I came across a bit of research lately fromArizona State University that predicts humans would react positively if we were
suddenly to encounter extraterrestrial life.
According to findings of a study ASU
Assistant Professor of Psychology Michael Varnum, "If we came face to face
with life outside of Earth, we would actually be pretty upbeat about it." Of
course, what Varnum told the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science February 16 in Austin, Texas, flies in the face of the majority
of Hollywood movies, most hard SF novels and one hundred percent of video
games. Only a few SFR novelists would agree with him, I think.
Varnum’s research considered newspaper
articles reporting on the 2017 discovery of Earth-like exoplanets in the
“Goldilocks Zone,” the public speculation as to the possible existence of a
Dyson sphere around Tabby’s Star in 2015, and news of possibly fossilized extraterrestrial
Martian microbes discovered in 1996. In all the articles, the study found, the
language used to describe the events was much more positive than negative.
In a second part of the study, Varnum asked
500 participants to predict their own and humanity’s theoretical reaction to
the announcement that extraterrestrial microbes had actually been found. Again,
Varnum found the predicted response to be overwhelmingly positive.
"I would have some excitement about the
news," one study participant said. "It would be exciting even if it was
a primitive form."
Hmm. Why do I think this study paints far
too rosy a picture of human nature? Seems to me we can’t even conquer our fear
of each other, much less of the unknown extraterrestrial alien. Then, too, this
image of the classic 1951 SF film THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is indelibly
etched in my mind:
Our ambivalence toward both the Other and
the Wonders of Science was eloquently expressed even in the very first science
fiction novel, Frankenstein, or the
Modern Prometheus, by Mary Woolstonecraft Shelley. I’ve been renewing my
acquaintance with that most complex and evocative work through a new series on
Netflix (my new favorite channel!), TheFrankenstein Chronicles.
The series stars Sean Bean (LORD OF THE RINGS,
Game of Thrones) as a detective of
the Thames River Police, charged with solving the murder of eight children
stitched together in a gruesome parody of surgery just as Parliament is taking
up a new bill governing the practice of medicine in 1827. The new bill would
restrict the practice of medicine only to “surgeons” (those who have been to anatomical
medical school), and would limit the source of bodies for anatomical study to
the dead of poorhouses and prisons.
From our modern point of view this would
seem to be a progressive move, but in those days, midwives, herbalists and physicians
who had learned their trade by apprenticing also provided health care to both
rich and poor. “Surgery,” on the other hand, was performed without anesthesia (ether
wasn’t used until 1842) or even simple hygiene. Remember, this is before germ
theory, and conditions in hospitals were a nightmare. (Lister and Pasteur wouldn’t
come along for another 50 years.)
But the biggest controversy over the Anatomy
Act centered on the source of bodies for the medical schools. Religious people
in those days believed that they would literally rise from their graves on
Judgment Day to meet their Maker. In order for this to happen, they had to be intact at death. Thus, the idea of
autopsy for any purpose was anathema. All very well for a criminal to serve the
purpose of science—he or she had earned Hell. But for a pauper to be cut up
(and be denied Heaven) simply because he had died in the poorhouse?
This is the cultural background for The Frankenstein Chronicles, and,
coincidentally, for the publication and scandal of Shelley’s Frankenstein in 1818. No wonder her book
caused such a sensation! The thought of a creature made up of bits and pieces
of dead bodies, then re-animated, truly would have been an abomination in that
time. And we all know the reaction to that:
Our modern-day misgivings about
gene-splicing, genetically-modified organisms, cloning and stem cells derive
from these earlier horrified reactions to the idea that humans would dare to interfere
with the course of Nature in defiance of God. (Or, as I once saw on the side of
a bush taxi in West Africa, Man No Be God.) We may think of ourselves as more evolved
nowadays, but those more primitive instincts still lurk in our psyches.
Just as we harbor a primitive fear of the
unknown, the Other that an Extraterrestrial would represent. Stephen Hawking,
arguably the smartest man on Earth, says we are right to be afraid; any alien
that makes it here from deep space will be so much further advanced than we are
that it will consider us as insignificant as ants. You know what happens then.
Cheers, Donna
*Information for this post taken from "Humans Will Actually React Pretty Well to News of Alien Life," Science Daily, February 16, 2018.
I'm inclined to agree with you Donna. Tribalism and fear are a nasty mix. And if the aliens are anything like us, we'd be right to be afraid.
ReplyDeleteFascinating blog, Donna.
ReplyDelete"Seems to me we can’t even conquer our fear of each other, much less of the unknown extraterrestrial alien."
Amen to that. I think we could only hope that any intelligent alien species we encounter that's capable of reaching us across the vast expanses of space does NOT share the same tendencies that we do. Or maybe they've already discovered our war-torn and environmentally ravaged little planet, and decided to give humans a very wide berth. In the same way we might avoid a colony of fire arts.