The Morality/Ethics of "Generation Ships"

This is not a technical discussion of such ships, but rather the moral and ethical questions they raise.

For those who don't know, a "Generation Ship" is a proposed method of interstellar travel. They are to be used if we fail to create engines capable of high fractional-c speeds. They could take hundreds if not thousands of years to reach their destinations. It is basically a self-sustained civilization in space, carrying thousands of people. They are to live and die, with successive generations (hence the name) keeping the ship up and running. They will eventually reach their destination, with the descendents of the original crew making planetfall.

The moral and ethical questions this type of ship raises in my mind are as follows-

1) Is it moral/ethical to have people born into a society in which their only duty is to keep a ship running so that their distant descendents can reach the target star?

2) Is it moral/ethical to force those born into such a society into certain roles? With such a small population and a delciate ship, people would eventually have a caste, a role in which they are to fulfill (agriculture, piloting, engineering) in order to keep the ship running. Certain advances in technology may lessen this effect, though.

3) Is it moral/ethical to force those born into such a society to accept the risks? Obviously, they are totally alone in their part universe. Even an advanced ship would be very vulnerable to events.

4) Is is moral/ethical to force those born into such a society to accept the choices their predecessors made? On Earth, we have a choice to change the course of our nation. On a Generation Ship, you can't exactly decide to turn around and come home. People born here would have no recourse if they believed that exploring space was 'worth' the sacrifice they have been ordained to endure.

EDITED for grammar and word misuse.




[edit on 10-3-2004 by Esoterica]

Essentially you are asking is it moral/ ethical for parents to raise
their children to become members of society? If the parents
choose to be members in the "society" of a generation ship,
then their children (and note the possessive adjective, "their")
would be raised to become members of that society. Decisions
about said children would justly be made by the parents.
When the children become adults they would have choices within
the boundaries set by the society in which they live. How is
any of this different from any other society?

Is it really THAT much different than good old space-ship Earth?

People are borned into risks and under conditions they have no control over every day here on earth

How would this be different?

Perhaps the question is really "what is life all about?"

You could ask the same questions about what is the morality about persevering in our everyday life.

Your question seems to implicate a correlative morality, in other words why should people live their lives on a spaceship, rather than here on earth, and for an objective they can never attain until their progeny attain it? Then again why not, considering the controlled environment and built in prosperity of a spaceship would far exceed most standards of living on this earth?

Presumably the spaceship would be under construction and continuously self improving, and that there would a critical mass of people who would attain that ingredient of knowledge that has advanced our civilization. To the extent that we can conjecture seriously such matters as a starship. it be entirely obsolete by the time it reaches its goal and by the efforts of the people onboard. Hey they might even discover better methods of propulsion on the way.

If you look at the avatar, you might get the idea that such a spaceship is already unnecessary, since an ununpentium powered ship simply bends timespace. Your spaceship might only be necessary as a further coverup of existing technology, as is much of NASA.

While I realize the question is about the morality of such craft and its project, not their technology, the implications of using an obsolete product are highly moral questions.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by mockan
Essentially you are asking is it moral/ ethical for parents to raise
their children to become members of society?

Not really. It's more of a question fo whether the original population has the right to make such a choice for everyone that comes after them.

If the parents
choose to be members in the "society" of a generation ship,
then their children (and note the possessive adjective, "their")
would be raised to become members of that society. Decisions
about said children would justly be made by the parents.
When the children become adults they would have choices within
the boundaries set by the society in which they live. How is
any of this different from any other society?

It is the same as any other society in the extremely technical sense. however, there a few key differences I find very important.

Successive generations have no choice in what path their society takes. Just look at Earth, revolutions and simple discussion has changed people's lives dramatically. The American colonies chose self-rule, the Russians chose communism. Those that did not agree had the choice to leave and go somewher else (in theory if not in practice). Let's say successive interstellar generations revolt and decide they don't want to go to Epsilon Eridani. Well, even if they are successful, they can't change anything. They're stuck out in space.

Right now, the people of every nation has the possibillity, if not the means, of changing their fate. I can choose right now to go live as an Eskimo in Alaska. Were I on a Generation ship, I couldn't exactly put on a spacesuit and go floating somwehere I preferred to be.

I agree with mockan, it is no different than our society.

The ethics or morality issues arise only when you compare their society to ours or of their ancestors.

Unless those descendants find out about our society (of their ancestors) to how much freedom of choices we have, they wouldn't have any knowledge of other choices they could have, which is why there is no question of forcing.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by jp1111]

Innnnnnnnteresting question, and thanks for asking it!

In a sense, they're in the same position as new colonists in a new world -- the children born here in the New World didn't ask to be born here and one could have asked if it was ethical to birth them here in order to perpetuate the colony.

Do we have the right to colonize any place?

I think that when the time comes, the question will be moot -- as when colonists took the risky voyage here to the New World and decided to raise families (or when ancient man strolled across the land bridge and wandered down the continent into the farthest reaches of South America.)

Is it fair? Well, maybe not. Will it happen? Probably so.

The issue of ensuring genetic diversity in those situations will be interesting, though.

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Perhaps the question is really "what is life all about?"

You could ask the same questions about what is the morality about persevering in our everyday life.

True, although living on a spaceship is much more...constricting in your choices.

You question seems to implicate a correlative morality, in other words why should people live their lives on a spaceship, rather than here on earth, and for an objective they can never attain until their progeny attain it. Then again why not, considering the controlled environment and built in prosperity of a spaceship would far exceed most standards of living on this earth?

Presumably the spaceship would be under construction and continuously self improving,

Not necessarilly. A starship only has the resources it takes with it. Eventually, you would reach a point where you can only maintain what you have, not make it better.

and that there would a critical mass of people who would attain that ingredient of knowledge that has advanced our civilization to the extent that we can conjecture seriously such matters as a starship that would be entirely obsolete by the time it reaches its goal.

That's another issue that makes such ships inefficient, but as I said, this was an ethical discussion, not a technical one.

If you look at the avatar, you might get the idea that such a spaceship is already unnecessary, since an ununpentium powered ship simply bends timespace. Your spaceship might only be necessary as a further coverup of existing technology, as is much of NASA.

I would appreciate if conspiracy-related ideas were kept to a minimum

Originally posted by Amuk
Is it really THAT much different than good old space-ship Earth?

In my opinion, being on good ole' spaceship Earth gives you the maximum of choice in your life.

People are borned into risks and under conditions they have no control over every day here on earth

How would this be different?

Basically, I see it as a constriction of choice. It is tue (as stated in Byrd's psot) that Earthbound colonist basically made the same choice for their children. However, even those descendants had the possiblity of going back the mother country. It may not have been easy or costly, but the vast majority of them had the ability to hop back onto a ship and cross the pond.

The issue of early man crossing the land bridg e(and other related issues) is a bit unrelated. Those people were following their food. The prey decides to cross the land bridge, so we do. Unless Earth suffer some catastrophe, generation ships would be a matter of choice rather than necessity.

Yes presumably the onset of ideas about the future is in a certain category, however the best part about such future studies is realization that others will dream dreams different from our own.

I would think that people who have a self contained civilization spanning perhaps thousands of years on their space Zeppelin, would perhaps stop, mine an asteroid here or there perhaps? Maybe they would be as resourceful as people on the earth, and they would receive data from the earth as they are traveling less that the speed of light.

Not only would they have the extreme benefit of being away from the wars and idiotic strife that is imposed politically on the earth, but they would have the benefit of applied research. They would have an expanding population, so they would have to expand their spacecraft on the way, I do not assume a stagnant population as a permanent rule of spaceflight, since I would allow these people to dream their own dreams. We could not prevent these people from doing so.

I make the assumption that these people would live in prosperity because their democracy would be almost entirely and necessarily egalitarian and classless. Their technicians in other words are not above other technicians.

I say it would be entirely moral under these open possibilites, but probably not ethical under the fixed conditions of not stopping to mine asteroids, repair and improve things, and to create something beyond mere survival mode. If it is the Ik Tribe of Uganda as Colin Turnbull wrote, you propose as the characteristic civilization onboard a fixed structure of depravation, it would be entirely unethical, in fact it would not survive. If it is thresholding of prosperity for all, then I would give it a moral go.

[edit on 3-10-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Yes presumably the onset of ideas about the future is in a certain category, however one of the best part about such future studies is the realization that others will dream dreams different from our own.

I would think that people who have a self contained civilization spanning perhaps thousands of years on their space Zeppelin, would perhaps stop, mine an asteroid here or there perhaps? Maybe they would be as resourceful as people on the earth, and they would recieve data from the earth as they are traveling less that the speed of light.

Interstellar space is pretty much empty. Stopping off to get an asteroid would mean entering a star system (most likely), which sort of asks "Why are we going there, when we have what we need here?"

Not only would they have the extreme benefit of being away from the wars and idiotic strife that is imposed politically on the earth, but they would have the benefit of applied research.

You don't think there will be poltitics aboard a large starship? Somebody has to be in charge. And there will be those who think he shouldn't be in charge, that someoen can do a better job. When discussion fails, there is always the knife...

They would have an expanding population, so they would have to expand their spacecraft on the way

"Have to" and "Unable to" are not mutually exclusive

, I do not assume a stagnant population as a permanent rule of spaceflight, since I would allow these people to dream their own dreams. We could not prevent these people from doing so.

Dreams are nice, but you still have to wake up some time.

I make the assumption that these people would live in prosperity because their democracy would be almost entirely and necessarily egalitarian and classless. Their technicians in other words are not above other technicians.

I didn't mean so much that there's a class system like India. But you would need x number of technicians, x number of agriculturalists, x number of engineers. I will admit this si a pretty shaky point on my part, and only included it for completeness. It may or may not become a problem. I set it down to luck.

If they have nothing to compare life on a spaceship to, then the problems are lessened dramatically. A pengium doesn't know cold because he doesn't know warmth, right?

They have something to look forward to, that's certain. Make it vague, so they won't die disappointed when they don't achieve the mission's goal. Make it a class system from the get-go so that only a certain few know they are on a "mission." They'll only tell their kids or those who fit certain testing criteria. It's doable. Hell, even if the plan fails and there is a mutiny, the plan will essentially succeed.

Immoral? Inhumane? No, their function obviously fulfills a much higher purpose. Don't we want a better life for our children? Grandchildren? Great grandchildren? Isn't that basically our function? IMO, yes. Of course I'll have all the fun I can while I clear the path for a good upbringing of my children, though.

Zip

I make the assumption that the preparation for such a journey would deprogram people from the dominant-submissive reflexes of a command-control structure. I would also assume that the minimum space of a spacecraft would delimit the excesses of politics, as we know it on this earth. Other mind games, the elitist impulses and so forth are a total waste of time aboard a spacecraft. Can you imagine being stuck with a "Commander Quig," with no recourse to another authority? You would have to train away such character traits, or don't send such people. Indeed it would be entirely inconvenient to have anyone onboard this ship assuming either a dominant or submissive posture. People would have a specialized task, nothing more and nothing less. People would have to work on a basis of observing and controlling life support systems, not wasting energy restraining others from their reasonable character traits.

Now let me illustrate what I mean by the waste of time of dominant-submissive posturing. Okay you have a leader, he makes your decisions, now you retreat from reality and rely upon his leadership. Now you have to please the leader, but the evenly distributed calcium in space that exists as a light-gravity effect of oscillating elemental valence, has condensed an object approaching the ship. Do you call for the leader or do you take care of the problem yourself? But wait, you are under leadership, you must notify the leader, and he must make the decision! Both leader and his constituency are in a state of diminished awareness, and cannot cope. The mission has a "major malfunction," bye bye spaceship.

What I am suggesting is that politics diminishes consciousness, in traditional command-control mode. People ignore things, because the leader has the responsibility. But your very survival here depends upon independent initiative to attack problems, not people!

What is the morality here? Basically an extended awareness to suit the mission is an absolute requirement, command-control and permissions may just take too much time, waste too much energy, and fatigue everyone onboard a spacecraft. Only a rotating leadership among equals may suit the billing, so people "keep on their toes." Otherwise it is the kind of "anarchy," they have in Norway, no elite, but rule of the people who take care of their problems both internally and responding to their environment, in this case the deep of space.

Skip said it, not me!

SEND HIPPIES TO PROPAGATE THE SPECIES.

HIPPIES.

Zip

Originally posted by SkipShipman
I make the assumption that the preparation for such a journey would deprogram people from the dominant-submissive reflexes of a command-control structure. I would also assume that the minimum space of a spacecraft would delimit the excesses of politics, as we know it on this earth. Other mind games, the elitist impulses and so forth are a total waste of time aboard a spacecraft. Can you imagine being stuck with a "Commander Quig," with no recourse to another authority? You would have to train away such character traits, or don't send such people. Indeed it would be entirely inconvenient to have anyone onboard this ship assuming either a dominant or submissive posture. People would have a specialized task, nothing more and nothing less. People would have to work on a basis of observing and controlling life support systems, not wasting energy restraining others from their reasonable character traits.

Now let me illustrate what I mean by the waste of time of dominant-submissive posturing. Okay you have a leader, he makes your decisions, now you retreat from reality and rely upon his leadership. Now you have to please the leader, but the evenly distributed calcium in space that exists as a light-gravity effect of oscillating elemental valence, has condensed an object approaching the ship. Do you call for the leader or do you take care of the problem yourself? But wait, you are under leadership, you must notify the leader, and he must make the decision! Both leader and his constituency are in a state of diminished awareness, and cannot cope. The mission has a "major malfunction," bye bye spaceship.

I think that's called a strawman argument, but I'm not entirely sure it fits the bill. Strawman

People are not robots, yes. They will not need to ask their boss if they should do their job. If your job is waste management, you do it. You don't call the leader to ask every time someone flushes the toilet. But say your job is to deflect incoming microparticles that may damage the ship? If there is a great danger the ship may the crippled, then it is prudent to call the 'leader' (Captain, whatever) and inform him of the situation.

What I am suggesting is that politics diminishes consciousness, in traditional command-control mode. People ignore things, because the leader has the responsibility. But your very survival here depends upon independent initiative to attack problems, not people!

What I mean is, there is going to be somebody, or a group, that is in charge of the ship. That's just how a society works (especially one with a set mission that consists of more than 'survival'. We have to get the ship to the planet in one piece, you know). And as the years go on, people are going to decide that they may not like the way things are going. Add in a little bit of zealousness, "The mission comes before all else", and you have a situation ripe for problems. I'm not talking all-out war, but I can see some dirty deeds being done.

EDITED for spelling


[edit on 10-3-2004 by Esoterica]

As I said earlier, even if the mission fails due to a mutiny or change of course, as long as the people survive, the species continues to exist. The ship doesn't even have to land anywhere and it has served its purpose. It can perpetually float around space and as long as humans live on it then the mission is essentially successful.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
As I said earlier, even if the mission fails due to a mutiny or change of course, as long as the people survive, the species continues to exist. The ship doesn't even have to land anywhere and it has served its purpose. It can perpetually float around space and as long as humans live on it then the mission is essentially successful.

Zip

Well, that depends on why the ship was launched.

If Earth is in mortal danger, then perpetuation fo the species is top priority. In that sense, the mission is successful. But if the mission was colonization, then they failed miserably. Innumerabel resources were poured into the ship so that humanity could extend it's reach to the stars. If they just sit there in interstellar limbo, then they aren't doing what they are 'supposed' to do.

[edit on 10-3-2004 by Esoterica]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
A rotating leadership among equals may suit the billing, so people "keep on their toes." Otherwise it is the kind of "anarchy," they have in Norway, no elite, but rule of the people who take care of their problems both internally and responding to their environment, in this case the deep of space.

I also make the assumption that the entire crew is highly educated, maybe averaging over 180 in the IQ, and having a high level of social and cultural literacy. In such a case it would be absurd say to have someone with the lowest scores in a position of leadership, unless he were only part of a rotating shift that has a special insight upon operations.

I do not consider, imho, there is any Strawman argument in the above previous commentary, since it is not self assertion of the only case substituting for your case, but a hypothetical case. I do not decry leadership, but it has to be a great deal better than our current concept of it. I would look at leadership onboard a limited spacecraft as sufficiently in its rotation as to create an edge upon reality, but not as royalty and/or conventionally military as to create undue problems.

The idea of a caste system is unnecessary, I would expect each person to be able to fulfill any task with varied but pleasing contentment anywhere onboard such a ship. There cannot be closed eyes anywhere onboard, and that is what happens in a caste system. People negate the other. My argument is that such view may accomodate various cultural tensions here on earth, but these things are insufficient for demands of space flight.

Since the personnel and design of it would be intelligent and culturally literate. I make the case for universal responsibility and even a thresholding of prosperity for every person onboard, if not it would not meet an ethical test as worthy. That is why the design of it must be sufficient in size to accomodate such a long run journey. And to be clear I define the ethics of such a journey as being desirable for the people onboard as much as possible, and every step of the way. If otherwise, it is not worth doing. The end goal would have to be sufficent as well as the journey, but if in the end these people have to return to earth, the journey itself should suffice.

As a philosophical view may say, "it is the journey not the destination."

"Ethics must be the design," is a much better statement than the question "here is the design, what are the ethics of it?"

[edit on 3-10-2004 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman

I also make the assumption that the entire crew is highly educated, maybe averaging over 180 in the IQ, and having a high level of social and cultural literacy. In such a case it would be absurd say to have someone with the lowest scores in a position of leadership, unless he were only part of a rotating shift that has a special insight upon operations.

An IQ of 180? You're serious? Even the best estimates I've seen on IQ means that there are only maybe 2,000 such individudal currently on the planet. Assume we find all of them, and also assume they want to go, and also assume they have the necessary skills...we may still be many thousands short.

I see that as an unrealistic goal.

I do not consider, imho, there is any Strawman argument in the above previous commentary, since it is not self assertion of the only case substituting for your case, but a hypothetical case. I do not decry leadership, but it has to be a great deal better than our current concept of it. I would look at leadership onboard a limited spacecraft as sufficiently in its rotation as to create an edge upon reality, but not as royalty and/or conventionally military as to create undue problems.

I saw it as a strawman since it was your main reply to a general statement. But hey, what do I know?

Anyway, it's all well and good to theorize about "rotating leadership", but the reality of the situation is that nobody is perfect. Mistakes will be made, maybe big ones. Once somebody decides he should be in charge instead of the logically "appointed" administration, there will be friction.

The idea of a caste system is unnecessary,

I admitted it was a far-fetched idea.

Since the personnel and design of it would be intelligent and culturally literate. I make the case for universal responsibility and even a thresholding of prosperity for every person onboard, if not it would not meet an ethical test as worthy.

Assuming all goes according to plan. We've seen the universe doesn't hold what mere humans like in high regard. Other humans only marginally moreso.

That is why the design of it must be sufficient in size to accomodate such a long run journey. And to be clear I define the ethics of such a journey as being desirable for the people onboard as much as possible, and every step of the way. If otherwise, it is not worth doing. The end goal would have to be sufficent as well as the journey, but if in the end these people have to return to earth, the journey itself should suffice.

Well, again, as 'desirable as possible' does not exclude 'undesirable'.

As a philosophical view may say, "it is the journey not the destination."

"Ethics must be the design," is a much better statement than the question "here is the design, what are the ethics of it?"

Agreed, although necessity and ethics don't always coincide. The perfect universe does not exist.

Well, I'm off to bed, I'll check back on this thread in the morning. Thanks for an interesting conversation thus far

[edit on 10-3-2004 by Esoterica]

I have to admitt, the eventual society that would grow on a (hypothetical) generation ship would actually be superior to ours.

Think about it. On earth, what is the one, single goal ALL members of society are aiming for? There is none, we're all off doing our own little thing, we get together in smaller groups to achieve a specific goal then disband etc. But in the generation ship society, all members would know from the moment they are born, we are heading here, this is roughly how we're going to get there, and this is what we're going to do once we're there. Due to the restrictions of the ship, all members of society would have a role to play, no role less important than the next. They would all be forced to get along with each other lest the ships goes to hell meaning everyone dies.

The first generation of "inhabitants" would have to raise their children in a way that the children all have a specialty in something, possibly the role the childrens parents are currently playing out. These children (through necessity) would pass their role onto the next generation and so forth, so you'd basically breed a "race" of humans who cooperate & work together. Almost like a bee hive. Everyone has a role, all working for the greater good.

ps: After a coupla hundred years in low gravity, the resultant population would most likely almost be a totally new species of human.