Dr. Sheyna Gifford is currently serving as Chief Medical Officer on NASA's Hawaiian Space Exploration Analog and Simulation project (Hi SEAS IV), spending a year living in a small habitat on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii.  The goal is to determine how to keep a space flight crew happy and healthy during an extended mission to Mars.

 

Dr. Gifford has been involved in space research since 1997. Her first project was the HESSI satellite at Space Science Laboratories, which still flies. She was part of the DEEP2 sky survey at UC Berkeley and is currently working with NASA's Johnson Space Center to design and test space suits for use in long duration missions. She has worked on research projects in astrophysics, neuroscience and psychology at institutions including UC Berkeley, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard University, Brown University, the University of Missouri, and the University of Southern California.  Her writing has been featured in The Huffington Post, Aeon, and Nautil.us.

 

Dr. Gifford holds a Bachelors in Neuroscience and English, a Masters of Clinical Laboratory Science and Biotechnology, a Masters of Science in Journalism, a Doctor of Medicine, and is currently earning an MBA. She is a contributor to NASA educational websites, a medical writer and an advocate of STEM education. Her goals are to get humankind to Mars and to unleash the scientist that lives inside us all.  You can see a documentary Sheyna is producing about the Hi SEAS experience here and watch her discuss issues in space medicine here.

​

​

PARTICIPANTS

We have an amazing array of presenters talking about a variety of issues (see program page).  They hail from 3 continents and respesent a wide range of disciplines: natural sciences, social sciences, humanities and engineering:

​

1. Bertka, Connie:  Geology/Theology, Science and Society Resources    

2. Billings, Linda: Communications, NASA/ National Institute of Aerospace

3. Brittain, Sean: Astrophysics/Chemistry, Clemson University                           

4. Dick, Steve:  History/Astronomy, former NASA Chief Historian

5. Fleming, Leonore: Philosophy, Utica College

6. Gifford, Sheyna:  Space Medicine, NASA consultant

7. Green, Brian: Philosophy, Markkula Center at Santa Clara University

8. Hayes, Randall:  Columnist/Educator, Agnosia Media

9. Howard, Jason:  Philosophy, Viterbo University

10. Johnson, Alan:  Environmental Conservation, Clemson University                   

11. Lupisella, Mark:  Engineering/Biology/Philosophy, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

12. Manson, Neil:  Philosophy, University of Mississippi                         

13. Mariscal, Carlos:  Philosophy, University of Nevada, Reno

14. Mathis, Cole: Physics/Astrobiology, Arizona State University             

15. McMahon, Sean: Geology, Yale University

16. Mix, Lucas:  Theology/Biology, Center for Theological Inquiry/Harvard                      

17. Neo, Joevenn, Philosophy, Emory University

18. Persson, Eric: Philosophy, Lund University

19. Peters, Ted:  Theology, Pacific Lutheran Seminary

20. Potthast, Adam: Philosophy, Park University

21. Race, Marg:  Biology, SETI Institute

22. Schwartz, Jim:  Philosophy, Wichita State University 

23. Smith, Kelly: Philosophy/Biology, Clemson University

24. Tachibana, Koji:  Philosophy, Kumamoto University

25. Trerise, Jonathan: Philosophy, Coastal Carolina University

26. Waller, Sara: Philosophy, Montana State University

​

​

                        ABSTRACTS

 

Bertka, Connie (Geology/Theology, Science and Society Resources)

Predicting the Societal Impact of the Discovery of ET Life: What Does Worldview Got To Do With It?

     Everything.  As described by Cobern (1996), “Worldview provides a person with presuppositions about what the world is really like and what constitutes valid and important knowledge about the world.” Science education researchers have argued that to move individuals towards comprehension of a concept, and possibly beyond, to accepting it as valid, we need to pay attention to worldviews (i.e. Reiss 2009, Hermann 2008).  They remind us that science is just one component of an individual’s worldview and not necessarily the knowledge source that holds the greatest scope and force for an individual.  One answer to increasing science literacy may be to create an environment where individuals have an opportunity to integrate scientific knowledge with other ways of knowing and address “the important questions of life”.  This is no small task and research has also shown that individuals are predisposed to evaluate a scientific finding based on whether or not the finding is a popular one within the community that they identify with (Kahan 2010).

The three questions often used to describe the exploratory goals of Astrobiology, “Where do we come from?, Are we alone?, Where are we going?”,  are entryways into “the important questions of life”, but how well is the Astrobiology community faring in using these questions to encourage science literacy?  One example, the discussion of the impact of the discovery of ET life on religions, especially Christianity, suggests not well. The contemporary discussion has been dominated by a few notable scientists from the SETI and Astrobiology communities and by a few Christian theologians active in the science and religion field. It amounts to scientists outside the faith tradition depicting the demise of Christianity, especially if ET intelligent life is discovered, and theologians within the tradition predicting the enrichment and reformulation of Christian doctrine (Bertka 2013).  Both arguments are reflective of particular worldviews, not the science of Astrobiology. The response from those outside of academia would be more varied and uncertain, but for many predicting the demise of Christianity will not encourage engagement with the science of Astrobiology.  This presentation will describe a public outreach program with the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program that communicates the science of human evolution, while recognizing the variety of worldviews individuals use when approaching the subject. There are lessons to be learned for communicating the science of Astrobiology, and for predicting the societal impact of the discovery of ET life.

 

Billings, Linda (Communications, NASA/ National Institute of Aerospace)

Astrobiology, ET, and ETI - science and speculation

     The questions that define astrobiology as a scientific endeavor (Where do we come from? Are we alone? Where are we going?) are multidisciplinary in nature and have broad appeal to public audiences as well as to the scientific community. Of especially broad and long-standing appeal is the idea of the existence of extraterrestrial life – mainly extraterrestrial intelligent life. While scientific interest in life beyond Earth goes back as far as science does, scholarly interest in the subject dates back to some of the earliest civilizations on Earth. Despite a lack of any scientific evidence for its existence, the topic of alien life is ubiquitous in mainstream news and entertainment media. From a continual stream of news reports, both scientific and speculative, about the possibility of life on other planetary bodies to the return of “The X-Files” on Fox TV (January 2016), public discourse reflects this broad interest in the idea of alien life. Planetary exploration is producing more and more data on the potential habitability of bodies in our solar system – Mars, Europa, Titan, and Enceladus – and astrobiologists are focusing on the possibility of past or present microbial life in these environments. Yet, while the mass media are reporting on these scientific advances, they are persistent in speculating about the possible existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life – for which science has produced no evidence since the SETI enterprise began. This paper will consider why this is the case. It also will address the pop-culture erasure of the immense epistemological distance between “life” and “intelligent life.” 

 

Brittain, Sean (Physics and Astronomy, Clemson University)

Planets: Where are they, what are they like, and how do they form?

     Understanding how planets form remains one of astronomy’s most rewarding challenges. It represents a significant component of the search for our own cosmic origins, and it bears on the possibility of life on other worlds. Once the basic geometry of the Solar System was understood and “spiral nebulae” were observed in the sky, 18th century scientists quickly deduced that our Solar System emerged from a disk encircling the Sun. However, until the last decade of the 20th century, astronomers had never observed a circumstellar disk, the only planetary system we had observed was our own, and our inventory of the Solar System was remarkably incomplete. Over the past quarter century, all of that has changed. We now know that virtually every sun-like star harbors at least one planet, virtually all stars start their lives with circumstellar disks, and our Solar System is teeming with fossils pointing us to a dynamic and violent past. In this talk I will present the observational evidence for disks and forming planets, highlight the ubiquity and diversity of planetary systems, and discuss the challenges and prospects for observing the atmospheres of Earth-like planets and thus the potential for identifying life on other worlds. 

 

Dick, Steve (keynote) (History/Astronomy, former NASA Chief Historian)

Cosmic Encounters with Alien Life: The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth

     Numerous books have been penned on the exciting subject of life on other worlds, and the news almost daily carries stories about potential new habitable sites, ranging from water on Mars to oceans on Europa and exoplanets beyond the solar system.  But what would happen if we actually discovered life?” The answer depends on the discovery scenario. The reaction to the discovery of microbes would be quite different to the reaction to the discovery of intelligent life.  We can approach these problems by an analysis of cases where life was thought to have been discovered in the past, an appreciation of the extended nature of the discovery process, the prudent use of analogy, and various impact models designed to gauge the impact of science on culture. In doing so we must attempt to transcend anthropocentrism, to avoid projecting our own provincial views on potential extraterrestrials. This involves a deep analysis of humanity’s most fundamental concepts, including life, intelligence, culture, civilization, and communication. With these approaches and caveats in mind, we need to address in a systematic way the philosophical, theological and moral impact of discovering life, deploying the latest scientific thought ranging from evolutionary biology to theories of consciousness. What would astrotheology and astroethics look like? What are our moral responsibilities to alien life? What might alien minds be like, and would they really think like us? And given all this, how might we prepare for such an earth-shaking discovery?  Even if life is never found, questioning the foundations of human knowledge is a journey well worth taking, and could reshape our ideas of what it means to be human.  All these ideas are discussed by a variety of authors in the newly published book The Impact of Discovering Life Beyond Earth (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

 

Fleming, Leonore (Philosophy, Utica College)

Teleology and Upper Directedness in Astrophysics

     Biological thinking is largely teleological. The criticism that evolutionary explanations are merely “just so stories” is a comment on just this point—there is an underlying, pervading assumption in evolutionary theory that adaptations are purpose-driven. Even if we are far beyond Aristotle’s notion of Final Cause, biological inquiry still rests firmly on the need to identify useful traits as they fulfill some larger goal. I argue that this teleological mindset is one of the largest challenges facing the field of universal biology. There is a stark difference between the goal-driven nature of earthly biology and the purely mechanistic nature of astronomy, which will need to be reconciled before biological theory can apply to both. The most obvious solution is to rid biology of any and all teleological leanings so that it more closely resembles astronomy, a very ambitious (if not impossible) project. I, however, present a different solution. I argue that Daniel McShea’s naturalistic account of teleology (2012, 2015) provides a useful middle ground where biological accounts are more scientific in their purpose-driven language, and astrophysical accounts gain an additional layer of explanation by emphasizing the importance of the hierarchical structure of the universe.

For McShea, (the appearance of) teleological behavior is a result of structural hierarchy in a system. Higher-level structures constrain the movement of lower-level structures; a phenomenon McShea calls “upper directedness.” As an example, “Ecology might direct a population of birds toward, say, medium-sized beaks so that they can crack a range of seed sizes” (McShea 2015, p. 5). I argue that such an approach can work in astrophysics as well, considering the structural levels of the universe—stellar, galaxy, galaxy group/cluster, supercluster. Parallel to the example above, the type of galaxy—spiral, elliptical, or irregular—might direct the distribution and type of star populations that form. Just as birds with medium-sized beaks can be seen as adaptive, molecular clouds that form hot, massive stars in gas-rich regions of the galaxy can similarly be seen as adaptive. It may seem counterintuitive (or perhaps a step backward) to argue that we should reintroduce some teleological language into how we discuss the structure of the universe; however, I argue that McShea’s naturalized teleology can usher in a new way of understanding the hierarchical structure of the universe, as well as open the door for creating a more coherent universal biology.

 

Gifford, Sheyna (keynote) (Space Medicine, NASA consultant)

Homo Astronauticus: Cultural Implications of Space Colonization

     “Culture is a unique human invention,” wrote Philip Harris in The Influence of Culture on Space Developments. “Our species created it to increase our ability to cope with the environment, to facilitate daily living.”1 When the environment with which we must to cope is no longer on Earth, but instead is an artificial environment in space, or on another planet altogether, how does that alter our culture?  Perhaps more to the point, how should it? What aspects of Earth culture should we struggle to protect and preserve out there, and why? What aspects are realistic to try and maintain – what features of our past and present will be adaptively advantageous, give us a mental, emotional, metaphysical, or psycho-social edge as a future space-faring society? In this talk I'm going to work with you to try to answer these questions, based on my experience as a simulated astronaut in two space missions, and someone who has adapted to a number of different cultures and ways of life on Earth, most of which did not require wearing a space suit, but all of which brought to light how, in many ways, human beings are quite alien already.

 

Green, Brian (Philosophy, Markkula Center at Santa Clara University)

Convergences in the Ethics of Space Exploration

            In this paper I will make connections between some contemporary work on the ethics of space exploration and use, with a few other ethical systems, with the goal of finding over-arching convergences. I will first briefly examine some work on space ethics by Lupisella & Logsdon, Randolph and McKay, Smith, and others (e.g. authors in Vakoch’s recent book Extraterrestrial Altruism).

            I will then move to a very different field, that of French literary theorist René Girard. Girard posits that because humans imitate each other in everything, including our desires, we soon come into conflict and competition over those imitated desires because resources are finite. An ethical response to this could be to simply want something else, so as to avoid conflict. Technology entrepreneur and protégé of Girard, Peter Thiel, has summed this up nicely in his recent book on startups, Zero to One: avoid competition, only try to do what others are not doing.

I will then compare Girard’s and Thiel’s ethical ideas to the natural law ethics tradition built upon Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Hans Jonas. I have argued previously that organisms should pursue (if they have a choice) non-conflicting telei and avoid cross-purposes with other organisms, thus maximizing their collective potential to flourish. When telei do necessarily conflict (as with parasites, pathogens, and predators) purposes can be ranked on the basis of capacity for excellence, in a somewhat neo-Aristotelian approach, e.g., in general, humans have more capacity for excellence than mosquitoes, and mosquitoes more capacity for excellence than a virus.

            Connecting this back to space exploration and use, large areas of space are relatively unwanted (little motivation by humans to go there), yet are free of competition from any potential native life (e.g. asteroids and moons are lifeless), and thus provide a perfect environment in which to expand Earth life, particularly human life, in ways that do not impinge on the well-being of other creatures. This also provides a broadly-applicable framework for ethical guidance when dealing with extraterrestrial life. This framework shows remarkable convergence with Randolph and McKay’s ethic for “protecting and expanding the richness and diversity of life,” as well as aspects of the other authors’ ethical theories. This larger ethical framework offers additional theoretical context for these other ethical works, as well as highlighting some of their convergences and differences.

 

Hayes, Randall (Columnist/Educator, Agnosia Media)

Interactive Alien Construction as a Way to Approach Astrobiology Education

     Aliens have a long history in science fiction, where they are normally the product of single authors.  These constructs necessarily reflect that author’s personal curiosities and concerns, rather than the complex and contingent histories of species evolved by natural selection.  I have experimented with the collaborative construction of fictional alien species in two contexts.  I have twice participated in academic workshops (contact-conference.org) during which single, somewhat plausible, alien species are developed by small interdisciplinary teams of 5-6 people, in consultation with subject matter experts in the sciences.  The workshops end with a live role-play of a first contact situation between that extraterrestrial species and a future human culture, developed independently by another team during the same weekend.  Over the course of 25 iterations, these workshops have explored many different alien species, largely from an anthropological perspective, focusing on power structures, politics, and religion.  As an alternative, taking a biological perspective, I have developed through three iterations a classroom exercise in which undergraduates construct, collaboratively, a snapshot of the planet-wide ecosystem on an earthlike alien world (Hayes, 2013, http://evostudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Hayes_Vol5Iss1.pdf). This exercise focuses on the ecological and evolutionary relationships between species rather than on the history of a single technological species.  These collaborative processes approach scientific topics in a spirit of play, which may be more appropriate in a rapidly evolving topic like astrobiology than traditional coursework focused on transmitting “correct” information.  This shift may be especially helpful in courses where the majority of the students are not science majors.

 

Howard, Jason (Philosophy, Viterbo University)

Re-thinking Consciousness and the Astrobiology Debate

            One of the most contentious problems in current debates on astrobiology is the N = 1 problem – can we make warranted scientific inferences about life beyond our planet if the only sample we have is life on our planet?  Taking my lead from thinkers like Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos), as well as scholars working specifically in astrobiology like Lori Morino and Dirk Shulze-Makuch, I argue that extreme skepticism on the N = 1 problem runs into serious conceptual and practical difficulties that threaten to undermine the rigor of scientific reasoning when taken too far.  Although there can be little doubt that consciousness is a natural phenomenon dependent upon certain environmental conditions, the assumption that its conceptual powers are best seen as nothing but the expression of local chance evolutionary adaptations runs into serious obstacles.  

            Despite the fact that claims about the prevalence of life beyond Earth and the shapes it could take are speculative and resolvable only through scientific confirmation, it is crucial to distinguish the empirical character of such claims from the logical capacities that warrant them.  From an epistemological standpoint, the more we accept as a default hypothesis that consciousness is a unique biological adaptation, the more we undermine the scope of scientific reasoning, including that which supports the N = 1 problem.   It is one thing to be cautious when it comes to anthropocentric projections about life elsewhere, but another to suppose all reasoning is confined to particularities of human biology.  I hold that the conceptual impasses that arise from explaining the capacities of mind as solely accidental by-products of natural selection (along with the failure of reductive explanations of self-consciousness), suggest that consideration must be given to alternate paradigms that see consciousness and life as integral components of the universe.     

              The first part of my presentation explores the problems that arise from seeing mind as nothing but a fluke of evolutionary fitness on planet Earth and the implications these problems have on claims posed by astrobiology.  The second part of my presentation develops some tentative yet consistent and coherent views on mind’s larger place in the universe.  Finally, I conclude my presentation with some thoughts on natural philosophy and the subsidiary, but complementary, role it can play in shaping the direction of astrobiology.                 

 

Johnson, Alan (Environmental Conservation, Clemson University)

Extending the Idea of Wilderness beyond Planet Earth

     The Wilderness Act of 1964 characterizes wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor…”  How crucial to the idea of wilderness is its location on the planet Earth?  If an extraterrestrial community of life were discovered, it would certainly be “untrammeled by man” (at least initially).  Wouldn’t it make sense to extend the idea of wilderness to encompass ecosystems on other planets?

A wide variety of arguments have been offered for the value of wilderness, and the consequent need to preserve or protect it.  Some of these arguments seem readily applicable to other planets, while others may be more specific to Earth.  John Muir (1838 - 1914) thought that all life-forms contribute value to “the cosmos”, arguing that “[t]he universe would be incomplete without man; but it would also be incomplete without the smallest transmicroscopic creature…”  Presumably, he would find value in microbial life on other planets, as well as on Earth.  Henry David Thoreau (1817 - 1862) spoke of the need for “the tonic of wildness”, a stimulant to mental and spiritual health.  Could such wild nature be found in an extraterrestrial ecosystem, as well as on earth?  On the other hand, Edward Abbey (1927 - 1989) wrote that ‘[t]he love of wilderness…is…an expression of loyalty to the earth, the earth which bore us and sustains us, the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise we need…”  If a sense of homecoming or evolutionary connection is intrinsic to our idea of wilderness, perhaps it does not extend beyond our native planet.

I will offer an overview of arguments that have traditionally been advanced for the value of wilderness, and consider the extent to which these values may or may not apply beyond the Earth.  Further, I will examine what these values would entail regarding our ethical responsibilities toward extraterrestrial communities of life.

 

Lupisella, Mark (Workshop Co-Director) (Engineering/Biology, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)

The Precautionary Principle?

     Famously, Star Trek has the “Prime Directive” – a guiding principle that prevents Starfleet personnel from interfering with alien civilizations – particularly those below a certain level of development.  Should something like a Prime Directive have a role for real space exploration of contemporary space explorers?  Or perhaps more generally, should something like a “precautionary principle” be adhered to by modern day space actors?  If so, what might that look like?  There are at least two questions that a precautionary principle may have relevance for in the relative near-term: (1) how should we prepare for the discovery of and interaction with “non-sentient” extraterrestrial life, and (2) should we engage in “Active SETI” by sending signals to locations where we think there could be extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations?  If so, how? 

While both of these questions seem like the stuff of science fiction, it is noteworthy that both issues are being addressed by space agencies and other organizations interested in the question of communication with extraterrestrial intelligence – including the United Nations.  Practical concerns have been raised over a number decades regarding the scientific integrity and well-being of “primitive” life such as potential microbes on Mars as we have engaged in robotic exploration of the Martian surface, and perhaps more importantly, as we are beginning to make concrete plans for human exploration and a long-term presence on Mars.  Ethical and broader philosophical views regarding putative extraterrestrial “primitive” life have also been explored.  Similarly, concerns over sending signals into space with the intent of making ourselves known to extraterrestrial intelligent civilizations have been raised over many years and are beginning to get addressed in scholarly work and policy considerations.  This presentation will explore some of those efforts, with a focus on implications of applying one or more forms of a precautionary principle to the issues noted above – including something like a “Prime Directive” which will be briefly touched on in a historical political context as well as placing in the more modern context of present space activities. 

 

Manson, Neil (Philosophy, University of Mississippi)

Athropocentrism, Exoplanets, and the Cosmic Perspective

     Non-anthropocentric environmental philosophy is a response to two kinds of anthropocentrism: personal anthropocentrism, according to which being human involves the possession of some or all of a set of properties typical of persons, and biological anthropocentrism, according to which being a human involves being a member of the species Homo sapiens. Non-anthropocentric environmental philosophy itself becomes problematic when it is viewed in terms of two arguments that it often seems to imply: the “Planetary Perspective Argument,” which rejects both forms of anthropocentrism and seeks to maximize good outcomes and minimize bad outcomes in terms of life’s point of view, the land’s point of view, or the global ecosystem’s point of view, and the “Cosmic Perspective Argument,” which is structurally analogous to the planetary perspective argument but has much more sweeping empirical premises driven by recent work in cosmology, astrobiology, and exoplanet science. The ultimate problem for environmental philosophers is to find a way to remain non-anthropocentric without succumbing to the indifference of the cosmic perspective.

 

Mariscal, Carlos (Workshop Co-Director) (Philosophy, University of Nevada, Reno)

The nature of the Last Common Ancestor

     There are various characterizations of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). For some, LUCA is a single species or population, reconstructable through clever systematic methods. Such a view has been attacked as requiring a huge genome (the 'genome of Eden'). For others, LUCA is a population separated in time and space. So, while there is no single common ancestor, there is common ancestry. These views rule out the possibility of separate origins to Life by fiat, as any traits belonging to LUCA are part of the same origin story for LUCA by definition. Finally, some take LUCA to be a single ancestral cell, in which some of its genes were acquired through separate lineages or introgressions. In this view, gene trees are unlikely to reconstruct any actual, historical organism. In this talk, I consider whether various forms of thinking about LUCA carry conceptual baggage about the nature of evolution, origins, or life itself. I point out that researchers cannot simply assert "LUCA is a population" or "LUCA is a cell" without making assumptions about evolutionary processes. Such concerns may help clarify certain debates among origins of life and LUCA researchers.

 

Mathis, Cole

The Emergence of Life as a First Order Phase Transition    

     Metabolism first theories for the origin of life posit that the first life-like entities on Earth were catalytic chemical reaction networks. Autocatalytic sets are often studied in the context of metabolism first theories. Autocatalytic sets (ACS) are chemical reaction networks in which each reaction is catalyzed by the product of another reaction in the set [1]. ACS have been predicted theoretically since the 1980s [1], however they have been notoriously difficult to observe in laboratory settings. Most studies of ACS have focused on their topological features, and in particular there has been extensive work on understanding how often ACS are found in random catalytic networks. In spite of extensive studies on ACS, very little work has been done to understand how the fixation of ACS depends on either catalytic reaction rates or non-catalytic reaction rates, with a few exceptions [3]. I will present a kinetic model of ACS in which both the topological and kinetic features can be studied. This model allows us to understand the dynamic constraints on ACS. I will also demonstrate how to use techniques from information theory and complex systems science in order to detect the dynamic consequences of ACS. In particular this model may be able to provide the necessary conditions to observe ACS fixation in the lab using dynamic combinatorial chemistries [2], which would provide important insights for understanding the origin of metabolic systems on Earth and elsewhere.

 

McMahon, Sean (Geology, Yale University)

Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?  Understanding an essential epistemic norm in astrobiology

     Carl Sagan’s famous saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” represents an epistemic norm long established in the skeptical philosophical tradition and widely respected in the natural sciences. Sagan’s dictum is deployed especially often in astrobiological debates, where it is used to dispose of allegedly extraordinary claims ranging from the detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars to the discovery of arsenic-bearing DNA. Although the dictum might seem to be nothing more than a truism, I argue that it is terminologically ambiguous and potentially seriously misleading. To the extent that “extraordinariness” in a given case can be evaluated fairly against background knowledge, the dictum can be read as a qualitative distillation of Bayes’ Rule, and therefore as justified by the axioms of the probability calculus. If extraordinariness is treated as a matter of psychological plausibility, however, the dictum threatens to overstep the bounds of reasonable caution and become merely reactionary. With this distinction in mind, I here critically review the use of Sagan’s dictum in the peer-reviewed literature on selected astrobiological claims. In closing, I discuss whether or not the claimed detection of an extraterrestrial biosphere would be extraordinary in the sense required for the warranted application of Sagan’s dictum. I conclude that, while our investment of credence ought always to be calibrated to the quality of the evidence, there is no prior need to set the bar exceptionally high for novel evidence of extraterrestrial biosignatures.

 

Mix, Lucas (Theology/Biology, Center for Theological Inquiry)

Replicator Theory: Testing Evolutionary Theories-of-Life

            Scientists have been promising a comprehensive theory-of-life for at least a century, but the issue remains divisive. Beyond engineering new life in a laboratory (from scratch) or finding new life in space, it is unclear what would constitute progress toward a scientific theory.  I set forth criteria for a specifically scientific theory and propose a line of research that would clarify the concept of replicators (“capable of Darwinian evolution”) sufficiently to be proven or disproven as a theory of life.

            A scientific theory-of-life must address both replication (or reproduction) and regulation (or metabolism), both prominent features of life as we know it. This work focuses on the former. The theory should be methodologically physicalist, compatible with physics and chemistry, and make concrete, testable predictions. It should incorporate current understandings of gene replication, organismal reproduction, and speciation as well as the development of multicellularity.

            The hard problem for replicator theory is identity. What replicates? What degree of copy fidelity differentiates replication from other processes, including crystallization, fossilization, and product/byproduct formation (e.g., shedding, non-reproductive eggs)? Population genetics has been successful because it clearly identifies the replicator: genes within a population. Coordinated replication as “individuals” or “organisms” is variable within the theory. Can population genetics be generalized to any other replicators? If so, what criteria must they meet for the conclusions of population genetics to be transferrable?

            One research program for replicator theories will start with population genetics, transparently setting forth the mathematical axioms and determining how robust they are to different concepts of identity. Neither genes nor populations are reducible within the model, meaning this will be a theory-of-replicators but cannot be a theory on the origin-of-replicators. Thus, the research program should address whether there is a location in the state space of all gene populations reachable by physical processes without genetic replicators.

Other replicator theories will begin with different axioms, but research programs into these theories should be just as explicit about their axioms. Moreover, given the success of population genetics, they would need to explain why an alternate theory of replicators is desirable. I believe such research programs would be successful in developing the type of concrete, testable theories of replication necessary to whether replication is a necessary or sufficient condition in the identification of life.

 

Neo, Joevenn (Philosophy, Emory University)

Xeno-Astrobiology

     Stuart Kauffman, biologist, claims that scientific attempts in explaining biological forces of evolutionary life holds a seriously flawed presupposition. The presupposition is that biologists still believe that the processes of evolution are determinant on the historical-causal force that expresses evolutionary force in “hard matter” – be it somatic matter, DNA, or chemical compounds – as Kauffman puts it, “reductive materialism”. According to Kauffman, there is not enough physical time for the universe to have the determinative successive-linear framework of biological-life protein production: “If the Universe were doing nothing but using all 1080 particles in parallel to make proteins the length of 200 amino acids, each in a single Planck moment, it would take 1039 repetitions of the history of the Universe to make all the possible proteins the length of 200 amino acids just once.”[1] In this paper, we agree that reductive materialism has got to go, but we simultaneously disagree on Dr. Kaufman’s implicit presupposition – that there can only be a singularity for which life is explained. That is, for us, life is not epistemologically singular – we cannot explain life as if it were a self contained determinant. In this paper, we look towards astrobiology to argue for concepts of life that are ‘xeno’ – that is, life that is utterly foreign, strange to the conceivability of human intuition. All molecular structures, DNA, peptides, etc., show us that we’re in a local minimum when thinking about the materiality of evolution. That is, the biological and structural determinant for creation exists only where epistemological and material locality can be propagated as the minimum standard for life. We argue, however, that this “local minimum” is not exactly the necessary limit of life. Astrobiologist Paul Davies has shown us that there might not be a singular origin of life. There is astrobiological ‘life’ to be found in conditions harsh enough to impossibly substantiate the hypothesis of life devolved through a singular origin. If DNA shows the ancestral genetic relation that binds living creatures back to a genetic “tree of life”, we have to claim that perhaps there isn’t merely one “tree” showing the singular origin of life. Perhaps there are multiple trees. We argue for this using research on “Xeno Nucleic Acids (XNA)”, non-DNA based biological systems that not only has its own tree, but could give us clues on how to look for other ‘trees of life’: possibly ‘right-handed chirality in amino acids,’ etc.

 

Persson, Erik (Philosophy, Lund University, Sweden)

Towards a Family Resemblance Definition of ‘Life’

     Finding a good definition of ‘Life’ is a task that has turned out to be very difficult. Some say, it is even impossible, or at least meaningless. We believe both that it is possible, and that it is in fact crucial to achieve at least a tentative definition of ‘Life’, especially when searching for the origin of life on our earth or for extraterrestrial life. We are not sure, however, that the classical way of approaching the task of defining ‘Life’, that is, by trying to make a list of necessary properties that together makes up a sufficient set of criteria for being alive (a de re definition), is the best way of approaching the task, however. The main problem with this type of definition is that it is inherently essentialistic. It is doubtful, however, that life as it is understood today, that is, in Darwinian terms, can be meaningfully said to have an essence. An alternative approach would be Wittgenstein’s family resemblance definition, according to which a concept is defined by a cluster of properties that are associated with the concept. If we use this concept to define Life’ it tells us that something is alive if it has a number of properties that are associated with being alive though it does not have to have all these properties and it does not have to have exactly the same set of properties as any other living entity.

In our paper we present an extension of the family resemblance model by combining it with state of the art methods for statistical modeling in the form of cluster analysis. That way we hope to be able to construct the kind of overlapping clusters needed to achieve an informative and practically useful definition of ‘Life’.

 

Peters, Ted (Theology, Pacific Lutheran Seminary)

Ten Ethical Issues for Astrobiology 

     At least ten astroethical issues associated with space research have arisen, issues which require either philosophical analysis or public policy or both: (1) how urgent is planetary protection? (2) does off-Earth microbial life have intrinsic value? (3) should space explorers invoke the Precautionary Principle? (4) should we clean up our space debris? (5) What should we do about satellite surveillance? (6) should we weaponize space? (7) should scientific research take priority over commercial space ventures? (8) should we terraform Mars? (9) should we colonize Mars? (10) how should we prepare for bombardment of Earth by asteroids? It's time to get ready.

​

Potthast, Adam (Philosophy, Park University)

Will We Have Ethical Obligations to Extra-terrestrial Life? Will it have Obligations to us?

            Extra-terrestrial life will almost certainly look very different from life on Earth. It may or may not exhibit what human beings call consciousness. It may or may not consist of discrete individuals. It may or may not consist of beings that engage in some kind of reflection. And it may or may not consist of beings that display behavior we would consider pleasure or pain. Yet each of these potential differences could entail entirely different answers to the question of our ethical obligations to extra-terrestrial life.

            In this presentation, I will briefly present the two, dominant modern ethical theories: Kantian deontology and utilitarian consequentialism, before applying them to interactions human beings may be able to have with extra-terrestrial life. After an interlude to question whether something could be sufficiently different than life on Earth and still considered “life”, I will argue that while both utilitarian and Kantian perspectives entail significant obligations that human beings will have to themselves when interacting with extraterrestrial life, it is likely we will not have such obligations to the extra-terrestrial(s) because the salient features of the two, dominant modern ethical theories map on to features of our evolutionary heritage that we are unlikely to share with extra-terrestrial life. I will also draw out some ethical implications for dealing with potentially dangerous or hostile forms of extra-terrestrial life.

            Finally, I will speculate that the possibility of interaction with extra-terrestrial life and intelligence might lead us to some far-reaching insights about the dominant ethical theories and how we may have to modify them to account for interacting with beings that share none of our evolutionary history.

 

Race, Marg (Biology, SETI Institute)

Anticipating Future Challenges: Astrobiology Research, Policy Dilemmas and Integration of Social & Conceptual issues in Public Decision Making.

     This presentation will examine international space activities through time in order to identify and categorize the conceptual issues, diverse disciplines, and stakeholder communities that have been or will be involved ­­ past, present and future. By reviewing the path from early space exploration to the current era of Astrobiology research and searches for ET life, it is possible to analyze the progress made on multidisciplinary fronts­­ and assess how the unusual and challenging issues have been dealt with by the UN Outer Space Treaty over time. As space agencies and others seek to launch humans beyond Earth orbit for assorted new exploration, commercial and private purposes, we can anticipate that additional societal, ethical, cultural, religious and legal questions may arise, challenging decision makers, regulators and the diverse public in the years ahead. In gathering to discuss the interdisciplinary and societal issues ahead, it's a good idea to know where we've been, what disciplines have been involved so far, and what approaches may help prepare us for facing our collective future--- on Earth and beyond. 

 

Schwartz, Jim (Philosophy, Wichita Staye University)

The Life Bias in Planetary Protection

     Although a recent COSPAR workshop report on Planetary Protection recognizes the possibility of protection for reasons other than the safeguarding of astrobiological interests in space, nevertheless there very much exists a "life bias" in thought about planetary protection.  The "life bias" can be captured in the biconditional: An extraterrestrial environment should be protected if and only if it is (potentially) home to life (or traces of past life).   I shall argue that the life bias is under motivated and that there are compelling ethical reasons for protecting even lifeless environments.   In particular, when a general duty to conduct scientific research is assumed, some degree of protection is warranted for all potential sites of scientific interest---astrobiological or otherwise---at least until such interest can be reasonably discounted.  Sites potentially home to life may be subject to the strongest arguments for protection, but they are not subject to the only arguments for protection.  The strengths of this position are twofold:  First, from a metaethical perspective, it does not rely on controversial arguments for  the intrinsic value of extraterrestrial microorganisms (which have often been put forward in support of many "life-biased" views).  Second, given its responsiveness to scientific interests more generally, its entrenchment would help safeguard scientific interests more broadly in the solar system.

 

Smith, Kelly (Workshop Director) (Philosophy/Biology, Clemson University)

Cosmic Complexity?

     For thousands of years, people have speculated that the universe exhibits a trend in favor of increasing complexity over time.  Of course, early mechanisms had more to do with the preferences of supernatural agents than anything modern science would recognize.  But the establishment of evolution as the prevailing theory of life did not quell such musings entirely, though it produce a very negative kneejerk reaction towards such a possibility on the part of most evolutionary biologists.   In this paper, I will examine the plausibility of a complexity trend which is the result of certain aspects of probability combined with the action of natural selection in a highly variable environment.  I argue that it is entirely possible to develop a notion of a complexity trend which is free of problematic conceptual passengers like progress and anthropocentrism, though its empirical status is much less clear.  Then I will consider possible implications of such a trend for evolutionary biology, astrobiology, and ethical theory.

 

Tachibana, Koji (Philosophy, Kumamoto University, Japan)

Human Life and Ethics in Outer Space

     Human space exploration has progressed rapidly. Today, astronauts regularly stay on the International Space Station (ISS) for six months to work on various missions. Recently, American astronaut Scott Kelly and Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko successfully returned to Earth from a 340-day stay in the ISS. With the goal of reaching Mars, future human space exploration missions will become longer and longer. In fact, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration plans to launch a new robotic science rover in 2020 and is preparing for human exploration of Mars. The European Space Agency and the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) also undertook the project Mars-500 in 2010 and 2011.

     The longer astronauts stay in space, the more difficulty they have maintaining their health and performance due to factors unique to outer space, such as microgravity, space radiation, and change in circadian rhythms. These factors have various influences on astronauts, including decreased muscle volume, space motion sickness, sleep disorders, and mental disorders. Space life science studies human adaptation to the space environment. For example, space medicine has developed training systems, such as preflight adaptation training, while space pharmacology has produced pharmaceuticals that help astronauts adapt to space. Further developments and systematic, comprehensive studies are required because those conducted so far have limited effects and generalizability. In the future, astronauts might be modified or enhanced in various ways in order to avoid those influences; they might be able to breathe at low partial pressure, resist cellular damage from radiation, and work many consecutive hours without sleep.

Here, we face the ethical problem of biotechnological human adaptation to space. Is it morally acceptable to enhance or adapt humans to space by using biotechnology, such as space pills? If so, to what extent, under which conditions, and for what purposes? Can such adaptation and enhancement be compatible with our traditional concepts of “human” and “human nature”? The longer astronauts stay in space, the more real these problems will become. I consider the ethics of biotechnological human adaptation/enhancement to space and address various problems, referring to works in related fields, such as bioethics and space ethics. I also examine a case study in Japan. And I conclude that we need to consider human life and ethics in outer space comprehensively and set ethical and legal guidelines for the possible use of biotechnology for human adaptation to space in future human space exploration.

 

Trerise, Jonathan (Philosophy, Coastal Carolina University)

A story of impossible friendships

           Gilgamesh is an ancient human story about an unlikely friendship. “Darmok”, an episode of Star Trek: TNG, involves a non-human race trying desperately to communicate with humans. Taking some liberties, I suggest that these are stories of impossible friendships—not impossible in the metaphysical sense, but in the practical sense of being so unlikely that observers would be justifiably skeptical of them. 

These references introduce the theme in my presentation, in which I outline some of our ethical obligations to extraterrestrial life, as well as to non-living features of the extraterrestrial environment. This will help answer whether humans should seek to exploit space.

            I argue that, while there is a vast array of unknowns, there are some fairly clear ethical knowns. And with those we have an exciting chance, now, on the precipice of finding out we’re not alone in the universe, to do things the right way, as a contrast to human history. It might be too late for us to treat one another justly. It might be too late to achieve peace on earth. So let us have peace in space! Let us not approach these new frontiers with the kind of attitude that humans have tended to approach “the other” in our history.

One worry about this position is that we don’t know what threats await us. We must be prepared to fight for our survival. We must be ready to exploit resources wherever we go to adequately provide for our progeny, especially as our own home becomes inhospitable. Hence our exploration must be anthropocentric.

            But this position neglects three crucial facts. 1) It is this xenophobia and in-group thinking that has created the history of human misery; 2) while we can’t predict much about aliens, following David Gauthier there is evolutionary reason to believe that they will have some conception of morality comprehensible to us; and 3) even if we cannot surpass anthropocentricism, we have an opportunity to cultivate a different kind of relationship with our (new) natural environments. When we construct these relationships with non-humans here on earth, it tends to contribute to human flourishing. We have reason, then, to expect that such relationships will contribute to human flourishing elsewhere.

Thus our obligations to extraterrestrial life and nature are strong and many, but not all that different from what they are here. And one of these, quite simply, is that we ought to be friendly to those we may meet, impossible as that may seem to some.

 

Waller, Sara (Philosophy, Montana State University)

Is Talking to your Cat like Talking with ET?: Signal Exchange between Critters and Folk

     Controversially, humans have tried to send communicative signals to any listening extra terrestrials; our methods have included radio signals, the Arecibo message, and a National Geographic sponsored aggregate of friendly #tweets.  These informational messages neglect the possibility that ET may have evolved to be more like wolves, dolphins, or prairie dogs than human beings.  Famously, L. Doyle of SETI has made a distinction between “critters” (without radio telescopes) and “folk” (with radio telescopes) and the divide between the two is not trivial. However, while we might initially think that language or sophisticated symbol processing demands technology, successful and systematic exchange of mental content with another species leaps an expanse arguably as large as the distance between two civilizations on neighboring planets. 

     This paper argues that understanding, “decoding” and learning the signals of Earth-based species such as wolves, cats, and dolphins may help move our SETI efforts forward much more fruitfully than simple analysis of radio signals.  Examples of signal exchange with dolphins (Diana Reiss), the referential value of prairie dog signals (Con Slobadchikoff), and new work on the content of vocalizations produced by wolves (Kershenbaum) and feral and domestic cats (Owens & Waller) will be presented as concrete, cutting-edge evidence that the minds of animals have evolved to communicate in ways that are of crucial importance to the SETI project and future communicative efforts with ET. Specifically, we can learn about the natures of a variety of kinds of minds, and the possible different types of abstraction and inference that may be supported by different evolutionary circumstances. An understanding of the ways in which different creatures think differently leads to broader questions of the social status of animals and the ethics of first contact.  This paper will not answer these broader concluding questions, but merely show how they arise through the study of communication across Earthly species.