Re: Rosennean ideas used as a "weapon"?....exobiology

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Hi Judith,

The paragraph at the end of your post.....

> Anyway, I think it needs to be said that paranoia might be
> exactly the mind
> set called for when assessing the risks of application of theory
> on creating
> new life forms-- life that would not be based on earthly evolutionary
> processes.Paranoia in this case is probably not careful enough.
>

.....brings to mind another situation that concerns me deeply - one where I
fear great danger from "life that would not be based on earthly evolutionary
processes".

That is the situation of either intentionally or inadvertently introducing
"alien" life from another planet, such as Mars, into the Earth's
environment - for example, during one of our attempts to return samples back
from such a planet.

It might be that some lifeforms have already hitched a ride on asteroids to
Earth, but a more sheltered ride aboard a returning spaceprobe would likely
permit a broader variety of lifeforms to enter our biosphere.

Of course, the danger goes both ways: It might be that a microbe from Earth
aboard a spaceprobe might infest one of the planets to which we send those
probes, and might result in ecological destruction on a planetary scale.

The ability to successfully predict the consequences of the introduction of
new lifeforms not based on earthly evolutionary processes, whether via
technological means or alien infestation, seems extremely unlikely. Labels
such as "predator", "prey", "pathogen", rest on functional distinctions, and
function in turn rests on what a thing entails, rather than what entails it.
Therefore, even the most intensive study of an "alien" lifeform in
isolation, or "under laboratory conditions", will fail to reveal the full
functional potential of such an organism "in the wild".

I hope NASA and other space agencies take steps to sterilize outgoing
spaceprobes, and have protocols in place to deal with any returning probes.
I believe these kinds of safeguards are in place, but I don't know how
extensive they are or how seriously they are taken.

Regards,
Tim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 6:43 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Rosennean ideas used as a "weapon"?
>
>
> This is something my father was gravely concerned about. He not
> only thought
> it could be done, but believed it would be INEVITABLE if he published
> anything close to "instructions" on How To Build A Living System.
>
> One only has to watch the news to see how it might be used. 9/11? The
> anthrax scare? Chemical weapons? War? That would be nothing
> compared. A new
> life form, not naturally occurring, wouldn't be some sort of pet.
> All living
> things have their own set of imperatives and go about satisfying those
> imperatives, no matter what. To assume that humanity could control any new
> life form would be foolish. (And, even if it was possible to
> control it, do
> we have enough wisdom as a species to be respectful towards some new
> organism of our own creation? I think not.) To assume that any
> danger a new
> life form presents to humans wouldn't be used for aggressive
> purposes by one
> group of humans against another group of humans would be just as foolish.
> People have been using animals and their various protective mechanisms for
> aggressive purposes of our own since the beginning of our
> history--it's just
> another kind of "tool". The religious right would see nothing
> wrong with it
> since we were "given" dominion over all we see by the "creator" of said
> universe. Business would find some way to exploit any and all capabilities
> of a new organism, positive or negative capabilities, and multiply the
> dangers and the atrocities all around. It would be a nightmare. My father
> could see it, so can I.
>
> He only wanted to know the answers to his own questions: What is life? /
> What causes life? He had no interest in using what he learned to achieve
> anything else. He spoke of an almost superstitious attitude in his
> autobiographical "reminiscences" that I posted-- comparing the
> gifts he was
> born with to "witchcraft" in that they must never be used for the
> benefit of
> the person employing those gifts. To do so violates some sort of ethical
> balance and leads to grief. He also never really cared if he was
> recognized
> as "The Man Who....."  He never went political or played the
> popularity game
> in any effort to aggrandize himself. Why? It wasn't for lack of ego. Trust
> me. It was simply because there was no VALUE in that, according to how he
> accounted such things. This is part of the reason why his work is not more
> widely known. He wanted to be left alone to tinker with it his
> own way, not
> become a target for whole other areas of human activity from the CIA to
> foreign powers to the church to luddite nutcases like the
> Unabomber. He had
> the occasional brushes with some of these people over the years. I'll have
> to post a couple of those stories at some point.
>
> Anyway, I think it needs to be said that paranoia might be
> exactly the mind
> set called for when assessing the risks of application of theory
> on creating
> new life forms-- life that would not be based on earthly evolutionary
> processes.Paranoia in this case is probably not careful enough.
>
> Judith Rosen