It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 Jean Paul Zodeaux
I did answer the question with my initial post, and like a child, you pretended I did not answer the question and keep, like a child, pretending still.
Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
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?
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?
Originally posted by CaptChaos
So, by this crazy logic, it is "unethical" for anyone in a place like Somalia to have babies, since they know they are going to be born to a life of starvation and disease. They should be put in jail for submitting these poor, innocent babies to such a fate.
Originally posted by CaptChaos
So, by this crazy logic, it is "unethical" for anyone in a place like Somalia to have babies, since they know they are going to be born to a life of starvation and disease. They should be put in jail for submitting these poor, innocent babies to such a fate.
Originally posted by eightfold
How do you propose giving the choice to unborn children? Are you saying we shouldn't do it because a teenager might get upset 30 years from now?
Am I feeding a troll or are you being serious? Yes it is ridiculous to compare testing biological weapons on babies to astronauts having kids in space.
We're only going to find out the long term effects by putting people up there long term. Are you saying we shouldn't?
Space travel (in it's current form) isn't strictly 'unhealthy.' They're super-fit individuals when they go up there and they have to stick to strict exercise regimes.
On the kind of mission being discussed (with hefty radiation shielding and some Arthur C Clarke style spinning false gravity) I don't see any issue. We're not going to be sending up Fatty McFat & his cross-eyed kids.
The apollo astronauts are mostly all still with us, the handful that aren't died in their 60's/70's. [SOURCE]
Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
I propose, that by giving a child a 'normal' upbringing, that when the time is right, they will be empowered to make any choice they so wish. By sending a baby or conceiving a baby in space, you take away that choice, and confine them to a life upon a starship.
Scientific studies that have been carried out on the health of astronauts have proven that it's detrimental to their health, by taking vital signs before and after their mission. We are not talking Arthur C Clarke but, real life technology here. As far as I am aware, we have not made 'natural' gravity on a space mission yet.
If we know that spending time in space causes ill health, and we know that biological weapons cause ill health, why is it any different? We subjecting someone to ill health, no matter by what medium, to somebody without them having a choice.
If there were a chance to find a remedy to a heavy anthrax dose, but we had to give someone a heavy dose first to find out ( with a chance that the remedy might fail), would it be right to do so, without them agreeing to be tested on?
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)
Originally posted by Illustronic
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.
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.
Originally posted by Turq1
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.
By giving a child a 'normal' upbringing... when the time is right, they will be empowered to make any choice they wish. By sending a baby or conceiving a baby in space, you take away that choice.
*
*
*