One day we might seed the universe with life. But should we?

Suppose humanity was faced with an extinction-level event. Not just high odds, but certain-sure. A nearby supernova will explode and irradiate all life, a black hole will engulf the Earth, a Mars-sized interstellar asteroid with our name on it. A cataclysm that will end all life on Earth.

We could accept our fate and face our ultimate extinction together. We could gather the archives from libraries across the world and launch them into space in the hopes that another civilization will find them. Or we could build a fleet of arks containing life from Earth. Not people, but bacteria, fungi and other simple organisms. Seed the universe with our genetic heritage. Of all of these, the last option has the greatest chance of continuing our story. It’s an idea known as directed panspermia, and we will soon have the ability to undertake it. But should we?

The idea of directed panspermia has been discussed since at least the 1970s. Carl Sagan and others even entertained the possibility that life on Earth is the result of directed panspermia from another civilization. But a recent study in Acta Astronautica looks at the idea from an ethical and philosophical perspective, asking what the moral cost of such an endeavor is.

Philosophically, the motivation for panspermia is rooted in biocentrism. That is, the idea that a universe containing life is better or more valuable than a universe devoid of life. One variety of biocentrism is the idea that more is better. If life on Earth is good, terraforming Mars is better. Colonizing a thousand planets with Earth life is even better. The more cosmic nooks and crannies where life can gain a foothold, the more vibrant the cosmos would be. With this perspective, panspermia would seem to be a moral imperative.

Another view is that while life is good, the variety and diversity of life are important. A world rich with fish, trees, flowers, and butterflies is surely better than a planet with only grass and cows. In that case, directed panspermia runs the risk of contaminating other worlds. With this view, it may be ethical to seed the cosmos as a last resort to save terrestrial life, but not to expand the reach of Earth life beyond our solar system.

Another factor the authors consider is welfarism. If we send life to distant planets, then intelligent life might evolve on those worlds. Our genetic cousins could experience struggles just as humanity has. Wars, famine, conquest. Would it be just to bring more suffering into the universe, or is it better to make Earth a more just world before expanding beyond our sky?

It’s difficult to derive some hard conclusion from these ideas, but ultimately the authors argue against directed panspermia for now. The potential negatives outweigh the potential positives. Even if you don’t agree with the thoughts of the authors, the work demonstrates the deep ethical questions humanity will face as our technology expands. A century ago, the directed panspermia would have been high fantasy. A century from now, it may be inevitable.