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.

 

Is the 100 year starship project ethical?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 





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?


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.




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

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.



Ok. Like a child I will not responding to you any more. Well until you can afford me the same level of respect as I gave you before your 'la la la' comments.

Good discussion so far though people!
edit on 9-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

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?



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?





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?



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]



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.


EXACTLY! I think Mr Skywatcher is having us on.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.


That is a very good question. Is it indeed ethical? Like I said, it's not a perfect world, but I know I would not be comfortable bringing a child into the world, if I found myself in such a predicament.

But my opinion is only that. Each to their own. I simply bring the question forth for discussion.


Good point though!



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

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?


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.




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]



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?


If I am a troll, for bringing up what I think is an important issue, then I guess I am. I thought the definition of a troll was delibrately trying to get a rise out of someone, no?
edit on 9-1-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

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.



Yup. You also make a massive stride forward in the history of our species. Seems fine to me.

I'll ask again... do you think we should stay stuck on earth forever to potentially stop a teenager getting upset in the future?




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.



Nope, obviously we haven't. My point is that the damage to astronauts (as I understand it) is caused by low gravity (causing sponge-like bones and muscle wastage) and radiation damage. Solve those two problems and there are no health issues.




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.



That's some pretty twisted logic. Their parents have made the choice. Space exploration, making massive scientific advances and getting ourselves off this planet are bold things to do and I hope that we have a go.

From what I've seen astronauts see it as a privilege , I'm sure their kids would be raised the same way if this hypothetical mission were ever to happen.




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?



Obviously not.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

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)


It's all speculation anyway. It's a DARPA study, right? OF COURSE you have to be in 100% peak condition. Have they ever selected an astronaut who was not? My great great great grandfather was born on a ship. (Same exact idea if you think about it.) Was that "unethical"? I don't think so. After all, I'm alive because of it.

This idea that it is somehow "unethical" to send out a starship that may very well be the savior of mankind by getting us off this rock before an asteroid hits is mind boggling. What, are you going to refuse to let it happen because an as yet to be born person won;t be "able to feel sand between his toes"? That whole idea is absurd on its face.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   

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.


Say more?

I know a rotating, inflatable, module has been designed for the Orion-- and assume various models would be tested extensively before deciding on a final design.

I have heard nothing about animal tests or anything from which we have ANY data.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I think the point intended is that of having a child in space, and then knowingly limiting that child's experiences.

Of course, by the time such a program has a vehicle and crew, the viability of child birth will have been tested. To my knowledge, and for example, surgery if a C-Section was required, is not even conceivable in space.

It could be ethical if we find physical and psychological risks are minimal or non-existent. Right now-- we do not know that.

I wish I could remember the name of Heinlein story about a boy growing up in such a ship-- seems like he addressed some of the issues-- like loneliness and privacy.

Keep in mind-- a new social structure would develop-- something untried and outside of human experience-- and if an unbalanced person was inflicted on the rest for a lifetime...



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

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.



Sorry but you're sounding quite ignorant. Look up deontological ethics.

Then you might not be so prone to warping threads.

edit on 9-1-2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   

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.



Sorry but you're sounding quite ignorant. Look up deontological ethics.

Then you might not be so prone to warping threads.

edit on 9-1-2012 by Turq1 because: (no reason given)


Okay laughing boy, you learned about deontological ethics in school. The very fact that the term deontological is placed before the term ethics should be your first clue that it is merely a school of thought and not the standard by which ethics is defined. Of course, your reliance on silly emoticons to call another person ignorant is yet another clue of where you stand.

Deontological ethics comes with rules, obligations, or duties. What are those rules? Duties? Or obligations? By what standard do we go by? How about the greatest good to the greatest amount as a standard by which all rules, duties or obligations are measured, or is that too ignorant for you?



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


We can play ethics all we want.


At the end of the day, the life of the child is decided by the parents.


Which I suppose is ironic because I'm pro life.


More ironic because in all likelihood abortion and contraceptives would have to be banned on this type of craft because inevitably, you need constant growth to start a decent colony.
edit on 10-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Congratulations to the OP on an unusual and thought-provoking thread topic. I really don't know where I stand on it; I shall have to think about it some more.

In the meantime, there are some considerations that the rest of you might want to think about too. Here is a good place to start thinking:

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


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.

I am not unsympathetic to your position, but is there really any such thing as a normal upbringing? Human experience is infinitely variable; so are human traits and capacities. A standardized 'normal' upbringing is unlikely to suit everyone. More likely it will suit no-one. We must all take what we find – especially if we are growing up aboard a starship.

But though no-one may choose the circumstances of her birth, adults in this age of easy, effective contraception can choose when and where to have a child. In what circumstances would it be wrong to have one?

*


My mother travelled to the UK to join my father, who had been posted there, when she was seven months pregnant with my younger brother. Of course, she had reasonable expectations of a safe and comfortable life when she arrived there. That is not normally the case with migrants; yet it has always been common for those facing uncertain futures in foreign and often untamed lands to take their children with them, or have new ones in the adoptive country. Is it ethical for migrants to risk their children's lives and futures as well as their own?

Before you answer, remember that the United States was built on the efforts of such people – and their children. So were the other countries of the New World, as well as Australia and many other such places. And this goes back through history – think of the Greek colonies of the Mediterranean world – and even to the great migrations of prehistory.

We humans are not natural stay-at-homes. We are a roaming and exploring species whose natural social unit is the nomadic hunter-gatherer band. It is worth factoring this thought into our discussion on the ethics of building and manning a generation starship.

*


Another point to consider is that, until very recently, few people had any chance of materially altering the circumstances into which they were born. If your parents were South Chinese peasants, Jews in a Polish shtetl, Polynesian fisherfolk or even European royalty, you were pretty much obliged to be the same. If you were a Hindu in pre-British India (and even, to some extent, today), you'd be stuck not just in the place and social circle of your birth but would also be compelled to work at the same occupation, have your spouse chosen for you by the community, etc. The rights and freedoms of liberal democracy are justly valued, but it is worth recognizing that, where they exist, they are the product of very special circumstances. We call them rights, but really they are luxuries.

These luxurious conditions are unlikely to prevail either universally or for all time to come. And they will certainly not prevail aboard a generation starship.

*


If such a starship is ever built, its crew will doubtless regard themselves as the ultimate elite corps, the Spartiates to end all Spartiates, dedicated in life and even in death to the fulfilment of their sacred mission. They will be more than willing – indeed, they will be eager – to put up with the most stupendous dangers and hardships to do so. Doubtless their children will be brought up in the same tradition and will regard themselves, not as the helpless victims of a conspiracy hatched before their births, but as the most privileged members of the human race. You are at liberty to call this brainwashing or indoctrination; others may call it education, and many will call it necessary.

But is it ethical? I really have no idea.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Should build a time machine and go tell Christopher Columbus its a bad idea because some unborn child might be upset he will never see the land he came from. I guess we cant even keep the lefties out of space can we!



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Heh.

I'm in the middle of Star Ocean: The Last Hope for Xbox360. just happened to take a quick break and saw this thread, so I felt compelled to throw in my biased two cents...

A brief rundown of the backstory is as follows: In the year 2064 humanity destroyed the environment with WMDs in WWIII and were forced to either continue their existence living underground, or find a new home and continue life elsewhere. The latter is basically your mission.

The characters you start off as were born into that destroyed environment.

Did they have a choice?

Now obviously this isn't a video game, and we haven't developed anything capable of "warp". We also haven't completely ruined our environment...yet. But it is still a very real possibility that this will one day become necessary.

About the health aspect of this, which I see has been brought up...

Being born in a third world country is also detrimental to your health. The question is-and I am admitting ignorance of the health effects of space travel in it's current form on human beings- Is space travel more or less harmful than being born in a poor, war torn country? Or in a crime infested city? What are the odds of being hit by a bullet in a gang infested neighborhood, versus the health effects of space travel? You get the point I'm trying to make...

There will also undoubtedly be advancements in "space health" down the road.

I am of the opinion that this is not only ethical, it is a great idea.. and if I had the opportunity to do this, I would say yes without a second thought.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


Umm, do you know what the hundred year starship project is? It's not about people living on a starship for a hundred years, it's about starting a project NOW to build a starship, a project that might take 100 years to complete, meaning the people that start it have no hopes of seeing in completed.

Anyways, I had no choice of where I'd be born or live once born, so no, it's not any less ethical than standard birth.

But this is a long way off. humans can't survive for long periods in space, and we actually have no data on the ability to conceive a child or grow a fetus, in zero G. We would first have to develop artificial gravity so our bodies don't start breaking down.



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Its more ethical than abortion, in cases where the mothers life isn't at risk, or forced conception from rape, (sorry, someone had to say it).



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
They will never do the things we're able to do or see the kinds of things we see here on Earth, just as we will never do the things that they will do nor see what they will see out there. There are beauties beyond words that lie beyond the reaches of our world, and there are atrocities here on this very planet that no one should witness. The wars, the plagues, the genocide, the poverty, the stripping away of freedom, and the deterioration of our environment. That is our reality. They, like we, are both blessed and cursed.
Is it ethical to be born on a space craft, you ask?
I ask, is it ethical to be born here on Earth?

[I'm assuming this is based on the idea that people will be born in space in the future, as the 100 Year Starship project is an effort to achieve interstellar travel within the next century, not have people live in space their entire lives (as in the movie Wall-E), though I'm sure in the future people could possibly be born, live, and die aboard space vessels, though we're still quite some time from seeing such a thing. In fact, for the continuity of our species, reaching such advancements will be necessary as we out grow this world and seek to terraform new worlds.]
edit on 10-1-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join