extraterrestrial life.
Every so often we see news about habitable exoplanets being detected. We have the disciplinary nature of Astrobiology, which brings together several disciplines made up of different specialists whose modus operandi is to work in an orchestrated and coordinated way. But what about the humanities, specifically ethics? Can we have a breakthrough that is matched with the Natural Sciences? To make the comparison would not do justice to either of them, since the nature of both respond to forms of knowledge with their own characteristics.
No. Ethics is not a science that gives us answers like mathematical formulas or experiments in a laboratory or astronomical observations. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies the moral dimension of human actions and thinking and, as such, since it does not have a unified methodology in which all experts agree and whose proposal is immutable in time, there are no universal moral laws. However, thanks to reflections on morality we can realize and reflect on our actions and thoughts, on their consequences and implications. That is why it is much more difficult to establish a moral system with coherence and adequate sustenance. And if that is so for earthly matters, for matters that go beyond life on Earth this could become a great mental exercise which will take time and the results of which will not be available every few months as if they were the product of the latest technological advances. To be able to engage in the thinking of astrobioethics, one must approach ethics as a branch of philosophy in addition to astrobiology, because astrobioethics was born in conjunction with moral reflection on issues expressly related to extraterrestrial life and, unlike astroethics, it deals with aspects that are more broad and general such as the responsibility of taking care of space junk or the right to property in an interplanetary context [1.6] [1.10] [1.11] [1.24].
The first time the word astrobioethics was used was in 2016 at two international events: the 35th International Geological Congress in Cape Town, South Africa [1.20] and the 12th Rencontres du Vietnam in Quy Nhon [1.21]. The first academic article that directly addressed this issue was published in the International Journal of Astrobiology under the title “Astrobioethics.” It states that
“Astrobioethics is an interdisciplinary field of astrobiology and ethics; it studies the ethical implications of astrobiological research. However, astrobioethics must have transdisciplinary practices in order to enrich itself and propose a broader judgement according to the context where it is applied [1.8].”
The concept of the scientific discipline of astrobiology should include a humanities perspective. In addition, three fundamental axes need to be analyzed in astrobioethics research, which are: the legal aspect, the ethical aspect, and the social aspect. One of the ideas reflected upon is the moral relevance of the Planetary Protection Policy and the need to make it more impactful on ethical discussions concerning any space exploration involving astrobiological components.
Currently, the Working Group on Astrobioethics, a working team belonging to the International Association for Geoethics led by Jesús Martínez-Frías, is the first official international working group on astrobioethics. “One of the main tasks of the WG will be to analyze the potential societal and ethical implications related to astrobiology…” [1.19]. Considering the above, this work is the first book that addresses the astrobiological theme from its ethical aspect.
Different issues will be presented below related to the astrobioethics discussion to determine its importance and opportunities for reflection from different starting points. All of these have to do with whether we are alone in the universe, but also with what would happen if a discovery of life in the universe happens. Here we will look at the discussion involving epistemological, astrotheological, and interplanetary aspects.
1.2 Epistemological Issue
When we deal with moral problems that relate to life in the universe we are presented with a great challenge in relation to knowledge. Considering that astrobiology itself is a transdisciplinary form of knowledge [1.7], the way it connects disciplines must be done in a way that avoids any kind of reductionism. It is interesting to note that the NASA Astrobiology Strategy [1.23] encompasses a diversity of disciplines and each is given a place in this new scenario.
It does not put biology above (and here we are differentiating ourselves from exobiology) other scientific disciplines, but also involves planetary sciences, law, epistemology, etc. A goal of the NASA Astrobiology Strategy is to foster interdisciplinary science. “Astrobiology is multidisciplinary in its content and interdisciplinary in its execution. Its success depends critically upon the close coordination of diverse scientific disciplines and programs, including space missions” [1.28]. Astrobioethics, as well as Astrobiology, requires the participation of each discipline according to the need that emerges in the study process.
In this sense, astrobioethics, working from different areas of knowledge, reminds us that reality is complex and that we must live up to the circumstances. Perhaps the emergence of the need to have these new perspectives is not an isolated phenomenon regarding astrobiology and astrobioethics alone but is part of a much broader context. This would not be strange; after all, science is a product culture and obeys the demands that each era requires. We see today that it is increasingly crucial to address different aspects of reality as an interconnected whole, and not only to know it in theory, but also to know how to apply it. The recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is an example of this. What happens to one country is no stranger to what happens to other countries, and it is also foolish to worry more about the economy than public health, because in the end one affects the other. In addition, when implementing health measures in different countries, it is not only the recommendation to prevent a disease that counts, it is also necessary to consider the idiosyncrasies that each context possesses. Reality teaches us what is not taught in college.
Astrobioethics must learn from the lessons we already have on Earth because, after all, whether we want it or not, astrobiological ethics is conditioned by a biogeocentric approach [1.1] [1.4] [1.5]; that is, the paradigmatic dependence we have where we only use as a reference the knowledge we have about life on Earth.
That any moral way of proceeding against extraterrestrial life will necessarily have to be linked to what we have learned on Earth represents the greatest epistemological challenge of astrobioethics. This in turn represents an ontological limitation since we cannot escape our human point of view. But we are no stranger to it in relation to the living beings that inhabit this planet. Anthropocentric conditioning could be overcome if a thinking being alien to the human species could establish a system of values by which to compare it to ours. At present, this is not the case and does not appear to be so anytime soon. On the other hand, we also have the reason-centric conditioning [1.27], on which we base our morals from reason. If not, will it be possible to conceive of other moral systems that do not depend on reason?
The attempt to develop an “inclusive” astrobiological ethic must face this epistemological problem which has no solution for now, but this does not mean that we stop working on it. Even if we do the mental experiment of assuming that a way of life has already been discovered, we could raise four scenarios:
The first: discovery of microbial life forms.
The second: discovery of primitive life forms, like those that inhabit the Earth (such as dolphins, dogs, giraffes, lions, ants, etc.).
The third: discovery of intelligent life forms that are unable to communicate with us.
The fourth: discovery of intelligent life forms with interplanetary communication capacity.
The first case is more likely to happen in our Solar System, on Mars or below the surface of Europa, Jupiter’s Moon. The moral approach in this aspect is obvious, since these microbial life forms would not have a moral system of their own, it would be us who would establish the ethical system of action. Although the second case is not too far away in terms of a moral approach, at least we could identify a certain type of protoconsciousness as happens in some terrestrial animal species, or understand how they behave in order to respect and evaluate how to deal with it.
It also depends on how