Re: ..exobiology/The Andromeda Strain

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

>
> Wasn't
> that story written by the Jurassic Park guy?

Yes, Michael Crichton wrote, among others, Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park,
and Prey. I think the latter is even more insightful than Andromeda Strain,
particularly from a Rosennean perspective. It paints a pretty fightening
picture. Well worth the read for anyone in this group.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 9:34 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: ..exobiology/The Andromeda Strain
>
>
> Remember that movie? I found it pretty terrifying when it came out. But it
> certainly seems like a possibility with the space program in
> future. Wasn't
> that story written by the Jurassic Park guy? Jurassic Park (the
> first movie)
> was a masterpiece, that had a big resonance with my father. They discussed
> in that movie some of these same issues: (from memory)
>
> "These are aggressive living things with no idea what century
> they're in and
> will defend themselves, aggressively, if necessary."
>
> "You stood on the shoulders of giants and took the next step. You
> didn't do
> the work so you take no responsibility for it. Then, before you even knew
> what you had, you patented it, slapped it on a plastic lunch box, and
> marketed it. You were so busy seeing if you COULD that you never
> stopped to
> ask yourselves whether you SHOULD!"
>
> "How do you know they're all girls? Did you go around and lift up their
> skits? Life FINDS A WAY."
>
> Judith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 11:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosennean ideas used as a "weapon"?....exobiology
>
>
> > 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