Ethics of Interstellar Travel
The nearest star is Alpha Centauri and given current technology going there would take 100 years. And it's fairly certain that AC has no habitable Earth-like planet. So, a trip to a star with a habitable planet might take many hundreds, a thousand, or thousands of years.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the technology, often depicted in sci fi movies of cryo-sleep never got worked out, so that those on the mission will be conscious the whole time, just as they would be on Earth.
In the described situation, generations of humans will live out their lives in the service of the mission. They will never know what it's really like to experience life on Earth. A European vacation? Not possible. A world cruise? Not possible. Hiking the Appalacian Trail? Not possible. Being able to choose a mate from among all the potential mates on the planet? Also not possible.
The question is this: Are these people who, after the first generation, are no longer volunteers kidnap victims? Prisoners?
Is there some way to do such an enterprise in a fully ethical manner?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the technology, often depicted in sci fi movies of cryo-sleep never got worked out, so that those on the mission will be conscious the whole time, just as they would be on Earth.
In the described situation, generations of humans will live out their lives in the service of the mission. They will never know what it's really like to experience life on Earth. A European vacation? Not possible. A world cruise? Not possible. Hiking the Appalacian Trail? Not possible. Being able to choose a mate from among all the potential mates on the planet? Also not possible.
The question is this: Are these people who, after the first generation, are no longer volunteers kidnap victims? Prisoners?
Is there some way to do such an enterprise in a fully ethical manner?
Comments (87)
Are we kidnap victims or prisoners of our parents?
If we can create automatic systems sufficient to not only create but maintain a ship large and complex enough to keep life support systems as well as all other systems operational for at least one hundred years, we can make computer simulations of the things you mentioned above. Even current VR technology, as crude as it may be, can do most of those things in a limited capacity. In fact, since we are investing in the future of humanity, I don't think it would be too much to think that the simulations would be better than the real thing. Probably easier to experience for the individual as well.
As for not being able to choose a mate among the potential mates still back home, if this is a generational ship (which is what we are discussing) they will have plenty of mates to choose from onboard. Unless you are extremely tied up in superstition and faith, it should be easy to believe that you didn't leave your one true love behind on Earth.
Quoting Unseen
When colonists crossed the ocean to the Americas, and they had children, were those children prisoners? Of course, those children could travel elsewhere on the continent, or if they had the money, even travel back. However, these ships that take us to new stars will likely be massive. If you don't like your parents, just move to the next area over. Really, most people throughout history have had no choice of where they lived. Travel was either too expensive or not practical. Even today, the choices of your parents will always change the way you live even before you are thought of. No one (except for an antinatalist) is saying that your parents were unethical because they had to take a job in New York City and now you're forced to grow up there.
Really, even if the colonists were exposed to horrible conditions, this is the future of humanity we're talking about. If one thing bad enough happens on our small corner of the universe, it's over. I think that even if it is horribly ethically wrong to send people on a journey like this, the ends justify the means to do it at least a few times.
Then there is the issue of speed and distances involved. To be able to travel such vast distances in ny kind of plausible way (I will expand in what I consider as "plausible" later), the speed would need to be a significant fraction of the speed of light. Putting aside the technical difficulties in achieving such speed given the above limited energy sources and consequent technologies, there is a deeper, more intractable problem and that is the fact that "empty" space, particularly for large bodies of matter travelling at high speeds, is not empty.
In each cubic metre of space, there are, on average a few free floating, lone hydrogen atoms as well as other elements and larger, more complex, cosmic dust particles. For anything travelling at a tiny fraction of the speed of light, these particles may as well be assumed to be non existent in practical terms. But, for objects travelling at significant fractions of the speed of light they are anything but non existent. If we assume a large space craft travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, the issue of friction and build up of heat is going to be a problem.
The only other viable system that has been conceptualized would be the Buzzard Ram jet whereby free hydrogen is harvested on route from the interstellar medium I alluded to above. This is still firmly in the realms of science fiction and there is no good reason to assume it will not remain there.
To return, now, to the issue of what is a plausible time-span for travel to another world. If we are talking about a multi-generational time-span, the following issue arises: the spaceship would need a fully functioning, ecologically self contained and self sustaining living system whereby all waste products of life were recycled and returned to the system for reuse. Here, on earth, we have an entire planetary eco system devoted to that little task. In what realms of fantasy does anyone suppose it would be possible to create a fantastically miniaturized, version of the above - where all of the energy required for such a complex living system to exist and to renew and repair itself would have to be carried on board for the entire journey?
There are other issues of plausibility, but I'll leave it at that one since it is quite insurmountable enough as it is. Put it this way, if humans were capable of devising a space vessel capable of the above, there would be little requirement to endure the arduous interstellar journey to the next star since humans could colonize empty space in our own solar system far more easily on the back of such technologies. But, even that is highly improbable.
Our future is not in the stars. It is in the mud.
Of course! Send a droid.
(Yeah, I know, this is a debate about ethics, but I couldn't resist to give the obvious answer.)
Ouch.
That must have been one hell of a response.
I'm interested in the "why."
Can you clean up your response so as to make it acceptable to the mods?
It wasn't deleted. It was a spam filter false positive and has been restored.
We don't need to carry any fuel on board, or at the very most much less than is needed to go the whole journey. Lasers pushing a craft forward eliminates the need for carrying fuel aboard the craft, and slowing down can be done by those particles in "empty space" you mentioned earlier. If the laser is now the concern, we already have a fusion reactor to power it. The sun should be sufficient and reliable enough to power such a device.
Quoting Stephen Cook
To reach Alpha Centauri in 100 years, only 4.5% of the speed of light is required. This is nowhere close to our current speed record of 11.08 km/s, but NASA is currently working on an (admittedly tiny) craft that will go 20% of light speed powered by a similar laser method. I don't think it's too much of a stretch of the imagination that with a much larger laser we should be able to reach a fourth of that with a larger craft.
Quoting Stephen Cook
Typically it is assumed that close to lightspeed vessels will have to be narrow and long to avoid this. However, even though that would work on the body of the craft, the sail that pushes the craft would need to be wider so that it is still pushed by the slowly scattering laser. The heat could be alleviated by going a bit slower, but the "sail" could be made of very heat resistant material. All that really matters is that the sail is light and heat resistance, so it could be made of any kind of material, and also very thin. I don't know how hot it would get, but we might have (admittedly rare) materials currently that could do the trick.
Quoting Stephen Cook
I recall an upcoming test on a large prototype fusion reactor in France. Let's hope it does well. Even so, I think the reason it feels like it's taken so long to get fusion power is that we have so very few reactors to test on, and once they run a test, they're out of commission for a good while. I really think that scientists just need more toys to play with, and then something like this would be possible. Of course, those toys are very very expensive, and all of the money they could ever need is sitting in the Swiss bank accounts of oil tycoons. Go figure.
Quoting Stephen Cook
I think this could be accomplished with current knowledge. It's only a 100-200 year trek, so we don't need too much biodiversity. Energy to provide artificial sunlight could be provided by the laser from before. A hearty mix of man-made technological marvels and possibly genetically engineered flora and fauna would be necessary, but the latter is already done today and the prior is more a matter of building big.
I think more research into various ecosystems is required though. I think we know enough to say we can do it, but not enough to say exactly how.
Quoting Stephen Cook
This I agree with to an extent. thorough colonization of our solar system would not only be required for interstellar travel but also more efficient anyway. However, when we need more resources to build solar collectors but we don't want to disassemble Earth (or any other planets, likely Mercury first), or if we don't want to blot out our own star with a Dyson Swarm or if we wish to keep our system relatively intact anyway, interstellar travel is a good idea.
Quoting Stephen Cook
Our (near) future is not in the stars, it is in the mud.
We have one, and only one, spaceship that is capable of supporting life for hundreds of millions of years. We’re on it, and have to look after it; there’s no ‘planet b’.
This is not a discussion of whether interstellar travel is possible. Why not do something constructive like accepting the premise as a hypothetical?
I'm asking a "What if?" type of question. It involves accepting the premise. Please don't hijack the discussion to a different question that isn't even about ethics (this is the Ethics forum).
It's unethical for anyone to foist responsibilities on people (the children here) which they're unable to honor. Also, since the mission is likely to fail with so many disgruntled people it's also impractical.
I see your point, and would be inclined to answer ‘no’. In effect these individuals would be born into servitude, with no say in the matter, and no choice but to continue.
Quoting Unseen
OK, skip the practical solutions then. How is all these people spending their lives on a ship less ethical than imprisoning them on a planet? It's the environment they're born in, one good enough to live out a life. What's wrong with that? I don't see myself being issued a world cruise as apparently is my right, and certainly not a spaceship ride.
Genetic augmentations and a good amount of training could easily solve a lot of dangerous problems and minimize what we have to protect against. I think it's safe to say that the people we send to space to stay won't be "homegrown" per se, but they will certainly be genetically human.
Quoting Wayfarer
Personally, I believe we learned about what we might be doing to "planet a" too late. I don't blame my ancestors for wanting to live comfortable lives especially when they didn't know about any dire consequences. That isn't going to stop me from trying to both maintain and advance that standard of life for me and everyone else. Even if it means we have to leave "planet a" behind for a bit and then come back later when we can fix things.
Quoting Wayfarer
The Voyager crafts are both very old and very slow. They were also only meant to reach the outer edges of our solar system and take pictures, not colonize or even move very fast. I don't recall if we even know where they are anymore, but frankly, I don't think it matters. They did their job, had only the requirements for their job, and shouldn't be used as a benchmark for interstellar travel.
Wouldn't the parents just teach them? Even if all of the adults onboard die in a horrible accident, wouldn't we still have onboard computers to teach people and if all else fails, books? In all reality, you should be able to do anything on a colony ship you can do on Earth. That includes teaching, playing sports, falling in love, etc. That sounds like a pretty fulfilling life to me, especially when all you have to do to contribute is have a few kids. Not everyone has to be an engineer, some are just there to populate.
I honestly question if anyone isn't born into servitude. I also question if servitude is really as bad as they say. Take a very rich, very happy man for example. He was born into the upper class and lives on money his father invested. Why does he continue to live?
If he is stupid, he will live for pleasure. He will be a slave to his desires, a slave to himself.
If he is smart, he will start to look for a reason to live. If he has a good family and friends, perhaps he would find reason in that. In that case, he lives for others. His will bends to others. He is not free, then.
If he has no friends or family, maybe he enjoys art or a certain subject. Just as the stupid version of this man, he will be a slave to his desire to learn, he can never truly be free.
No one can ever or will ever be able to do anything at any time.
Freedom, at least in what I see as the common definition, is the ability to act without constraint. You may have the freedom to do what you please, but that is not freedom in its deepest sense. If you wish to live, you wish to live for a reason. You are therefore obligated to do something because you want to live.
I imagine that many people on a colony ship will live happy, full lives. Some will not. However, I think that making an argument that "some people won't be happy" isn't effective because they very likely would have been just as unhappy on Earth.
To clarify, slavery is horrible. However, having nothing to do is almost as bad. I think it's clear that these people wouldn't be enslaved though. They also have things to do. It's the same happy medium as on Earth.
You're not imprisoned on Earth. Earth is your species' natural home. And no third party decided you or I were going to spend our meager existences on Earth. Except for those who are there at the end of the journey and, one hopes, find suitable digs, the generations of crews are born for one purpose only: to get that last bunch to the new Earth-like home. Their lives are being used, ;pure and simple. In order to keep the peace, they may not even be told that they are basically slaves. They may never be told about the home planet they left or even that their ship is on a mission. They may simply be led to think that being born and living on the ship is, well, natural. Just the way things have always been.
I'm of dutch decent and some third party (my parents) decided I was going to spend my meager existence on another continent. The kids will do fine on the ship, better than the volunteers that miss Earth they once knew. They'll be told stories of places they'll never see just like I'm told. I hope the people on the ship are kept busy. It would be pretty unethical for them to just be passengers the whole way. That's the zoo I was worried about.
And the one purpose of that last bunch is the bunch that comes after them. It's my purpose here as well right now, so what's changed?
You want this mission to not fail, but you're not going to tell the people why they're on the ship? Not a great way to go about it.
We all know how teaching/education fails even at the most basic levels. Isn't the world's problems not attributable to our failure to educate everyone? People come in a variety of shapes and sizes, having different likes and dislikes, and this will be a severe disadvantage on a space mission which by definition will require a unified goal and thus a homogeneous population of astronauts.
Right. You didn't. You didn't exist yet, so you couldn't ask. Or refuse, either. That's life. Get used to it.
Is this service a voluntary act? Is the first generation in the space craft serving a purpose for the sake of the future of mankind or seeking something better for themselves like the settlers of the mid west?
I don’t imagine the following generation of the first settlers in the mid west felt they were slaves to an idea. However, if they heard that they had been used to perpetuate an idea from the past then they may consider it differently.
In a lot of countries, teaching/education fails very little. A colony ship would likely have the very best both in method and technology, so I don't see too many kids flunking out. Not that everyone needs to pass anyway since a majority of the people there would probably be there just to colonize, not necessarily maintain the ship. Also, I wouldn't attribute the world's problems to people not paying attention in school. Not even people with doctorates know how to make unlimited energy or stop natural disasters. I would say all of our problems are caused by the current limit of what we can teach, not necessarily people not learning.
This ship will be these people's home for a good while, most likely their entire lives. Even if they wish to seek vengeance on the people who sent them, they will always have an interest in maintaining the ship, because they need it to survive.
I think it very unlikely that the people would want to seek vengeance or even feel trapped at all. Realistic computer simulations and the biosphere required to maintain the life support systems should give an authentic Earth experience. Really, the only thing these people would be missing out on is potential poverty, natural disasters, and mundane sphere-bound existence.
No, you're an invasive species. Unless, of course, Asian carp and house cats are native to the United States.
Quoting noAxioms
But the people on the spacecraft don't have the option of going back.
Quoting noAxioms
The difference is that you know your situation, giving you the information you need to opt out to whatever degree possible. I think a space mission like the one described would have to keep the ultimate goal of the trip a secret to avoid rebellion.
Quoting noAxioms
Well, I'm not in control of the mission, but I think keeping them in the dark is going to be necessary to stem rebellion.
I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me. By being kept in the dark, they aren't even free to give an informed whine.
There is no parallel between the spacecraft as described people brought to The New World on ships because since ships can go in both directions, there was at least a theoretical possibility of returning.
You’re probably right, though sailing to the New World (I was actually thinking of the settlers who left the East Coast for the mid west) might have seemed like that back then.
The problem is that the first generation experienced the past, they know.
Sorry; I didn't contextualise my comment enough.
There have been quite a few anti-natalist threads over time, some straight forward, some more devious, that always boil down to people being the victim of existence without their consent. The passengers on the L O N G journey to another star, even the nearest, would be composed of generations of people who hadn't signed up for the trip. Even if earth was dead 15 minutes after they left, it is doubtful that they would be grateful to find themselves the remnant of a species -- of the entire planet.
Fortunately we are not at any risk of putting people in this position, and almost certainly never will be. We are already in outer space, we already occupy a perfectly adequate planet, and even if we could get to another nice cozy planet, we would not be any smarter and soon we would have screwed over that celestial ball as badly as we have screwed over our present celestial abode.
No, I think it would be unethical to journey to another star system. We have a home; if we fuck it up, we do not deserve another.
But why should the second generation pay the price for what their parents did? The context of the ship, the nature of living like that, generation to generation, time, new lessons, could change who they are.
Sort of like life itself, no?
Yes, life aboard ship would change them. Life on earth will change them. Change is the only constant (cliche) and as Ecclesiastes puts it, "time and chance happen to all". We are ever changing. You can never step in the same river twice, etc.
I was thinking the trip might change them for the better.
If the ship does reach its destination then it's because these things didn't happen and the nature of men and women had changed for the better.
If they reach the planet the journey was worth it.
More simply put would you be willing to slaughter your children for the sake of humanity? This isn’t ‘slaughter’ per se, yet we’re edging toward such problems by asking these questions. My position here is a matter of ‘moral’ direction rather than led by ‘ethics’ ... when it comes to making the decision the choice is mine, yet I am under the influence of humanity at large as I am considering the entire human race not merely my moral stance separated from societal norms - which perhaps would cease to exist if we’re to expand to other worlds beyond our solar system.
In a more immediate respect we could talk about something that may happen within our life times! The birth of children in the atmosphere of Venus or on Mars. They would essentially be the proverbial ‘canary down the mineshaft’, yet would we be willing to stop couples from having children simply because they are not in Earth?
Over all I would say it is okay. People are born everyday into harsh situations and/or end up, by no direct fault of their own, with terrible burdens to bear. So I don’t see it as being ‘unethical’ and I would think every parent would do their best to equip their children for the life laid out before them - and this is mostly guesswork anyway!
On-topic, but thinking laterally, I wonder if travelling to the stars is ethical from the point of view of the resources it would take to mount such an expedition? It looks almost certain that we will have to give up a lot of luxuries, quite soon, to salvage what we can of our ecosystem. In the context of this topic, perhaps air travel is the best example: it is entirely unnecessary, and it takes resources, causes pollution and global warming, etc, etc. Can we really contemplate interstellar travel under these circumstances?
Peace is hard to maintain. Don't you think? Even on a place as big as Earth we have wars. What horrors could unfold in the confines of a spaceship?
I'm not saying a space mission like in the OP is impossible but I am saying it'll be very very difficult.
I think peace for at most 200 years is manageable. Especially when war means everyone dies. Sort of a mutually assured destruction sort of thing. Even so, rules and regulations will most likely be enforced by some sort of AI or less sentient computer system. That brings up some privacy issues, but we already have plenty of those at home. It almost completes the whole "Earth Experience" for them.
Quoting TheMadFool
Anything worth doing is difficult. It will probably also get easier as we gain more experience in it and develop more tech to help us. All I'm saying is that space has a lot of raw resources, and if one bad enough thing happens on Earth, our entire species dies. I think it is generally a good idea to eventually colonize elsewhere even if one or two missions go wrong in the learning process.
Your statement, like many, overlooks the fact that the space slaves don't have even a prayer of going back.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the children and descendants of early expansionist settlers on Earth always have the OPTION, however remote, of turning/going back.
You left a lot out. During our (meaning the European) exploratory period, we introduced those we encountered with a mix of new resources (steel working, horsemanship, etc.) and new challenges, mainly in the form of our taking their and mostly unconsciously bringing our diseases with us, to which they had no immunity whatsoever.
We could be doing the same with any new planet we were to try to colonize.
OR they could see us as vermin fit only for target practice or to be used as beasts of burden.
These tendencies would have to be suppressed before the space ship is built, before the destination is discovered. Life abroad the starship Enterprise under Picard was peaceful and purposeful because the tendency to discontent, tribalism, revolution, murder, patricide, mass murder (and more) had been trained out of human society. (somehow -- not explained in any of the episodes). And only trained out -- not bred out.
We (humans) do quite well when the stresses of life are well within tolerable limits. Our best traits can come forward and we can behave like Enterprise crew members: rational, reasonably patient, reserved, polite, caring, attending to our duties, etc. It's when stresses are beyond tolerable limits for extended periods of time that we begin to display our very unpleasant potentials.
IF the starship was provisioned with enough space to avoid the chronic stress of over exposure to each other, satisfying amusements, shared strong beliefs in the mission, secure and adequate resources to sustain life, etc. -- sure, I can see it all working out well.
But... the scenario explored in many fictional long space flights is that equipment breaks down, accidents degrade the quality of life, untimely (and natural) deaths of key people, and so forth can bring the whole happy scene to a screeching halt -- just as it has a million times here on this big round starship Earth. (We don't need bizarre viruses, ghastly aliens, or psychopaths to screw things up. All it takes is too many things going wrong.
If there is anything we know for sure, it is that machinery will break down inconveniently, and that the best laid plans of mice and men will eventually go awry.
Adrien Tchaikovsky (Children of Time and its sequel, Children of Ruin) explores some of these problems. A terraforming experiment prepared a raw planet to receive the seeds of earth-ecology. That part worked out well. It's a splendid place. Chimpanzees were to be the most intellectually advanced of species on the planet (no humans). The chimps were to be infected with a virus that would direct the apes to evolve toward much higher intelligence. By chance, the capsule carrying the monkeys crashed and burned, and the virus was released into the pristine environment. Jumping spiders and ants became infected with the virus, and over time (like... 10,000 years) the arthropods evolved into a space faring species--overcoming their natural predatory natures with considerable difficulty.
SCI Fi, of course. Fiction. But it demonstrates my point that one SHOULD know that things can, and probably will, go wrong.
Humans are what we are: primates with all sorts of emotional vulnerabilities capped by remarkable intellect. Both our strengths and weaknesses are deeply established. We are always doomed to a conflict between our equally vital limbic and pre-frontal cortex tendencies.
The chances of Homo sapiens sapiens (like Columbus) seeing a new and unexpected land and then sensitively turning back before first contact is made is vanishingly remote. It's just not like Homo sapiens to see an apple tree bearing ripe fruit and not taste it. If the apples taste good, we'll pick every last one of them and haul them home. We might even cut the tree down for fire wood.
Wow! A great and successful attempt to miss my point. While the vast majority of settlers stayed, I think you'll find some soured on the idea and sought, some successfully and some not, to return to the civility of England or Europe.
Is a child born into slavery actually free because his parents were slaves? What seems more likely is that freedom is hierarchical and we can only be free or enslaved relative to others.
Earth is where humans can survive (assuming we don't continue to eff it up). No other place is as suited because this is where we evolved.
Does evolution end when we learn about it? I see no reason why through natural or engineered means we can't go places in the future that we can't go now.
I don’t understand this.
This is a very long trip, plenty of time for a bit of bio genetic manipulation. Of course by the time they reach their destination they would no longer be human.
They returned to Europe (if that was possible) because the place failed to meet their expectations. They didn't return to Europe because they suddenly recognised themselves as tools of imperialism imposing on the civility of the native people who had been doing just fine until they arrived. [Full disclosure: I wouldn't have expected anybody to think they were tools of colonial imperialist powers.]
People always start out thinking they are doing "the Lord's good work", even when snatching somebody else's homeland. There are Biblical precedents for that, after all. And, we being the egotistical animals we are, usually persist in thinking we are doing good, even after the whole thing has blown up in our faces.
People are just not that reliably nice, when you get right down to it.
Which, depending on one's perspective, is either a good or bad thing.
I'm far from claiming we can't go, at least as a possibility, and assuming a LOT of problems are solved. But if we go there and live in a glass dome only going outside in space suits, we aren't really adapting to the planet in an evolutionary way.
Isn't the intelligence required to build big domes and space suits an evolutionary adaptation? Besides, if we can build big enough to terraform a planet, (something we can't do yet, one of those problems you mentioned) then we wouldn't need domes at all.
The only real things in my eyes that separate humanity from the rest of the biosphere is a higher relative sense of awareness and the ability to learn quickly. That's something that we evolved to have, and if it allows us to walk among the stars, we should certainly do that if it's beneficial to our continued efforts in survival.
You had said, "It's just not like Homo sapiens to see an apple tree bearing ripe fruit and not taste it. If the apples taste good, we'll pick every last one of them and haul them home. We might even cut the tree down for fire wood."
I was paraphrasing what you seemed to be implying.
And this is why for those on the crew in the middle of the trip who probably won't be told about the mission, who see the ship as a world they live in, probably must be kept in the dark. For psychological reasons and to forestall rebellion.
No, that wasn’t me, wasn’t my comment.
The dome technology would be Earth technology brought with them, not an adaptation to Planet X. And it's not a technology we "evolved to have." We evolved to have intelligence and curiosity and to have hands with an opposable thumbs. They are an invention and didn't come to us the way nest building comes to squirrels or robins, as an instinct.
You can disagree or agree, but I don't see it as in any way central to the ethical question here in the Ethics Forum.
Evolution can still go on inside the dome because nothing can stop mutations from happening.
I apologize.
I think you are putting a limit on the potential animal life has to adapt. When humans build habitats on other planets, that isn't an adaptation to an environment made possible through genetic mutations, but when a monkey uses a rock to smash open a nut, that is?
Interestingly, the domes that you typically see in Sci-Fi as space colonies are really just an advanced form of the nests made by the squirrels or robins. Human beings build nests too. In our prehistory, they were campfires and caves, now they are houses and apartments, and in the future, they may very well be domed habitats on other planets.
Essentially, a nest is a fortified location close to resources used to protect young and rest. If you were to be abandoned on a desert island, you would certainly end up building a nest, or end up dying of exposure. It is very much in our nature to build nests.
It also seems in our nature to want to explore where we haven't been and exploit useful resources.
So, if I may ask you at the risk of getting a little more off topic, where is the line between biological changes and technology picking up the slack in everyday life? An animal driven by instinct will know exactly what time to sleep and what time to hunt, but a human needs a watch to know if they are on time to work. Is it unethical for us to make people be on time if we have to make them use a watch?
Quoting Unseen
I thought your point was that it's unethical to send people to a new planet that they "don't belong on". If you can't define where a human belongs, that argument falls apart.
Sending a generation out into space who will bear and raise children as they fly to their destination is the same as having children here on Earth and sending them out into the future.
Women don’t have children because they want to give a child a life, they have children because they want a child, then they try to make a life for it. The desire to have the child comes before the child’s interests.
The only way to address the ethical decision is to refuse to have children because it’s likely that child’s life will be difficult and possibly unwanted. Having a child is a selfish act, mixed with love for the child no doubt, but still for the Mother’s satisfaction.
So, the trip into outer space is unethical. There’s no way the birth and life of the children can be justified.
Well, you totally missed the point, then. It was about how ethical is it to take human on a space mission they didn't consent to go on and to use their labor to complete a mission they probably will never see completed and quite possibly without even being told what the mission is.
I suppose this is just an antinatalism thread then. Every human being since before the dawn of time has lived so that our species continues, which is a mission we don't consent to go on using our labor to complete a mission we will never see completed. If that is your issue, then I would say it's a non-issue.
Humans are eusocial animals. We make sacrifices in the name of our tribes and the species as a whole. Doing that is in our DNA. If you really have a problem with sacrificing your life working, then you don't deserve the benefits of living in civilization. If the people aboard colony ships refuse to simply live and die in paradise so that the human race can propagate, they don't deserve paradise. These people certainly aren't going to live bleak, horrible lives on colony ships, and the work they have to do to maintain their luxuries will be relatively low compared to even us. All most of them have to do is sit back and relax so that their ancestors can do the slightly less automated task of colonization.
At the end of the day, the only reason we have nice homes and live happier lives than our ancestors is that we have made this decision already. I live a wonderful life thanks to the genius who invented video games, and that guy lived a wonderful life thanks to whoever invented air conditioning, etc. I plan to give my ancestors a better life by creating something that makes it nicer. If you don't want to do that, most countries won't outright kick you out, but you won't get access to the same amenities as others.
Quoting Unseen
Honestly, I think "humans don't belong there" is a better argument than "what if they don't want to be there?" When you can gain as much land and resources that an entire solar system has, I don't really think that the feelings of a few generations of colonists even matters, even ethically. What about the billions of children back home that need resources from the new system to have schools and homes and clothes? If we're colonizing another system, one would assume we're running short on those.
So that our species continues was never a part of the OP. It might well be just a pure science probe or even religion-driven. You're introducing your own complications not referred to in the OP. Just stick with what's there, please...or what isn't.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
I'm not talking about the ones who reach the destination, though there are arguments to be made on their behalf as well. What about the ones in the middle, used as virtual slave labor who both had no choice about being on the ship and who will never see the Promised Land?
But the problem was the same between our species continuing and sending off colonists (which is really much in the same, actually). They both present the same moral issue, that people are giving up freedom for the happiness of others, and I give the same solution to both, that we are eusocial animals and it is absolutely in our nature to do such things. Can it be unethical if it is both universal to do and accepted in every society that has ever existed?
Quoting Unseen
I'm pretty sure you said that they wouldn't belong on the ship, not the colony, so I was also referring to the ship. As for if it's technically "slave labor", I would argue that slaves don't usually get high-class accommodations, free high tech healthcare, and access to the entire wealth of human knowledge and art that would likely have been given to the colonists before they left. Unless you're a communist and would argue that they are "wage slaves", I don't think you can say that is anything close to slavery.
But a colonist basically understands that he's colonizing and can, at least theoretically, return to whence he came.Quoting TogetherTurtle
If you're keeping the crew ignorant of the mission and making them think that the ship is the only "world" there is, you're not going to be regaling them with images of balmy beaches and Netflix videos to watch.
A very fortunate colonist can. Realistically, a majority of colonists ever haven't actually had that option. Colonists are always the poor of a nation wishing to find riches in a new land. The already rich have no reason to leave, especially when they can just send the poor to get riches for them. The funny thing about poor people is that even if they can ride a boat back, they can't afford it. There have been exceptions, but I would say 95 percent of long-distance colonists have never been able to go back. I don't see how bumping that number up to 100 makes it all of a sudden unethical.
Quoting Unseen
That was never the intention. The second generation colonists knowing their mission is important because it gives them a common goal. The idea behind sending them thousands of years worth of culture is to remind them who they are doing all of this for, and also entertainment. And to be fair, they're getting a hell of a lot more than pictures and videos. All of the greatest works from every corner of the globe all compiled into the storage of the colony ship is plenty, especially for just one lifetime. Not to mention computer simulations of wonders from Earth both man-made and natural. They have would have every experience there is to have on Earth and then some. Not to mention the culture they create themselves up there. They certainly don't need to be distracted, but if it comes to that, we have more than enough to distract them with.
Do you wish for them to be able to experience Earth because you think it is special? Someone who didn't grow up here might disagree. Honestly, it might be for their own good that they can't come back. Imagine a "born in the wrong generation" kind of person who longs for Earth, and when they get there, it bores them. They have seen the grand canyon and the Eiffel tower as real as possible already through virtual reality, and now that they are finally on Earth to see the real thing, it doesn't really matter. Sure, the first time they see a real monument they will love it, but that excitement will wear off. Every time they go to see a new monument, it won't be any different from the models and simulations they've seen. Eventually, Earth will just be another place for them, similar if not inferior to their real home, which would be either the colony ship or the destination planet.
I did say "theoretical." Wherever there's a slim hope, there's hope. Where there's no hope, that's it: there's no hope.Quoting TogetherTurtle
I see no way around keeping them ignorant of Earth, unless perhaps to depict it as a horrible place their people were lucky to escape from. So, I don't know what would be safe to give them. In fact, the more I think about such a venture, the more untenable it seems, beyond the ethical question, but that's a topic for another forum.
But the vast majority never had that hope. Putting indentured servants and actual slaves aside, the average person could never have gone home. It was impossible because they couldn't have ever afforded it. They might as well have had no method to travel back, to begin with. To me at least, there's no difference in the amount of hope you have when there is a ship but you can't use it, and when there is no ship.
Quoting Unseen
Maybe I should present the question like this: If there are no negatives to returning to Earth, but also no positives, why would someone go back? Say that you are relocated from one house in the woods to another. The trees are the same species, all of the animals are the same, even your house is a complete mirror of the one you used to have. Sure, the landscape might be a little different, but there are still ponds to fish in and birds wake you up in the morning.
You, retaining your memories of the old forest, might want to return because of the good times you had there. However, any children you have wouldn't have those memories. In the time it takes you to become homesick, these children will have made memories of their own in the new forest. If after you die, someone offered to take them back to the old forest to stay, do you think they would take that offer?
BS. "Take me back. I'll be your indentured slave for five years in exchange."
Quoting TogetherTurtle
I think the only viable way to let the mid-trip crew know about Earth is to tell them it is gone, even if that's a bald-faced lie.
Right, because there was definitely a shortage of people to use in the homeland. I'm sure the massive cost of shipping people back was definitely worth it when labor was more abundant and cheaper in the old world. Not to mention that the plantations in the new world did need those people who so desperately wanted back.
Quoting Unseen
You've presented a solution to a problem you haven't proved we even have. You didn't even really respond to the forest hypothetical.
This argument could be equally used by someone who raised slaves from birth here on earth. Would that also just "be life" and something that they should just "get used to"?
Reason and evidence has demonstrated to me what I suspected when the Moon Landings ceased; that humans shall never create a self sustaining colony outside earth's orbit, except in the most extreme and desperate attempt to save the last dregs of humanity in the far future.
Space is hostile, and the simple act of leaving earth's gravity takes a huge and environmentally damaging amount of fuel.
Would you be able to cope with low/zero gravity; space radiation, and stay healthy? Can you deal with boredom, aging and maybe dying on the shit before you even got near your destination?
To get a colony established would take more effort than it ever could be worth taking. Image the most simple everyday item necessary to your life or health. and consider the massive range of support industries necessary to make the object economically. All these support industries would have to follow you in a massive fleet of ships. Take a toothbrush, a cup, a pair of shoes.
A trip to another planet is going to be a one way trip to a potentially hostile environment
. You'll not be able to send for a new toothbrush, bandages, antibiotics, food, water, shelter. You'd have to make it all when you get there. You would have to be plunged into the ancient world.
Could you eat anything that is there? Is there any life there at all? Would the bacteria and viruses for which we had no immunity kill the entire colony strait away? WOuld the gravity cripple you, or would it be too low to maintain your health?
The fact is that space is hostile. We evolved here on earth, and it has everything we need right here.
Genetic augmentation at the level we've already mastered solves this. Making super-humans might make you uncomfortable, but it certainly solves the problem.
Quoting Sculptor
3D printing and basic manufacturing solve this. You don't need a machine to make a toothbrush or every other basic item you need. What you need is the blueprints for those machines and the basics required to make those.
Quoting Sculptor
Do you know how many resources you can extract from a planet when you don't care about keeping it intact? The main draw to colonizing other systems is that you don't have to disassemble planets that you have a history with like Mars or Venus. It's easier to justify completely strip-mining some unknown world in some other system than it is to strip-mine Venus and completely erase it from the night sky.
All the elements that we use are present on earth in quantities easy enough to extract. Antarctica has as yet completely untapped mineral resources. But there is a very good reason we've not done that yet - it's too bloody cold. But it would be a picnic compared to ANYWHERE outside earth's orbit.
3D printing might help, but only of you want plastic shite. The body of a tooth brush would be easy enough but the bristles would be difficult. Printing is limited to plastic items which require a massive backup series of industries from oil extraction, processing, chemical industries, and energy generation.
Can you tell me where you are going to get the plastics to keep your printer fed? And what are you going to do about metal objects?
You forgot about the single most infuriating force when it comes to building, gravity. The temperature being so hostile is nothing compared to how easy building is under lower gravity. Besides, it being a little too hot or cold has never stopped our species from expanding before. People cannot survive in a desert without water they take with them in man-made containers. I don't see why it being so cold is a deterrent especially when we can get better insulated space suits or even use drones for stuff outside.
Quoting Sculptor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da5IsmZZ-tw
You can 3D print with metal, by the way.
Regardless, essentially all you would do with a 3D printer is make parts you need for the more complex industry later. You print all the parts you need for whatever you are using to mine minerals from the ground, power that with solar, fission, or any other local power source,(the means to collect these sources of energy could also be built via printer) and then you process the minerals with a machine you made in the same way as the drill. After that, you continue the process until you can make something like a toothbrush. If we need anything REALLY special that we can't manufacture or mine on another planet, we also likely don't need much of it.
Essentially, all you need to bring is the printer, the few odds and ends that you might not be able to get there (like nuclear fuel to get you through the first few months) and enough metal powder to make the basics, and then the basics produce everything else.
It will definitely be hard. We might fail our first few times, but we can be 100% certain that even with just today's tech, it is achievable. It won't be the traditional romanticized kind of space colonization, but gathering more resources and lessening our impact on Earth's environment is plenty of motivation for us to do it.
I don't see why not. We could even bring mice for them to chase.
The feasibility of the mission is not the question, only the ethicality, although the method the mission is carried out raises many ethical issues.
A common idea in this thread is that there have always been people who make personal sacrifices to advance humankind. Though, this is for the possibility of individual gain. Would the New World have been colonized and humankind "advanced" if there weren't tremendous benefits to be had? I can't imagine a scenario where there isn't some positive to willfully giving up their life; weather it be for their families, money, nations, or stakes for a greater reward.
Sending people to their unavoidable deaths is unethical because it robs people of the choice to risk their lives for any benefit, not to mention the pain of having children knowing they will die with the same lack of freedom.
I've not forgotten gravity at all. Zero gravity is totally hostile to the human body. And building in a space suit is not easy at all.
So the only slightly troubling thing is this? Something astronauts deal with daily and combat with regular exercise? Guess we should cancel everything then.
There is no prospect of a economically viable colony in Antartica, and that is a piece of cake far more than ANY where outside earth's orbit.
That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any reasoning behind thinking this other than what I've already refuted? Keep in mind that I don't want the resources of Antarctica, but with the reserves of an entire planet. I think that when that much wealth is involved, such obstacles as the temperature (that can be negated via technology) should be ignored. I just can't help but think that a net-positive like that is worth exploiting.
Definitely not on the purely ethical ground. But, it might be one of the rare instances where the end justified the means, say the survival of humankind depends on it. Fredric Pohl tackled the subject in his novel 'Man Plus'.