Alien life, probabilities, and interstellar propagation of human life

[PeterDonis]

Reporting to ask that this thread be moved to the sci-fi subforum.

Thread has been moved.

 

[PeroK]

I'm out!

 

[javisot]

I'm out!

Me too.

I don't understand why Dave wanted to derail the conversation.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK. So you are using the term "AI" to mean machines doing anything that you would normally expect to be done manually. From what you highlighted, I take it that any kind of autopilot (whether employing a computer or not) would fall under "AI". A lot of what you seem to be putting under the category of "AI" would be mostly or entirely handled by process control - technology that, as a aerospace engineer, you are familiar with.

I use the term "AI" to indicate software that has been developed in a way that the actual reasoning behind the automated decisions is not directly and explicitly derived from the requirements. As best I know, this is not allowed on safety-related components of any civilian or military aircraft.

We are talking about changing diapers and bottle feeding and teaching a ten year not to steal or torture small animals.

Can you connect the dots for me between "automated, autonomous, cargo-carrying robot ship" and "raising children"?

I don't care what you call it. If you'd like to posit some system short of an AI that is capable of the above, and much more, I'm all ears.

If I am talking to someone about any subject, it helps to know what their background is. Most parents have noticed that a whole lot of their kids behavior didn't come from the parenting at all. Since I am sure that you have seen this, I take it that it

You are already sprinting when you haven't started walking. Let's start with the first hour.

A baby is raised in a test tube.
It gets disengaged from its umbilical, a la Matrix pod.
It is lying in it creche - or on a conveyor belt, whatever you envision.
Aaaannnd Go...

Tell me how - without some form of artificial intelligence - the whitish stuff gets put in one end and the brownish stuff gets wiped off the other end. And how the two are not mistaken for each other.

Because I am simply not seeing that middle step at all in your proposal.

As far as hugging is concerned, I invite you to visit the Harlow link from my last post.

Let's see if it survives the first hour.

By the way, while we were talking, it squirmed out of the creche and is nowhere in sight. Who's gonna go look for it?

 

[.Scott]

I'm still in. A forum is a forum. We can still post citations. We can still justify estimations.
And the discussion will still reflect on the decisions any culture (alien of human) would have to consider before investing in interstellar expeditions.

 

[DaveC426913]

Me too.

I don't understand why Dave wanted to derail the conversation.

What?? How did I derail it?

Sincere question. If I'm the one who took it off-track, I'd like to know where and how.

This is where I think it turned to sci-fi:

But if we are going to develop technologies to make this transit work, we would probably be better off building a genetic human ark. The ark would operate automatically and autonomously. It would simply carry its cargo of biology equipment, training material, and human genome until it was within about 20 years of its destination. It would then begin "extracorporeal pregnancies", followed by automated up-bringing, and then finally graduation to planetary exploration.

And then a number of people seemed to agree with him that this is not squarely in the realm of sci-fi?

 

[.Scott]

So does "AI can breed, birth, nurture and raise humans to a functional, aneurotic adulthood without any human interaction" count as a "real" project solution built on "sound engineering"? I thought real projects with sound engineering was what we were aiming for. Otherwise it's "sci-fi", no?

In order for it to be a project, it has to have objectives. If all we are looking to do is to establish a colony, then we still have to address matters like "how long must the colony persist in order to meet the mission objective?" and "assuming that the mission has met its objective, will that success ever have any affect at all on the rest of humanity?".
The question about whether an automatic and autonomous system (I will call it an AAS) "can breed, nurture, and raise humans to" reliably meet the mission objectives is something that can be determined on Earth, before launch, by experimentation (R&D). I am confident that this could be done without breaking known Physics.

If not, if we can just say "AI will solve it all", then why can't this same AI simply produce a working fusion drive, or anti-matter drive, or worm hole, or warp drive? Then anyone could go - and in comfort, no less.

If we use AI to solve it, I suggest that the AI will be done on Earth, before launch to hunt out or detail out engineering issues - and perhaps to develop some addition science and technology.
Unlike the "complicated" AAS parenting problems, as best we know as of now is that work holes and warp drive aren't real Physics and no amount of creativity will crack them. For the Tempest mission I described earlier, fusion drive would never provide any game-changing efficiency and antimatter drive at its practical (and very futuristic) best would only reduce the travelers' transit time to centuries.

I think my ability to meaningfully contribute to this thread is rapidly reaching an end. It's a pity. It's a subject of great interest to me.

The AAS parenting would include peer contact. Harlow did far worse than this kind of AAS parenting - with a variety of results, some as bad as you foresee. (And he did not use AI).

But not every set of Harlow's conditions created dire results. So, it would seem that there is ample room for experimentation.

In the 2026 Western world, most people consider Harlows experiments with monkeys to be unethical. Certainly that opinion would be extended to the same treatment of people.

 

[.Scott]

This is where I think it turned to sci-fi:
[ my description of the genetic ark ]
And then a number of people seemed to agree with him that this is not squarely in the realm of sci-fi?

Every component of that proposed ark is an attackable technology. None of it requires "new Physics".
Medical researchers are already experimenting with artificial wombs and ectogenesis.
Harlow's research started in the 1950's and '60's.

In contrast, there are no experimental devices that have any promise of delivering a payload to Trapist within a dozen human lifespans - or even to demonstrate a technology that would lead to that.

I believe the ark is what brought the conversation from the realm of pure sci-fi to something that could be developed within three or four decades.

 

[DaveC426913]

The question about whether an automatic and autonomous system (I will call it an AAS) "can breed, nurture, and raise humans to" reliably meet the mission objectives is something that can be determined on Earth, before launch, by experimentation (R&D). I am confident that this could be done without breaking known Physics.

How?

I mean, without an AI so advanced it is more capable of raising people than real people are (since it has the additional disadvantages of being in an unknown, with highly unknown perils ahead, no consultation, no people to lean on, etc.)

You still haven't connected any of the dots between "automation" and "raising a society of humans from scratch".

"AI will solve it" is a deux ex machina. That doesn't even make good sci-fi. If I were reading this book, I'd be asking by the second chapter: "if it's smart enough can create a society from scratch from embryos to humans, surely just making a better rocket would be child's play!"

Anyway, I have repeated this last point too many times. I haven't heard anything that makes an robot-raised-society any less fantastical.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe the ark is what brought the conversation from the realm of pure sci-fi to something that could be developed within three or four decades.

Yes. A sprinkle of AI dust solves all problems. And in my lifetime, no less.

I note that you still have not connected a single dot between premise and goal. We have a baby that's an hour old, starving and pooping. It has another 157,679 hours to go.

 

[.Scott]

How?

I mean, without an AI so advanced it is more capable of raising people than real people are (since it has the additional disadvantages of being in an unknown, with highly unknown perils ahead, no consultation, no people to lean on, etc.)

You still haven't connected any of the dots between "automation" and "raising a society of humans from scratch".

"AI will solve it" is a deux ex machina. That doesn't even make good sci-fi. If I were reading this book, I'd be asking by the second chapter: "if it's smart enough can create a society from scratch from embryos to humans, surely just making a better rocket would be child's play!"

Anyway, I have repeated this last point too many times. I haven't heard anything that makes an robot-raised-society any less fantastical.

AI won't do it. Engineers will. And I am getting less and less clear about how you use that term. AI is not "smart". If you think it is smart, you must be referring to something which I would not include in the Ark solution.

As far as "unknown perils", if they happen en route, the AAS will handle it with predetermined responses - not "Advanced AI". If they happen on site, they will be fielded by our tribe.

And we are not raising a society, we are raising kids to adolescence - being social animals, they make the society without further prompting.

You seem to think that the design of this system will be done by "AI". And you wonder how this AI cannot solve the rocket problem. AI by itself can't solve either of those problems. Both will require human engineers, management teams, and manufacturers to make them happen. Saying that AI is smart is like saying that a calculator is smart. Calculators are useful, and I am sure there would be some on the mission. Various AI programs are useful and I'm sure we would supply some of those on the mission. But nothing like an AI would be responsible for the mission or the kids.

Think automated nurseries, kids that move around the living spaces a lot more than the machines. Stand-ins for parents that are little more than animated dolls - something to cuddle with, not for a real dialog. And if you need a conversation, you go to a peer or a computer monitor.

Don't think of AI robots so smart they can act like parents. Don't think of living and schooling routines that look a lot like what we seen on Earth.

 

[.Scott]

Yes. A sprinkle of AI dust solves all problems. And in my lifetime, no less.

I note that you still have not connected a single dot between premise and goal. We have a baby that's an hour old, starving and pooping. It has another 157,679 hours to go.

That's just a problem in mechanics. If the baby has made it to term in the artificial womb, transitioning to "birth" means life in a cuddle/feeding/poop-cleaning/exercise/talking machine until it is ready for peers. And it would not be AI!

Your premise is that the journey can be made with a meaningfully better rocket. I don't see you addressing how that would happen.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's just a problem in mechanics. If the baby has made it to term in the artificial womb, transitioning to "birth" means life in a cuddle/feeding/poop-cleaning/exercise/talking machine

Mechanics. A clockwork machine. Not AI. Doesn't learn, adapt, adjust its parameters organically, based on complex input.

What is a poop-cleaning machine? Do you have any idea how advanced the process is to merely wipe a baby's bum, let alone doing so without injuring it or worse? How would the machine even know it's injuring the baby?

Do you have any idea how vastly complex navigating any parameter space involving humans is?

Which end is which? Is it latching? (What is latching? Why is it critical?) Why not? Does it need more sleep? Warmer bottle? Is it spitting up? Why is it choking? What to do? Stick my claw down its throat? What does that do? Why is it crying even more? Now it won't latch at all. Should it sleep? Did I get all the poop? Does it have diaper rash? How do I know diaper rash from measles? Is it breathing properly? In distress? Are its passageways clear?

And every baby is unique. What is the right amount of sleep for one baby is not the same for the next. The right milk temp. The shape of the head, mouth, limbs. There are a hundred of them. All parameters different.

I could fill this page with problems a caregiver would encounter just in the first hour that cannot be solved except by an adaptive, learning system (such as AI). Now it has to be able to adapt to a hundred different samples (that's 10,000 unique configurations).

These are not easy tasks, like fit this nut on that bolt.

So far, we haven't made it past the first hour without an AI as intelligent and adaptable as a trained human.

And what is a "talking machine"? I mean, what is an effective talking machine that does not have an AI intelligence behind it? A speak-and-spell? You think a toddler can learn adult level, nuanced communication from a glorified speak-and-spell? Remember, doesn't use AI. Not adaptable.

until it is ready for peers.

No. Peers cannot be learned from because they have no more information than the subject does.

A babbling two year old cannot help teach another two year old how to talk. There must be a knowledgeable teacher.

Same goes for every other task: eating, pooping, peeing, talking, smiling, I could fill the page with things that must be learned from someone who already knows.

No child in all history has learned these things without a parent or parent-adjacent to physically help them and show them how (and that includes so called feral children and raised-by-wolves children).

So we're still in hour one. No way we can jump ahead by 10,000+ hours.

 

[.Scott]

I could fill this page with problems a caregiver would encounter just in the first hour that cannot be solved except by an adaptive, learning system such as AI. Now have it able to adapt to a hundred different samples.

It won't be as good as a human caregiver. It might make lethal mistakes.

No. Peers cannot be learned from because they have no more information than the subject does.

They will learn to play with each other.

A babbling two year old cannot help teach another two year old how to talk. There must be a knowledgeable teacher.

I already posted this: cryptophasia
If people can hear others, they will talk. If they can only see others, they will sign.

Same goes for every other task: eating, pooping, peeing, talking, smiling, I could fill the page with things that must be learned from someone who already knows.

Videos will be available.

No child in all history has learned these things without a parent or parent-adjacent to physically help them and show them how (and that includes so called feral children and raised-by-wolves children).

So we're still in hour one. No way we can jump ahead by 10,000+ hours.

I'm wondering if you have looked at a since link I have provided.
People simply do not work the way you imagine.

 

[Filip Larsen]

How did I derail it?

For me, by moving the context of the discussion to sci-fi. I can only see that as mocking those you disagree with, who as far as I can see for the most part tried to provide sensible argument in the context of possible engineering, not in the context of sci-fi stories (except for a few references here and there). I find this fairly disrespectful, so I think im out too.

 

[DaveC426913]

It won't be as good as a human caregiver. It might make lethal mistakes.

Yes. If that mistake is of a general form (applies to more than just an indiviual) you;vde just wipred out youe entire expedition and the decades of prep before it left the solar system.

They will learn to play with each other.

How?

I already posted this: cryptophasia
If people can hear others, they will talk. If they can only see others, they will sign.

But they can't hear others talk. Because all their peers can't talk yet.

Videos will be available.

An infant can't even recognize a human in real life yet - let alone in a video; they don't have the eyesight. They learn by direct skin contact, physical guidance, smell, taste.
A video provides zero impetus to do what the infant sees.

I'm wondering if you have looked at a since link I have provided.
People simply do not work the way you imagine.

There are no people on this ship. There are so far only newborns. And I know a little about newborns.

Your newborn has yet to make it through its first hour of life. You haven't connected even one dot yet.

And I think that's good place to leave this.

 

[PeterDonis]

I'm out!

Me too.

To clarify, the moderators reviewed the thread and determined that it belongs better in this forum, since the discussion is not really grounded in any current biology or medical research, but is about speculations on what future technologies might be able to accomplish.

 

[PeterDonis]

by moving the context of the discussion to sci-fi.

@DaveC426913 did not move this thread to the sci-fi forum. The moderators did, for the reason I gave in post #227 just now. That reason is based on everyone's posts in this thread, not just his.

 

[PeterDonis]

I can only see that as mocking those you disagree with, who as far as I can see for the most part tried to provide sensible argument in the context of possible engineering, not in the context of sci-fi stories (except for a few references here and there).

Um, sci-fi stories are about "the context of possible engineering" that doesn't currently exist.

In our actual science forums like the Biology and Medical forum, which is where this thread was moved from, the discussion is supposed to be about more than just "possible engineering". It's supposed to be about science that is already mainstream, as shown in the literature. Not about what might be mainstream a hundred or a thousand years from now. This thread has been discussing the latter, not the former.

I find this fairly disrespectful, so I think im out too.

I don't see anything disrespectful in any of the posts in this thread, by @DaveC426913 or anyone else. I just see people with very, very different opinions expressing them. That's to be expected when the discussion is about what this one is about.

 

[javisot]

We are talking about changing diapers and bottle feeding and teaching a ten year not to steal or torture small animals.

Can you connect the dots for me between "automated, autonomous, cargo-carrying robot ship" and "raising children"?

I don't care what you call it. If you'd like to posit some system short of an AI that is capable of the above, and much more, I'm all ears.





You are already sprinting when you haven't started walking. Let's start with the first hour.

A baby is raised in a test tube.
It gets disengaged from its umbilical, a la Matrix pod.
It is lying in it creche - or on a conveyor belt, whatever you envision.
Aaaannnd Go...

Tell me how - without some form of artificial intelligence - the whitish stuff gets put in one end and the brownish stuff gets wiped off the other end. And how the two are not mistaken for each other.

Because I am simply not seeing that middle step at all in your proposal.



Let's see if it survives the first hour.

By the way, while we were talking, it squirmed out of the creche and is nowhere in sight. Who's gonna go look for it?

I'll make a single comment on something you mentioned. First, note that I was one of the first in this thread to mention the problem of not knowing how to artificially create humans. My comment isn't meant to solve that, but rather to mitigate the need for exotic technology.

We don't have to artificially raise and educate all the specimens. The idea would be to raise and educate a small first generation, who would then take care of the second generation, and so on (this doesn't solve the problem of how to generate the first generation, but it does mitigate it).

Another way to mitigate it is that, if we do know how to artificially create humans, there's no need to do it on the ship. It will be done upon arrival at the destination to avoid any generation living confined on a ship (again, this doesn't solve the problem of the first generation, but it does mitigate it).

For now, we only need an AI to operate the ship and reach our destination, perhaps even establish a settlement. This part is relatively manageable, depending on the distances involved. The problem that currently has no solution (and could generate some science fiction elements) would be "the first-generation problem": raising and educating the first generation.

There's no science fiction in the rest of the plan; warp or conventional propulsion is irrelevant, we're not talking about faster-than-light travel. It will take us more or less time to arrive, but there's no civilization dying out inside the ship. Establishing a settlement isn't a science fiction problem either, nor is what happens after the second generation is created at the destination. In any case, the greatest amount of science fiction lies in the first-generation problem.


(In my opinion, a topic that's closer to 75% science and 25% sci-fi is being categorized as sci-fi. However, any decision made by the mods is respected)

 

[PeterDonis]

a topic that's closer to 75% science and 25% sci-fi is being categorized as sci-fi

"Science" as it relates to thread discussions here does not mean "something that I can plausibly argue is possible based on our current scientific knowledge". As I've already pointed out, that is sci-fi. The whole point of sci-fi as a genre of literature is that it is constrained by having to have some kind of scientific basis, whereas in some other genres of fiction you can just make stuff up without such constraints.

"Science" as it relates to thread discussions here means "something that's already documented in the scientific literature as having been researched and being mainstream, or something like it based on that research".

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll make a single comment on something you mentioned. First, note that I was one of the first in this thread to mention the problem of not knowing how to artificially create humans. My comment isn't meant to solve that, but rather to mitigate the need for exotic technology.

We don't have to artificially raise and educate all the specimens. The idea would be to raise and educate a small first generation, who would then take care of the second generation, and so on (this doesn't solve the problem of how to generate the first generation, but it does mitigate it).

Granted. My perplexity came on the tail of .scotts proposal for a fully-autonomous non-AI ship carrying embryos.

I may have addressed a few of your individual comments, but missed your overall proposal.

(In my opinion, a topic that's closer to 75% science and 25% sci-fi is being categorized as sci-fi. However, any decision made by the mods is respected)

It's weird. It started out as aliens, it went to colony ship engineering for a while and then off to AI.

My request to have it moved was reactionary - based on what I was reading, not pro-actionary - based on my own views.

 

[.Scott]

Yes. If that mistake is of a general form (applies to more than just an indiviual) you;vde just wipred out youe entire expedition and the decades of prep before it left the solar system.

That's what testing is for. The engines on the spacecraft can fail as well.

How?

You're presuming that people are more stupid than animals.

But they can't hear others talk. Because all their peers can't talk yet.

I have already answered this at least three times. Look up that cryptophasia link. This isn't theory, this is what happens.
The plan would be to have audio tapes automatically play so that it would guide their language development - but language development is something that happens whether it is guided or unguided. That's not speculation - that's what is observed.

An infant can't even recognize a human in real life yet - let alone in a video; they don't have the eyesight. They learn by direct skin contact, physical guidance, smell, taste.
A video provides zero impetus to do what the infant sees.

Review the Harlow link and you tell me what would be required.
This is not rocket science.

There are no people on this ship. There are so far only newborns. And I know a little about newborns.
Your newborn has yet to make it through its first hour of life. You haven't connected even one dot yet.
And I think that's good place to leave this.

I've connect lot's of dots. It's not like I am trying to do a detailed design.

In contrast, you haven't made a single argument that any rocket design improvement likely in the next half century could ever allow a generation ship to complete its mission within any sane number of generations.

Do you even believe that a generation machine is possible. Or do you simply discount any possible solution in say the next century?

 

[DaveC426913]

@DaveC426913 did not move this thread to the sci-fi forum. The moderators did, for the reason I gave in post #227 just now. That reason is based on everyone's posts in this thread, not just his.

Thanks for that. As I said above, my request to have it moved was reactionary - based on what I was reading, not pro-actionary.

I don't see anything disrespectful in any of the posts in this thread, by @DaveC426913 or anyone else.

I appreciate that, though it is unexpected.

I do feel I have bent some noses, and I can't say I was as polite as I should have been. Or as accepting as I should have been. I was trying to gate-keep - with the best to intentions - but nevertheless, gate-keep it was.

I owe an apology particularly to @javisot, @PeroK, @BillTre, @BWV, @.Scott , @Filip Larsen and @Algr. I have great respect for you all, though my behaviour may have seemed otherwise.

 

[.Scott]

I owe an apology particularly to @javisot, @PeroK, @BillTre, @BWV, @.Scott , @Filip Larsen and @Algr. I have great respect for you all, though my behaviour may have seemed otherwise.

No problem here.
If you offended me, my skin was too thick to notice.

 

[DaveC426913]

You're presuming that people are more stupid than animals.

Complex animals - mammals for example - are taught by their parents. Social animal newborns, when without their mothers, die immediately.

I found a three week old kitten*. I had to feed it every two hours, day and night, or it would immediately die.

*_{"Sprinkles". Now eight months and as long as a yardstick. Thanks for asking.}


I'm not sure turtles, for example, who hatch from eggs, learn to play in any sense applicable to what it would mean to be a functional human being.

I have already answered this at least three times. Look up that cryptophasia link. This isn't theory, this is what happens.

I know what it is.

Can you cite me where even one of these children never had a parent figure? How did they feed? They were already old enough to feed themselves. Faulty analogy.

Still, I do not accept that feral humans who effectively only speak utterances (paraphrasing here), and know nothing of the social world of humans - and who have already done most of their growing up by the time they can understand videos - would qualify as humans. I suspect, if a future ship came along and found these people (and they had not murdered each other) we would mistake them for humanoid wolves with tools.

It would make a great sci-fi horror story. Star Trek's "Miri" episode but a thousand times worse (at least they had parents).


Still, it's not my argument to prove that it can't be done. It's your argument than it can be done - from scratch, to adulthood, functioning as well adjusted adult humans - without a superhuman AI and in the absense of any two-way interaction with existing functional humans.

Which is why I keep asking you to connect the dots. There are a lot of dots that you are glossing over. You cannot rely on any precedents here on Earth. It all happens once they're hatched, far way from any human interaction.

The plan would be to have audio tapes automatically play so that it would guide their language development

How does a robot - that cannot think - "teach" a human using audio tapes?

You say "guide" but it is not guided is it? It is programmed. No adaptation to speak of. No "He's not good at math, let's try social care". Can't do that without a brain in there somewhere.

- but language development is something that happens whether it is guided or unguided. That's not speculation - that's what is observed.

We will have community of feral humans with tools - again, if they don't murder each other first. I do not think that would qualify as a successful outcome.

Review the Harlow link and you tell me what would be required.

I'd really like to see you connect some dots here.

I keep coming back to the example newborn baby that's an hour old. You are glossing over that till they are years older. That's a big problem.

Expalin how a machine without a human-level brain - can care for a crying baby, let alone a hundred completely different babies, each with a hundred uniuque parameters. Waht does a machien know of latching, or reflux or individual sleep cycles?

Can you come up with even the slightest, broadest strokes of a plausible solution, or is it just hand-waving?

This is not rocket science.

Rocket science is child's play compared to human development when you take away all aspects of society and parenthood.

I've connect lot's of dots. It's not like I am trying to do a detailed design.

From the start? Never mind the first six years. How did the baby survive the first 24 hours?

In contrast, you haven't made a single argument that any rocket design improvement likely

Yes I have.

You are positing some mechanism - as yet unidentified, but not AI - that can perform the hardest job there is: birthing, raising and keeping alive - from scratch - without human intervention - the most complex thing in all creation: a community of human beings.

So, I hand-wave your as-yet unexplained mechanism into my own proposal. That same mechanism will make child's play of a fusion drive or anti-matter drive. They're way simpler than the vast complexity of human development cycle.

Do you even believe that a generation machine is possible. Or do you simply discount any possible solution in say the next century?

I absolutely do. That's not what were debating.

What we're debating is the plausibility of an automated, autonomous rocket, not controlled by AI, that can grow a number of human embryos through infancy to adulthood and not have them feral, animalistic, gibbering, insane, suicidal and murderous.

If you'd like to discuss generation ships I'd be happy to. Judging by the responses of others, I think they'd like to as well, if we can convince them to come back and put this thread back on an engineering footing.

What say?

 

[.Scott]

How does a robot that cannot think "teach" a human using audio tapes?

The same way parents do. They just speak the feeding words when they feed. The talk in the background.

We will have community of feral humans. I do not that that would qualify as a successful outcome.

Toddlers have have used cryptophasia to speak with each other. Generally up until school begins.

I'd really like to see you connect some dots here.

I keep coming back to this example baby that's an hour old. You are glossing over that till they are years older. That's a big problem.

It's a big problem, but certainly not an insurmountable one.
Are you asking how they will feed - with some kind of bottle set-up.
Are you asking about how they are cleaned - use your imagination. Try stuff out until you have a system that works.

You are positing some mechanism - as yet unidentified, but not AI - that can perform the hardest job there is creation: raising and keeping alive - from scratch - without human intervention - the most complex thing in all creation: a community of human beings.

It is not that difficult. You are overstating the case hugely. And your suggestion that the complexity of the creature makes it hard to raise is a non sequitur.

So, I hand-wave your as-yet unexplained mechanism into my own proposal. That same mechanism will make child's play of a fusion drive or anti-matter drive. They're way simpler than the vast complexity of human development cycle.

And how long will you device be travelling through space. A century? A millennium? 10,000 years. Give me your destination (like Trapist), the mass to propulsion efficiency (for antimatter it could approach 100%, but even 1% makes the baby thing look pretty trite), and the time your willing to travel (say 1000 years); and I will give you the fuel-mass-to-payload ratio. From there you can decide whether you have a solution.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.