Astrobiology. Группа авторов

      1 Email: [email protected]

      2 1Own translation.

      2

      Astroethics for Earthlings: Our Responsibility to the Galactic Commons

       Ted Peters

       Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, USA

       Abstract

      The Astroethics of Responsibility proposed here is founded on a substructure of quandary-responsibility ethics, supported by a theological notion of the common good plus a naturalistic justification for response and care. Within the sphere of the solar neighborhood, ten already articulated quandaries are addressed: (1) planetary protection; (2) intrinsic value of off-Earth biospheres; (3) application of the Precautionary Principle; (4) space debris; (5) satellite surveillance; (6) weaponization of space; (7) scientific versus commercial space exploration; (8) terraforming Mars; (9) colonizing Mars; and (10) anticipating natural space threats. Within the sphere of the Milky Way metropolis in which the “galactic common good” becomes the astroethical norm, engagement with intelligent extraterrestrials is analyzed within three categories: (1) ETI less intelligent than Earth’s Homo sapiens; (2) ETI equal in intelligence; and (3) ETI superior in intelligence. Superior ETI may come in both biological and postbiological forms. Our ethical mandate: respond with care.

      Keywords: Astrobiology, astroethics, astrobioethics, quandary-responsibility ethics, intrinsic value, dignity, common good, galactic commons

2.1 Introduction

Astrobiologists along with astronomers and astrophysicists are ready to take the next step in refining astroethics, ethics for space exploration. Might we consider thinking of space beyond Earth as a commons, a domain to be shared by both earthlings and space neighbors? Might we lift up a vision of the common good that includes yet transcends our home planet?

      Apollo 11 astronaut, Buzz Aldrin, says the time has come in which “Space offers us, or rather has allowed us to adopt for ourselves, a new dimension of freedom, which we must use for the benefit of humanity, to enrich and not degrade our lives” [2.1]. The time has come because space explorers need policies, policies that are ethically informed and formed. SETI astrobiologist Margaret Race identifies this need to add ethics to our science. “There are no specific policies or statements regarding ethical considerations or the broader impacts of human activities, particularly in relation to ET life and environments. Moreover, there is no guiding framework for considering any non-scientific issues” [2.69]. The need for foundational ethical—especially astrobioethical—deliberation has arisen [2.13].

      In this chapter we will entertain a series of quandaries in “astroethics,” sometimes called space ethics. We will divide the universe into two concentric spheres of moral concern, our solar neighborhood and the Milky Way metropolis. Because of the untraversable distances between galaxies, and because we have virtually no hope of ever devising a technology by which we could communicate faster than the speed of light, the largest sphere of moral concern we can seriously consider is the Milky Way. We will rely on the term “astroethics” to encompass the full scope of space ethics; the term “astrobioethics” will be employed when dealing specifically with off-Earth life forms.¹

In addition to applying the common good to the Milky Way galaxy, this astroethical investigation will require identifying the moral agent. Here I nominate for the role of moral agent: Earth as a single planetary society. However, this raises a problem. Designating all the peoples of Earth functioning together as a moral agent is problematic because a single planetary society does not currently exist. Our planet Earth is governed formally by independent nations or, more materially, by competing economic and social interest groups. The very formation of a planetary society to deal with off-Earth matters is itself an ethical ideal and goal to pursue. As we pursue this vision of a cooperative human race, we must overcome the presumption of national sovereignty and the individuated interests competing in the economic sector.² In addition. this vision of a single planetary community of moral deliberation must draw into the center of participation those who today are marginalized due to poverty, race, or gender. Astroethics is first of all earthling ethics, and then it becomes galactic ethics [2.59].

      In what follows we will lay the foundation and begin the superstructure for a refined astroethics to aid in formulating public policy. In laying the foundation we will pose three quandary questions: Who are we? What do we value? What should we do? The cumulative answers to these three questions will lead to a foundation we will label “Astroethics of Responsibility” [2.63].

      Atop this foundation we will frame a superstructure of quandaries regarding specific astroethical issues. The load-bearing vertical supports will include: (1) the moral agent: Earth; (2) the moral norm: the galactic common good; (3) the moral spheres: the solar neighborhood and the Milky Way metropolis; (4) the moral justification: a theological apprehension of the common good combined with a naturalistic apprehension of the Golden Rule.

      The floor plan will designate a conference room for each of thirteen previously formulated ethical quandaries. Ten of these quandaries lie within the sphere of the solar neighborhood: (1) planetary protection; (2) intrinsic value of off-Earth biospheres; (3) application of the Precautionary Principle; (4) space debris; (5) satellite surveillance; (6) weaponization of space; (7) scientific versus commercial space exploration; (8) terraforming Mars; (9) establishing human settlements on Mars; and (10) anticipating natural space threats [2.63]. Three quandaries lie within the sphere of the Milky Way metropolis: engagement with intelligent extraterrestrials who are (1) less intelligent than Earth’s Homo sapiens; (2) ETI equal in intelligence; and (3) ETI superior in intelligence in both biological and postbiological forms [2.58].

2.2 Laying the Foundation for an Astroethics of Responsibility

      When NASA launched the New Horizons probe to Pluto in 2006, the Earth-relative launch speed was 36,000 miles per hour. After its sling from Earth’s orbital motion, it sailed toward the edge of our Solar System at 100,000 miles per hour. By 2018 the NASA launch of the Parker Solar Probe included an orbital velocity of 430,000 miles per hour. Science moves fast. Can ethics keep up?

      “Space ethics appear today as a new terra incognita, an unknown country,” writes Jacques Arnould, astroethicist at France’s Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES). For this reason Arnould likens space ethicists to pioneers. As pioneers, space ethicists should begin their journey with humility, seeking first to learn the new territory. “That is the reason too why the first challenge is not to organize, to legalize and to reduce ethics to its repressive aspect. At the present time, we need to explore the field of space ethics. We need to determine the responsibilities; and to debate them. Major decisions about space cannot remain in the hands of individual leaders or the property of politic, scientific or financial lobbies” [2.2]. Here I intend to “determine the responsibilities” by constructing an Astroethics of Responsibility.

      Astroethicists are pioneers. While astrobiologists are exploring the heavens, the ethicists are exploring the astrobiologists. Astrobiology needs more than science to explore astroethics. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson puts a fence around science. “The methods of science have little or nothing to contribute to ethics, inspiration, morals, beauty, love, hate, or aesthetics. These are vital elements of civilized life, and are central to the concerns of every religion. What it all means is that for many scientists there is no conflict of interest” [2.84]. For ethical inspiration, the astroethicist must draw upon extrascientific sources. In this case, we will draw on the religious notion of the common good and the naturalistic notion of responsibility.

The core maxim derived from a naturalistic contribution to responsibility