I can't help thinking the paper referred to is basically an effort to create a sinecure for philosophy professors. Would we be cautious if some random but obviously artificial space probe appeared? Of course. It's reasonable to expect the same of any other space-capable civilization.
Conversely, I also think the undertaking broad scale bio-colonization with dumb planetary infection probes is going to be way more expensive and difficult than most people imagine. We would have a better prospect by sending out mycelia with human DNA comehow encoded as passengers on some cosmic equivalent of a taking our retirement funds to Las Vegas.
As soon as decent AGI gets developed, we could send many scouring for promising lifeless planets in relatively cheap and fast probes, so we could direct our colonization effort better. I see no ethical dilemma in spreading our life to those.
If any alien probe showed up here, I hope it's also a scouting probe.
life expands to fit the space it's given. pretty much every habitable niche on Earth has something living there, extending even well down into the planet. we probably should be helping things along by sending craft filled with various single-celled organisms (& some tardigrades for good measure) to places where life isn't found (do the research first; no need to overwrite what could already be there) but might be able to get a toehold.
Since terraforming is such a lengthy process, I wonder if such quick-evolving organisms would become something lethal to Earth life, making that planet inhospitable.
I think we should definitely expand life into the cosmos. Eventually we will likely find other life and hopefully it doesn't lead to conflict.
I have recently been listening to the "We Are Legion (We Are Bob)" sci-fi series. It is about a Von Neumann probe [1] that aids humanity in expanding past Earth. I find a lot of it is thought provoking.
How could it not lead to conflict? As far as we have seen, different groups always come into conflict. Humans have already driven thousands of species to extinction and show no signs of that ever changing. Maybe an advanced civilization has found a way to reliably enforce peaceful conflict resolution on diverse groups, but it's vastly more likely that an advanced civilization would treat us the same way we treat less powerful groups.
Even the same group as it gets bigger split into factions which fight against themselves. I think this is the nature of trying to have shared control of large groups - consensus just becomes hard and a lot of work. You either get factious fighting or a lack of freedom to have your own opinions. The middle ground where you agree to disagree but still compromise is hard.
Do you think fish should not have expanded to dry land?
Even that analogy understates things because as far as we know, the rest of the known universe is lifeless rock. Personally I'll admit to being a chauvinist who favors life over non-life. If we find native life somewhere else, I'm all for leaving it alone, but until then, bringing life to a lifeless universe seems like possibly the most meaningful thing we can do as a civilization.
Expand life into cosmos doesn't imply expanding earth-originating life to countries that already have life.
There is definitely possibility for conflict when we encounter other life, be it inteligent or not. But what is wrong with expanding earth-life to planets devoid of life that we terraform?
The same questions posed by “astronomical suffering” in this essay are posed of terrestrial suffering in the debates around anti-natalism.
The infamous (amongst academic philosophers) book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence [0] by David Benatar, takes the stance that no it is not ethical to bring a human into this world.
Don't we reason about these things exactly to arrive at conclusions that go against our intuitions or feelings? If we decide that the reasoning is flawed merely because we don't like the conclusion, we might as well not reason at all.
It fundamentally misunderstands the good and what ethics is about.
Ethics is practical philosophy, concerned with the good life. It's basic question is "how shall I live?" It is concerned with one's voluntary acts, which presupposes one's existence. It is ridiculous to speak of one's existence as being bad when existence is the basis for the good, or harmful to others when you've already undermined the value of the existence of the individual. The measure of the moral life is rooted in how well voluntary acts accord with human nature. Immorality manifests in the discrepancy between nature and voluntary act. If human beings were cannibals by nature, there would be nothing wrong with cannibalism, for example, because being a cannibal would advance the actualization of a human individual and thus contribute to his good. But we aren't, and because of our social nature, cannibalism is to our own grave detriment in various ways. You cannot make such moral judgements, or make sense of notions like "selfishness", outside the context and parameters of the social nature of human beings. What is good for human beings is determined by our nature. And because of our social nature, it is good that others exist.
Claims like "coming into existence causes harm" would be horrifying if they weren't so fucking stupid. People like that aren't serious thinkers. They're people who need psychiatric help, and maybe should knock off what looks like some kind of weird, life-hating self-pity. Maybe they should read some Nietzsche.
Assuming suffering is bad suggests there is some cosmic morality that the universe is judging us by. Perhaps spreading suffering across the universe actually doesn't matter at all.
There are many effective ways to argue against what you're saying, but I'll choose the easiest.
You said "perhaps" it doesn't matter. Well, perhaps it does matter. If there is even a small chance it does matter, we might as well act like it matters.
Simple ethical filter - were you or any of your descendants ever a full time resident of Jersey City. If yes, then please don't step onto the spaceship.
Readit News
Conversely, I also think the undertaking broad scale bio-colonization with dumb planetary infection probes is going to be way more expensive and difficult than most people imagine. We would have a better prospect by sending out mycelia with human DNA comehow encoded as passengers on some cosmic equivalent of a taking our retirement funds to Las Vegas.
If any alien probe showed up here, I hope it's also a scouting probe.
https://metallicman.com/surface-tension-by-jamesblish-free-f...
https://metallicman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/surface-t...
The thing is, this question needs not be answered satisfactorily before a single individual accrues enough means to make it possible.
Apart from non-proliferation "we" seem to be very bad at keeping technology in check.
I have recently been listening to the "We Are Legion (We Are Bob)" sci-fi series. It is about a Von Neumann probe [1] that aids humanity in expanding past Earth. I find a lot of it is thought provoking.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft
So... an expansionist/colonialist agenda for earth-originating life
"oh also hopefully this doesn't lead to conflict"
_I wonder._
Even that analogy understates things because as far as we know, the rest of the known universe is lifeless rock. Personally I'll admit to being a chauvinist who favors life over non-life. If we find native life somewhere else, I'm all for leaving it alone, but until then, bringing life to a lifeless universe seems like possibly the most meaningful thing we can do as a civilization.
There is definitely possibility for conflict when we encounter other life, be it inteligent or not. But what is wrong with expanding earth-life to planets devoid of life that we terraform?
See the "Prologue: The Searcher" linked from there to get an idea why :)
… well, that would be a first.
The infamous (amongst academic philosophers) book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence [0] by David Benatar, takes the stance that no it is not ethical to bring a human into this world.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Never_to_Have_Been]
Don't we reason about these things exactly to arrive at conclusions that go against our intuitions or feelings? If we decide that the reasoning is flawed merely because we don't like the conclusion, we might as well not reason at all.
Ethics is practical philosophy, concerned with the good life. It's basic question is "how shall I live?" It is concerned with one's voluntary acts, which presupposes one's existence. It is ridiculous to speak of one's existence as being bad when existence is the basis for the good, or harmful to others when you've already undermined the value of the existence of the individual. The measure of the moral life is rooted in how well voluntary acts accord with human nature. Immorality manifests in the discrepancy between nature and voluntary act. If human beings were cannibals by nature, there would be nothing wrong with cannibalism, for example, because being a cannibal would advance the actualization of a human individual and thus contribute to his good. But we aren't, and because of our social nature, cannibalism is to our own grave detriment in various ways. You cannot make such moral judgements, or make sense of notions like "selfishness", outside the context and parameters of the social nature of human beings. What is good for human beings is determined by our nature. And because of our social nature, it is good that others exist.
Claims like "coming into existence causes harm" would be horrifying if they weren't so fucking stupid. People like that aren't serious thinkers. They're people who need psychiatric help, and maybe should knock off what looks like some kind of weird, life-hating self-pity. Maybe they should read some Nietzsche.
You said "perhaps" it doesn't matter. Well, perhaps it does matter. If there is even a small chance it does matter, we might as well act like it matters.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The Drake Equation and anthropic reasoning are both frequently discussed in rationist circles.
Please explain the reasoning by which one reaches this conclusion.
~10^25 planets in the Universe.
13 billion out of a googol years elapsed.
And you think our insignificant spec of dust is the first or will be the last on which life evolved?
Deleted Comment