Astrobiology. Группа авторов

C., Spacefarers: How Humans Will Settle the Moon, Mars, and Beyond, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2020.

      [2.92] Wilkinson, D.A., Why Should Theology Take SETI Seriously? Theol. Sci., 16, 4, 427–438, 2018.

      [2.93] Wolf-Chase, G.A., New Worlds, New Civilizations? From Science Fiction to Science Fact. Theol. Sci., 16, 4, 415–426, 2018.

      [2.94] S.P.J. XXIII, Pacem in Terris, Vatican, Vatican City, 1963.

      [2.95] Young, S., Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 2006.

      [2.96] Zubrin, R., Why We Earthllings Should Colonize Mars. Theol. Sci., 17, 3, 305–316, 2019.

      1 Email: [email protected]

      2 1“Astrobioethics is an emerging discipline that studies, evaluates, and analyzes the moral, legal, and social issues of the search for life in the Universe” [2.13] [2.15].

      3 2I rely on philosopher Eric Voegelin to grasp the notion of a universal humanity both as an ideal and promise. “Universal mankind is not a society existing in the world, but a symbol which indicates [human] consciousness of participating, in this earthly existence, in the mystery of a reality that moves toward its transfiguration. Universal mankind is an eschatological index.” [2.90]. There is a proleptic component to the vision of a universal humanity. The biblical symbol of the imminent Kingdom of God enjoins us in the present moment to anticipate the eschatological consummation which will entail a new creation unified in justice and love.

      4 3Human nature derives via evolution from pre-human nature, and pre-human life already exhibits the “ought” imperative. According to Jonas, because living creatures struggle to survive and thrive, they presuppose it is “worth the effort.” If it is worth the effort, then this “must mean that the object of the effort is good, independent of the verdict of my inclinations. Precisely this makes it the source of an ‘ought’” [2.36].

      5 4We are not working here specifically with scientific ethics; rather, we are working with terrestrial social and ecological ethics with the contributions of scientific research to formulate the issues. “The term scientific ethics may refer to the ethics of doing science” [2.11].

      6 5Hans Jonas listens as nature speaks. Life says that it seeks to live; and Jonas hears this cry as evidence of a supreme good. “Without the concept of good, one cannot even begin to approach the subject of behavior. Whether individual or social, intentional action is directed toward a good [even a] highest good, the summum bonum.” [2.35].

      7 6Intelligence establishes moral status. Unless you are Erik Persson, bioethicist at Lund University in Sweden.Persson appeals to sentience within the larger category of life. “According to sentientism, one has to be sentient to have moral status whether terrestrial or extraterrestrial and whether biological or nonbiological [such as post-biological]…. The most plausible theory for moral standing seems to be sentientism that connects directly to the basic idea behind modern ethics: that ethics is about dealing with situations where one’s own actions affect others in a way that matters to them….If we accept sentientism, microbial life and plants do not have moral status, but there are reasons for protecting someone or something other than being a moral object” [2.55]. In my judgment, sentience will not work as a general ethical category, except for vegetarians. Here on Earth we have already committed ourselves to eating meat. Meat-eating requires the death of sentient creatures. We discriminate between pets, which we do not eat, from stock, which we do eat. Vegetarians object to this practice on moral grounds, on the grounds that we have an equal responsibility to all sentient creatures. If we are to export to extraterrestrial realms a categorical respect for all sentient organisms, then for the sake of consistency we would need to adopt vegetarianism back at home. A consistent ethic based upon sentience would require vegetarianism on Earth as well as on all space expeditions.Sentience will not help for another reason. To date, those contributing to this discussion have drawn on ethical precedents set by environmentalists and eco-ethicists. This ethical posture is oriented holistically toward entire ecosystems, toward protecting entire habitats with their resident living creatures regardless of level of sentience or intelligence. This holistic approach seems intuitively relevant to what we might discover on Mars or a moon orbiting Saturn. Once engaged, we would not discriminate between one species on behalf of another species. Rather, we would assume we are responsible for each entire biosphere with its already established life forms. Entailed in a holistic commitment to an entire ecosystem is an indispensable level of commitment to simple life forms and even to abiotic contributors to this ecosystem.In sum, we may have to live for a period with a generic respect-for-life’s-intrinsic-value principle until we have entered into actual engagement with extraterrestrial life forms. At that point we will rearticulate the quandary and reformulate our responsibility. By no means is this a form of kicking the ethical can down the road. Rather, we are simply marking specific areas where we will need to respond to actual rather than hypothetical situations.

      8 7David Dunér expands on my work, adding intersubjectivity to my list of traits of intelligence. “A recent attempt to define intelligence in connection to extraterrestrial life and evolution of intelligence is more elaborated. Ted Peters defines intelligence in terms of seven traits: interiority, intentionality, communication, adaptation, problem solving, self-reflection, and judgment [2.61]. Even microbes exhibit the first four traits; humans, along with some other animals, exhibit all of them. Where there’s life, there’s intelligence, so to speak, according to Peters. Intelligence seems to be a matter of degree rather than of kind. However, to this list of traits, I would add a most critical one: intersubjectivity, which I will explain in more detail in the following. Intersubjectivity, the ability to understand other minds, is an important trait in order to explain intelligence and how an intelligent creature can evolve complex communication, civilization, and technology” [2.28].