, ‘Few in UK think climate change will hit them, kids’, Thompson Reuters, 8 October 2009, http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL832340520091008 [2] Directgov, ‘Carbon offsetting’, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironm...
The economy is a global system; the solutions need to be global and involve everyone

The world today is globalized and interlinked. It is not economically viable to expect developed nations to use more of their resources to combat global warming. The global economy depends on wealthy developed countries because it is them which create the high demand for the work performed by developing nations allowing countries like china to develop based upon exports. Just as the economic system is global as is pollution. There is no point in a developed country cutting its emissions in half if a developing nation replaces all those emissions and more.  For example China’s emissions are expected to rise to between 9.7billion and 12 billion metric tons[1] up from 2008’s 7billion.[2] The European Union emits 4.2 billion metric tons so China could easily offset EU emissions losses even if the EU makes very extensive cuts.[3] With the world being so linked the responsibility is equally linked it is therefore not for individual nations or even a particular group of nations to be considered to have a higher obligation but all nations are equally obligated to prevent climate change. [1] Chao, Julie, ‘A Surprise: China’s Energy Consumption Will Stabilize’, Berkeley Lab, 27 April 2011, http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/04/27/china-energy-consumpt... [2] United Nations Statistics Division, ‘Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2 (CDIAC)’, Millennium Development Goals Indicators, http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749&crid= [3] Wikipedia, ‘List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions’, en.wikipedia.org, accessed 20 February 2012
The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused climate change until the 1980s – over a century after the industrial revolution. Developing nations were not initially aware of the damage they were causing, therefore the harm was unintentional. It is unfair to retrospectively punish these nations for something that was unknown to be harmful when it was done. The responsibility should therefore be based upon either current emissions or at most emissions from the period in which the damage caused was known and emissions could have been reduced.
Developed countries must combat climate change while developing countries have more pressing concerns

This makes the flawed assumption that development has to be dirty to lead to meaningful advances in living standards. This is not the case. In the 19th Century the developed world had no choice but to develop in a dirty way as there were no alternative power sources that could provide enough energy. Today there are numerous green energy sources that are every bit as efficient as the coal fired power that was used for the developed world’s industrial revolution. Moreover history has shown that the states that catch up economically do so by leapfrogging the already developed nations by moving in to new industries and not making the mistakes made by those who are already at the top. Thus Germany took a lead in the then new industry of chemicals by the end of the 19th Century[1] and Japan in Electronics during its economic miracle after world war II. Newly industrializing countries should consciously aim to take a lead in new green industries in order to power their development and can therefore avoid the developing the 19th and 20th century industrial base that was once necessary.[2] [1] Mowery, David C., and Nelson, Richard R., Sources of Industrial Leadership Studies of Seven Industries, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.222, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NUlpdjc6fsMC&dq [2] Cascio, Jamais, ‘Leapfrog 101’, worldchanging.org, 15 December 2004, http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001743.html
Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of combating climate change

This is not paternalistic because developed states are the most capable of cutting emissions. Techniques developed by the developed world will be made available to developing nations, who do have a responsibility at that point. Moreover that developing nations may have the capability to create their own solutions to climate change does not mean that they should have the responsibility to do so. The idea that pinning responsibility on developed nations will somehow stunt the efforts of developing nations is absurd. Solutions such as cheap stoves will continue to be developed regardless because such solutions are beneficial in all sorts of ways and so it makes good business sense to look for such low cost solutions.
Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat climate change.

It is the developed world that has the capability to combat climate change. It is they that have most to cut per capita. More importantly it is these developed countries that have the research capabilities to come up with the necessary technology to make the economy greener, to produce renewable energy, to mitigate against the effects of disasters. Moreover these same places are the countries that have the finance available to fund these activities; not only funding the research into the solutions but also the financial resources to put them into action all around the world. Poor countries turn to the powerful financial centres such as London and New York to finance large projects, the same will be the case with projects to mitigate climate change. Finally these countries have the expertise to put these new inventions and projects into practice; they have the experts to work out the best places to build, to advise on building, and make sure the project does not have unintended side effects. As the nations with the greatest capability, developed nations have an increased responsibility to act.