Is the 100 year starship project ethical?

After reading lots on this subject, and more so recently due to the added press interest and revelations, it occurred to me that a human being, not of their own choice, will be born and die upon a space ship without ever seeing the Earth, as we see it.

They'll never feel the sand between their toes, as they walk along a beach in the sunset. They'll never feel the wind blow in their face. They'll never eat an apple or a miriad of other things that we take for granted everyday.

They'll also see things that we ordinary folk, will never get the chance to see. But is it right, that considering they have no choice in the matter, that it should happen?

What happens to the human body, when all it's ever known is life in a confined space craft, with zero gravity?

What happens to a phoetus, when it's concieved in space?


Is it ethical?

Yes, it's "ethical." You've been made to live in a house or an apartment, right? You don't live out in the open under the stars. Instead, your environment is largely artificial. In the summer we go from an air conditioned house to an air conditioned car to an air conditioned office building and cringe when we have to get out in the stifling heat for a few seconds.

If this is hust a 100 year starship and you're born half way through the voyage, there's a good chance you'll be alive at the end of it. Now THAT would be something!

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Interesting take on the subject.
They'll probably have videos of earth playing for them non stop mind control style.
Breeding robots basically, crazy stuff when you think about it.

Originally posted by schuyler
Yes, it's "ethical." You've been made to live in a house or an apartment, right? You don't live out in the open under the stars. Instead, your environment is largely artificial. In the summer we go from an air conditioned house to an air conditioned car to an air conditioned office building and cringe when we have to get out in the stifling heat for a few seconds.

If this is hust a 100 year starship and you're born half way through the voyage, there's a good chance you'll be alive at the end of it. Now THAT would be something!

That is not the same thing at all. There is also a good chance that considering it's never been done, and no one know's what the effect would be on an infant, that being born in space half way through a 100 year journey, you would not be alive at the end of it. Especially when you look at what happens to astronauts when they have only been in space for a relatively short time.

Why do you think they have to be in 100% peak condition to even be allowed to fly a mission?

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
... is it right, that considering they have no choice in the matter, that it should happen?

The parents will make the choice for their unborn kids when they decide to join a lengthy mission like this. It happens (admittedly in a completely different context) whenever anybody decides to have a baby.

What happens to the human body, when all it's ever known is life in a confined space craft, with zero gravity?

What happens to a phoetus, when it's concieved in space?

Is it ethical?

The only way we find things out is to try them. We've already done lengthy experiments in low-gravity on the spacestation & mir, a mission like this would just be an extension of them. Conception in space is going to happen eventually, the only way to answer your question is to do it. Space porn anyone?

The ethics of it are a no-brainer to me. As long as the astronauts on the mission aren't forced to do go then I don't see any problem with it.

If ethics is not founded in an understanding that the greatest good to the greatest amount is the prime directive of all things ethical, then it is pointless to even discuss ethics.

The point made about the "choice" of birth is a moot one since those born into poverty did not have a choice anymore than those born into wealth. Those born in rough terrain were no more privileged in choice than those born in more pleasant terrain. Being born is not a choice it is, for lack of a better phrase, an accident of birth. The choice issue is moot.

What then makes a 100 year star ship ethical or unethical? The actions of its crew. If those actions are made to obtain the greatest good to the greatest amount then those people are ethical, if their actions are made with total disregard for the greater good, then their actions are unethical.

Would a 100 year star ship bring us closer to the greatest good to the greatest amount? If it is humanities destiny (for lack of better term) to seed the stars, then it is arguable the action of launching and manning a 100 year star ship is ethical, at least in its foundational principle. Ethics is a constant discipline and the single action of creating and launching a 100 year star ship does not guarantee a continued ethical road. That continuance depends upon the crew.

Originally posted by eightfold


The parents will make the choice for their unborn kids when they decide to join a lengthy mission like this. It happens (admittedly in a completely different context) whenever anybody decides to have a baby.

A parent when deciding to concieve a baby, does not make the decision of that persons whole life. When it's a child, yes. Whole life, in it's entirity, no!

Originally posted by eightfold

The only way we find things out is to try them. We've already done lengthy experiments in low-gravity on the spacestation & mir, a mission like this would just be an extension of them. Conception in space is going to happen eventually, the only way to answer your question is to do it. Space porn anyone?

The ethics of it are a no-brainer to me. As long as the astronauts on the mission aren't forced to do go then I don't see any problem with it.

edit on 9/1/12 by eightfold because: speeling errorz

We also don't know the effect of certain biological weapons on the human body, or a great many other things. Is it ok to experiment on babies that have no choice in the matter then? After all, we don't know till we try right?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If ethics is not founded in an understanding that the greatest good to the greatest amount is the prime directive of all things ethical, then it is pointless to even discuss ethics.
hic
The point made about the "choice" of birth is a moot one since those born into poverty did not have a choice anymore than those born into wealth. Those born in rough terrain were no more privileged in choice than those born in more pleasant terrain. Being born is not a choice it is, for lack of a better phrase, an accident of birth. The choice issue is moot.

What then makes a 100 year star ship ethical or unethical? The actions of its crew. If those actions are made to obtain the greatest good to the greatest amount then those people are ethical, if their actions are made with total disregard for the greater good, then their actions are unethical.

Would a 100 year star ship bring us closer to the greatest good to the greatest amount? If it is humanities destiny (for lack of better term) to seed the stars, then it is arguable the action of launching and manning a 100 year star ship is ethical, at least in its foundational principle. Ethics is a constant discipline and the single action of creating and launching a 100 year star ship does not guarantee a continued ethical road. That continuance depends upon the crew.

The difference is, to be born on Earth - regardless of the circumstance, is natural. The parent knowing what circumstance they find themselves in probably knows the outcome and consequence of such. It is not an experiment as such, as for last how many thousands of years? It has been practised.


So the question remains, do we in the name of science advocate such an experiment and are we 100% confident in the ethics of such an undertaking as human beings, first and foremost?

FWIW I think we're going about this the wrong way!

We should be focusing more on developing robots to do this kind of lengthy work, not sending humans to breed, cross our fingers and just hope for the best!

We've been sending out space probes to explore the cosmos for year's now but it seems NASA are keen on running before they've even learnt to walk, and this in my opinion is completely irresponsible.

We should only be sending humans out in space when we've A) developed some kind of technology (something like anti-gravity for instance?) that permits us to travel vast distances over a short period of time (think Star Trek!) and/or B) we've learnt a great deal more about space in general.

Forget the "ethical" debate....we shouldn't even be having a debate about sending Astronauts on crazy 100 year missions....period!

OP, I agree with you that ethics should be considered...
But IMHO, at the end of the day, sacrifices must be made for the good of man.
The pyramids weren't built within one lifetime.

I, for one, think that we might be a little too early for such a project, but heck I wish I could board our very own USS Enterprise damnit.

For me, the main objective for a uber project, like this, is what's most important.
If they are going to scout for a new plant, or some benefit to mankind, then sign me the eff up!

But if they're planning this to nuke a damn planet, then hellllll no. Burn it with fire~

Originally posted by Just Chris
FWIW I think we're going about this the wrong way!

We should be focusing more on developing robots to do this kind of lengthy work, not sending humans to breed, cross our fingers and just hope for the best!

We've been sending out space probes to explore the cosmos for year's now but it seems NASA are keen on running before they've even learnt to walk, and this in my opinion is completely irresponsible.

We should only be sending humans out in space when we've A) developed some kind of technology (something like anti-gravity for instance?) that permits us to travel vast distances over a short period of time (think Star Trek!) and/or B) we've learnt a great deal more about space in general.

Forget the "ethical" debate....we shouldn't even be having a debate about sending Astronauts on crazy 100 year missions....period!

You are 100% correct, however, this mission seems like it is a go. So we therefore have to look at the ethics of such an undertaking.

I agree though, when it comes to all things space, we as a race are a tiny baby, and this is indeed a case of running before walking (even crawling)! Star for you.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

The difference is, to be born on Earth - regardless of the circumstance, is natural.

And if there is life on other planets is it unnatural life?

The parent knowing what circumstance they find themselves in probably knows the outcome and consequence of such.

If this were true, there would not be terms such as "unwanted pregnancies", and I highly doubt that Charles Manson's parents predicted that outcome.

It is not an experiment as such, as for last how many thousands of years? It has been practised.

As it will be practiced in space, your reification of its unnatural state notwithstanding.

So the question remains, do we in the name of science advocate such an experiment and are we 100% confident in the ethics of such an undertaking as human beings, first and foremost?

You are going to have to better than reify in order to assert the question has not been answered. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la la I can't hear you la la la la. That might work.

Originally posted by bojimbo
OP, I agree with you that ethics should be considered...
But IMHO, at the end of the day, sacrifices must be made for the good of man.
The pyramids weren't built within one lifetime.

I, for one, think that we might be a little too early for such a project, but heck I wish I could board our very own USS Enterprise damnit.

For me, the main objective for a uber project, like this, is what's most important.
If they are going to scout for a new plant, or some benefit to mankind, then sign me the eff up!

But if they're planning this to nuke a damn planet, then hellllll no. Burn it with fire~

Of course they are doing it with the right intentions. They are not going to "nuke" a planet. That doesn't make it right. As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Is it ok to experiment on babies, for that is what in esscence we will be doing, when they have no choice? Is it right that we as a race, take that choice from even one person?

If you can save 30 people from dieing in an accident, by sacrificing 1 innocent person, would you do it?

They may have a holodeck, they most certainly will have a greenhouse for crops. I see the biggest problem will be generating some kind of gravity, the spinning artificial gravity that's most envisioned has 'side effects' pun intended. Endoskeleton development of a fetus could be severely premature. Although studies the Russians conducted of cockroaches conceived in space showed the grew faster, stronger, larger and were quicker than their terrestrial exoskeleton parents.

You have the human element to overcome. Command/power conflicts, confinement, boredom, imprisonment, and what do you do with infectious disease, would disease not occur? What kinds of psychological effects of being quarantined, consider they may have animals to saluter and eat, for milk and eggs and cream and butter, all in a confined space. What about punishments for behavior detrimental to the health and emotional stability of the whole?

I believe this is more of a study than laying out blueprint plans. One has to start somewhere.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

A parent when deciding to concieve a baby, does not make the decision of that persons whole life. When it's a child, yes. Whole life, in it's entirity, no!

Fair point. I just don't see it as a massive ethical problem, it would be a privilege to be one of the first extra-terrestrial humans if you ask me. And you did.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

We also don't know the effect of certain biological weapons on the human body, or a great many other things. Is it ok to experiment on babies that have no choice in the matter then? After all, we don't know till we try right?

Now you're being a tad ridiculous?

You're talking about deliberately doing harm to something that's helpless, I thought we were talking about exploring space and the risks associated with doing so. My view is that those are risks we should (and probably will) take.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

And if there is life on other planets is it unnatural life?

Not to that particular planet, no.

If this were true, there would not be terms such as "unwanted pregnancies", and I highly doubt that Charles Manson's parents predicted that outcome.

I never said it was a perfect world. I was addressing your point on being born in a particular circumstance. Charles Manson's choices were his own. I don't see the relevance, sorry.

As it will be practiced in space, your reification of its unnatural state notwithstanding.

Indeed, you are probably correct. That wasn't the debate however, it was wether it is 'right' to do so?

You are going to have to better than reify in order to assert the question has not been answered. Try sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming la la la la I can't hear you la la la la. That might work.

edit on 9-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Was there any need for that, quite frankly childish response? Please Jean Paul Zodeaux, can you answer the question at hand (although I think I know your answer), in your opinion, is it 'ethical' or 'right' to allow the experimentation of such a project, on a human being, that has no choice in the matter?

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by schuyler
Yes, it's "ethical." You've been made to live in a house or an apartment, right? You don't live out in the open under the stars. Instead, your environment is largely artificial. In the summer we go from an air conditioned house to an air conditioned car to an air conditioned office building and cringe when we have to get out in the stifling heat for a few seconds.

If this is hust a 100 year starship and you're born half way through the voyage, there's a good chance you'll be alive at the end of it. Now THAT would be something!

That is not the same thing at all. There is also a good chance that considering it's never been done, and no one know's what the effect would be on an infant, that being born in space half way through a 100 year journey, you would not be alive at the end of it. Especially when you look at what happens to astronauts when they have only been in space for a relatively short time.

Why do you think they have to be in 100% peak condition to even be allowed to fly a mission?

edit on 9-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)

Yes no gravity over time does hurt humans but if we can build a ship that lasts 100 years while sustaining life we should have already invented artificial gravity. Even if we hadn't he can always put the ship into a centrifugal spin. This should create the gravity we need.

"Is the 100 year starship project ethical?" Nope. Since we already have problems living on this hellish planet. How much more hellish is a starship? As long as this starship could provide/replicate environ as found on earth, then 100 years/one generation of "trial and error" might not be so bad.

I don't think it is a good idea at all to try to make babies in space. I think there is too much potential for deformities and such. I think it would be a much better option to pursue suspended animation and have the crew run the ship in like 3 year rotating shifts, hopefully with the help of AI, or at least smart computers.

Originally posted by eightfold


Fair point. I just don't see it as a massive ethical problem, it would be a privilege to be one of the first extra-terrestrial humans if you ask me. And you did.

That's good. But you have that choice. You must understand that you choice is not everybody elses choice though. Should we take that choice away from another human being?

Now you're being a tad ridiculous?

You're talking about deliberately doing harm to something that's helpless, I thought we were talking about exploring space and the risks associated with doing so. My view is that those are risks we should (and probably will) take.

Is it ridculous? We don't even know the longterm effects of space travel on an adult human being. Infact, we know the short term effects, and we know they are detrimental to one's health.

So please explain why that is ridiculous, when all evidence suggests, that space travel (in it's current from) is unhealty and will lead to severe healh problems in human beings?


This is why I brought the whole subject up