Suppose humanity was confronted with an extinction level event. Not only high opportunities, but certainly. A nearby SuperNova will explode and irradiate all life, a black hole will flush the earth, an interstellar asteroid of Mars format with our name on it.
A cataclysm that will end all life on earth. We could accept our destiny and be confronted together with our ultimate extorts. We could collect the archives of libraries around the world and start them in space in the hope that another civilization will find them, reports Universetoday.com.
Or we can build a fleet of Arks that contain the life of the earth. No people, but bacteria, fungi and other simple organisms. Seed the universe with our genetic heritage.
Of all these, the last option has the greatest chance of continuing our story. It is an idea that is known as a targeted panpermia, and we will soon have the opportunity to do it. But do we have to?
The idea of targeted panseling has been discussed since the 1970s. Carl Sagan and others even entertained the possibility that life on earth is the result of targeted panpermia from a different civilization. But one Recent Study In Acta, astronautics looks at the idea from an ethical and philosophical perspective, and asks what the moral costs of such a goal are.
From a philosophical point of view, the motivation for panpering is rooted in biocentrism. That is, the idea that a universe with life is better or more valuable than a universe without life. A variety of biocentrism is the idea that more is better. If life on earth is good, terra formation is better.
Colonizing a thousand planets with earth life is even better. The more cosmic corners and holes where life can get foot, the livelier the cosmos would be. With this perspective, Panpermia seems to be a moral necessity.
Another view is that although life is good, the variety and diversity of life are important. A world rich in fish, trees, flowers and butterflies is certainly better than a planet with only grass and cows.
In that case, targeted panpering is the risk of polluting other worlds. With this view, it can be ethical to sow the cosmos as a final resort to save terrestrial life, but not to expand the reach of earth life outside our solar system.
Another factor that the authors consider is virginism. If we send life to distant planets, intelligent life can evolve on those worlds. Our genetic cousins can experience struggles, just like humanity.
Wars, famine, conquest. Would it just be to bring more suffering in the universe, or is it better to make the earth a more just world before it goes beyond our heaven?
It is difficult to divert some hard conclusion from these ideas, but in the end the authors argue against targeted panpermia for now. The potential negatives weigh heavier than the potential positives.
Even if you do not agree with the thoughts of the authors, the work shows the deep ethical questions that humanity will experience as our technology expands. A century ago the directed PanSpermia would have been a high fantasy. It can be inevitable over a century.
