The Cosmic Diaspora: An Analysis of Homo Sapiens as an Interplanetary Invasive Species and its Implications for Galactic Biosecurity

Full report

On this page

Introduction

The question of whether humanity constitutes an invasive species—and whether such a classification renders the human race undesirable to a hypothetical galactic community—requires a multidisciplinary synthesis of invasion ecology, paleoanthropology, planetary biosecurity, and astrobiological game theory. Historically, the expansion of modern humans across Earth has mirrored the classic epidemiological and ecological patterns of a hyper-successful invasive organism. As technological advancements propel humanity toward interplanetary exploration and potential colonization, the terrestrial frameworks used to understand biological invasions are increasingly being applied to outer space. This analysis evaluates the classification of humanity as an invasive species by applying established ecological frameworks to the human diaspora on Earth, detailing the cascading ecological transformations and extinctions that have historically accompanied human expansion. The assessment then projects these behavioral and biological traits into the cosmos, examining current planetary protection protocols, the ethics of terraforming and directed panspermia, and the macro-securitization of anthropogenic existential threats. Finally, these traits are contextualized within the theoretical frameworks of the Fermi Paradox, the Dark Forest hypothesis, and the Berserker scenario to determine how an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence might assess the threat profile of an expanding human civilization. The evidence suggests that, from a game-theoretic and ecological perspective, humanity exhibits the exact parameters of a highly volatile, expansionist, and potentially catastrophic biological vector—one that a rational galactic community would likely classify as a supreme biosecurity hazard.

The Terrestrial Precedent: Humanity as an Ecological Invader

The Unified Framework of Biological Invasions

To evaluate whether humans operate as an invasive species, one must first establish the parameters of biological invasions. The United States National Invasive Species Information Center defines an invasive species as an alien organism whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human health1. Similarly, the International Union for Conservation of Nature characterizes invasive species as those that are widespread, adapt to new areas easily, reproduce rapidly, outcompete native species, and cause systemic environmental damage1. A more rigorous and universally applicable model is the Unified Framework for Biological Invasions proposed by Blackburn et al. (2011)3. This framework integrates various stage-based and barrier models into a single conceptual continuum applicable to all human-mediated invasions, noting that an organism must successfully navigate a series of sequential barriers: geography, captivity or cultivation, survival, reproduction, dispersal, and environmental conditions3. While Blackburn originally designed the framework to model the spread of non-native plants and animals, the trajectory of human evolution maps perfectly onto its stages. Table 1 illustrates the application of Blackburn's Unified Framework to the evolutionary and historical expansion of human populations.

Paleoanthropology and Competitive Exclusion

Paleoanthropological evidence strongly supports the classification of modern humans as an invasive species. According to Curtis Marean's research, the emergence of a founder population from Africa approximately 70,000 years ago constituted the most consequential migration event in the history of the planet8. This diaspora was not a benign geographic radiation; everywhere humans went, massive ecological changes followed. The primary mechanism that facilitated this unprecedented expansion was a unique combination of advanced cognitive abilities and a genetically encoded penchant for hyperprosociality—cooperation among unrelated individuals—which enabled the creation of advanced projectile weapons and complex tactical planning6. This combination made early humans peerless collaborators and ruthless competitors8. As humans expanded into Europe and Asia, they encountered other archaic human species, such as Neanderthals in the west and Denisovans in the east. Shortly after these encounters, the archaic populations went extinct, representing a classic ecological example of competitive exclusion by an invasive apex predator7. The arrival of humans in novel ecosystems also correlates directly with the mass extinction of megafauna. In Australia, human arrival roughly 45,000 to 65,000 years ago coincided with the disappearance of hundreds of large marsupial and bird species6. Similarly, the crossing into North America roughly 15,000 years ago precipitated the extinction of mastodons, mammoths, giant sloths, and other Pleistocene beasts1. These animals had survived multiple glacial and interglacial cycles; their sudden demise strongly points to the introduction of a highly adaptive, cooperative predator against which native fauna had no evolved defenses6. This expansionary behavior accelerated significantly during the Holocene and the Anthropocene. Between 1962 and 2017 alone, it is estimated that approximately 340 million hectares of new croplands were created globally, and 470 million hectares of natural ecosystems were converted into pastures1. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services found that three-quarters of Earth's land surface and 66 percent of the marine environment have been significantly modified by human actions, threatening approximately one million flora and fauna species with extinction1. Such metrics define an organism operating outside natural ecological checks and balances.

Philosophical and Theological Debates on Invasiveness

Despite the behavioral evidence, there is robust academic, theological, and philosophical debate regarding the classification of humans as an invasive species. Opponents argue that the definition of an invasive species strictly requires an external vector of introduction2. Because humans migrated under their own volition and are fundamentally a naturally evolved species on Earth, scholars like Celia Deane-Drummond argue that labeling humanity "invasive" is biologically inaccurate and undermines human dignity, positing that it is dangerous to think of humans as separately and uniquely bad12. Furthermore, some argue that labeling humanity as an invasive species flirts with ecofascism, ignoring the fact that many indigenous cultures have lived in relative balance with their environments for millennia9. Conversely, proponents of the invasive classification argue that the distinction is a technicality that ignores behavioral reality. Yuval Noah Harari has referred to humans as "ecological serial killers," and theologians note that Western humanity has historically operated with a philosophy of domination and subjugation over nature12. This mentality was historically codified in religious texts and decrees, such as the 1493 papal bull Inter Caetera, which established the doctrine of discovery and stated that any lands not inhabited by Christians could be conquered and exploited12. While modern theological frameworks, such as Pope Francis's integral ecology, advocate for kinship and stewardship over creation (echoing St. Francis of Assisi's concepts of Brother Sun and Sister Moon), the historical impact of human expansion remains deeply invasive12. The argument that humans are not invasive simply because they orchestrated their own transport is viewed by many ecologists as a semantic shield that fails to alter the functional reality of their ecological impact.

The Vanguard of Expansion: Planetary Biosecurity and Forward Contamination

The traits that make humanity an invasive force on Earth—technological adaptation, relentless resource extraction, and geographic expansion—are currently being directed toward the cosmos. As human activity in space accelerates, astrobiologists and ecologists are raising alarms about interplanetary contamination, suggesting that our invasive nature could soon breach the boundaries of our own biosphere.

The Threat of Forward Contamination and Invasion Biology

In the context of space exploration, "forward contamination" refers to the biological and organic-chemical contamination of extraterrestrial environments by Earth-originating microbes carried on spacecraft13. The study of planetary biosecurity has increasingly drawn upon invasion biology to understand the risks posed by these microbial stowaways. Anthony Ricciardi and colleagues argue that planets and moons potentially capable of supporting life must be treated as highly vulnerable insular ecosystems, much like isolated oceanic islands on Earth16. Invasion science demonstrates that insular systems, which lack adaptations to broad suites of alien life forms, are exceptionally vulnerable to disruption17. If Earth microbes were to survive the journey and establish themselves on Mars or the subsurface oceans of Europa or Enceladus, the resulting biological invasion could cause the extinction of indigenous extraterrestrial microbiomes before they are even discovered17. This is not a purely theoretical risk; bacterial strains exhibiting extreme resistance to ionizing radiation, desiccation, and chemical disinfectants have been routinely isolated from the highly controlled clean rooms where space agencies assemble spacecraft16. As space exploration transitions from infrequent governmental missions to routine commercial spaceflight, the propagule pressure—the number of introduction events and organisms released into a new environment—is steadily increasing17.

COSPAR Guidelines and the Governance of Contamination

To mitigate the risk of forward contamination, the international community relies on the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Planetary Protection Policy. The policy is designed to uphold Article IX of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which obligates states to avoid harmful contamination of celestial bodies13. COSPAR categorizes missions based on the target body's potential for chemical evolution and the origin of life. Table 2 outlines the COSPAR categorization system for planetary protection and the corresponding bioburden limits24.

Despite these regulations, a recent 2024 update to the COSPAR policy shifted from highly prescriptive requirements to an "objectives-driven" and "case-adapted" approach, explicitly emphasizing that the policy is an international voluntary and non-legally binding standard23. Furthermore, the policy was updated to encompass non-governmental entities and commercial spaceflight, referencing Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty to assign responsibility to state actors for private ventures23. Ethicists like Charles Cockell advocate for the establishment of "planetary parks"—pristine extraterrestrial wildernesses preserved from human activity to protect scientific viability and intrinsic natural value28. Cockell posits a non-anthropocentric holism where extraterrestrial microbial communities warrant moral consideration, arguing that local contamination might be acceptable in some instances, but the destruction of alien microbial ecosystems would be highly unethical14. However, the structural trajectory of human spaceflight, coupled with the shift toward voluntary guidelines, indicates that widespread biological contamination of the solar system is highly probable23.

Intentional Cosmic Proliferation: Panspermia and Terraforming

While forward contamination represents the accidental spread of Earth life, a significant faction of the scientific and philosophical community advocates for the intentional biological colonization of the galaxy. This intent represents the ultimate manifestation of invasive behavior on a cosmic scale.

Directed Panspermia

Panspermia is the hypothesis that life can travel through space and seed other planets via comets or meteorites30. "Directed panspermia" takes this a step further, proposing that humanity should deliberately transport extremophile microorganisms throughout the universe to seed new planetary systems31. Michael Mautner, a researcher in physical chemistry and astroecology, founded the Society for Life in Space (SOLIS) to promote this specific agenda33. Mautner argues that humans have a moral obligation to secure and expand the family of gene/protein-based life, viewing ecopoiesis—the artificial creation of a sustainable ecosystem—as the cosmogonic purpose of human existence30. Utilizing solar sails to propel micro-capsules weighing 0.1 micrograms and containing 100,000 hardy microbes (such as cyanobacteria) toward star-forming interstellar clouds, humanity could trigger a biological explosion across the Milky Way30. Critics of directed panspermia highlight the profound ethical and ecological hazards of this philosophy. Dispersing Earth-based life into the cosmos could result in the unintentional genocide of independent, native alien biospheres31. If a targeted planet already harbors a nascent, completely alien evolutionary lineage, the introduction of highly evolved, aggressive terrestrial microbes would likely obliterate the indigenous life. From an external perspective, a species plotting to indiscriminately launch biological payloads across the galaxy to alter the atmospheres of other worlds represents a terrifying apex biohazard30.

The Ethics of Terraforming Mars

The debate over planetary engineering is most immediately focused on Mars. Terraforming seeks to alter the Martian environment to make it habitable for terrestrial life19. This would involve thickening the atmosphere and increasing surface temperatures using supergreenhouse gases, such as perfluorocarbons, which resist destruction by solar ultraviolet radiation and do not deplete ozone35. While warming the planet could theoretically take as little as 100 years, converting the carbon dioxide atmosphere into a breathable, oxygen-rich environment via a planetary biosphere could take upwards of 100,000 years36. Christopher McKay, a NASA planetary scientist and astrobiologist, has pioneered the discourse on Martian environmental ethics38. McKay advocates for the "Cosmic Golden Rule," positing that humans should treat alien microbial life as we would wish a proportionally more intelligent race of beings to treat us38. If a "second genesis" of indigenous life exists on Mars, McKay argues that it possesses intrinsic value, and its preservation must supersede human utility19. Transforming Mars into an Earth-like environment would introduce physical and chemical processes—such as wind and flowing water—that could easily erase or contaminate any evidence of the Martian evolutionary lineage19. However, the interventionist worldview views terraforming as humanity's planetary stewardship and a necessary step to ensure the survival of Earth-origin species against existential threats21. This tension mirrors terrestrial conservation debates but operates on a planetary scale. If humanity chooses the interventionist path, overriding the potential intrinsic value of alien microbes in favor of our own expansion, we confirm our status as an aggressive, expansionist species willing to re-engineer entire worlds at the expense of indigenous biospheres.

The Internal Dynamics of the Invader: Macrosecuritization and S-Risks

A galactic community evaluating humanity would not only look at our outward expansion but also at our internal stability. A species that cannot control its own destructive capabilities or mitigate the suffering it causes is unlikely to be viewed as a safe interstellar neighbor.

Anthropogenic Existential Threats and Macrosecuritization

Humanity currently exists in an era defined by anthropogenic existential threats—risks that originate in human agency and have the potential to cause human extinction or the irreversible collapse of modern global civilization39. These include the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the development of bioengineered pathogens, and the creation of misaligned artificial superintelligence39. Researchers like Milan Cirkovic and Nick Bostrom note that humanity’s capacity for self-destruction constitutes a material revolution in international politics; the forces of destruction now far outweigh our modes of protection41. Political scientist Nathan Sears analyzes this dynamic through the lens of "macrosecuritization failure." Despite the presence of catastrophic global risks, the international system consistently fails to mobilize the necessary resources and political will to neutralize these threats39. Great powers continually prioritize national securitization—framed by fear of geopolitical rivals—over humanity securitization, leading them to prioritize national power over the collective survival of the human species39. If an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is observing Earth, it sees a species that has achieved the capability to manipulate atomic nuclei, engineer genetics, and develop artificial intelligence, yet remains trapped in tribalistic, Hobbesian zero-sum games.

S-Risks and the Exportation of Suffering

Ethicists like Brian Tomasik raise the specter of "S-risks" (suffering risks) associated with human expansion into space43. From a suffering-focused ethical perspective, the colonization of space by a competitive and highly flawed human civilization could multiply the amount of suffering in the universe exponentially43. The concern regarding S-risks covers multiple domains. First, terraforming other worlds could facilitate the vast expansion of wild-animal suffering; if the lives of wild animals in terrestrial nature are characterized by predation, disease, and starvation, creating novel ecosystems on Mars or exoplanets simply exports astronomical quantities of biological suffering to new worlds37. Second, the rapid development of artificial intelligence by a species prone to conflict increases the probability of generating vast quantities of simulated suffering or engaging in devastating interstellar conflicts utilizing autonomous weapons43. To an advanced, ethically matured extraterrestrial observer, preventing humanity from leaving its solar system might be considered a moral imperative to contain an astronomical S-risk.

The Galactic Assessment: Fermi, Dark Forest, and Berserkers

To understand how a galactic community would view humanity, one must integrate these ecological, biological, and sociological observations into the prevailing theoretical frameworks of interstellar interaction. The Fermi Paradox—the contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial intelligence and the total lack of observational evidence—provides the ultimate backdrop47. If the galaxy is old and vast, why is it entirely silent?

The Dark Forest Hypothesis

The Dark Forest hypothesis, popularized by author Liu Cixin, offers a chilling resolution to the Fermi Paradox based heavily on game theory, specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Hobbesian trap47. The theory rests on two axioms: survival is the primary need of any civilization, and civilizations continuously grow and expand, but the total matter in the universe remains constant47. When two civilizations discover each other, they are separated by vast interstellar distances, creating an insurmountable communication lag. This leads to a "chain of suspicion"47. Neither civilization can be certain of the other's true intentions, nor can they be certain that the other civilization will not experience a sudden, explosive technological leap that renders them an existential threat49. Because the worst possible outcome is the annihilation of one's entire species, the only rational, mathematically sound decision is a pre-emptive strike to eliminate the unknown entity49. In a Dark Forest universe, the cosmos is a dark wood filled with armed hunters. Any species that reveals its location is swiftly wiped out47. If the galaxy operates on Dark Forest logic, humanity's behavior is spectacularly dangerous. We have continuously broadcast our presence via radio waves and active Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence (METI) programs52. Stephen Hawking famously warned against METI, noting that encounters between advanced and primitive technologies historically end in disaster for the less advanced, likening our broadcasts to a baby crying in a forest full of wolves50. From the perspective of a Dark Forest hunter, humanity is a species that aggressively expands, consumes resources unsustainably, fails to cooperate internally, actively plots to seed the galaxy with its own biology, and is rapidly approaching advanced technological thresholds. Under the rules of rational deterrence, humanity is an apex threat requiring immediate sterilization before it can launch a preemptive strike of its own.

The Berserker Hypothesis

An even more pessimistic framework is the Berserker hypothesis (also known as the deadly probes scenario), named after Fred Saberhagen's science fiction series54. This theory suggests the Great Silence is due to the presence of lethal, self-replicating von Neumann probes that roam the galaxy, systematically destroying emerging civilizations to eliminate future competition55. A highly advanced civilization, recognizing the inevitability of new intelligences rising and competing for resources, could construct automated robotic probes programmed to seek out modulated electromagnetic radiation (the hallmark of a developing civilization) and annihilate the source57. These machines would harvest local resources to build copies of themselves, expanding across the galaxy exponentially57. The Great Filter, in this scenario, exists between the industrial age and widespread space colonization55. If humanity is evaluated against the Berserker hypothesis, two grim realities emerge. First, our continued transmission of METI signals makes us a beacon for any existing Berserker probes50. Second, and more importantly regarding our classification as an invasive species, humanity itself is the perfect candidate to become the creator of a Berserker swarm. Our history of competitive exclusion, our willingness to engage in directed panspermia (which is functionally similar to sending out biological von Neumann probes), and our struggle with artificial intelligence alignment all point toward a civilization that could unleash self-replicating destructors upon the galaxy—either intentionally as a defense mechanism, or accidentally via a misaligned artificial intelligence57. Table 3 summarizes the theoretical frameworks of the Fermi Paradox and how humanity's biological and sociological traits interact with them.

Conclusion

The characterization of humanity as an invasive species is not merely a provocative metaphor; it is a scientifically robust classification supported by ecological frameworks, historical paleoanthropology, and our current trajectory in astrobiology. Evaluated through the Unified Framework for Biological Invasions, Homo sapiens has successfully bypassed every geographic, environmental, and dispersal barrier on Earth, resulting in massive ecological homogenization, the extinction of competing megafauna and hominid species, and the fundamental alteration of the planet's biosphere. As humanity looks toward the stars, this invasive behavior is scaling proportionally. Despite international Planetary Protection policies and the bioburden restrictions established by COSPAR, the presence of terrestrial extremophiles in spacecraft clean rooms ensures that forward contamination of bodies like Mars and Europa remains a persistent, escalating threat. Furthermore, prominent factions within human academia actively advocate for directed panspermia and planetary terraforming, philosophies that fundamentally validate the intentional biological colonization of the galaxy and accept the potential erasure of indigenous extraterrestrial biospheres as the cost of securing our own cosmological future. If a galactic community exists, their assessment of Homo sapiens would likely be calculated through the cold, rational mathematics of game theory and astroethics. They would observe a species that is hyper-cooperative internally but ruthlessly competitive externally; a species that generates catastrophic anthropogenic existential threats but fails to unify to neutralize them; and a species that actively seeks to broadcast its presence while simultaneously plotting to re-engineer alien environments to suit its own biological needs. Under the frameworks of the Dark Forest and Berserker hypotheses, humanity represents an unacceptable biosecurity and existential hazard. To an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence prioritizing self-preservation and galactic biosecurity, humanity is a virulent, rapidly replicating, and technologically aggressive vector. Consequently, it is highly probable that humanity would be considered an exceptionally undesirable invasive species to the galactic community, warranting strict quarantine, or, under harsher interstellar game-theoretic paradigms, immediate pre-emptive eradication.

Works cited

1. Are Humans an Invasive Species? \- Earth.Org, https://earth.org/are-humans-an-invasive-species/

2. Are Humans an Invasive Species?, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-humans-an-invasive-species-42999965/

3. Unified Framework for Biological Invasions, https://www.invasiveplantswesternusa.org/unified-framework.html

4. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions, https://researchprofiles.canberra.edu.au/en/publications/a-proposed-unified-framework-for-biological-invasions

5. A proposed unified framework for biological invasions., https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-proposed-unified-framework-for-biological-Blackburn-Py%C5%A1ek/755ec5de3e7d5c22fb401d1e2110fb6f8e0cd2df

6. Is Homo sapiens an invasive species? \- The Overpopulation Project, https://overpopulation-project.com/is-homo-sapiens-an-invasive-species/

7. Emergence of Modern Humans in Africa \- Becoming Human, https://becominghuman.org/pathways-to-discovery/the-human-diaspora/emergence-of-modern-humans-in-africa/

8. How Homo sapiens Became the Ultimate Invasive Species, https://www.phrenicea.com/ScientificAmericanMarean082015.pdf

9. Are humans an invasive species? : r/biology \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/biology/comments/qrbs2k/are\_humans\_an\_invasive\_species/

10. (PDF) Homo sapiens (Primates: Hominidae): an invasive species or, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319234497\_Homo\_sapiens\_Primates\_Hominidae\_an\_invasive\_species\_or\_even\_worse\_A\_challenge\_for\_strengthening\_ecology\_and\_conservation\_biology\_Translated\_from\_Spanish

11. The Most Invasive Species of All \- Arizona State University, https://asu.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/the-most-invasive-species-of-all/

12. Are humans an invasive species? \- U.S. Catholic, https://uscatholic.org/articles/202604/are-humans-an-invasive-species/

13. Planetary Protection: Preventing Interplanetary Pollution That Could, https://astrobiology.com/2023/07/06/planetary-protection-preventing-interplanetary-pollution-that-could-pose-a-threat-to-life-on-earth-and-other-planets/

14. Where no planetary protection policy has gone before, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/where-no-planetary-protection-policy-has-gone-before/F264AB24ABB7F4C7A5E86F48C2EA543D

15. Interplanetary contamination \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary\_contamination

16. "Alien" Invasions And The Need For Planetary Biosecurity, https://astrobiology.com/2021/11/18/alien-invasions-and-the-need-for-planetary-biosecurity/

17. Planetary Biosecurity: Applying Invasion Science to Prevent, https://redpath-staff.mcgill.ca/ricciardi/Ricciardi\_etal2021BioSci.pdf

18. Preventing “Alien” Invasions | Newsroom \- McGill University, https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/preventing-alien-invasions-335265

19. The Thorny Ethics of Planetary Engineering | The MIT Press Reader, https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-thorny-ethics-of-planetary-engineering/

20. Increased space missions risk extraterrestrial contamination, https://spacedaily.com/increased-space-missions-risk-extraterrestrial-contamination-999/

21. Interplanetary frontiers: terraforming from an invasion science, https://pureportal.inbo.be/files/148493834/Oikos\_-\_2026\_-\_Everts\_-\_Interplanetary\_frontiers\_terraforming\_from\_an\_invasion\_science\_perspective.pdf

22. The COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection Role, Structure and, https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/assets/uploads/2019/07/PPP\_SRT-Article\_Role-Structure\_Aug-2019.pdf

23. Editorial to the New Restructured and Edited COSPAR Policy on, https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/assets/uploads/2024/07/PP-Policy\_SRT\_220-July-2024.pdf

24. Planetary protection \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary\_protection

25. Planetary Protection \- NASA's Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/planetary-protection

26. Appendix E: Planetary Protection Categories, https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/25773/chapter/11

27. COSPAR Policy on Planetary Protection, https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/assets/uploads/2020/07/PPPolicyJune-2020\_Final\_Web.pdf

28. Planetary protection—A microbial ethics approach \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223393479\_Planetary\_protection-A\_microbial\_ethics\_approach

29. 'Planetary Parks' Could Protect Space Wilderness, https://www.space.com/19302-planetary-parks-space-wilderness-protection.html

30. Directed Panspermia: Seeding the Galaxy | Centauri Dreams, https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2010/02/12/directed-panspermia-seeding-the-galaxy/

31. Welcome to Virginia's Interstellar Panspermia Society \- RVA Mag, https://rvamag.com/community/wtf/welcome-to-virginias-interstellar-panspermia-society.html

32. (PDF) Directed panspermia \- A technical and ethical evaluation of, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253310223\_Directed\_panspermia\_-\_A\_technical\_and\_ethical\_evaluation\_of\_seeding\_nearby\_solar\_systems

33. Michael N. Mautner \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael\_N.\_Mautner

34. Will colonizing meteorites and asteroids with bacteria one day save, https://macleans.ca/society/technology/it-came-from-planet-earth/

35. Make Mars Great Again \- Nautilus, https://nautil.us/make-mars-great-again-236288

36. The physics, biology, and environmental ethics of making mars, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12448997/

37. Planetary ecosynthesis on Mars: restoration ecology and, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364845822\_Planetary\_ecosynthesis\_on\_Mars\_restoration\_ecology\_and\_environmental\_ethics

38. Chris McKay \- Environmental Activists, Heroes, and Martyrs, https://www.scu.edu/environmental-ethics/environmental-activists-heroes-and-martyrs/chris-mckay.html

39. Sears, Nathan (2022) Great Power Rivalry and Macrosecuritization, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366020757\_Sears\_Nathan\_2022\_Great\_Power\_Rivalry\_and\_Macrosecuritization\_Failure-\_PhD\_Thesispdf

40. Great Power Rivalry and Macrosecuritization Failure \- ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan-Sears-2/publication/366020757\_Sears\_Nathan\_2022\_Great\_Power\_Rivalry\_and\_Macrosecuritization\_Failure-\_PhD\_Thesispdf/links/638e8679484e65005be6c149/Sears-Nathan-2022-Great-Power-Rivalry-and-Macrosecuritization-Failure-PhD-Thesispdf.pdf

41. (PDF) International Politics in the Age of Existential Threats, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344942589\_International\_Politics\_in\_the\_Age\_of\_Existential\_Threats

42. Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and, https://nickbostrom.com/papers/existential-risks/

43. AI Alignment Podcast: The Metaethics of Joy, Suffering, and Artificial, https://futureoflife.org/podcast/ai-alignment-podcast-metaethics-of-joy-suffering-with-brian-tomasik-and-david-pearce/

44. Risk of astronomical suffering \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk\_of\_astronomical\_suffering

45. Suffering-Focused Ethics | Magnus Vinding, https://magnusvinding.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/suffering-focused-ethics.pdf

46. Simulations and Catastrophic Risks \- Sentience Institute, https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/simulations-and-catastrophic-risks

47. The Dark Forest Hypothesis: Should We NOT Contact Aliens?, https://reflections.live/articles/12373/the-dark-forest-hypothesis-should-we-not-contact-aliens-article-by-aayush-raj-dubey-16125-lxcnr1vz.html

48. Fermi paradox \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi\_paradox

49. Liu Cixin's Dark Forest novel explains the Fermi paradox ... \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/uwjaws/liu\_cixins\_dark\_forest\_novel\_explains\_the\_fermi/

50. The Dark Forest \- University of Warwick, https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research/astro/people/stanway/sciencefiction/cosmicstories/the\_dark\_forest/

51. Beyond "Fermi's Paradox" XVII: What is the "SETI ... \- Universe Today, https://www.universetoday.com/articles/beyond-fermis-paradox-xvii-what-is-the-seti-paradox-hypothesis

52. METI: The Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence Has A Highly, https://www.iflscience.com/meti-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence-has-a-highly-controversial-twin-74782

53. METI International \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METI\_International

54. Episode Thirty-One, “The Berserker Hypothesis,” of Stories from, https://storybywill.medium.com/episode-thirty-one-the-berserker-hypothesis-of-stories-from-space-is-now-live-34c0c9fae9e9

55. Berserker hypothesis \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker\_hypothesis

56. Berserker (novel series) \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker\_(novel\_series)

57. The Berserker Hypothesis: The Darkest Explanation Of The Fermi, https://www.iflscience.com/the-berserker-hypothesis-the-darkest-explanation-of-the-fermi-paradox-66323

58. Beyond "Fermi's Paradox" VI: What is the Berserker Hypothesis?, https://www.universetoday.com/articles/beyond-fermis-paradox-vi-the-berserker-hypothesis

59. Self-replicating spacecraft \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating\_spacecraft