Part A: which TWO statements best summarize the central ideas of the text?

Article: "Choose a warning label for Human DNA" Charles Wohlforth

A: there are many other planets in the solar system that humans may colonize if the earth becomes uninhabitable.

B: human beings are a danger to the planet earth; accordingly any inhabitants of other planets have good reason to be unwelcoming toward us.

C: those who believe that human DNA is inherently well suited to the ecosystem of our planets are unrealistic optimists.

D: people are inherently good and self sacrificing, and policies regulating individuals' environmental impacts should take this into account.

E: human beings would not survive on another planet without the microorganisms that currently live on and in our bodies.

F: despite the harm we have done to the environment, humans do have altruistic impulses that would facilitate increased efforts at environmental conservation.

Below is the complete article: Choose a warning label for Human DNA" Charles Wohlforth (paraphrased)

Many other planets circle other stars, as we now know. With practically infinite chances to evolve, other oceans must have oozed with life. A certain kind of optimist imagines that, if we ruin our own Earth, we can reseed our species there.

We might not know where we were going. The journey surely would be too long for living people to survive. But we know how to send seeds, perhaps frozen embryos, or merely strands of DNA. We could rely upon the kindness of strangers. An extraterrestrial host in space might reconstitute humanity.

Would they be glad they did? What kind of guests would we be on that world? Sending forth the seed of a species that has overrun and destroyed its own ecological niche-the Earth-we should at least include a warning label on the outside of the space capsule.

"Contents: Humanity. Use extreme caution. Highly invasive. Spreads rapidly. Wastes resources. Dangerous to all other species."

Why would they take the chance on defrosting our descendants? They might choose to destroy the embryos. Or they could hold human tissue the way labs on Earth hold cultures of eradicated diseases, like smallpox: for curiosity, but careful never to let them out into nature to reproduce freely.

A certain kind of optimist holds such a vision, as I said at the start. The kind of optimist who believes there will always be more resources for human beings to consume, allowing us to go on competing for comfort, prestige and dominance, to grow always more powerful, and always to produce more generations with more human beings who can repeat the geometric expansion of population and power.

That kind of optimist feels there is some intrinsic value to individuals so created-that the universe needs ever more selfish, materialistic strivers carrying our DNA. Our economic and political system is largely built on that premise. But it is a locally held sentiment. Unless we can travel to other worlds with the strength to force them to adopt the same extraordinary opinion of our value, it is unlikely to spread anywhere beyond the Earth.

Here on Earth our genetic code makes sense. Here our bodies fit the ecosystem that sustains us-the air and sea, and the cousin animals that share so much of our DNA. Intuitions built into the folds of our brains grew here on the organic stuff of the savannah and forest, imprinted with the familiar acceleration of gravity and the 24-hour passage of the day.

We cannot stand alone. Along with embryos, a spaceship would have to send into space wombs for them to develop in, with the placenta that feeds us, and mother's milk for the newborns, and the many species of micro-organisms that live within our bodies and keep us alive. We cannot digest food without an ecosystem of bacteria in the gut, different in each person, which comes to us from the environment of childhood.

This kind of optimist would imagine no need to leave the planet Earth. Instead, we would come to our senses in time to stop killing our life-support system, and not merely out of an instinct for survival. We would recognize that this place is bigger than us and better than our trivial and ephemeral material wants. We would remember where we came from and why we love to be alive.

On another planet, we're irrelevant and superfluous. Here, our role is critical. We have the future of the Earth in our hands. If we count the Earth as worth anything, then the individual decisions we make daily are full of meaning.

Perhaps we would still choose to leave the planet now and then. Exploration can be noble, a search for knowledge and context. Going away can show us where we are, and why home matters. But we would remain creatures of our place. Only here are we whole, able to harmonize with a system of life of which we are a part.

We don't have to spread like weeds. We can plant our seeds right here. If we tend our garden, we can stay indefinitely.

Answer:

B: human beings are a danger to the planet earth; accordingly any inhabitants of other planets have good reason to be unwelcoming toward us.

E: human beings would not survive on another planet without the microorganisms that currently live on and in our bodies.

Explanation:

These two statements best summarize the central ideas of the text because according to the author, human beings are a danger to earth and if earth eventually becomes uninhabitable, living creatures on other planets may be unwilling to welcome us to their planet lest we destroy theirs as we (potentially) destroyed earth.

The second statement that summarizes the text talks about humans having a certain bacteria or microorganism that currently live in our bodies and cannot be replicated or survive on another planet.