Abstract: In anticipation of contact with other life in our universe, ethicists who engage in “public theology” should bring the resources of their religious tradition to bear on public policy regarding actions that might follow first detection and subsequent engagement of extraterrestrial life forms. Three divisions should be given ethical attention: (1) detection of non-intelligent (microbial) life, most likely within our solar system; (2) passive reception of evidence of intelligent life via radio signals, most likely within the Milky Way; and (3) active engagement with intelligent extraterrestrial civilizations, presently an unrealistic prospect but still worth considering. Terrestrial resources ready-to-hand for ethical deliberation would be existing commitments to protect earth’s biosphere; Jesus’ Golden Rule, and Enlightenment values regarding human dignity and social justice.

Key Terms: extraterrestrial non-intelligent life, extraterrestrial intelligent life, Astrobiology, Exobiology, evolution, public theology, ethical deliberation, dignity.

[1] On May 28, 2006 the Phoenix Mars Lander safely settled on the Red Planet.[1] The robotic arm extended, scooped up soil, and dumped the soil into the TEGA (Thermal and Evolved Gas Analyzer). Beneath the surface soil NASA scientists found ice; they found the chemicals associated with life. Although to date actual physical evidence of past life is not in hand, the circumstantial evidence is growing stronger that Mars once provided a home for at least microbial life. Whether previous martian life shared a panspermic origin with life on earth or was the result of a second genesis, remains a research agenda.

[2] We in the wider society and in our churches need to ask: how will we deal with the possibility of contact with extraterrestrial life? Even though to date no empirical evidence has confirmed the existence of extraterrestrial life in our solar system or elsewhere, the consensus of the scientific community is that the likelihood that such life exists is very high. I wonder: what might be the theological implications of a second genesis? And, how might our theological reflection inform our ethical deliberation?

[3] Curiously enough, relatively little astroethical reflection to date has been sponsored by the scientific community; and a need for an overall public understanding may soon arise. I do not mean to suggest that NASA or SETI or other space scientists are guilty of morally questionable behavior and need to be reigned in by the ethicists. No, not at all! These are people simply busy about their work, very important work. Rather, because we can anticipate that the scientific and cultural consequences of possible contact with extraterrestrial life could be significant, preparation in the form of ethical deliberation seems to be called for. During the calm before the storm, we have an opportunity to draw up ethical scenarios with a degree of liberty and imaginative playfulness. Once first detection takes place, then matters will suddenly become urgent.

[4] This situation warrants our efforts at pursuing public theology, which Robert Benne describes as the “engagement of a living religious tradition with its public environment—the economic, political, and cultural spheres of our common life.”[2] The public environment in this case is the field of astrobiology, replete with its assumptions regarding the place the theory of evolution holds in our cultural self-understanding. 

[5] Such public theology includes analysis combined with ethical speculation. The analysis must address the question: will extraterrestrial life forms be similar to us or different? Like us or alien? To pursue such analysis, I will begin by speculating, by distinguishing three divisions for interpreting what might happen when we become aware of extraterrestrial life: (1) detection of non-intelligent (most likely microbial) life; (2) passive reception of evidence of intelligent life via radio signals, most likely from within the Milky Way; and (3) active engagement with intelligent life, an unlikely scenario yet one worth speculating on.[3] When it comes to intelligent extraterrestrial life detected by SETI or interacting with all of us, we can imagine another triple division: (1) inferior; (2) peer; and (3) superior. In this triple division one group of ETIL, the peer group, would be like us. But, the other two would be unlike us. The inferior and superior would be alien. In what follows I will provide a more detailed analysis of these divisions and try to draw out implications for ethical deliberation.

[6] A helpful orientation for ethics is offered by Paul Ricoeur: ethics aims at “living well with and for others in just institutions.”[4] With Ricoeur’s orientation in mind, my initial attempt to open up the subject of astroethics will be based on a simple sense of moral responsibility, on a generic version of responsibility ethics. As the etymology of the Latin, respondere meaning to answer, suggests, responsibility ethics answers questions raised by our changing situation. Establishing a new relationship with extraterrestrial life would prompt many questions; and an ethic of responsibility would seek to spell out just how best for earthlings to respond. Further, the idea of responsibility includes care, care both for the health and welfare of planetary life on earth but also the health and welfare of our new space neighbors. The conditions and imperatives arising from the new situation will suggest forms or frameworks within which to formulate our moral responsibilities.

[7] Still, more needs to be said about care. A minimalist responsibility ethics may suffice for the public square. Yet, for those of us within the larger public discussion whose lives give expression to faith in Jesus Christ, we are aware that the moral life has a transcendent grounding. “The only thing that counts,” we find in Galatians 5:6, “is faith working through love.” If we take as our prompt the new Finnish School of Luther Research, then this faith includes the real presence of the resurrected Christ; and the love that people of faith show is at one with the very love of God as care for the welfare and flourishing of the neighbor. “Faith means…the real presence of the person and work of Christ,” writes Tuomo Mannermaa of Helsinki.[5] The love which the person of faith shows is God’s love. Such love is called Nächstenliebe by German speakers or “neighbor love” by English speakers. “In Luther’s account,” writes Risto Saarinen, a distinguished Mannermaa student, “Christians are called to imitate the divine love in such a manner that they fulfill the needs and wants of others….This means giving gifts to enemies and regarding everybody as ‘you’ whose needs we are called to meet.”[6]  Such love is extra-legal, beyond obligation, self-initiating, and creative. What distinguishes this love is dedication solely to caring for the wellbeing of the other, the wellbeing of the neighbor. As we address astroethics, such love would be directed at the wellbeing of our new space neighbors. Whereas public ethics is typically characterized by the model of exchange with those who are like us in some morally relevant way, the love emitted by faith in Christ is characterized by giving to the other, even if the other is quite alien.
 
Distinguishing ETNL and ETIL
[8] Astroethics is a response to astrobiology’s assumptions and anticipations. Within astrobiology’s anticipation of the forms extraterrestrial life will take, the first distinction to be made is between non-intelligent and intelligent life, more specifically between extraterrestrial non-intelligent life (ETNL) and extraterrestrial intelligent life (ETIL). The encompassing field of Astrobiology includes both. The term exobiology has become identified with just the first, the search for ETNL. More than likely we will find ETNL forms nearby, within our solar system. Mars provides the best prospect. So also do the moons (such as Titan, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) of Saturn and Jupiter.[7] The exobiological research project performed by Phoenix on Mars is looking for past or present microbial ETNL.

[9] When it comes to ETIL, we turn to SETI (the search for extraterrestrial life). SETI scientists aim their radio telescopes at other stars in the Milky Way and even more distant galaxies. As listeners, SETI scientists hope to hear of evidence that a technologically advanced civilization exists, or at least did exist at the point in time when the signals were emitted. As listeners only, SETI is not necessarily committed to returning signals and establishing two way communication. Because of the distances—a habital planet one hundred million light years away making communication at the speed of light would require two centuries for a conversation to simply say “hello” to each other—thoughts of engagement with ETIL may be somewhat unrealistic.

[10] If we compare the exobiological search for ETNL with SETI’s search, we note some differences. Exobiology is intrusive; it employs spacecraft, landings, and visits to other possible ecospheres by probes or even astronauts. The SETI search is non-intrusive; it simply listens for signals that might indicate the past or present existence of ETIL. These two different search methods should prompt two corresponding types of ethical reflection.

[11] I said earlier that relatively little in the way of ethical deliberation has taken place, implying that not much in the way of policy has been set regarding space exploration. But, a measure of concerned ethical thinking has taken place; it has identified what may be the key concern regarding exobiology, namely, contamination. The risk of contamination goes in two directions, forward and backward. The possibility of forward contamination alerts us to the risk of disturbing an already existing ecosphere. The introduction of earth’s microbes carried by our spacecraft or equipment could be deleterious to an existing habitable environment. Ethicists need to ask: are there moral issues at stake when exporting life from earth to the ecology of another world? Whether deliberately or accidentally, the presence of exported life from earth will alter any pristine ecosystem we enter. Should we terraform Mars—that is, should we deliberately re-make a planet’s surface and atmosphere according to our design? Is it our manifest destiny to do so?

[12]  Back contamination would occur if a returning spacecraft brings rocks or soil samples that contain life forms not easily integrated into our terrestrial habitat. A quarantine program will be required to determine the safety of newly introduced ETNL. What kind of standards for housing alien life forms need to be established? What criteria should obtain for access to examine the samples? Should all such knowledge gained from extraterrestrial samples be internationalized?[8]

[13] Exobiologist Margaret Race and theological ethicist Richard Randolph have teamed up to propose four underlying principles for developing an ethic appropriate to the discovery of non-intelligent life in our universe: (1) cause no harm to Earth, its life, or its diverse ecosystems; (2) respect the extraterrestrial ecosystem and do not substantively or irreparably alter it (or its evolutionary trajectory); (3) follow proper scientific procedures with honesty and integrity during all phases of exploration; and (4) ensure international participation by all interested parties.[9] We can see here how exobiological ethics is asking for the contributions of eco-ethicists who have been, up until now, geocentric.

[14] What about the ethics of SETI? SETI has constructed a statement: The Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The thrust of SETI’s nine principles is to follow scientific best practices, seek independent confirmation to establish credibility, and announce the discovery only after consultation with international leadership.[10]  What we see here is that basic plans for action to be taken at the moment of first detection of ETIL have been given attention. Beyond this, not much has been considered. There is room to grow here.

[15] In sum, what has already taken place in the scientific community with exobiology and SETI is that consideration has been given to the ecological impact of ETNL and to sharing information regarding passive detection of ETIL. So far, so good.

[16] Now, I would like to turn to a third category of ethical concern, namely, engagement with ETIL. Admittedly, this is a somewhat unrealistic prospect, perhaps less urgent than the first two. Yet, some anticipatory ethical thinking is still called for, I believe, just in case tomorrow we are confronted with the prospect of engagement. Despite the limit placed on communication as we now know it due to limits placed on us by the speed of light, now unforeseeable gains in knowledge might suddenly place us in a new situation where conversation with ETIL could actually take place. Nothing would be lost in anticipating such an eventuality; and we might find ourselves glad we had prepared. Even if conversation with ETIL never takes place, such anticipatory ethical deliberation will still have the value of requiring us on earth to remind ourselves of just who we are and how we go about establishing the basis for preparing public policy for an exchange with ETNL and ETIL (or ETI, for short).

The Evolutionary Assumptions of Astrobiology
[17] Before proceeding toward astroethics, we need to pause to acknowledge a decisive theoretical component to the framework relied upon by many astrobiologists, namely, their particular understanding of evolution. The theory of evolution is imaginatively exported to habital worlds in space; and the list of life possibilities is constructed on the basis of certain selected assumptions.

[18] Let me spell these out. First, astrobiologists frequently assume that where the right conditions exist on a habital planet that life is bound to originate. It is significant to note that the Darwinian model of evolution does not include anything regarding the origin of life. Evolution has to do with the origin of species, not life. As of yet, no scientific theory regarding the genesis of life exists. Yet, life’s origination becomes closely attached to, if not incorporated within, the model of evolution with which astrobiology works.
 
[19] Second, the variant of the theory of evolution with which many astrobiologists work includes the doctrine of progress. Even more, progress here means specifically that over time we can expect life to increase in complexity and develop ineluctably toward increased intelligence. By predicting advances in intelligence, we can predict that a civilization of intelligent beings who have been evolving longer than we on earth will be more advanced in science, technology, culture, values, and religion. ETI may be so highly advanced that they will have eliminated religion and have embraced a strictly scientific understanding of life. Curiously and perhaps even humorously, what this indicates is that scientists in this field assume that the entire history of evolution on earth has been aimed at producing themselves—that is, today’s scientists are themselves the most advanced specimens of earth’s intelligence. In sum, ETI will look like today’s scientists, only better. In a manner not unlike the medieval via positiva for delineating divine attributes, today’s astrobiologists delineate the attributes of ETI as the best of what we have on earth, and still better.[11]
 
[20] Let me provide an example to show how these evolutionary assumptions express themselves. One of the founders of today’s astrobiology is Frank Drake. Here is what he says in a SETI newsletter. “Everything we know says there are other civilizations out there to be found. The discovery of such civilizations would enrich our civilization with valuable information about science, technology, and sociology. This information could directly improve our abilities to conserve and to deal with sociological problems—poverty for example. Cheap energy is another potential benefit of discovery, as are advancements in medicine.”[12] What Drake says here goes well beyond anticipation of ETI who might be alien in decisive ways. Drake assumes he can rely upon a continuity with life as he has known it on earth, with progress from prebiotic chemicals right up through the origin of life and the development of intelligence, surpassing us, and arriving at a utopian society that can come to earth to aid us. This extraterrestrial society can provide earth with the solution to “sociological” problems such as poverty and energy while giving us a leap forward in medicine. What Drake believes is that science is salvific, and extraterrestrial science would be even more salvific than earth’s science.[13]

[21] What is significant scientifically here is that this assumption widespread among astrobiologists is not uniformly supported by their colleagues in the field of evolutionary biology. It is nearly standard within biology to deny the doctrine of progress when applied to biological evolution. Evolution does not mean progress. Speciation is due to random or chance changes in genetic inheritance acted on by unpredictable forces of natural selection. What changes we have witnessed in life forms on earth are contingent. They are not due to a telos or entelechy built into natural processes that would lead us toward progress in intelligence let alone advances in science and technology. What this means is that the assumptions at work in astrobiology are subject to scientific dispute. Theologians and ethicists need to take this dispute into account when rendering an interpretation.

[22] Let me illustrate this divide between astrobiology and evolutionary biology. Earth oriented biologists frequently point out the improbability that just the right prebiotic contingencies would fall into place to make the spring from non-life to life possible. They further stress the low probability that the contingencies that made the evolution of intelligent life on earth could be repeated in sequence. “In conflict with the thinking of those who see a straight line from the origin of life to intelligent man,” writes the late Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, “I have shown that at each level of this pathway there were scores, if not hundreds, of branching points and separately evolving phyletic lines, with only a single one in each case forming the ancestral lineage that ultimately gave rise to Man.”[14] Each branch of evolutionary change is contingent, due to chance and not design. No principle of progress from simple life forms to intelligence is built into evolution. “An evolutionist is impressed by the incredible improbability of intelligent life ever to have evolved, even on earth,” adds Mayr.[15] Other prominent evolutionary biologists such as Stephen Jay Gould and Francisco Ayala have argued that if you replay earth’s evolutionary tape again and again, it will never produce the same result.[16] In sum, even if a second genesis of life were to occur on an extrasolar planet, the likelihood that it would progress into a form that mimics intelligence on earth is virtually nil.

[23] So, for theological speculation and ethical deliberation, we must begin with the assumptions made in the field of astrobiology while looking over our shoulder at the doubts cast by skeptical evolutionary biologists. What this leads to is a hypothetical yardstick for measuring the status of ETI we might engage, a yardstick based upon the level of advance in evolutionary development. We could expect a younger civilization to have evolved for a shorter period than we on earth, have less intelligence, and therefore be dubbed as our inferiors. A civilization that has attained approximately the same level of evolutionary development and approximately the same level of intelligence could be dubbed our peers. And, of course, a species of beings who have been evolving for a much longer time period we would expect to be more intelligent and more advanced in science; they would be our superiors. Perhaps these three relevant moral communities offer a framework for initial ethical deliberation.

Engaging Inferior ETIL
[24] If we apply our evolutionary yardstick and judge that the ETI we are engaging are our inferiors in intelligence, we would then ask: might an exchange ethical framework for discerning our responsibility toward them be analogous to our responsibility toward earth’s animals? If we answer affirmatively, then we would find ourselves in a classic dialectic. On the one hand, the human race exploits all other life forms—both plants and animals—for human welfare. Animals provide food, work, clothing, and even company. Animals can be sacrificed in medical research to develop therapies that will benefit only human persons. On the other hand, we human beings have a sense of responsibility toward the welfare of animals. We respect them as intelligent beings; and we are concerned about preventing suffering to animals. In some instances, we exert considerable energy and effort to preserve their species from extinction and to insure the health of individual animals. In the case of pets, we love them to a degree that rivals loving our own family. In sum, we have inherited this double relationship to our inferiors already here on earth.

[25] What we know from our experience on our home planet is that this exchange relationship with animals can be quite conflicted. “Every area of human-animal interaction, be it agriculture, research, hunting, trapping, circuses, rodeos, zoos, horse and dog racing, product extraction, and even companion animals, is fraught with ethical and welfare issues.”[17] In the early history of the human race which included the domestication of animals, “husbandry” became the dominating ethic. This “fair and ancient contract” embraced the double principle that animals become better off, because humans care for them and protect their welfare, while humans become better off because they benefit from animal products. Animal ethics included proscriptions against intentional mistreatment or deliberate cruelty. As a consequence, humans and animals have co-evolved.

[26] In the post-World War II era, however, the industrialized production of animal products has removed the “welfare” component. Animal suffering has become massive: confinement, loneliness, boredom, disease. This suffering is not due to cruelty but do to the efficiency called for by industrial production. The previous husbandry ethic is being replaced with an “animal rights” ethic as our society grapples with the reinstantiation of the “fair and ancient contract.” Columbia University’s Richard Bulliet forecasts that “the future of human-animal relations in real-world terms will be determined by the worldwide expansion of exploitation in a late domestic mode and the reaction to that expansion by increasingly angry post-domestic activists.” [18]

[27] As we turn from our experience with animals on earth to possible engagement with ETIL, we might ask about the relationship between intelligence and moral status. We are already accustomed to asking: is the animal rational in the same sense that we homo sapiens are rational? No, says the tradition beginning with Aristotle. The human is the distinctively rational animal. The separation of humanity from the animal world due to a separation on the scale of rational intelligence justifies an ethic whereby the superior human exploits the inferior animal. “Irrational animals are natural slaves, and no positive human moral or political categories can govern humankind’s relations with them.”[19]

[28] Yet, we might ask: is rational intelligence the only ethical criterion? No, say some moralists. By extension, our moral commitment to protect humans from suffering should be applied to animals. How an animal feels is morally significant. “Animal welfare is most crucially a matter of the animal’s subjective experience—how the animal feels, whether it is in pain or suffering in any way.”[20]

[29] With this experience of relating to animals on earth in mind, our first ethical question in the case of engagement with inferior ETI would be: by which criterion do we orient our ethics, ETI’s relative rational intelligence or our responsibility for the welfare of ETI? Our second ethical question would be: which of these two habits should we invoke: exploitation of ETI for our own use or protection of ETI from suffering? More than likely, all of these alternatives would inform the policies we develop.

[30] In ethical categories, we would not impute dignity to ETIL whose level of rational advance falls significantly short or ours. Inferior ETIL would be unlike us. They would be other. We very well might show them respect, even care. In economic categories, more than likely we would exploit lesser intelligent ETIL for increased terrestrial prosperity. We might work out terms of exchange, or, more likely, simply set up an infrastructure for ongoing exploitation. Would we exploit with moral abandon? Or, would we exploit only to the limit set at the point of detriment to the welfare of the ETI themselves?

[31] Such questions help us to get at the matter of our moral responsibility in an exchange relationship. What if, motivated by faith, we think in terms of gift rather than exchange? In terms of our responsibility, among other concerns I believe we should take the initiative to extend concern for the welfare of such ETI on the model of our current concern for the subjective quality of animal experience. If we are motivated by love toward our new neighbors, we should do what we are able to protect ETI from suffering and enhance their experience of wellbeing.

Engaging Peer ETIL
[32] If we conclude that ETI are our peers in rational intelligence and try to construct astroethics within the exchange framework, then we might find appropriate Jesus’ Golden Rule and Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Jesus’ version of the Golden Rule is familiar to us all: ^NRS Matthew 7:12 "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you.”[21] For Kant, the formal principle from which all moral duties are derived is this: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I also will that my maxim should become a universal one.”[22] In sum, we should treat peers as equal to ourselves; and we should care for their welfare just as we would care for our own.

[33] Jesus’ Golden Rule and Kant’s Categorical Imperative have greatly influenced the value system of the Enlightenment and, hence, the modern culture of which we are a part. If we find that ETIL resemble us enough to be considered our peers, then we ought to invoke the value system of the Enlightenment—that is, we might invoke the Golden Rule and impute dignity to our space neighbors. Our moral disposition would be to approach our new neighbors with operative values such as equality, liberty, dignity, justice, and mutuality.

[34] When it comes to dealing with ETI as individuals, we would impute dignity to them—that is, we would treat each as a moral end and not merely as a means; and in society and culture, correlatively, we would exact standards of social justice. “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end,” wrote Immanuel Kant.[23] In a more contemporary and theological medium, we might say: “human dignity is the inherent worth or value of a human person from which no one or nothing may detract.”[24] Might we impute dignity to ETI? Might we treat them with dignity?  Might “dignity” become the label for identifying our responsibility? [25]

[35] Dignity comes in both theological and secular forms. Theologically, dignity is the gift of God. The “gospel in miniature,” John 3:16, reports that “God so loved the world (kosmos), that he gave his only begotten Son…” God’s act of redemption in Jesus Christ confers dignity on the world, and on us. God’s love for the world elicits in us a sense of value or worth. God confers upon us dignity and we, in turn, affirm our dignity and claim that dignity. God’s conferring of dignity upon us is an act of divine grace; it is not based on any quality we ourselves possess.

[36] The more secular variant of dignity which we find in Kant, who inherited it from Greek philosophy, associates dignity with our rational capacity. Rational intelligence warrants being treated with dignity. If we lack rational capacity, we cannot claim dignity. These two variants—dignity due to rational capacity or dignity due to gracious conferral regardless of rational capacity or any other capacity—can cohere as long as we posit that every individual human being belongs in the set or class of rational human beings. Infants and elderly people suffering from dementia may lack rational capacity; yet we treat them with dignity because they belong to the human race. We confer dignity upon less than fully rational members of the human race. Based upon these post-Christian Enlightenment values, every human person can claim the right to be treated with dignity.

[37] What might this imply as we construct ethical policy for engaging peer ETI? Perhaps we could adapt portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, passed by the General Assembly of United Nations in 1948. We would rewrite them to refer to the ETI we have deemed to be our peers. Where we read “human beings,” we could substitute ETI.
 
Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another but in a a spirit of brotherhood.”
 
Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”

Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[26]
 
[38] The imputation of dignity toward ETI should be accompanied by a denial of our own right to unilaterally exploit them. We might encourage the development of bilateral commerce, of course; but we should do so presuming the equality and liberty of our trading partners. We might also restrict our intrusion into their ecosphere. We might adapt for ETIL the Race and Randolph principle aimed at ETNL: “respect the extraterrestrial ecosystem and do not substantively or irreparably alter it (or its evolutionary trajectory).” In sum, the ethical principles we invoke to deal with peer ETI might draw upon our Enlightenment values. We could formulate principles applicable to ETI which we now invoke to maintain terrestrial justice and peace.

What if ETIL are Hostile? Peaceful? Benevolent?
[39] Before proceeding to ethical analysis of our third category for identifying relevant moral communities, superior ETIL, we might wish be more specific about the characteristics of our three morally relevant communities. I suggest we divide peer ETI’s into two subcategories: hostile and peaceful. And I suggest we divide the superior ETI’s into three subcategories: hostile, peaceful, and salvific. Once we have discerned that ETI are our equals or our superiors in technology and perhaps in intelligence, we will need to ask whether or not they pose a threat to earth’s security and wellbeing. How we answer this question may partially guide the moral direction we take.

[40] The anxiety associated with insecurity leads us homo sapiens to strike out with violence.[27] We on earth will find ourselves uneasy, on the verge of committing violent acts, until we can be assured that the ETI we confront mean us no harm. Whether the high minded among us find it moral or not, the reality is that no rational discourse about ethics can take place when anxiety is high and security is low. To determine whether ETI are a threat or not will inescapably become our first priority.  

[41] In the event that the ETI in question are in fact hostile, then we will find ourselves working within a framework that includes both the imputation of dignity mentioned above and our pressing need to protect our planet from alien exploitation or damage. We know from experience that whenever we are confronted with a hostile enemy from without, we find ourselves within our society compromising human dignity. Our political leaders try to persuade our society that our targeted enemies should be reduced to “inhuman” if not demonic status; and this justifies going to war. What this indicates is that the social psychology of self-defense pits human dignity against the mustering of military support. Security trumps dignity. If threatened by alien hostility, we can forecast that military rhetoric will attempt an equivalent of dehumanizing and, hence, de-dignifying the ETI enemy. A nation’s leaders simply cannot embrace Jesus’ peace ethic of loving our enemies combined with turning the other cheek (Matthew 5-7). So, as difficult as it may sound, our wider society will need an ethic that affirms the dignity of ETI while rallying our earth allies in planetary defense. We might need to adapt for peer ETI the Race and Randolph principle, “cause no harm to Earth, its life, or its diverse ecosystems,” within a tense relationship to the wider ethical principle of imputing dignity to our extraterrestrial peers.

[42] In the event that peer ETI prove to be neutrally peaceful or even benevolent, then the principles giving expression to Enlightenment values should prevail without challenge: equality, liberty, dignity, mutuality, and justice.

The Divide in Darwinian Ethics
[43] If we meet ETI superior to ourselves, will they be hostile? peaceful? or salvific? When it comes to imagining what a race of intelligent beings superior to ourselves might look like, we frequently find astrobiologists once again invoking the theory of evolution. Superior ETI will be more highly evolved than we. Now, we might ask: which part of Darwin’s theory of evolution should we extrapolate from? This is an important question, because we could extrapolate from two quite different trajectories within the Darwinian model. One would lead to predicting hostility, while the other would lead to predicting benevolence. On the one hand, the late nineteenth century school known as “Social Darwinism” would lead us to predict that ETI would be the “fittest,” and they would enslave or devour us in service of their own survival. On the other hand, the emphasis of some Darwinians on the presence of “altruism” in the prehuman animal world combined with a liberal Enlightenment philosophy would lead us to speculate that ETI would have progressed further than we in the science of community cooperation, world peace, and benevolent caring.

[44] Extrapolating from social Darwinism suggests that ETI would likely be hostile to us, exploitive of our planet and ourselves. Charles Darwin’s key evolutionary principle is “natural selection,” which he identifies with “the struggle for existence” and connects to Herbert Spencer’s phrase, “survival of the fittest.”[28] In the struggle for existence, the victims of predation undergo cruelty, suffering, and waste.[29] And the species to which virtually every individual creature belongs will eventually go extinct to make way for a more fit species. The strong devour the weak. The big eat the small. The fit survive in a world that is, as Tennyson put it, blood “red in tooth and claw.” Extrapolating from this principle within evolutionary theory, we could forecast that superior ETI would turn planet Earth into a farm, and homo sapiens would become either the serf-farmers or the livestock for new ETI recipes.

[45] It would not be out of the question to predict enslavement of the human race. Already, slavery occurs in the prehuman struggle for existence. One species of red ant (formica sanguinea) enslaves a species of black ants (formica fusca) to gather food and make nests, observes Darwin. “The slaves are black and not above half the size of their red masters.”[30] If we would substitute intelligence for size and ascribe it to the ETI we meet, perhaps they might decide to enslave homo sapiens for their gain in the struggle for existence. This prospect would be quite consistent with the standard Darwinian model of evolution as a social Darwinist would project it onto planets among the stars.

[46] Despite the slavery scenario, some SETI speculators expect something quite different. They anticipate meeting intellectually superior ETI who will benevolently help us on earth. ETI will at minimum be peaceful. At maximum, they might be altruistic, benevolent, and for us on earth salvific.

[47] For ETI to become salvific for us on earth, ETI would necessarily be altruistic. What warrants our projecting altruism on to evolving ETI? This reminds us of a second movement within the wider flow of Darwinian thought: support for liberal Enlightenment values. In the late nineteenth century, Thomas Huxley argued that our civilization could not afford to mimic nature’s competitive and brutal struggle for existence. Human society should throw off its evolutionary past—throw off survival-of-the-fittest--and embrace altruistic values that foster human community. Today’s champion of this trajectory within the Darwinian model is Oxford’s Richard Dawkins. On the one hand, Dawkins says that the entire history of evolution has been driven by the “selfish gene” in pursuit of its own survival while, on the other hand, we in the modern world can overcome our inherited genes and adopt liberal ethics. “We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and...[to cultivate and nurture] pure, disinterested altruism—something that has no place in nature.”[31] One might ask: now just how did we get from a multi-million year inheritance of survival-of-the-fittest to its opposite, to altruism? How did this leopard change its spots? If survival-of-the-fittest is the principle by which evolution advances, then how could one predict an advanced evolutionary state in which supra-natural altruism prevails? Despite this little inconsistency, within the Darwinian model some forecast a future morally different from our past.

[48] What is relevant here is that Dawkins articulates within evolutionary biology what seems to be assumed by some SETI theorists: even though evolution to date has been cruel and selfish and destructive, eventually with more highly evolved intelligence creatures will become so altruistic as to leave their evolutionary inheritance behind. Exactly how this evolutionary threshold from selfish survival to altruistic benevolence will be crossed remains unexplained; so, its prominent place in astrobiological theory becomes a sort of faith-affirmation. We will ask here about the ethical implications of such an optimistic prediction right along with predictions based on the more standard Darwinian model—social Darwinism--that would suggest competition if not outright hostility.

Engaging Superior ETIL: Slavery or Salvation?
[49] If superior ETI follow the standard Darwinian model and confront us with hostile and exploitative enslavement, then perhaps we should frame our ethics accordingly. The New Testament provides instructions for slaves: ^NRS 1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh.” This may seem unrecognizable. The treatment of the superior master by an inferior slave has fallen into disuse in our post-Enlightenment period. This is because of the erasure of the line between superior and inferior human beings within modern Enlightenment culture. We are all equal—that is, we are all ethically equal. Each of us has dignity by virtue of our belonging to the human race, and slavery violates the principle of dignity. Should a master-slave relationship rear its ugly head somewhere on our planet, we children of the Enlightenment would encourage the slaves to rebel and strive for their own liberation. Such a moral commitment to liberation would be justified by the assumption that both masters and slaves are equal.

[50] When we use the assumptions made by many in the astrobiology field, however, we cannot coherently make the argument that all intelligent beings are equal. Those who have evolved longer and who have attained a higher level of rational intelligence would be, by definition, superior to us. We could not justify liberating ourselves from their rule with an argument based upon equality. If we allow a New Testament influence, we might consider developing an ethic of slave responsibility, even loyalty if not love for our masters. What this means, is that an exchange ethic must be prepared to deal with ETI who might be quite other, even alien. If superior, then ETI would become our alien overseers. We would find ourselves slaves; and we would need a slave morality.

[51] Might loyal slave morality have its limits? What if our superior slave masters request or even demand of us something we deem immoral? Jan Narveson poses this question. “If another set of beings, invulnerable to our best efforts to destroy, damage, or injure them and overwhelmingly more powerful than us in every way, threatened us with various kinds of coercion which they were perfectly able to apply unless we did their bidding, should a moral human being do the bidding in question? I think it would be hard to give a general answer. It would surely depend on what they wanted us to do.”[32]

[52] In the event that superior ETI approach the civilizations on earth in a peaceful manner, we would want to respond with an appropriate ethic. Maintaining peace would become an immediate moral commitment. We might even find ourselves organizing to quiet down and restrict earthly voices that would disturb the peace. We would want to police ourselves in the name of peace. Peace would benefit life on earth. In addition, moral policies we set would likely treat our new ETI neighbors with dignity, respect, and courtesy due to their position of superiority and potential power.

[53] If ETI are peaceful, then perhaps trade and commerce and such patterns of exchange will develop; and our ethics will stress fairness in trade and economic justice. Albert Harrison speculates that economic exchange would be better than war. “Because extraterrestrial technology is likely to be much more advanced than ours—and because force is unlikely to be attractive to them—force should not be a salient option. Another strategy is trade or exchange.”[33] Having avoided war, we in concert with the superior ETI would need to set trade policies that are just and fair.

[54] In the event that ETI turn out to be not only more intelligent but also altruistic toward us, then an ethic of gratitude might be included in our responsibility. We would receive and make use of the gifts that increased intelligence would allegedly provide us: such as the means for maintaining a healthy planetary ecology, improvement in our medical care, and more justice in our social practices. Then, we would build upon what we have already said about maintaining terrestrial peace and treating our superiors with dignity; we would add a measure of grateful respect.

[55] In sum, we should treat superior ETI’s with dignity, respecting and even caring for their welfare. If they are hostile and enslave us, we should invoke an appropriate slave morality that maintains their dignity. If ETI are peaceful toward us and open up avenues of conversation and commerce, then the principles of justice and the striving to maintain peace should obtain. If out of their superior wisdom and altruistic motives ETI seek to better our life here on earth, we should accept the gifts they bring and respond with an attitude of gratitude.
 
Conclusion: Christian Astroethicists in the Public Square
[56] It appears to me that public theology leading to speculative ethics is called for by what astrobiologists are anticipating. As a field, astrobiology seems to be inviting public discourse on ethical and societal implications of confirmation of the existence of extraterrestrial life. What I have tried to do here is to respond with an initial public offering, so to speak. This is my investment in stimulating what I hope will become a profitable conversation among theologians, ethicists, and scientists.

[57] What Christian ethicists within the Lutheran tradition might offer the wider public discussion could be dubbed an exchange ethic. The idea of exchange includes ethical deliberation that seeks justice measured by the degree of likeness or unlikeness of ETI with ourselves. What Christian ethicists consider to be an expression of their faith in a God of grace, however, would lead to something beyond exchange, to a gift ethic. A gift ethic leads to a moral way-of-being in the universe that reaches out and extends to the other—even to the extraterrestrial alien—God’s caring love for the ETI’s wellbeing and flourishing. “Central to our ethical tradition is the call for neighbor love,” writes Karen Bloomquist; “which entails ‘putting on the neighbor’, seeking to understand the other in all of her or his concreteness—and difference—from ourselves.”[34] Applied to astroethics, might we see an ETI as our new neighbor? Martha Ellen Stortz might see it this way. “To a community of pickpockets, all the world is a pocket. More soberly, to a community of Lutherans, all the world is filled with neighbors.”[35] If our world is filled with neighbors, might we think of the extraterrestrial universe as filled with neighbors as well? Might we also think of a faith-derived gift ethic as providing energy and direction to a public exchange ethic? Shall we brush such an ethic right into the picture being painted by our astrobiologists?

[58] The picture astrobiologists paint of extraterrestrial life, both microbial and intelligent, provides a fascinating prophecy of challenges we will face in the distant if not near future. I could imagine today’s eco-ethicists teaming up with exobiologists to deal with back contamination as well as justice concerns regarding distribution of new information regarding extraterrestrial non-intelligent life. I could imagine a similar partnership between SETI scientists and social ethicists anticipating the societal and cultural impact of first contact with extraterrestrial intelligent life. I could imagine philosophical and systematic theologians providing analytical critique and constructive enhancement of astropbiological assumptions regarding its version of evolutionary theory and its optimism regarding scientific salvation from the stars.

[59] Regarding the critical analysis that theologians engaging in astroethics could offer the public discussion, I am reminded of cautions offered some time ago by Martin Marty about the kind of secular eschatology we find in political ideologies such as Nazism and Marxism. Might Marty’s warning apply to astrobiology? “The diagnostician and the tactician alike will do well to note which aspects of these quasi-religions are based on empirical analysis and which are substantive philosophies of history requiring, as does Christianity, a faith-affirmation.”[36]  When we spot a faith-affirmation masquerading as science, we should point it out. Not that faith-affirmations are blemishes to be washed away. Our concern only is that faith-affirmations should be subjected to critical analysis and assessment, within both science and theology. We might point out, of course, that Christian faith looks for salvation from the grace of God, not from evolutionary progress on another planet among the stars. In the meantime, Christian astroethicists look for a clear understanding of our terrestrial situation and try to enlist the zeal to work for better planetary health, welfare, and justice.

© October 2008
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 8, Issue 10