Michaela Leung

Final Paper

Honors 396

The search for intelligent life beyond the Earth (SETI) is highly important to many for

personal, theological, and scientific reasons. In the past few decades, astrobiological questions

have begun to be explored quantitatively as researchers are able to seriously search for signs of

life beyond the Earth. Beyond the biochemical and physical investigations, there are many

equally important sociologic and moral questions about humanities ability to interact with an

advanced extraterrestrial civilization (ETC). A nascent, but rapidly growing, area of

astrobiological research extends bioethics beyond the Earth. Here, I examine several bioethical

considerations surrounding exploration and encounter while highlighting the need for creation of

formal regulations and expectations in astrobiology and SETI.

Ethical Exploration

The first thing to consider here is the idea of planetary protection (Vidaurri, 2019). This

concept has been around for a while and is primarily used in the context of cleaning landers and

rovers to make sure that the surface of other bodies is not contaminated with Earth born

microbes. However, as humans continue to push into space, this idea must be expanded to

include other organisms. How will we deal with inhabited planets? What about those claimed by

other civilizations? There are many questions here that have been explored in the realm of

science fiction which will create many ethical questions about the expansion of the human

civilization.

Similarly, expanding human reach will also impact the current occupants of Earth. Who

will benefit from new technologies, exploration and land resulting from the colonization of other
worlds? The word colonization alone speaks to the ugly history of humankind that will be

repeated in space without ethical guidance and oversight. Additionally, the need for space

exploration is often presented as a moral imperative. In his paper ‘which humanity would space

travel save?’, Traphagan analyzes this idea and discusses how it is heavily rooted in Western and

Abrahamic ideas about specialness of humanity (Traphagan 2019b). The vast number of other

perspectives are not considered in this perspective, making it inherently limited. The ‘imperative’

of space travel is often used as a justification for funding and focus on space travel, but more

analysis of the universality of this statement is clearly needed beyond Western scientific

communities.

The conversation about space travel, SETI, and astrobiology is heavily dominated by

Western voices. There are plenty of examples of the oppression of minority voices and colonial

legacies in astronomy. One such example is the Thirty Meter Telescope, a massive research

undertaking that is slated to be built on the sacred lands of Indigenous Hawaiian people who

describe it as ‘the home of the gods’ (Worth, 2015). This project highlights the marginalization

of these minority voices and implies their needs are inferior to the telescope project. There is a

clear need for better oversight and respect for marginalized communities in both the present and

the future as space exploration continues.

This issue with marginalized communities can be seen in the very literature about ethical

astrobiology. In one of the main sources for this paper, the book The Impact of Discovering Life

Beyond Earth, there is a chapter entitled ‘Non Western Perspectives about SETI’. Unfortunately,

this chapter is actually a theoretical discussion of what non-western, specifically Buddhist,

communities might think about SETI because the author is a white man. While the chapter does

note that this work is purely theoretical, and the author is an expert on Japanese culture, this does
not excuse the blatant elimination of minority voices from the conversation about astrobiology

and ethics. It is truly shocking that the editor, a former NASA Chief Historian, would select a

majority figure to represent a minority voice in this collection of sociological reflections. This

allowance is honestly appalling and represents a continuation of colonial legacies and a

perpetuation of them into cutting edge ideas about ethical astrobiology.

Continuing from the Earth-side perspective, there is also the issue of research ethics and

active METI, the process of sending out messages in hope of finding an ETC. While this has

primarily been an unregulated process by research groups, Traphagan contends that this is

irresponsible behavior that should instead be managed by an Institution Review Board (IRB)

(Traphagan 2019a). This has to do with the potential nature of members of an ETC as conscious

and moral actors. He uses the structure outlines by IRBs to decides these questions and

concludes that METI does not follow standards for research on conscious and moral beings. This

is partially due to the inability to predict success or benefits to the subjects, but primarily results

from the need for informed consent from participants. Ignoring the need for informed consent

establishes alien civilizations as less than human which is unacceptable given that they may have

just as much, or more, consciousness and cognition as humans, therefore making the same

ethical standards for experimentation necessary. Informed consent is of course impossible given

the nature of METI and Ttaphagn proposes this as a potential solution to Fermi’s Paradox: all

other ETCs are waiting for consent to begin contact. This solution is unique in that it ascribes

human ethical judgements to an ETC and further speculates that they would adhere even more

strictly to these principles since METI is currently unregulated here on the Earth. Speculation

about the reasoning of an ETC aside, it is clear that issue of METI is one that demands oversight
at the governmental level if not creation of a global body to ensure ethical signaling and

relationship establishment.

Moral Encounters

Moving beyond the Earth side of SETI, how can we best pursue ethical encounters with

an ETC? Much of this consideration centers on the idea of extraterrestrial beings as fellow moral

agents. A moral agent is a sociological concept drawn from the medical idea of a ‘moral patient’

which is primarily considered to be one with sentience, complex social behavior, and rational

thought (Wilson & Cleland, 2015). A moral agent can have primary or secondary value

depending on if it has moral weight itself or is valued to something that does. Additionally, some

consider the idea of intrinsic moral status and argue that animals should be protected for their

own intrinsic value and not anything they add to human life (Wilson & Cleland, 2015). These

relationship-based frameworks influence how we will value extraterrestrial civilizations.

A civilization capable of radio communication or interstellar travel would likely qualify

for primary moral status through advanced social behaviors and cognition. However,

determinations are less clear for a less advanced ecosystem, perhaps of animals with the

intelligence level of apes or other advanced primates. Should these animals be protected by

intrinsic moral status? Secondary for their potential importance to researchers? Microbial or

simple life forms have even less certain moral status. Some may argue that any discovery of life,

no matter how basic, beyond the Earth is intrinsically valuable as life as well as of great import

to science.

However, these assertations may not stand up in the face of potential resource gains on

inhabited or occupied planets. Sadly, human history is filled with many examples of the

exploitation of communities for resources gain such as the genocide of Indigenous communities
by European colonizers on the American continent. There are equally as many reminders from

the past that humankind has not been kind to those who are different; the long-lasting impact of

the African slave trade being one of the most prominent legacies of bigotry. How will we treat

those who are fundamentally, biochemically, different than us? How can we imagine valuing

these other forms of life when we can’t even respect all humans or life forms on the Earth? This

paper comes at a time with great unrest around the world around the issues of racism and police

brutality, and it is impossible to think about travelling behind the Earth without recognizing these

issues at home. It is imperative that as a people we prepare to encounter life beyond the Earth

and reach a consensus about how to protect it. We must leave bigotry behind as we move

forward into the age of interstellar travel.

There is a clear need for bioethics in the burgeoning field of human astrobiology to

consider these questions about the value of life. The opposite consideration to this issue is the

values that may or may not be held by an ETC. How do we know what ethics look like in

another advanced race? How can we understand their ability to be good? Consolmago (2015)

raises these issues, and points out that ethics are non-cumulative, meaning that an ancient ETC

might not have achieved the kind of cultural and social growth that this paper argues is necessary

to prepare to understand other civilizations. Furthermore, science fiction is full of ideas about

violent space-farers who seek to destroy and conquer. These representations reflect more on our

own perception of the unknown but will certainly bias any kind of contact with another

civilization. However, prior to any contact, we cannot attempt to understand alien sociology and

psychology. Abstractions without basis in environmental and biological understandings will not

prepare us; all that can be done to address this issue is to understand who we are, our ethics and

values. This is what can best prepare us to ethically encounter another civilization.
Theological Perspectives

Perhaps one of the most interesting perspectives about astrobiology comes from its

relationship with theology. It is well known that science and religion can been considered in

conflict, and since astrobiology addresses our origins and place in the cosmos, it seems likely

that they might be at odds here. Due to the lack of non-Western sources earlier discussed, this

section will primarily focus on Judeo-Christian theology.

Surprisingly, the discussion about theological frameworks for understanding the impact

of an ETC seem reconcilable with modern science. Losch & Krebs (2015) examine the creation

story, and conclude that there could be other ‘dustlings’ created by God. This religious

perspective both accepts the possibility of other life and places them on the level of humans and

familiar lifeforms. A particular poignant quote from the paper reads: “If little green men on Mars

need saving, then God will take little green flesh”. The authors also suggest that nature can be

read as a holy text and that the incompatibility that is often perceived between science and

religion can be conquered through this framework. Similarly, Lovin (2015) argues that the

existence of a relationship between God and humans as represented in Judeo-Christian

theological framework demands a relationship between God and other beings. This perspective is

based on discussions and analysis from the Vatican and other theological experts. This

framework would also demand respect and equal treatment for an ETC. Lovin (2015) also claims

that the universal dignity that is claimed to be the ultimate goal of Judeo-Christian faiths would

also extend to extraterrestrials. This is because the language around creation of humans in the

image of God grants them a level of dignity and by extension would also result in acceptance and

community building between terrestrial and extraterrestrial communities of faith (Lovin, 2015).

However, not all theological frameworks are clear cut about the issue of extraterrestials.
 There is also a theological component to the earlier examined moral actor designation;

the ability to have an immortal soul is also considered to be necessary (Wilson & Cleland, 2015).

This is part of the Judeo-Christian idea that there is a life after death and that the soul must be

able to continue on to this. The ability of an extraterrestrial to have an immortal soul therefore

could be considered to be essential to its perceived value. Speculation about this ability belongs

to theologians and is outside of the scope of this paper, however theological concerns will be an

important part of the response to an ETC discovery.

From the concerns outlined in this paper, it is clear that there is massive need to further

develop the bioethics component of astrobiology. It is incredibly important to decolonize

astronomy through the incorporation of more minority voices and representation as exploration

continues. Additionally, there is demonstratable need for global consensus on regulations around

METI, the value of life, and planetary protection. The major space organizations (NASA, ESA,

JAXA, etc) should begin to develop structures both for decolonization and codification of ethical

astrobiology. It is paramount that this process begins as soon as possible because there is no way

of knowing when a contact event could occur, and it is essential to be ready.

Works Cited:

• Consolmagno, G. (2015). Would you baptize an extraterrestrial? In S. Dick (Ed.), The

Impact of Discovering Life beyond Earth (pp. 233-244). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316272480.019
• Losch, A. & Krebs, A., (2015) Implications for the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life: A
Theological Approach, Theology and Science, 13:2, 230-
244, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2015.1023522
• Lovin, R. (2015). Astrobiology and theology. In S. Dick (Ed.), The Impact of
Discovering Life beyond Earth (pp. 222-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781316272480.018
• Maienschein, J. (2015). Is there anything new about astrobiology and society? In S. Dick
(Ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life beyond Earth (pp. 249-262). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316272480.021
• Traphagan, J., & Traphagan, J. (2015). SETI in non-Western perspective. In S. Dick
(Ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life beyond Earth (pp. 299-307). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316272480.024
• Traphagan, J. (2019). Active SETI and the Problem of Research Ethics. Theology and
Science, 17(1), 69-78.
• Traphagan, J. (2019). Which humanity would space colonization save? Futures, 110, 47-
49.
• Vidaurri, M. (2019). Absolute Prioritization of Planetary Protection, Safety, and
Avoiding Imperialism in All Future Science Missions: A Policy Perspective. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://113qx216in8z1kdeyi404hgf-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/276_vidaurri.pdf.
• Wilson, E., & Cleland, C. (2015). The moral subject of astrobiology: Guideposts for
exploring our ethical and political responsibilities towards extraterrestrial life. In S. Dick
(Ed.), The Impact of Discovering Life beyond Earth (pp. 207-221). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316272480.017
• Worth, K. (2015, February 20). World’s Largest Telescope Faces Opposition from Native
Hawaiian Protesters . Scientific American.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/world-s-largest-telescope-faces-opposition-
from-native-hawaiian-protesters/