We have spent most of human history trying to conquer our
surroundings. We seek to control our environment through agriculture,
technology and science. We have expectations of how living creatures should
live and sometimes its well apart from what nature has designed. There was an
interesting article in the New Yorker recently by Elizabeth Kolbert called “Recallof the Wild”. She describes a nature preserve in the Netherlands that
seeks to recreate a paleolithic ecosystem. As Kolbert describes it’s just the
latest attempt at “rewilding”. Now, clearly this project shows human attempts
to control and shape the environment. It also provides a flip-side to that
idea. The ecologist largely responsible for the Oostvaarderolassen, as the
preserve is called, has attempted to introduce species similar to those that
would have been found in a Paleolithic ecosystem in that area of Europe. The
idea is to let the introduced animals reproduce and settle in the nature preserve
without much interference from humans. That has lead to die-offs, especially in
the winter. Kolbert describes Dutch TV stations showing video of animals
starving to death. It’s part of the natural process but one that humans find it
hard to accept. There was outrage among many in the Netherlands. One could
argue that a man-made ecosystem should have man-made controls to help prevent
such harsh natural die-offs. They have
suggested her culling by shooting animals unlikely to make it through the
winter. However, the entire debate shows our attempt to humanize nature. Humans
like to see nature as a pastoral setting. We want to see the abundance of
biological diversity, but we want it to behave as we think it should. Natural
behaviors and outcomes can be brutal and sad from our perspective. We can’t truly
accept that the natural system works that way. We even call nature “Mother
Nature” in an attempt to anthropomorphize the natural environment.
So, what would we do if we were to meet aliens some day? It
seems likely that we would make judgments about their appearance, actions and
society based on our human characteristics. That makes sense- we have no other
lens to consider extraterrestrial intelligence. However, that lens could also
be problematic. If we have trouble accepting the brutal side of our own natural
environment, how would we accept beings from a vastly different environment?
Would we think less of them because they had characteristics that we consider
unacceptable?
Extraterrestrial contact with intelligent beings would
require a great deal of diversity understanding. We would need to set aside our
human expectations and learn about aliens in an objective way. This may be fine
for the academic community, which is used to considering challenging ideas as
part of the job. For other humans it could be quite tough. The appearance,
culture and actions of aliens could be off-putting. That could lead to public
resistance to diplomatic relations.
A certain amount of caution from the public is to be
expected and would be quite healthy. The last thing we would want to do is
consider aliens to be better than us and seek to transform ourselves to better
fit their way of being. There has to be a middle ground of learning and
understanding, while also protecting who we are and what we hold important in
our civilization. It will be up to world leaders, academics and scientists to
establish this path and help the human race stay on course. There may be Oostvaarderolassen
moments when it comes to what we learn about extraterrestrials. It’s critical that
we keep learning and don’t let our human perspective get in the way.
Come join the discussion on the
Alien First Contact Facebook page.
No comments:
Post a Comment