-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Tantillo <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, July 29, 1999 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: application of EE to space


>Whereas it is true that "if" aliens had visited earth and altered
evolution,
>we wouldn't know about it, but the aleins would have. I assume you feel
that
>they were moral agents,

Jim asks: "No, should I?

I'm serious.  Why should we assume that these hypothetical space aliens are
moral agents?  If they are "alien," that means they are not like us/humans.
I have no more reason to believe that they are moral agents than I do
reason to believe nonhuman animals on this planet are moral agents."

Bissell muses: Interesting! I had assumed that the cognative skills
necessary for space travel would indicate a "higher" intelligence, but you
are right; it ain't necessarily so.


>and as such had moral responsibilities to the, then,
>inhabitants of Earth?

Jim continues: "Wait a minute here--Giuliano's phrase was "pre-biotic life":
"Yet the  plutonium it carries will be thoughtlessly dumped into the very
oceans that could contain pre-biotic life?"
Pre-biotic life?  What the heck does that mean?  Life is either biotic or
it is not. The notion of pre-biotic life is either incoherent or an
oxymoron, if not both.  Perhaps what he meant to say was "molecular
precursors to life" or some such thing.  How is it that we would owe
anything to isolated chemicals floating around in a primordial soup?"

Bissell: of course your are sort of right, but if I recall my A.I. Opirin,
the term "pre-biotic" has a strict definition. I don't know if Giuliano's
use of it is correct or not, it was the gist of her idea I was referring to.
I believe either Carl Sagan or Steven J. Gould wrote a very long essay about
the "pre-biotic" conditions necessary for life and showed, at least to me
who got a 'D' in biochem, that the conditions from which "biotic" life can
arise are surprisingly narrow.

Bissell asked>I assume you feel that
>they were moral agents, and as such had moral responsibilities to the,
then,
>inhabitants of Earth? As moral agents, don't we have moral obligations to
>the presumed life on Europa?

Jim responds: "That's quite a jump from mythical space visitors to our moral
obligations. And quite a jump from incoherent notions of "pre-biotic" life
to "presumed
life" on Europa.

At any rate, I'm not sure "obligations" is the right ethical framework for
the task at hand.  I'd be more comfortable with a sort of virtue ethics
approach that says we shouldn't be the kind of people to just thoughtlessly
pollute another planet without knowing first what's there that may be
harmed.  That's different than saying we "owe" organic and/or more likely
inorganic chemicals something, namely a "right" to continued existence and
*possible* future evolution into amoeba."


Bissell here: True, true. But "it's not nice to mess around with mother
nature" is, at best, a weak ethical arguement. If we have the choice to do
or not do something and still be moral either way, how would you convince
NASA not to dump 9 pounds of plutonium in the sea of Europa?  Couldn't they
just say, "we choice not to be nice in this instance because being 'nice' is
too expensive."




>
>I don't buy all of the arguement, but "Keep Mars a Closed Ecosystem" was
>always a bumper sticker I liked.
>sb
>

Jim laments: "Well, I can see it now: I go from evil defender of killing
innocent animals
to evil advocate of interstellar despoliation!  <s>  no flames, please :-)"

Bissell here: Serves you right. This list needs a new "spear catcher." :-)

sb






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%