reduce the richness and diversity of natural life except to meet vital needs. How could this be understood in the framework of astrobioethics and special exploration?
“…it does not matter how safe we are that we have established plots of land where we can land and settle, or promote some form of terrestrial life, there is always the difficulty of not being totally sure of avoiding some kind of collateral damage, at least with the current technology [1.9].”
In a situation where we must make a decision that involves some risk to native life forms, the third principle adapted in this scenario may be our guideline for how we should behave. Having exhausted all possible resources to avoid compromising extraterrestrial microbial life, what can be done is to safeguard it in the best possible way. Thus, the genuine value that native life forms have is always respected.
On the other hand, if our moral maxim is that we should not interfere or land where native life forms are under any circumscription, then there will be no exception to justify our actions. It is difficult to think of such an absolutist circumstance, and that is why I have decided to develop the option of the extreme situation to be able to highlight what our options would be. However, we must not forget that the decision we take must be in consensus with the countries involved. It is possible that what is considered inviolable for one country, may not be for another, so a common voice is necessary to be able to make such decisions.
1.5 Conclusions
From an epistemological aspect, it can be inferred that the fact of being able to elaborate an ethical theoretical framework involving other forms of life represents a gnoseological challenge. Therefore, it is also a transdisciplinary challenge to be able to connect different disciplines and thus to develop an appropriate normative moral framework. The implication that so many disciplines have from social to natural, makes astrobioethics an authentic exercise between disciplines. However, as much as we want, the ontological frontier is always present, reminding us that we cannot leave our human brains and our carbon-based nature.
From an astrotheological aspect, it is interesting to think that perhaps there may be religions more likely to accept life on other worlds. It is important to have a discussion-based perspective among different religious leaders. It is inevitable that the subject of religion will be dealt with once life is found in other worlds; and yet, depending on the type of discovery, we might see different reactions from religion. However, it seems obvious that religion will have to adapt its worldview to the new component: life on other worlds.
Regarding the aspect of Interplanetary issue, we see that instrumental ethics is not sustainable over time since the value of extraterrestrial life depends on its usefulness for scientific research. On the contrary, if we assume a teloempathic position, this changes because we will try as much as possible to look after the interests of these discovered beings—always assumed to be microbial forms—and generate large planetary reserve parks. However, there is always the extreme imaginary challenge where we are asked if it is necessary to intervene in an inhabited place, and it is here that the third principle of deep ecology comes into play. This principle allows exceptions to the rule of respect for diversity of life. It is important to keep this in mind so that we do not have to spoil an ecosystem that we may never discover again, and not repeat the disaster we have caused in nature on Earth.
References
[1.1] Aretxaga, R., Astrobiology and biocentrism, in: Life in the Universe, J. Seckbach, J. Chela-Flores, T. Owen, F. Raulin (Eds.), pp. 345–348, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004.
[1.2] Arnould, J., Astrotheology, astroethics, and the new challenges. Theol. Sci., 16, 380–381, 2018.
[1.3] Atlan, H. and Thompson, W.I., Gaia, 5th ed, pp. 107–123, Kairós, Barcelona, 2009.
[1.4] Chela-Flores, J., The New Science of Astrobiology from Genesis of the Living Cell to Evolution of Intelligent Behavior in the Universe, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001.
[1.5] Chela-Flores, J., A Second Genesis: Stepping Stones Towards the Intelligibility of Nature, World Scientific, Singapore, 2009.
[1.6] Chon Torres, O., Astrobiology and its influence on the renewal of the way we see the world from the teloempathic, educational and astrotheological perspective. Int. J. Astrobiology, 19, 4, 1–5, 2020a.
[1.7] Chon-Torres, O., Astrobioethics: A brief discussion from the epistemological, religious and societal dimension. Int. J. Astrobiology, 19, 1, 61–67, 2020b.
[1.8] Chon-Torres, O., Astrobioethics. Int. J. Astrobiology, 17, 1, 51–56, 2018.
[1.9] Chon-Torres, O., Moral challenges of going to Mars under the presence of non-intelligent life scenario. Int. J. Astrobiology, 19, 1, 1–4, 2020.
[1.10] Chon-Torres, O.A., Disciplinary nature of astrobiology and astrobioethic’s epistemic foundations. Int. J. Astrobiology, 1–8, 2018a.
[1.11] Chon-Torres, O.A., Astrobioethics. Int. J. Astrobiology, 17, 51–56, 2018b.
[1.12] Cockell, C., Planetary protection – a microbial ethics approach. Space Policy, 21, 281–292, 2005a.
[1.13] Cockell, C., Duties to extraterrestrial microscopic organisms. J. Br. Interplanet. Soc., 58, 367–373, 2005b.
[1.14] Cockell, C. and Horneck, G., A planetary park system for Mars. Space Policy, 20, 291–295, 2004.
[1.15] Cockell, C., Landfester, U., Remuss, N.-L., Schrogl, K.-U., Worms, J.-C., Humans in Outer Space – Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 80–114, Springer, Berlin, 2011.
[1.16] Comte, A., The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, translation by H. Martineau, Batoche Books, Canada, 2000.
[1.17] Dennett, D., Breaking the Spell, Penguin Random House, United States, 2007.
[1.18] Huxley, A., The Perennial Philosophy, Chatto & Windus, London, 1947.
[1.19] IAGETH Working Group on Astrobioethics, Astrobioethics, International Association for Geoethics, 2020.
[1.20] Martínez Frías, J. and Gargaud, M., Does Astrobiology require an astrobioethical approach? 35th International Geological, 2016.
[1.21] Martínez Frias, J., Ethics and space exploration: from geoethics to astrobioethics. Search for life: from early earth to exoplanets, XII The rencontres du Vietnam - Quy Nhon, 2016.
[1.22] Naess, A. and Sessions, G., The Deep Ecology Platform, in: Foundations for Deep Ecology, 1984, Available at http://www.deepecology.org/platform.htm.
[1.23] Hays, L. (Ed.), The Astrobiology Strategy 2015, NASA, EE.UU, 2015, Available at https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2016/04/NASA_Astrobiology_Strategy_2015_FINAL_041216.pdf.
[1.24] Peters, T., Does extraterrestrial life have intrinsic value? An exploration in responsibility ethics. Int. J. Astrobiology, 18, 4, 304–310, 2019.
[1.25] Peters, T., Astrotheology: a constructive proposal. Zygon, 49, 443–457, 2014.
[1.26] Pryor, A., It’s a great big universe: astrobiology and future trends for an astrotheology. Dialog, 57, 5–11, 2018.
[1.27] Smith, K.C., The trouble with intrinsic value: an ethical primer for astrobiology, in: Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives, C. Bertka (Ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.
[1.28] Des Marais, D.J., Nuth, J.A. III, Allamandola, L.J., Boss, A.P., Farmer, J.D., Hoehler, T.M., Jakosky, B.M., Meadows, V.S., Pohorille, A., Runnegar, B., Spormann, A.M., The NASA astrobiology