PLEASE NOTE:
*
Date sent: Thu, 12
Feb 1998 13:29:51 -0500 (EST)
From:
Benny J Peiser B.J.PEISER@livjm.ac.uk
Subject: CC
DEBATE, 12/02/98
To:
cambridge-conference@livjm.ac.uk
Priority: NORMAL
CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE DEBATE, 12 February 1998
BETWEEN FATALISM, CYNICISM AND HUMANISM: A DISCUSSION ABOUT
MANKIND'S RESPONSIBILITY AS SOLE CUSTODIAN OF LIFE ON EARTH
-----------------------------------------------------------
"In this great celestial creation, the catastrophy
of a
world, such as ours, or even the total dissolution of a
system of worlds, may possibly by no more to the great
Author of Nature, than the most common accident in life
with us, and in all probability such final and general
Doomsday may be as frequent there, as even Birthdays or
mortality with us upon the earth. This idea has something
so chearful in it, that I own I can never look upon the
stars without wondering why the whole world does not
become astronomers; and that men endowed with sense and
reason should neglect a science they are naturally such
much interested in, and so capable of inlarging their
understanding, as next to a demonstration must conceive
them of their immortality, and reconcile them to all those
little difficulties incident to human nature, without the
least anxiety.
All this vast apparent provision in the starry mansions
seem to promise: What ought we then not to do, to preserve
our natural birthright to it and to merit such
inheritance, which alas we think created all to gratify
alone a race of vain-glorious gigantic beings, while they
are confined to this world, chained like so many atoms to
a grain of sand". (Thomas Wright, 1750)
----------------------------------------------
From: Alan Harris awharris@lithos.jpl.nasa.gov
THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT HAPPENS TO US
Dear Dave [Morrison],
I see our tastes in the good stuff from Cambridge are about
the same,
thanks for passing on the item from Steel and Oliver. Morton is
eloquent as always, and very sensible. Duncan's piece also makes
some
very good points, but I disagree with his line, "Why are we
shirking
our responsibility to the universe?" This is rather
analogous to the
environmentalists who keep harping about how "fragile"
our planet is. The
fact is, the Earth is very robust. I am confident that it will
recover from
whatever insults we deliver in a few millions of years, or give
it a billion
if necessary, the world has plenty of time. What is fragile is
the human
species, or at least human comfort. I count myself as an
environmentalist,
but not out of concern for the planet, just a selfish desire for
comfort:
clean air to breath, beautiful scenery, some peace and quite
without
overpopulation, etc. With respect to the universe, I am sure the
universe
doesn't give a damn what happens to us, even if we are
"alone," and perhaps
even more so if we aren't. While we might have a passing fancy
about what
fun it would be if the dinosaurs were still around, we must be
sobered by
the fact that if they were, we wouldn't be. Thus protecting
ourselves from
extinction is bound to rule out the rise of some future species,
terrestrial
or otherwise, just as surely as the preservation of the Roman
Empire would
have ruled out the rise of any of the subsequent empires in
Europe and the
Americas, maybe even the Orient. Is this good or bad? Who knows?
I maintain
that the universe or the planet or future civilizations to be (or
not to be)
don't really care one way or the other. The only ones who care
are us, now.
So the question rightly put is, "Why are we shirking our
responsibility to
ourselves?" As with environmental issues, I agree with the
facts and what
should be done about them, I only wonder why it is neccesary to
assign some
great global or universal good to them, rather than simple
self-interest.
Cheers,
Al
===============
From: Duncan Steel dis@a011.aone.net.au
ONE COULD ARGUE THAT LIFE IS A 'DESIRABLE' THING
Dear Al,
Thanks for your comments. I don't disagree with you, but note
that my
argument in that particular piece was from a different
perspective from that
which you take (and most of us have done in the past). In fact I
cannot
claim that this perspective is original to me; it was suggested
to me by
Mike Baillie, professor of palaeoecology at Queen's University,
Belfast. One
reason that I took that perspective in that piece was the
specific audience
it was aimed at (members of The Edge include people like Richard
Dawkins and
other evolutionary biologists). It doesn't follow that I feel it
to be the
dominant argument, or our major responsibility.
Just to reiterate, or maybe clarify, what I was asking was not
what is our
major responsibility, but whether we have a responsibility along
the lines I
mentioned (repeated below). Obviously one has many
responsibilities (and I
decided some years ago that responsibility is something that one
can only
TAKE, not be GIVEN), and at any particular time one or more of
those may
dominate. I guess that we all feel we have a responsibility to
alert
people/governments to the impact hazard, but we also have a
(sometimes
conflicting) responsibility to provide for our families. You have
a
responsibility (maybe a contractual obligation) to front up to
work at JPL
and part of your work might be fighting the 'NEA menace.' But if,
as you
leave for work at 08:00, you notice that your neighbor's house
has just
caught fire, then clearly you have another responsibility which
takes
precedence, at least for a while.
My point in the original piece was that one can argue for a
responsibility incumbent on the human race on another plane
(which is
not necessarily a 'higher' plane). It is not based (necessarily)
on
humans spreading through the cosmos, or even our genes in some
other
vehicle. What I was arguing was that, so far as we know, there is
no
life elsewhere. But we do know that there are
self-replicating
molecules on Earth. ONE COULD ARGUE that life is a 'desirable'
thing,
and in that argument humankind then has a responsibility (which
we can take,
or not) to spread the DNA. In that argument a universe teeming
with life is
preferable to one with life constrained to one planet only. For
example, if
Europa has the physical and chemical conditions to support life,
but it is
presently sterile, then one could argue for deliberately
infecting it
(perhaps in the hope that in the fullness of time some higher
organisms will
evolve). On course this view is contrary to the 'planetary
quarantine'
perspective; but it is an argument!
You finished by writing "I only wonder why it is
neccesary to assign
some great global or universal good to them, rather than simple
self-interest." Don't we all wonder about that? But it is a
fact. I am
appalled by the fact that people campaign vociferously to keep,
say, the
Antarctic a wilderness area with (say) no oil drilling &
processing, and the
effect of that is that we have such things occurring instead in
densely
populated areas, leading directly or indirectly to the deaths of
thousands
in accidents and pollution. I love penguins and wilderness,
but I'd rather
a thousand dead penguins to a thousand dead humans. But few
people actually
see it that way. By voicing an argument which assigns some
"great global or
universal good" one does not necessarily detract from the
weight of the
overall argument; one might convince a few more people to come on
board.
As I wrote, I accept and agree with your viewpoint, in
general; I was
just voicing an additional perspective. In some ways it is a
corollary of
Carl Sagan's idea (I think it was him who originated it) that the
asteroid
impact hazard makes it more likely that space-faring ETIs exist,
since if ET
civilizations exist then in order to survive their own impact
hazard they
would need to become space-faring.
Best,
Duncan
==========================
From: Alan Harris
Dear Duncan,
Thanks for the long reply. The short answer to my
rhetorical question at
the end of my essay is, "pure rhetorical form."
That is, the statement
about responsibility to the universe has no literal meaning, it
is a
rhetorical construct to gain a constituency through
emotion. A similar
example is John Kennedy's statement in his innaugural address
(which he in
fact borrowed): "ask not what your country can do for you,
but what you can
do for your country." That is nonsense: governments
serve people, not the
reverse. But as a rhetorical construction to gain advocacy
of various
programs it was effective, for example in creating the Peace
Corps. I am
aware of the reasons for making such statements, so my statement
of "wonder"
was more one of amusement than of lack of understanding.
Cheers,
Al