Sowing Seeds in the Cosmos – Our Duty or Our Greatest Mistake?

As far as we know, the universe is desolate. Billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and even more planets—silent and empty. But what if we had the power to change this? Through so-called "directed panspermia"—sending out probes containing robust microbes to other solar systems—we could jumpstart the machinery of life on other planets. But should we? Weighed in the balance are both potentially enormous amounts of happiness, but also astronomical suffering. Futurologist Anders Sandberg reflects in this text on the ethical dilemmas raised by directed panspermia.

By sending out probes with robust microbes to other solar systems, we could start the machinery of life on other planets. Technological progress is making spacecraft increasingly cheaper, and the fact that the cargo would be microscopic means that it will very soon be both practically and economically feasible. This is true not only for space giants like the USA and China, but also for small nations or wealthy private individuals.

This might sound like a truly heroic feat. We are, after all, talking about saving life from being an isolated event on Earth to becoming abundant in the universe. But as I and ethicist Asher Soryl conclude in a new study, there are major ethical dilemmas—so major, in fact, that we should wait for the time being.

Biocentrism vs. Welfarism: Two Views on the Value of Space Exploration

To understand the problem, we must look at the issue from two different moral perspectives. In our article, I lean toward one and my co-author toward the other. These perspectives represent the extreme points, with most other moral viewpoints lying somewhere in the middle.

The first is Biocentrism. For a biocentrist, life is valuable in itself. A universe with life is objectively better than a universe consisting only of dead rock and gas. From this perspective, directed panspermia is a moral obligation. Such action would also ensure survival if life on Earth were to suffer an existential catastrophe. If we can do it, we should, according to biocentrism.

But there are other moral perspectives that raise significant concerns, such as Welfarism. Here, it is not "life" itself that counts, but how living beings feel. If we think this way, potentially dark clouds appear on the cosmic horizon.

The "Suffering Machine": Why Evolution Might Be a Risk to Other Planets

If we were to sow microbes on a planet, they will not remain microbes. Over billions of years, they will likely evolve into sentient beings, and from evolution on Earth, we have learned that natural selection is a brutal process. It is driven by predation, starvation, parasites, and a constant struggle for existence.

Once sentient beings—animals that can experience pain and fear—emerge, the clock starts ticking for what we call S-risks (suffering risks). If we create a new biosphere, are we then responsible for the billions of years of suffering its inhabitants will be forced to endure? Is it right to start a process where the vast majority of beings ever born will die a painful death before they have even grown up? Such, many welfarists argue, is existence on Earth.

From a welfare perspective, we risk turning a dead—but peaceful—planet into a "suffering machine" of cosmic proportions. If the suffering in natural evolution is greater than the happiness, it is better to let the planet remain a dead rock.

But which perspective is right? Welfarism or biocentrism? How should we weigh and measure the suffering and happiness of organisms that are vastly different from one another? Could we control how life evolves so that suffering decreases and happiness increases?

It may be wise to wait until we have better answers to these questions. But we cannot wait too long—we are, in fact, under cosmic time pressure.

Text: Anders Sandberg

Read Anders Sandbergs and Asher Soryls article (open access): To seed or not to seed: Estimating the ethical value of directed panspermia