[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/48670015" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

Micah Saul: This project is built on a hypoth­e­sis. There are moments in his­to­ry when the sta­tus quo fails. Political sys­tems prove insuf­fi­cient, reli­gious ideas unsat­is­fac­to­ry, social struc­tures intol­er­a­ble. These are moments of crisis. 

Aengus Anderson: During some of these moments, great minds have entered into con­ver­sa­tion and torn apart inher­it­ed ideas, dethron­ing truths, com­bin­ing old thoughts, and cre­at­ing new ideas. They’ve shaped the norms of future generations.

Saul: Every era has its issues, but do ours war­rant The Conversation? If they do, is it happening?

Anderson: We’ll be explor­ing these sorts of ques­tions through con­ver­sa­tions with a cross-section of American thinkers, peo­ple who are cri­tiquing some aspect of nor­mal­i­ty and offer­ing an alter­na­tive vision of the future. People who might be hav­ing The Conversation.

Saul: Like a real con­ver­sa­tion, this project is going to be sub­jec­tive. It will fre­quent­ly change direc­tions, con­nect unex­pect­ed ideas, and wan­der between the tan­gi­ble and the abstract. It will leave us with far more ques­tions than answers because after all, nobody has a monop­oly on dream­ing about the future.

Anderson: I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul. And you’re lis­ten­ing to The Conversation.

Micah Saul: So, ready for anoth­er one?

Aengus Anderson: I am indeed. This inter­view is going to be Dr. Chris McKay, and he’s a sci­en­tist at NASA, which makes me sort of child­ish­ly excit­ed to get to go talk to a NASA scientist.

Saul: Yes. It’s always been real­ly cool liv­ing so close to Moffat and Ames just you know, dri­ving down to band prac­tice and look­ing out the win­dow and say­ing, Oh hey, that’s NASA.”

Anderson: Yeah. This is this is going to be fascinating.

Saul: So, some quick back­ground. Dr. Chris McKay is a research sci­en­tist at Ames in Mountain View.

Anderson: And he stud­ies Mars, and more than that, he studies…well, he’s inter­est­ed in life on Mars. And he’s also spent a lot of time in real­ly extreme envi­ron­ments on Earth, think­ing about life (and we’re talk­ing, you know, microbes obvi­ous­ly) that can sur­vive in Antarctica or in the Atacama desert in Peru. Extremely cold or dry places

Saul: Right. So, that’s awe­some. Why is he here?

Anderson: He’s going to look at the present and the future as some­one who spends a lot of time think­ing about oth­er worlds, and some­one who also spends a lot of time think­ing about oth­er life.

Saul: We should, I guess, just briefly talk about what we’re hop­ing to get. Like what sort of par­al­lels can we draw? What should your bat­tle plan be?

Anderson: I think prob­a­bly the most impor­tant thing is to to learn a lit­tle bit about how he thinks about life off the plan­et, and his inter­est in that. Chris has spent a lot of time think­ing about the ethics of what we would do if we encoun­tered that life. And you can’t real­ly be think­ing about the ethics of life off the plan­et with­out think­ing about the ethics of life on the plan­et. So I think he’s going to be a very dif­fer­ent view on a theme that we’ve seen in a lot of our inter­views here. The ten­sion between the anthro­pocen­tric and the bio­cen­tric. He’s thought a lot about ter­raform­ing, which is chang­ing the cli­mate of Mars, and he’s been involved in a series of debates over the ethics of doing that.

So I’m real­ly excit­ed to sort of hear, what is a guy spends all of his time think­ing about life off-world—

Saul: How does that influ­ence his think­ing about our world.

Anderson: Right. And what sort of future we should be striv­ing for here.

Saul: Cool. Well, have fun, and we’ll talk later.

Anderson: Yes indeed we will.

Saul: Excellent.

Anderson: Okay

Saul: Cheers.

Chris McKay: Well, my back­ground is sci­ence, obvi­ous­ly, but more specif­i­cal­ly in the ques­tions relat­ed to the search for life on oth­er worlds. And nor­mal­ly when peo­ple think about the search for life on on oth­er worlds, they think about SETI. Sitting at home lis­ten­ing for a radio sig­nal, we make con­tact with an alien intel­li­gence, and they tell us every­thing we need to know. 

But in fact the part of the search for life that I’m involved in is quite the oppo­site. We are going out to oth­er worlds— Nearby worlds; we don’t have much choice. Mars, Europa, Enceladus, worlds like that. And search­ing for evi­dence of life there. So it’s a com­ple­ment to the radio tele­scope search for intel­li­gent life or sig­nals of intel­li­gent life. This is an active search for micro­bial life or microor­gan­isms that might be grow­ing in one of the near­by worlds in our solar system.

And the par­tic­u­lar ques­tions that I deal with is what do we search for, how do we search? And these are sci­en­tif­ic ques­tions and our approach to them is to go to places on earth where life lives in very harsh envi­ron­ments like the Antarctic, dry val­leys, or the dri­est place on earth the Atacama desert in South America. And we study how life lives in these very dry, or very cold and dry loca­tions, and then we extrap­o­late to oth­er worlds.

But I’ve also got­ten very inter­est­ed in the So what?” Why does this mat­ter? Why do we do this? And also so what in that what do we do if we actu­al­ly find it? I make an anal­o­gy with the dog chas­ing the car. What’s a dog gonna do if it actu­al­ly catch­es the car? The dog has­n’t thought that far ahead, and in many ways our search for life on Mars and the oth­er worlds of our solar sys­tem is like that. Very few peo­ple spend time think­ing about well, what do we do if we find a life form on Mars that is total­ly dif­fer­ent than any­thing we’ve ever come across before? What does that mean?

And so that to me is the new fron­tier in the human thought of what is it going to be like to encounter a dif­fer­ent type of life, even if that dif­fer­ent type of life is microscopic?

Aengus Anderson: How does your look­ing to ideas of life in space cause you to reflect on the world we live in now?

McKay: There’s an inter­est­ing feed­back on think­ing about life on Mars. I’m going to use Mars as a place­hold­er but in fact Europa and Enceladus are also pos­si­ble worlds with life. But sup­pose we find micro­scop­ic life on Mars. Well, I think that that micro­scop­ic life would be very inter­est­ing sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly. And it would war­rant a lev­el of moral con­sid­er­a­tion that we don’t nor­mal­ly attribute to microor­gan­isms. So it’s caused me to step back and think a lit­tle more about life on earth and all the microor­gan­isms here that we take for grant­ed. We don’t even think twice about killing mil­lions of them every time we brush our teeth or wash our hands. It’s an inter­est­ing inter­ac­tion that we have with these microor­gan­isms. They’re almost invis­i­ble. And yet they are a pow­er­ful force on the earth. They are respon­si­ble for the recy­cling of the ele­ments that make up liv­ing things. They’re respon­si­ble for a lot of our inter­nal diges­tion and meta­bol­ic activ­i­ties. The human body has ten times more microor­gan­isms than it does human cells.

So they’re an inte­gral part of the way we as humans live and the way the earth as an ecosys­tem func­tions, and we tend to ignore them. They tend to be invis­i­ble. And we cer­tain­ly don’t give them any moral con­sid­er­a­tion the way we do say, polar bears and pan­das and oth­er charis­mat­ic megafauna. 

And that’s prob­a­bly okay, because those lit­tle guys are pret­ty tough. They don’t need us to pay atten­tion to them. There’s no way we can hurt them. We can’t change the envi­ron­ment so that they would go extinct the way we can for say, polar bears. But still, it’s inter­est­ing to think about them and to real­ize how much our lives depend upon them, and how we tend to ignore that. And the dif­fer­ence if we go to Mars, we might find life that is only micro­scop­ic, it does­n’t have this window-dressing of large macro­scop­ic organ­isms that we have on earth and that we tend to think of his life. So it caus­es us to rearrange our def­i­n­i­tion of what is life.

Anderson: Do you think that will actu­al­ly shift the par­a­digm of thought back on earth, just about how we think about our place in the universe?

McKay: It could shift the par­a­digm of thought in a lot of ways, depend­ing on what we find. If we find life that’s very dif­fer­ent, very dif­fer­ent, it will force us to think in a new way about life on Earth and life beyond the Earth. Maybe, for exam­ple, we find life on Mars, and as we study it we real­ize that that type of life could nev­er devel­op into the com­plex, intel­li­gent life that has devel­oped on Earth. And that in fact Earth is rare and that micro­bial life may be com­mon but the secret ingre­di­ent, if you will, that could lead to intel­li­gence is not. That would give us a very dif­fer­ent appre­ci­a­tion of our role in the universe. 

On the oth­er hand, we may go to Mars and find that the life is very sim­i­lar to life on Earth. We could then expect to be just one of the many kids on the block. And I think those answers could give us dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives and affect the way we think about our­selves and affect the way we approach expand­ing beyond the Earth into the rest of space.

Anderson: One of the one of the inter­est­ing themes that sort of pops up on all the con­ver­sa­tions I’ve had has been this ten­sion between bio­cen­tric thinkers and anthro­pocen­tric thinkers that’s sort of come out in a lot of dif­fer­ent ways even though it’s not usu­al­ly the explic­it thing we’ve been talk­ing about. But because this is a con­ver­sa­tion about the future and what we want to be doing with this world, that comes up again and again in terms of how we make the deci­sions we make, and the moral weight of oth­er liv­ing things. What got you inter­est­ed in the moral side of some­thing like a microorganism?

McKay: There is a com­mu­ni­ty of people—I’m part of that community—that are inter­est­ed in the explo­ration of Mars and in the human explo­ration of Mars. Many of the mem­bers of that com­mu­ni­ty view it as some­thing that is being done for the sake and for the inter­ests of humans. And then if we find life on Mars, it’s an obsta­cle to human explo­ration. And so, to char­ac­ter­ize their point of view, it would be well put it in a jar, stick in the lab, send the bull­doz­ers in. Wouldn’t let a few low­ly microbes stand in the way of human progress and happiness.

And the argu­ment there, it’s not entire­ly absurd, is that the source of all val­ue ulti­mate­ly must be human choic­es and human inter­est. So there­fore human inter­est and choic­es tri­umph, and we only should rec­og­nize val­ue in oth­er organ­isms in that they con­tribute to human inter­ests and human val­ue the way ecosys­tems on earth obvi­ous­ly do. And in that case it’s hard to make an argu­ment them microbes on Mars should stand in the way of human set­tle­ment and human uti­liza­tion of that planet.

The oth­er point of view, which I tend to, is that no, what’s of intrin­sic val­ue here is the rich­ness and diver­si­ty of life in the uni­verse, not just a human val­ue but that life itself has to be accord­ed some val­ue here and some moral respon­si­bil­i­ty. And that if we find microor­gan­isms on Mars, we can’t treat them the way we treat microor­gan­isms on Earth. And the rea­son we can’t is because they are the sole rep­re­sen­ta­tives of a sec­ond type of life that we have to assign val­ue to if we respect the rich­ness and diver­si­ty of life in the universe.

And I sum­ma­rize my think­ing on that, I think it’s impor­tant one, from a prac­ti­cal point of view, which is that every­thing we know about bio­log­i­cal sci­ences, med­i­cine, agri­cul­ture, dis­ease, what­ev­er, is based on study­ing one exam­ple of life. Life on Earth. Life as we know it. If we find anoth­er exam­ple that’s dif­fer­ent, a sec­ond gen­e­sis, and inde­pen­dent ori­gin of life, com­par­ing those two might enable us to answer ques­tions that we would nev­er be able to answer if we only had one exam­ple to study. That could pro­vide prac­ti­cal ben­e­fits for humans as well as bet­ter under­stand­ing of how to man­age ecosys­tems, etc.

There’s also a philo­soph­i­cal advan­tage to pre­serv­ing a sec­ond gen­e­sis and study­ing and search­ing for a sec­ond gen­e­sis, and that is under­stand­ing the fun­da­men­tal ques­tion of life in the uni­verse. Are we the only life in the uni­verse, or is life wide­spread? It’s an impor­tant fun­da­men­tal part of our knowl­edge about the uni­verse, and I put it in the same cat­e­go­ry as know­ing about galax­ies, know­ing about stars, know­ing about the Big Bang, know­ing about the cur­va­ture of space-time, and so on. It’s in that same category.

Then my final argu­ment is they’re our neigh­bors. Imagine some­time in the dis­tant future we do meet intel­li­gent beings and they say, Well, how are you guys doing? What have you done?” And we say, Oh, well we dis­cov­ered the neigh­bors and we killed them and moved in on their plan­et. But there were only microscopic.”

That does­n’t sound any­where near as good in terms of our col­lec­tive résumé as, We found the neigh­bors and they weren’t doing very well, and we helped them out. And now there’s a thriv­ing plan­et there full of this dif­fer­ent type of life. We con­tributed in a pos­i­tive way to the diver­si­ty of life in our part of the galaxy.”

Anderson: Now, all of those seem like they’re still pret­ty— I can under­stand them an anthro­pocen­tric terms, right. They increase our under­stand­ing of the world and help answer ques­tions. They help us essen­tial­ly feel that we’ve done the moral­ly right thing, in terms of pro­tect­ing or help­ing oth­er life. But when we think about pro­tect­ing and help­ing that oth­er life, that is still defined in our terms. With a lot of the ques­tions I talk to folks about, I try to get to an idea of the good that under­lies it. Is there any­way to have an idea of the good for say, a microbe on Mars, that is kind of on the microbe’s terms. Or is that actu­al­ly beyond our abil­i­ty to philo­soph­i­cal­ly even relate to?

McKay: It’s a good ques­tion and it’s a good point you made. It’s cer­tain­ly true that all the argu­ments I pre­sent­ed are couched in the terms of the human per­spec­tive and human val­ues and human choic­es, and even the envi­ron­men­tal ethics, I sub­mit, is based on human val­ue. Sometimes I don’t know how we can escape that, because we are we are the only moral agents on the scene right now, and so the only way to attribute val­ue is when we attribute it. There is a cer­tain cir­cu­lar­i­ty to that in terms of, So I should there­fore respect its val­ue, but I’m the one that assigned it the val­ue.” So there is a cir­cle there.

There’s a sep­a­rate ques­tion, which is if we do go to Mars and we find there’s life there, how do we decide what is good for that life? That’s a very hard ques­tion. And we don’t yet know the answer to that, and we may not know the answer to that until after we dis­cov­er the life and dis­cov­er what its nature is. We even have a hard time answer­ing that ques­tion on Earth in terms of what is the good for an ecosys­tem, or what is the good for a com­mu­ni­ty of species on Earth. Because the assump­tion tends to be that well, what is good is what was. The way con­di­tions were before humans inter­vened.” That was what is good. But that’s a log­i­cal­ly fal­la­cious argu­ment, to say that some­thing is good just because that’s the way it is.

We don’t real­ly yet have abil­i­ty to, in some sort of objec­tive way or some sort of ana­lyt­i­cal way, deter­mine what would be good for an ecosys­tem or for a com­mu­ni­ty or for a world, in a bio­log­i­cal sense. It may be that there is no unique answer and we have noth­ing bet­ter to do than to appeal to his­tor­i­cal prece­dent, although I find that argu­ment weak and unsat­is­fy­ing. Or maybe as we study life more and get more exam­ples of it and study it as a phe­nom­e­non in more detail, we will begin to under­stand its nature and be able to for­mu­late ideas of what is the way to max­i­mize the good for bio­log­i­cal systems.

In a sense, you can make that as a par­al­lel to our devel­op­ing under­stand­ing of what is good for a human being. We’ve put a lot more time into study­ing and under­stand­ing human beings, and over the cen­turies and mil­len­nia I think we have made some progress in under­stand­ing what is the good for human beings and sep­a­rat­ing it from eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal issues. Issues like slav­ery we now real­ize can­not be addressed on an eco­nom­ic or polit­i­cal lev­el. They must be addressed on a fun­da­men­tal good-for-a-human lev­el. And so despite set­backs, we’ve made progress in our under­stand­ing what is the good for a human being, and one could look for­ward to the day where we make sim­i­lar progress in under­stand­ing what is good for life in gen­er­al. But I argue that find­ing oth­er exam­ples of life will be part of that learn­ing process for us. 

Anderson: With things like the good, how do we arrive at that? I start­ed this project with a con­ver­sa­tion with a rev­erend, and he has sort of a moral­ly objec­tive good. Do we have to have a moral­ly objec­tive sense of good to ever val­ue some­thing like anoth­er form of life on anoth­er planet?

McKay: Yeah, when we deal with humans we have a bet­ter track record, we’ve made more progress. But as you point out, we’ve done so part­ly by rely­ing on what I call these crutch­es. Like divine rep­re­sen­ta­tion; we are all chil­dren of God there­fore every­one should have cer­tain basic rights. It would be pre­ferred if we could reach that under­stand­ing with­out hav­ing to rely on those reli­gious crutch­es and be able to just see that it is in the nature of human beings that they should have these rights and these oppor­tu­ni­ties to live full lives and work on mean­ing­ful work in sol­i­dar­i­ty with oth­ers, inde­pen­dent of where they were born. And one day we will see that as just has sil­ly a cri­te­ria of dif­fer­enc­ing between peo­ple as we see col­or of hair col­or of skin right now.

It’s much more dif­fi­cult to extend that to oth­er life forms, although a lot of peo­ple are try­ing and I think that we need to do that. Part of the rea­son it’s dif­fi­cult is because with humans we have a sin­gle set of human beings and we have long since appre­ci­at­ed that all mem­bers of that set should be treat­ed equal­ly regard­less of the details of their capa­bil­i­ty. Obviously that sim­pli­fies the prob­lem when you think about human beings as a set wor­thy of moral consideration. 

And also human beings are moral agents. They have moral deci­sions. Which is part of why they’re all treat­ed equal­ly. So when we look at life the prob­lem is more com­pli­cat­ed because we have a range of organ­isms from large organ­isms (cats and dogs, apes and chim­panzees) that have many of the behav­iors and attrib­ut­es that we humans have, down to things like veg­eta­bles and microor­gan­isms, which seem almost at times as they’re inan­i­mate. So it’s much hard­er to come up with a gen­er­al approach that treats all of life. But I think we have to, because we appre­ci­ate that life is a dis­tinct and dif­fer­ent state of exis­tence than non-life.

And I go back to my point that one way of achiev­ing that under­stand­ing is to find oth­er exam­ples of life. One way that we increase knowl­edge is to find more data. And in the past, in sci­ence for sure, that has been the main way we’ve increased our under­stand­ing, is to find more exam­ples and study it more. Those dread­ed com­pare and con­trast prob­lems that you got in grade school, those are the ones that real­ly help you under­stand. And that’s part of why I search for a sec­ond gen­e­sis of life. So that we have some­thing else to com­pare to so that we can see what is com­mon and what is special. 

Anderson: It seems like at the root of all this there’s a sense that maybe the low­est lev­el of good I’m get­ting in our con­ver­sa­tion here is that life is good. A diver­si­ty of life is good. Does this lead us to sort of util­i­tar­i­an con­clu­sions? When that’s the build­ing block that we’re work­ing from, does that mean that cer­tain forms of life (a dead­ly microbe) is some­thing that has less moral weight just in a strict­ly util­i­tar­i­an sense because it could actu­al­ly reduce holis­tic diversity?

McKay: I agree with the state­ment that life is good. In fact, when I look at the uni­verse, I say where is the source of val­ue? Where do we see the word good, or a way to ascribe a good? The only thing I see is life. I see lots of things where I could ascribe the word beau­ty. The rings of Saturn, the moon at night, galax­ies, the Milky Way. They’re beau­ty. But when I think of some­thing that’s intrin­si­cal­ly valu­able that, that rep­re­sents good, the only thing I see is life. And so some­how life must be the source of that. And it’s a won­der­ful choice of val­ue for a cou­ple prac­ti­cal reasons.

One is that it can enhance val­ue. Life, because it repro­duces and grows, can be spread. So val­ue is not a fixed quan­ti­ty but in fact can grow and spread. And we humans are part of that, and we can help it spread. So we can actu­al­ly be vec­tors of the good. We can help spread the good, help cre­ate the good, help trans­fer it to oth­er worlds and so on. So I like many of the attrib­ut­es of assign­ing life the prop­er­ty of intrin­sic good. 

Turning it into a spe­cif­ic mech­a­nism to choose or make deci­sions with­in that cat­e­go­ry of life is very hard, as you’re say­ing. Do we priv­i­lege cer­tain life forms because we like them, and not oth­ers because they’re poten­tial­ly path­o­gen­ic and dan­ger­ous? Who will stand up and vote for mos­qui­toes, right? And yet they’re part of life. They’re as alive as any­thing else. So turn­ing it into a set of nor­ma­tive prin­ci­ples that we can use in every­day issues is very very hard. And I don’t think we’re yet at a posi­tion to do that.

Anderson: Do you think there actu­al­ly are sci­en­tif­ic answers to bet­ter ways to man­age life on Earth? Or is that always going to be sort of a qual­i­ta­tive thing, you know because there are a vari­ety of things that we could emphasize?

McKay: I think that there’s not a unique answer, but I do think that we can learn to do a bet­ter job. There is room for improve­ment. And sci­ence is one of the tools, not the only tool but is one of the tools, that we need to use to make that improvement. 

Anderson: So as we think about sci­ence and improve­ment, are you opti­mistic about sort of, our short-term future?

McKay: Yeah, I’m opti­mistic on the short term as well. I don’t think we will go through a cri­sis such as a fall of civ­i­liza­tion or some­thing like that. We’ll have prob­lems. Global warm­ing is inevitably going to cause sea lev­el rise and coastal cities will be in an uproar, but those will be small-scale prob­lems com­pared to the scope of the human enterprise.

I look in the future and I see con­di­tions on the whole get­ting bet­ter. I see more con­cern for less­en­ing glob­al equal­i­ty. I see more con­cern for main­tain­ing cor­dial rela­tion­ships between nations and groups. I see inte­gra­tion of large previously-antagonistic groups. And the prob­lems I see, like glob­al warm­ing and coastal flood­ing, they’re seri­ous but they’re not going to detract from the over­all pos­i­tive trends.

So I tend to be an opti­mist. We are like ver­min, and we will be hard to kill. Humans are so resilient, they’re so inno­v­a­tive. We have a his­to­ry of suc­cess, and so I am opti­mistic. That that does­n’t mean that every­thing we do is good. But I think that we will pre­vail because we are very adapt­able. We’re very clever. The sit­u­a­tion may be pret­ty grim before we act, but even­tu­al­ly we pull through. So I think we have a long his­to­ry in front of us as well as behind us.

Anderson: And how about for oth­er life? Do you think oth­er life on the plan­et is going to con­tin­ue to thrive?

McKay: Well there it’s a more dif­fi­cult ques­tion. Certainly some species on earth are going to be in for a very rough time. And I’m not sure that we’re gonna be able to do much to help them oth­er than pre­serve their genet­ic inven­to­ry in some iso­lat­ed envi­ron­ments like zoos and pre­serves and whatnot.

So, I don’t think our record in deal­ing with the oth­er species on earth, par­tic­u­lar­ly the large species that are more sen­si­tive to eco­log­i­cal con­di­tions, is going to be a good one. They are the ones that need the lifeboat, not humans. They’re the ones who need the lifeboat. And what can we do? And I real­ly am pleased by things I read about peo­ple start­ing projects to pre­serve seed banks and plant diver­si­ty. We need to start think­ing that way in terms of ani­mals, too.

Anderson: Are you opti­mistic that we can come togeth­er and have enough of a con­ver­sa­tion to fig­ure out how to at least save some of these, and is that moral­ly good enough?

McKay: Well, I think we have to. We’re in the house and the house is on fire. And rather than have a debate about who start­ed the fire, we need to col­lect every­body, dogs and cats includ­ed, and get out. And I think that’s the sit­u­a­tion we have here. I work in the polar regions so I’m par­tic­u­lar­ly sen­si­tive to the ques­tion of polar bears. It’s too late to have a dis­cus­sion that says, Well we should stop glob­al warm­ing and there­by stop the melt­ing of the Arctic ice.” That is behind us. We now have to ask what can we do to save that genet­ic diver­si­ty, to save that species. 

We could sep­a­rate­ly have a dis­cus­sion on what can we do to min­i­mize dam­age in the future, how do we sur­vive the run out of the sit­u­a­tion we’ve cre­at­ed. But I have to share some of what you said, and it’s kind of a pes­simistic view, that we’re going to be hard-pressed to main­tain civ­i­liza­tion the way we would like it to be and main­tain the nat­ur­al ecosys­tems the way we would like them to be. And that’s a chal­lenge that we face.

Anderson: What we lose if we lose them? I mean, we lose diver­si­ty, so there’s some­thing about that. But if we trade that for a cer­tain lifestyle that we like, and if we were the ones who orig­i­nal­ly assigned val­ue to that, is any­thing lost to us?

McKay: Yeah, I’d say that’s a hard ques­tion. And I could only answer it from my own intu­itive sense which is that the loss of these species is not a pro­found loss if you look in the scope of evo­lu­tion. There’s been many many many species lost. The dinosaurs. Fabulous, amaz­ing species. The dif­fer­ence here is that we are the cause of the loss. So it’s not that the species are lost but that they’re lost because of us. There’s a fun­ny thing in human per­spec­tive, which is that some­thing can hap­pen, and if it hap­pens by by nat­ur­al events it’s much less of a prob­lem than if it hap­pens because some­body caus­es it.

And so, for rea­sons I can’t real­ly artic­u­late, I bring that same per­spec­tive to species extinc­tion. So the fact that the dinosaurs went extinct, it’s a fact of his­to­ry; does­n’t both­er me. If the polar bears go extinct, if that was only a fact of his­to­ry, it would both­er me. But if we caused it, it’d both­er me in a much more pro­found way. And it’s more pro­found than just the objec­tive loss of that par­tic­u­lar species. You could ask me to explain, well why is it? Why does that blame aspect both­er you? And I can’t real­ly explain it. It’s the moral respon­si­bil­i­ty of our actions as moral agents that adds that extra com­po­nent somehow.

Anderson: We’ve talked a lot about oth­er plan­ets, and oth­er forms of life, and the moral val­ue of life, and con­cerns of the present. I always like to sort of wind down with talk­ing about the idea of the Conversation. Do you think that’s some­thing that we need, or do you think that’s some­thing we’re having?

McKay: I agree it is some­thing that we need, and it’s some­thing that hap­pens. The real ques­tion is can we be pre­pared for it? So, in my own domain, I see a time when we do dis­cov­er anoth­er type of life. My hope is that before that time to have done enough dis­cus­sion and think­ing that when the ques­tion does become rel­e­vant there’s a body of thought that can help guide that con­ver­sa­tion. And in a sense it’s the same in many of these oth­er areas we’ve talked about. These are ques­tions and issues that will erupt. And if we’re pre­pared when they erupt, we can steer them and guide them in more use­ful ways than if the erup­tions take us com­plete­ly by surprise. 

Anderson: Something else that I sort of won­der about that I think ties into that is, for a lot of these ear­li­er con­ver­sa­tions in his­to­ry they were in areas where if you were an edu­cat­ed per­son you could real­ly own all of the intel­lec­tu­al mate­r­i­al that was out there, and that’s not pos­si­ble now. And that seems like that changes the dynam­ic for a con­ver­sa­tion. Do you think, let’s say with think­ing about life on Mars, for exam­ple, is a con­ver­sa­tion that we could even have in a larg­er social context?

McKay: I think that you’re cor­rect there. We live in an era of spe­cial­iza­tion. There is some val­ue in crosstalk and cross-fertilization. But I think we have to accept that we now live in a world which is so com­plex that it will be frag­ment­ed and work with­in that frame­work. I don’t think we can end that or go back to a day when we had sim­pler lives.

Anderson: So you don’t wor­ry about peo­ple who are in oth­er groups not hav­ing their voic­es rep­re­sent­ed in per­haps a cer­tain conversation?

McKay: I think it’s hard to get com­plete rep­re­sen­ta­tion. I think we strive for that. It’s like, you’re in a big group, you’re at a par­ty, you try to talk to every­body. But you real­ize that there’s too many peo­ple here to talk to every­body, so you do what you can, you do the best you can. And I think that’s the approach we do here. I don’t think you say, Well, this par­ty’s no good for me. I’m going to go to a place where there’s only two peo­ple in the room so that I can have a real con­ver­sa­tion and that’s all I’m going to do.” That’s a step backward.

I per­son­al­ly would not want to do that. I like the diver­si­ty and rich­ness of our cul­ture and our tech­nol­o­gy. I think those are things to be cel­e­brat­ed, as they are things to be guid­ed and man­aged as well.

Aengus Anderson: So I’m back from the NASA research sci­ence cen­ter with hang­ers and run­ways and old Navy buildings.

Micah Saul: Pretty awe­some, right?

Anderson: It was real­ly cool. I’m not going to lie. The five year-old in me who was like, I want to be an astro­naut,” just reap­peared and I was like, Man. At least I made one life choice that got me down here visiting.”

Saul: Yeah 

Anderson: So, real­ly cool con­ver­sa­tion with Chris McKay today. Very dif­fer­ent direc­tion than the oth­er ones.

Saul: I was real­ly excit­ed that he was just able to real­ly quick­ly say like, Okay, no. There is intrin­sic val­ue. This is fun­da­men­tal­ly good,” and defin­ing what the good is. And not shy­ing away from from those words in spite of and even rec­og­niz­ing the sort of reli­gious con­no­ta­tions that they often car­ry, which is what I believe may have caused Dr. More to shy away from the notion of intrin­sic value.

Anderson: Right. It’s inter­est­ing that Chris was able to… Well, that he talks about intrin­sic val­ue but he does it from a sec­u­lar standpoint.

Saul: Right.

Anderson: Were you per­suad­ed by that?

Saul: Um…in a way. I think it’s fun­da­men­tal­ly a con­tra­dic­tion. But it’s one that I per­son­al­ly also live under.

Anderson: Okay. Explain the contradiction.

Saul: I don’t believe that you can remove the trap­pings of con­text. And since our soci­ety is fun­da­men­tal­ly based on Judeo-Christian thought, at its core there is still an a— you know, Max More’s ara­tional sort of base. 

Anderson: So for Chris that is, life is good and diver­si­ty of life is good.

Saul: Yeah. So I think it’s total­ly con­vinc­ing to me. But at the same time, I don’t think there’s any way you can remove the his­tor­i­cal con­text and the reli­gious context. 

Anderson: Yeah. I was inter­est­ed though that he was sort of able to think about the idea of get­ting bet­ter. You know, get­ting bet­ter at mak­ing choic­es about life in a way that maybe does­n’t get you to this pic­ture of the objec­tive good, but it does, almost through tri­al and error or maybe through reflec­tion, it gets you to bet­ter tak­ing care of life, bet­ter sup­port­ing diver­si­ty. And maybe it will nev­er get you all the way.

Saul: Yeah. Interesting. One of our major themes going through all of these con­ver­sa­tions is the back and forth push between bio­cen­trism and anthro­pocen­trism. What would you say Chris McKay is?

Anderson: You had to turn this around on me did­n’t you?

Saul: Yup.

Anderson: I would say that he is both.

Saul: I agree.

Anderson: On one hand, talk­ing about Mars and if we dis­cov­ered life on Mars, it has intrin­sic val­ue for him. So if you found some sort of bac­te­ria dor­mant in the ice on Mars, you could go, Well, this had exist­ed in its own ecosys­tem. Let’s bring that back.” And for him that would be a bio­cen­tric good. At the same time, doing that is sort of an anthro­pocen­tric thing. It’s an impo­si­tion, in a way, on that organism.

Saul: That brings up what I thought was an inter­est­ing con­tra­dic­tion that I’m strug­gling with. I’m try­ing to use words that aren’t loaded here. But the desire to help that life along… Our actions in the envi­ron­ment always have reper­cus­sions that we could not have pre­dict­ed, or we did­n’t predict.

Anderson: Right.

Saul: What are the reper­cus­sions of help­ing this life along?

Anderson: And, if you believe it’s worth help­ing Martian life along, how should we be chang­ing our course of action here?

Saul: Right.

Anderson: Because we know that our soci­ety affects a lot of oth­er crea­tures in ways that are detri­men­tal to them. It’s not encour­ag­ing diver­si­ty of life on the plan­et. But it did­n’t seem like he shared Jan Lundberg’s con­vic­tion that we need­ed to real­ly throw out the engine of indus­tri­al civilization.

Saul: No. It did­n’t. That was­n’t even on the table as some­thing that he would ever even think about.

Anderson: Right.

Saul: He says that yes, we could prob­a­bly low­er our ener­gy con­sump­tion some. But he views progress as being for­ev­er march­ing forward.

Anderson: That was anoth­er inter­est­ing response to Lundberg, the notion that the past, by virtue of hav­ing been the past and hav­ing been less affect­ed by us, is not nec­es­sar­i­ly bet­ter than the present. Which again seems con­tra­dic­to­ry to a notion that greater diver­si­ty is good. The past would’ve had a greater diver­si­ty of animals.

Saul: Sure.

Anderson: And the present has a low­er diver­si­ty, and we are the causal agent in between. Do you need an objec­tive good that is ulti­mate­ly, from a sec­u­lar sci­en­tif­ic stand­point, unachiev­able? Is it always going to be that we are liv­ing with those two things in ten­sion unless you have an objec­tive answer to that? It seems like life is either good and diver­si­ty is good, in which case you should pro­tect it always. Or, it isn’t and it does­n’t mat­ter if you wipe out some species.

Saul: How do you arrive at that objec­tive good? How do you deter­mine what that is?

Anderson: Right.

Saul: Is there actu­al­ly a sci­en­tif­ic def­i­n­i­tion of good? 

Anderson: Chris him­self says it: sci­ence is one tool of many. And maybe it can’t always answer those ques­tions for you know. In a way, the posi­tion we put him in when we’re ask­ing these ques­tions is we’re ask­ing him to fall into Hume’s com­plaint. We’re ask­ing him to talk about what is and infer what ought. And what ought is always going to be the ara­tional, moral values-driven jump.

Saul: Right. Another par­al­lel I saw with one of our pre­vi­ous con­ver­sa­tions. He was talk­ing about the choic­es we’re mak­ing now affect­ing us for thou­sands of years.

Anderson: Right

Saul: And that’s very much in line with Alexander over at the Long Now Foundation.

Anderson: Absolutely.

Saul: For many of the con­ver­sa­tions we’ve had so far, the future that we’ve been talk­ing about is tomor­row. And it’s inter­est­ing to talk to peo­ple for whom the future is a thou­sand years from now.

Anderson: It feels so sci­ence fic­tion, and it’s incred­i­ble to talk to some­one whose actu­al work is kind of in the world that we think of as sci­ence fic­tion. And he takes these very seri­ous­ly as moral issues.

Saul: Absolutely.

Anderson: And I am glad some­one is doing that. And we’re going to have anoth­er in our line of incred­i­ble peo­ple tomor­row with Dr. Timothy Morton.

Saul: Yes. Let’s…

Anderson: Reconvene?

Saul: Reconvene in a bit and give a lit­tle brief intro on him, and send you on your way tomor­row morning.

Anderson: To beau­ti­ful sun­ny Davis, California. 

Saul: Ah, yes. Home of the Aggies. 

Anderson: That was Dr. Chris McKay, record­ed at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, May 282012.

Saul: This is The Conversation. You can find us on Twitter at @aengusanderson and on the web at find​the​con​ver​sa​tion​.com

Anderson: So thanks for lis­ten­ing. I’m Aengus Anderson.

Saul: And I’m Micah Saul.

Further Reference

This inter­view at the Conversation web site, with project notes, com­ments, and tax­o­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion spe­cif­ic to The Conversation.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.