Is it Ethical to Condemn Unborn Generations to a Life on a Generation Ship?

[Jobrag]

With our present level of knowledge the only possible way for humans to leave the Solar system would be “Generation Ships”, large relatively slow spaceships that would take several generations to reach their destination. Even if such ships could be constructed, is it morally acceptable to condemn several unborn generations to the restricted existence, with no chance of escape, that such ships would require?

 

[waht]

I don't think generation ships will ever fairy humans in their current form across the interstellar space. By the time we will have the necessary technology to do so, it should be possible to upload human minds into computer networks, robust enough to withstand the harshness of space. The passengers, in a sense, would be living in a virtual reality environment. They would be ships themselves.

 

[apeiron]

From the premise, it would seem fair to conclude that the conditions aboard are going to be at least good enough that the parents would willingly undertake the journey. (They are not going to have the reward of arriving at a destination so would not be motivated to endure undue hardship aboard).

Arguably, the parents would know what they are missing because they will have had an experience of something different, whereas the children won't. Is that better or worse for the children? Doesn't seem a massive issue either way.

 

[wuliheron]

Without a clear context it is impossible to make an assessment.

Such a ship could be an act of desperation by a doomed humanity, yet some people might still argue that it is immoral because obviously God or nature intends for us to die. Without a reference to any specific morality, much less a clear context, there is no way to answer the question other than to rely on wild guesses and spurious personal opinions. None of which fit the commonly used definitions of philosophy.

 

[disregardthat]

it should be possible to upload human minds into computer networks,

Now I think the moral implications of this is a lot more serious than breeding children in space!

 

[Evo]

Even if such ships could be constructed, is it morally acceptable to condemn several unborn generations to the restricted existence, with no chance of escape, that such ships would require?

You know, hundreds of years ago it was unlikely for common people to travel more than a few miles, if at all. It's a rather new phenomenon for people to consider travel to distant places normal. I know people that still haven't traveled outside of their town. My daughter's BF just recently saw a metal detector for the first time when he took her to the airport, he'd never been in an airport before. I know a lot of people that have never flown, and they don't want to, they don't even want to leave town.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don't think generation ships will ever fairy humans in their current form across the interstellar space. By the time we will have the necessary technology to do so, it should be possible to upload human minds into computer networks, robust enough to withstand the harshness of space. The passengers, in a sense, would be living in a virtual reality environment. They would be ships themselves.

No need to go that far. I would think that a medically sound system of "cold storage'' and revival (cryopreservation) of the travelers would be available before "mind transfer". This also eliminates the problem of ship-bound generations. The travelers would wake up in their new location with well preserved bodies and no sense of the passage of time.

 

[JaredJames]

You know, hundreds of years ago it was unlikely for common people to travel more than a few miles, if at all. It's a rather new phenomenon for people to consider travel to distant places normal. I know people that still haven't traveled outside of their town. My daughter's BF just recently saw a metal detector for the first time when he took her to the airport, he'd never been in an airport before. I know a lot of people that have never flown, and they don't want to, they don't even want to leave town.

I'd say there's a little bit of a difference between people choosing not to leave and people forced to stay. I suppose you have to convince the people on the generation ships they don't want to leave, Truman Show style.

However, I don't disagree with generation ships.

 

[nickyrtr]

I think it depends on the quality of life aboard the ship. All of us already live a spatially restricted existence, confined to the surface of Earth at least, and probably much more restricted than that. It is not uncommon today for a person to spend all their lives in a single city, town or village, for example.

Imagine a scenario where a fleet of 5 or 6 generation ships flies in loose formation a few thousand kilometers apart, each one about the size of a small city. Your average resident would have lots of things to do on their home ship, and could take an occasional trip to one of the other ships for variety. To me that doesn't sound too bad.

 

[dkotschessaa]

There was a great Analog story (Novella) in the January/February issue about this, and it raised some very interesting points. I'd advise checking it out (should still be on the magazine rack at B&N and Borders). The story is by Domingo Santos and involves a group of Orthodox Jews who set out on a kind of "second exodus" from Earth -the story takes place approx 700 years after the launch, when a planet's been found to land on.

It's really getting OFF the ship that's the problem, IMO.

Future generations born on a ship won't likely have a sense of restriction, because the ship is their known world. Culture is likely to prevail over any innate sense of longing for open space. This is already happening in our culture as technology makes us so comfortable we don't have to leave our homes. Who wants to go back to a big scary planet when all you need is on the ship? Many animals raised in captivity don't do well in the wild and aren't won't to go there if given a choice.

So the more interesting question for me is, what happens if you actually arrive at the destination? Is it ethical to force everyone off the ship that has been their home for generations? Many may not want to leave, and even if a planet is found with an atmosphere similar to earth, it is likely to have all sorts of new bacteria. You're now exposing a crew that hasn't been exposed to anything in perhaps hundreds of years, and this could be a death sentence. And what will you do with all the plants? If they've been kept in a greenhouse on the ship, they've been part of an Earth like environment, so you aren't likely to find the right kind of soil (with all the requisite micro lifeforms and bacteria and such) on the new planet.

Of course, we're assuming all goes well with the ship itself, and that the people on board don't kill each first.

-DaveKA

 

[dkotschessaa]

I don't think generation ships will ever fairy humans in their current form across the interstellar space. By the time we will have the necessary technology to do so, it should be possible to upload human minds into computer networks, robust enough to withstand the harshness of space. The passengers, in a sense, would be living in a virtual reality environment. They would be ships themselves.

I don't see that we need much new technology for a generation ship. Just a whooooooooooole lot of money and time to build the monstrosity. Unless you're referring to problems with gravity, i.e. lack of it. Then I'd be worried about the "generation" part since we don't know how any of our known workarounds to gravity effect human reproduction.

I don't see mind upload stuff happening at all, ever, but I tend to be a party pooper when it comes to things like that.

-DaveKA

 

[JaredJames]

Well you'd still need the ships on arrival, you won't turn up to your destination to find a Holiday Inn with full laundry facilities.

That aside, for me a more interesting question would be regarding the people's bodies.

If you spend your lives on a ship under zero g conditions, when you arrive at some distant planet after a few hundred years it isn't simply a case of jumping out and taking a stroll. Your body won't appreciate the sudden onset of gravity.

It's something people are already aware of when looking at settling on Mars for prolonged periods (well any space based, non-earth gravity location).

EDIT: beat me to it by nano seconds!

 

[phyzguy]

With our present level of knowledge the only possible way for humans to leave the Solar system would be “Generation Ships”, large relatively slow spaceships that would take several generations to reach their destination. Even if such ships could be constructed, is it morally acceptable to condemn several unborn generations to the restricted existence, with no chance of escape, that such ships would require?

You're thinking much too small. I suggest you read the book "The High Frontier" by Gerard O'Neill. This could give you the idea of what one of these generation ships might look like. Suppose it were 10 km in diameter and housed several million people, spinning to create artificial gravity, so that inside there are lakes, trees, parks, and all of the other things we consider pleasant. The quality of life could be as good or better than we know on Earth today, so nobody could be said to be "condemned" to living aboard. Imagine a ship the size of Manhattan, or Maui. I would have no problem spending my life in such an environment. Also, you are still in communication with the folks back home on Earth, so you are not isolated in that sense. Heck, I know people today that never leave New York City, and see no reason to.

I believe that we will ultimately build such ships. As someone else said, we already have the technology, it is just a question of committing the resources. They are probably hundreds or thousands of years in the future, but I will wager that they do happen. Bear in mind that you don't need to get everyone to agree, just a small subset of humanity. People that want to go can go, and people that don't want to go can stay home.

 

[Deveno]

i think the resources involved would be enormous.

what you have to realize is that not only would such a ship be very expensive, but at the kind of size you're considering, would most likely have to be constructed in space. therefore, the fuel costs, just to shuttle the raw materials and laborers back and forth, would be substantial in and of themselves.

given that any possible planets are more than likely 100's of light-years away, one would need to accelerate the ship to a fairly high speed just to keep the travel time within the projected service life of the space-craft.

then there are design considerations. if the occupants aren't frozen (and again, a fully automated piloting to an unknown planet doesn't seem like ALL that good an idea) or in some other kind of stasis, then the life support systems will consume enormous amounts of energy, and also increase entropic effects such as corrosion, electrical failure, etc. that over the course of what may be centuries, could be devastating. the amount of redundancy in the design necessary to overcome such obstacles could make the cost prohibitive. it's all very nice to think of creating a nice comfy park-style eco-system, but we don't have anywhere near the technology to sustain that kind of thing for centuries.

and if we did, why bother going to another planet? why not just park it near the moon?

of course, if the planet we live on was approaching uninhabitability, we'd certainly be motivated to undertake such a task. choosing who would go, and who would not could get ugly. and people, being what they are, are likely not to see the necessity of such an undertaking until far too late, with perhaps the unfortunate result of a substandard effort, resulting in utter failure.

the politics of such an undertaking, even if under the best of all possible circumstances, would be a delicate affair. it would undoubtedly be a drain on the world economy, it is likely many then-current residents of Earth would resent the economic hardship they were enduring in order to make it possible. and full-scale testing would not be feasible, meaning fatal design flaws and/or sabotage would be real concerns.

my personal feeling is that, without outside intervention of some knd, the human race will cause its own extinction, and so slowly that they do not take its prevention seriously enough until too late. and my prediction is that this will happen within the next 400 years or so.

but, in a happy world, where sane and far-seeing people carry the day, perhaps we will successively do this. i still feel it will end badly. our biological make-up is strongly tied to this environment, and there are so many subtle ways in which a seemingly accomodating planet could doom us, as well as the obvious ones: toxicity, disease, climate, and unforseen stellar events. with a small enough gene pool, even that could do the new settlers in, not to mention what even a slight gravitational variation could do over centuries. i just don't believe we could evolve fast enough to adapt to another planet, unless it was a very close match to earth.