LIV – Artificiellt, Syntetiskt, Utomjordiskt, Dec 11, 2017
Om människan någon gång kommer att få förmågan att skapa nya livsformer, hur kommer det att påver... more Om människan någon gång kommer att få förmågan att skapa nya livsformer, hur kommer det att påverka livets värde? Detta är en fråga som kan vara en källa till oro när man diskuterar konstgjort liv, men är oron befogad? I ett försök att svara på den frågan kommer jag att gå igenom några möjliga skäl till varför förmågan att skapa konstgjort liv skulle hota livets värde, och se om de verkligen ger oss skäl att oroa oss.
Uploads
Books by Erik Persson
which were presented, either orally or in the form of posters, at
a conference in Eslöv, 19 March 2015. The conference was
organised by Sustainable Development Skåne’s network The
Green Heritage. The Green Heritage network was formed in
2013 by Torrid Bengtsson from the Church of Sweden and
Erik Persson from the Nordic Genetic Resource Center and the
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, both members of
Sustainable Development Skåne’s Board of Directors, together
with Åsa Jakobsson from Kristianstad Regional Museum, with
invaluable help from Helena Thelander, Operations Manager
at Sustainable Development Skåne. These four were also behind
the conference, together with Eva Jansson, Coordinator of the
Programme for Cultivated Diversity at the Swedish University of
Agri cultural Sciences. The Green Heritage network aims to create
a platform for cooperation, inspiration and exchange of knowledge
regarding green heritage. This is done through a constantly
updated mailing list, but also through regular events, sometimes
in the form of field trips and sometimes in the form of meetings
where we discuss some question of current interest or simply
exchange news.
Den här boken är ett resultat av ett tvärvetenskapligt projekt vid Pufendorfinstitutet, Lunds universitet. Tolv forskare från lika många discipliner har ingått i projektet. Syftet har varit att belysa utmaningar med utomjordiskt, artificiellt och syntetiskt liv. Det tvärvetenskapliga angreppssättet har gett oss möjlighet att belysa frågorna från alla upptänkliga vinklar, men också att hitta helt nya kombinationer av metoder och synsätt. Med tanke på livets mångsidighet och stora betydelse ur så många olika perspektiv, har detta varit helt nödvändigt.
Vår förhoppning är att boken skall inspirera till nya tankar och diskussioner om liv. Boken vänder sig både till som redan är intresserade och de som ännu inte har börjat fundera kring de utmaningar som utomjordiskt, artificiellt och syntetiskt liv innebär.
The aim of the Nordic Network for the Archaeology and Archaeobotany of Gardening (NTAA) is, as it was phrased those first days in Alnarp in the beginning of March 2010, to: ”bring researchers together from different disciplines to discuss the history, archaeology, archaeobotany and cultivation of gardens and plants”. We had no idea, then, how widely appreciated this initiative would become. The fifth seminar in five years was held on Visingsö June 1-3, 2014 and the sixth seminar will take place in Kristiansand, Norway, June 12-14, 2015.
We are very pleased to be able to publish this report, Sources to the History of Gardening: Four Interdisciplinary Seminars 2010–2013, Arranged By the Nordic Network for the Archaeology and Archaeobotany of Gardening (NTAA), based on the first four themes and seminars, in total 26 articles. Most of them origins from one of the seminar contributions 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. However, the editorial group has taken the opportunity, with the aim of the network in mind, to add supplementing contributions on some subjects.
The articles are arranged in four themes according to the themes of the seminars. The first theme Archaeological Sources to the History of Gardens and the Cultural Landscape is linked to the first seminar in Alnarp, Sweden, 2010 which had a focus on method, the important connections between archaeology and archaeobotany and the interesting progress within garden archaeology during the last decade.
The second theme Cabbage Patches and Kitchen Gardens deals with the second seminar in Norrköping, Sweden, 2011. Its focus was on historical, cultural geographical, archaeological and archaeobotanical research concerning utility gardens or kitchen gardens as well as the concept ‘kålgård’ (cabbage patch or kale yard), its shape and content over time.
The third theme Cultural and Garden plants: Under Ground, Above Ground, In Herbariums and Archives connects to the third seminar in Uppsala, Sweden, 2012. It focused on sources, source criticism and interdisciplinary research to gain knowledge on the history of garden cultivation and cultural plants. The articles discuss, among other things, herbariums, written sources, DNA and molecular markers, pollen analysis and georadar.
The fourth theme for NTAA’s annual seminar was Cultural Relict Plants and was held on Bornholm, Denmark, 2013. The focus on the seminar was on research and conservation of cultural relict plants, that is cultural plants which have survived in the same place for a long time after the actual cultivation has ceased.
We dedicate this report to Kjell Lundquist (1955-2011) who were one of the initiators to this network and we hope it will inspire continuous research and new methodological discussions
Papers by Erik Persson
genesis or as an expansion of humanity in space. It manages to raise consistent arguments in relation to questions
such as what would happen to knowledge if life were confirmed in the universe, how would this change the way
we understand our place in the cosmos? Astrobiocentrism raises a series of reflections in the context of confirmed
discovery, and it develops concepts that work directly with what would happen after irrefutable evidence has been
obtained that we are not alone in space. Unlike biocentrism or ecocentrism, the astrobiocentric view is not limited
to the Earth-centric perspective, and for it incorporates a multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary understanding.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to make a reflection on the astrobiocentric issues related to the challenges
and problems of the discovery of life in the universe and the expansion of mankind into space. Here we explore
some aspects of the transition from biogeocentrism to astrobiocentrism, astrobiosemiotics, homo mensura, moral
community, planetary sustainability and astrotheology.
which were presented, either orally or in the form of posters, at
a conference in Eslöv, 19 March 2015. The conference was
organised by Sustainable Development Skåne’s network The
Green Heritage. The Green Heritage network was formed in
2013 by Torrid Bengtsson from the Church of Sweden and
Erik Persson from the Nordic Genetic Resource Center and the
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, both members of
Sustainable Development Skåne’s Board of Directors, together
with Åsa Jakobsson from Kristianstad Regional Museum, with
invaluable help from Helena Thelander, Operations Manager
at Sustainable Development Skåne. These four were also behind
the conference, together with Eva Jansson, Coordinator of the
Programme for Cultivated Diversity at the Swedish University of
Agri cultural Sciences. The Green Heritage network aims to create
a platform for cooperation, inspiration and exchange of knowledge
regarding green heritage. This is done through a constantly
updated mailing list, but also through regular events, sometimes
in the form of field trips and sometimes in the form of meetings
where we discuss some question of current interest or simply
exchange news.
Den här boken är ett resultat av ett tvärvetenskapligt projekt vid Pufendorfinstitutet, Lunds universitet. Tolv forskare från lika många discipliner har ingått i projektet. Syftet har varit att belysa utmaningar med utomjordiskt, artificiellt och syntetiskt liv. Det tvärvetenskapliga angreppssättet har gett oss möjlighet att belysa frågorna från alla upptänkliga vinklar, men också att hitta helt nya kombinationer av metoder och synsätt. Med tanke på livets mångsidighet och stora betydelse ur så många olika perspektiv, har detta varit helt nödvändigt.
Vår förhoppning är att boken skall inspirera till nya tankar och diskussioner om liv. Boken vänder sig både till som redan är intresserade och de som ännu inte har börjat fundera kring de utmaningar som utomjordiskt, artificiellt och syntetiskt liv innebär.
The aim of the Nordic Network for the Archaeology and Archaeobotany of Gardening (NTAA) is, as it was phrased those first days in Alnarp in the beginning of March 2010, to: ”bring researchers together from different disciplines to discuss the history, archaeology, archaeobotany and cultivation of gardens and plants”. We had no idea, then, how widely appreciated this initiative would become. The fifth seminar in five years was held on Visingsö June 1-3, 2014 and the sixth seminar will take place in Kristiansand, Norway, June 12-14, 2015.
We are very pleased to be able to publish this report, Sources to the History of Gardening: Four Interdisciplinary Seminars 2010–2013, Arranged By the Nordic Network for the Archaeology and Archaeobotany of Gardening (NTAA), based on the first four themes and seminars, in total 26 articles. Most of them origins from one of the seminar contributions 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 respectively. However, the editorial group has taken the opportunity, with the aim of the network in mind, to add supplementing contributions on some subjects.
The articles are arranged in four themes according to the themes of the seminars. The first theme Archaeological Sources to the History of Gardens and the Cultural Landscape is linked to the first seminar in Alnarp, Sweden, 2010 which had a focus on method, the important connections between archaeology and archaeobotany and the interesting progress within garden archaeology during the last decade.
The second theme Cabbage Patches and Kitchen Gardens deals with the second seminar in Norrköping, Sweden, 2011. Its focus was on historical, cultural geographical, archaeological and archaeobotanical research concerning utility gardens or kitchen gardens as well as the concept ‘kålgård’ (cabbage patch or kale yard), its shape and content over time.
The third theme Cultural and Garden plants: Under Ground, Above Ground, In Herbariums and Archives connects to the third seminar in Uppsala, Sweden, 2012. It focused on sources, source criticism and interdisciplinary research to gain knowledge on the history of garden cultivation and cultural plants. The articles discuss, among other things, herbariums, written sources, DNA and molecular markers, pollen analysis and georadar.
The fourth theme for NTAA’s annual seminar was Cultural Relict Plants and was held on Bornholm, Denmark, 2013. The focus on the seminar was on research and conservation of cultural relict plants, that is cultural plants which have survived in the same place for a long time after the actual cultivation has ceased.
We dedicate this report to Kjell Lundquist (1955-2011) who were one of the initiators to this network and we hope it will inspire continuous research and new methodological discussions
genesis or as an expansion of humanity in space. It manages to raise consistent arguments in relation to questions
such as what would happen to knowledge if life were confirmed in the universe, how would this change the way
we understand our place in the cosmos? Astrobiocentrism raises a series of reflections in the context of confirmed
discovery, and it develops concepts that work directly with what would happen after irrefutable evidence has been
obtained that we are not alone in space. Unlike biocentrism or ecocentrism, the astrobiocentric view is not limited
to the Earth-centric perspective, and for it incorporates a multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary understanding.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to make a reflection on the astrobiocentric issues related to the challenges
and problems of the discovery of life in the universe and the expansion of mankind into space. Here we explore
some aspects of the transition from biogeocentrism to astrobiocentrism, astrobiosemiotics, homo mensura, moral
community, planetary sustainability and astrotheology.
is the study of the origin, evolution and distribution of life in the
universe—including Earth. Understanding life, and in particular the basic conditions
for life, is important for our ability to create a sustainable future on Earth. The
connection goes both ways, however. The preservation of biodiversity and of
pristine environments on Earth is of the greatest importance for our ability to study
life, its origin, distribution and future. Of special interest from an astrobiology
perspective is the preservation of areas with conditions that can serve as analogues
to extraterrestrial environments, areas with conditions similar to those under which
life originated on Earth, and in general environments where extreme adaptations can
be studied. Astrobiology also presents some direct environmental challenges that
need to be considered, namely in the form of forward and back contamination. Both
issues need to be approached from a technical perspective, but also from a societal
perspective. And both must be understood within a broader context of ensuring the
sustainability of practices, both scientific and commercial.
Planetary Protection, the way the term is used today, is mainly a technical term for measures taken in order to avoid contamination either of extra-terrestrial bodies (i.e. planets/moons/asteroids/etc.) (forward contamination) or of our own earth (back or backward contamination). I will here concentrate on the former. The motivation behind present guidelines for planetary protection takes the form of a desire among astrobiologists to study a pristine environment. One want to make sure that any extra-terrestrial life will not be strongly influence, or even destroyed, by any invasive earth life before one manages to study it properly. This means the guidelines for planetary protection aim to keep the body in question free from contamination by earth organisms for the duration of the study. This aim can be questioned from different vantage points. If extra-terrestrial life has moral status in their own right or value other than as study objects, the guidelines might have to be stronger. If not just science but also commercial initiatives have an interest in the body in question, it might be argued that the need to protect the indigenous life needs to be balanced against the potential commercial value of the body. Taken together, the intersection of science goals, commercial interests and societal concerns regarding planetary protection provide some philosophically very interesting examples of ethical problems concerning the relation between science and other interests.
I want to claim that subjectivity plays two very different roles in the concept of risk. One role has to do with the assessment of probabilities and the size of different effects. The other role has to do with the valuation of effects and the willingness to run risks. In the first of role, subjectivity is something that needs to be minimized. In the latter, subjectivity is the very point, and thus not something that can be minimized, or ignored.
The term ‘risk’ can mean many different things. I will here depart from the common definition of risk as the product of the probability for a certain bad effect, and the size of that effect. To that I want to add a third factor, viz. the negative value of the effect.
It is sometimes discussed whether probabilities is or can be totally objective. My claim here is that whether this is the case or not, the aim of probability assessments in risk assessment are to provide reliable knowledge. We should therefore aspire to be as objective as possible. Even if a certain amount of subjective valuation is unavoidable, our ambition should be to minimize it. The same is true regarding the size of the effect. We need reliable knowledge about the expected size of the effect, and thus we need to minimize the element of subjectivity in our assessment of the effect.
There is more to an effect than its size however. In addition of assessing the size of the possible effect, we also need to make some kind of valuation regarding its seriousness. If we conclude that there is a probability of 0.08 that two workers per year will lose an arm when using a certain machine, then we can know both the probability (0.08) and the size of the effect (2 lost arms), but we can still not say how big risk we run by using this machine unless we first decide how bad it is for the potential victims to lose an arm. If we do not know that we can never say how big the risk really is. We can only say that there is an 8% risk of losing two arms, which in itself does not tell us if this is a big risk or not.
In the same way, the total size of the risk (probability X size of effect X valuation of effect) is not enough to tell us whether the risk is justified. In order to know that, we again need to know the subjective perspective of the potential victim.
The two latter aspects depend on how we value the things involved, thus they need to be assessed from a subjective perspective. This means that in order to get a complete and decision guiding assessment of the risk and of whether the risk is justified we need to minimize the subjectivity when it comes to the probability and size but accept and acknowledge it when it comes to the valuation and acceptance.
A third position is that if it can be done it will be done and the question is rather how to handle it in a responsible way. This is the position I will assume in this presentation in order to see if and in that case, how research aiming at creation of life, and (assuming it will be possible) actual creation of life can be done in a responsible way.
The first question that has to be considered if we choose the third position is what it means to handle something in a responsible way. Is it the way that gives you the highest return on your investment? Is it the way that results in the highest amount of good overall no matter who is the recipient of the good? Is it the way that corresponds with what a virtuous person would decide, or is it the way that is based on the best intentions, that best considers everyone’s rights, and that avoids actions that are bad in themselves?
How to answer this question depends on which basic moral theory one adheres to. I will therefore give a very short introduction to the most relevant theories: Utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics.
The rest of the presentation will be devoted to
(1) identifying the major challenges that have to be considered in connection with research aiming at creation of life and in connection with a situation when creation of life is a reality,
(2) identifying how they should be handled according to utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics respectively.
These questions are not in a strict sense scientific questions, but value questions. That is, they are axiological questions. They are, however, central to all decisions regarding planetary protection and need to be considered thoroughly, carefully and transparently. The answers to these questions also need to be thoroughly motivated in a way that makes sense also to the world outside of astrobiology. This is important because questions of extraterrestrial life are important to all people on Earth and our relations to the general public, political decision makers, funders and commercial space initiatives depend on it.
The Socratic Dialogue in its modern form was invented by the German philosopher Leonard Nelson (1882–1927). It is inspired by Socrates method but it also differs from the original in particular by being more formalized and usually performed in groups between 5 and 20 participants.