SETI Institute suspends search for aliens

For instance, you're assuming that if we get a signal, from aliens, we will learn absolutely nothing of value from it.

I think we've got a few smart people hanging out on Earth; more than enough to learn something valuable from alien signals. For instance, we might learn how aliens send radio signals, which might have some relevance to our own communication technologies. We might learn something about alien linguistics, which might have applications here on Earth that could be beneficial. We might learn what alien porn looks like, and I know that most of you reading this comment would be very interested in that.

What seems vanishingly unlikely is that we'd learn NOTHING of value.

Of course not. That line of reasoning is always flawed, as it is presumably always typed on a computer that was purchased with funds that weren't used for free water/food/vaccines.

I'm just trying to think this through, so we identify some sort of signal. I'll bet that there will be detractors, with legitimate arguments, why wouldn't there be? It's not going to be an English message encoded in a format we can't dispute. Maybe it's a bad assumption but assuming the aliens use radio technology, it seems at least somewhat reasonable to assume that they'd use it to communicate with themselves before attempting to communicate with others, for those aliens, we'd most likely intercept their communications signals rather than directed communication with us or others. Communications which happened years and years ago. The best case scenario would be one of the near by stars having alien life that happened to be listening too and in that case should we get a signal and send one back it would still be on the order of a decade long cycle. What's the average case? A century long communication cycle? Assuming both parties are listening and engaged? Likewise, if they're sufficently advanced, wouldn't they compress and encrypt their communications and it should appear to be entropy to us?

I think there are a lot of things you should do just to do. The best upside here seems like hope or an easing of the beliefs about the universe, it just seems like we'd have to get really really lucky to actually communicate with something else and it could take centuries to establish that. Which in a round about sort of way makes it seem like shutting down a telescope for a few years isn't so harmful after all. Then let's just toss in nuclear proliferation, Islam fundamentalism (as well as other religious zealotry over the centuries,) AIDS in Africa (imagine should it some how become more communicable...) hunger, and global warming as issues that might affect our ability to concentrate on a problem for a century or more, is stoppage that bad?

So, not so much mismanagement as overoptimistic budgeting.

(Building a few telescopes at a time is likely a false economy, given the costs of paying engineering/fabrication costs over a longer period.)

All that said, it's going to be harder to get private donors to contribute towards telescopes in the future...