leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (11/01/85)
Space Is Clean
An article by Mark R. Leeper
I was listening to a record of music from science fiction films. They
played the title song from the epic science fiction film GREEN SLIME (yes,
there was a Japanese-American co-production called GREEN SLIME). The lyrics
contain the lines:
Man has looked out to space in wonder
For thousands of years,
Sometimes thinking that life could be somewhere
And now...now it's here!
"What a pity," I thought, "if after all that searching we found life and it
made you sick just to look at it." But that got me thinking about how
likely it was that if we found life in the universe it would likely be
something that would turn our collective stomachs. There are, after all,
not many life-forms on this planet that if you saw one scaled up to about
six feet tall or 180 pounds would not make you at least a little queasy. I
heard someplace that most of the animal biomass of the world is beetles. We
should certainly be used to what a beetle looks like. Let's face it--Gregor
Samsa didn't have any groupies. Mick Jagger has groupies, but even that is
pushing human tolerance.
Not that there isn't a good reason to instinctively be disgusted by
relatively alien life-forms. That's nature's way of saying "Do not touch!"
It is similar to the instinctive fear some people have of spiders and
snakes. Somewhere in our past there were some pre-humans who hated spiders
and snakes, and some who thought they were pretty and grabbed for them. The
former group were our ancestors; the latter ended as Caveman McNuggets for
jackals or buzzards or something. Life-forms fall into three classes:
friends, food, and foes. That's the safest way for a pre-human to live.
Friends better be close friends.
So most life-forms we find disgusting, but the converse is even more
true. Only a small part of the matter on Earth is connected with life-
forms, yet everything disgusting is. I don't mean virtually everything, I
mean everything. Think about it. What your cat left on the floor, the
disposable diaper you kicked in the grocery parking lot, what you stepped in
on the sidewalk: they are all icky because of their connection to living
matter. There's nothing disgusting about rocks on the moon. People can say
space is barren and cold but it isn't disgusting. When you find green
slime, then it will be disgusting.
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeperfranka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
In article <1361@mtgzz.UUCP> leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) writes: > Not that there isn't a good reason to instinctively be disgusted by >relatively alien life-forms. That's nature's way of saying "Do not touch!" > So most life-forms we find disgusting, but the converse is even more >true. Only a small part of the matter on Earth is connected with life- >forms, yet everything disgusting is. An interesting point, and one I think is quite valid. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we will find alien lifeforms disgusting. First, it isn't clear just what the conditions are for us to find something disgusting. The reaction seems to apply only to small but dangerous creatures. Lions, for example, tend to be seen as beautiful. This makes sense, because no such reaction is needed to make us avoid them; the danger is obvious. I think what we have is not "alien life forms are disgusting", but "things with any of the following characteristics are disgusting", where the list includes semi-liquidity (especially if warm), waving feelers, stingers, etc. So there is a reasonable chance that aliens would not fit the pattern, and be quite unoffensive, or even beautiful. The opposite cannot be ruled out, however. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
kim@analog.UUCP (Kim Helliwell ) (11/06/85)
> > Space Is Clean > An article by Mark R. Leeper > SUMMARY: Discussion of why we are disgusted by certain substances instinctively because of their connection with living matter. > > Mark R. Leeper > ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper Apropos of the discussion on dirty diapers and dog messes being disgusting because of their connection to living matter, I just recently finished reading a book on this very topic, which might be of interest to some. The book is entitle "Life on Man", by Theodor Rosebury. Don't rush down to your local bookstore to look for it, though--it was published in the 1960's, and I found it in a used bookstore. I expect you could find it in a library, though. One premise of the book is basically that it is NOT instinctive to fear or be disgusted at bodily excretions--primitive man (and children today, for that matter) were fascinated by their excreta, and such substances even formed a part of their "magic"--which, ultimately, is what brought on a patina of the forbidden about the substances. The disgust at such things predates the discovery of microbes, but the scientific discoveries provide further impetus to the already developed disgust, until today we (in the "civilized" countries) are fastidious to ridiculous extremes, imagining that we can, for example, wash off our "germs", and that sterilizing ourselves (that is, ridding ourselves of all microbes) is a desirable goal. The advertisers are a prime mover in bringing across this concept, of course. Rosebury mention some cultures and tribes which are well known to have customs which would disgust the average citizen of the US, but which in fact have survived longer than our culture and probably would survive us if we don't nuke them into non-existence. What about the Hindus and their "five substances" which they must eat--blood, sweat, urine, dung, and ?? (can't remember the fifth). Whatever the truth about Rosebury's theory of how the disgust developed, I think he is right that it is learned behavior, not instinctive. All you have to do to realize that is raise a couple of children! Anyway, if you can find it, it is a fascinating book, and well worth the effort to find. I am aware of the tenuous connection this has to SF, but my guess is that the sf-lovers are the ones which are most likely to enjoy this book, and, having read it, I could not let Mark's comments go unanswered. Kim Helliwell hplabs!analog!kim
hoey@nrl-aic (11/07/85)
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@nrl-aic.ARPA>
From: mtgzz!leeper@caip.rutgers.edu (m.r.leeper)
Date: 31 Oct 85 21:25:28 GMT
...thinking about how likely it was that if we found life in the
universe it would likely be something that would turn our
collective stomachs.
...So most life-forms we find disgusting, but the converse is even
more true. Only a small part of the matter on Earth is connected
with life-forms, yet everything disgusting is.
This is an awesome thesis. I like it, it's a pretty idea, but... I'm
not convinced. True, giant insects, organic slimes, or humanoids with
tentacles might incite disgust (remember the diplomat in Heinlein's
*Star Beast*). But why do we expect aliens to look like something we
avoid on Earth? Real aliens should be so different from anything we
would recognize as organic that aversion wouldn't be aroused. Could a
monolith, a hurkle, a berserker, or a beach ball make you queasy? And
if aliens have anywhere near as stringent environmental requirements as
humans do, our environments will probably be disjoint, so we won't see,
smell, or touch anything but the inside of our life support system.
Certainly, really alien aliens that we can't meet face to face are a
minority in SF, but I attribute this to a lack of author imagination,
effects budgets, and audience empathy.
But it sure is a nice idea. ``There's only one thing wrong with the
Great Red Spot... It's alive!''
Dan Hoeyfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/18/85)
In article <602@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> Piersol.PASA@Xerox.ARPA writes: >From: Kurt <Piersol.pasa@Xerox.ARPA> > >> There is a fallacy here, the assumption that the set of >>possible forms taken by living things is unrestricted. In fact the >>structure of living things is controlled by "natural laws" in about >>the same way as the interactions of subatomic particles are. > >Aren't you making some rather sweeping assumptions about what sort of >environments life can arise in? I think I agree that life forms from >essentially terran environments are likely to bear great similarities to >terran life, and may even have very close DNA analogues. However, >that's about as far as I'm willing to go. Not really assumptions, more like probability analyses. I have actually spent quite a bit of time studying these issues. The problem is that by the time you have covered all terran environments that contain life you have covered most environments where life is even possible, at least as far as I can determine on the basis of organic and general chemistry. >Consider the sulfur consuming life forms found in deep oceans, which >follow a totally new and previously unsuspected food chain based not on >solar but chemical energy (oh, solar way back, but fundamentally >different in that no photosynthesizing plants are part of the chain). What previously unsuspected food chain? That type of food chain has *long* been considered to have been the original food chain on the Earth, before the invention of photosynthesis a billion years or so *after* the first living thing. The only surprise here is that this type of food chain *still* exists now. Besides, this is *still* a terran life environment, with terran life forms, so my thesis is still valid, life on other planets will tend to resemble life in *some* environment or from *some* geological era on Earth. (Note that is *resemble*, not 'be identical with') >Surely, with the limited set of environmental conditions we have been >able to examine, we are in no position to make any claims about what >life forms are likely to arise or become sentient. We can however evaluate the conditions necessary for various types of developement. Thus sentience requires manipulative ability, and, except in high energy environments, animals(i.e. phagotrophic organisms) require *motility*. > >With this lack of information, I'd also be unwilling to generalize about >any chance of overlap. One can imagine a number of possible cases where >humans and aliens have no overlap at all except a need survive and to >reproduce. Given the enormous variety of environments on Earth, and the enormous variation that has occurred through time, we have a lot *more* information than you think. Yes, there might be some life forms on other planets that have no real equivalent on Earth(and vice versa), but there will be many more life forms on any planet that do correspond more or less with Earth life forms. That is other planets will show an equally large range of life forms as Earth, with a rather large area of overlap. >There are also serious questions about whether the human >world-view may have any resemblance to one developed by alien sentients, >particularly those with vastly different body structures. > Here you may have a point, though considering the vast differences in world-view among different Earth-human cultures I suspect that humans could at least *learn* the alien's world-view, and they could probably learn ours. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa