Regarding whether what people to do in the privacy of their own home, or their own mind, is ethical and whether "we" allow it:
Don't we already have this problem with the Internet? It takes the cooperation of various law enforcement agencies, communications providers, cyber-investigators, community standards groups and others to "shut down" websites offering questionable content, or providing conduits to allow the trading of outright illegal materials (child pornography, etc).
It basically takes "the will of the people" exerted through their elected officials, some of whom may be participants in questionable behavior, to manage the impact of allowed individual freedoms. The whole structure of our current society is based upon the idea that civilized groups gather together in areas and decide TODAY what they will allow. BUT the standards are subject to change tomorrow.
A motorcycle movie playing in theaters now made me think about people living by their own rules and how outside of so-called civilized areas it is still a jungle. Look around a shopping mall next time you visit and ask yourself, 'what sort of candy coated, artificially sweetened society are we building for ourselves?' Take away the cooperation factor, or reduce its capacity through terrorism or warfare, and the fabric of society likely unravels and degenerates to survival by any means. Look at Iraq, they may not have had utilities and infrastructure to depend on BEFORE the war and simple freedoms were heavily restricted, but it is a regular flea market and swap meet society now.
Take a few million Americans and put them in tent cities and see how unethical behaviors become the core skill necessary for survival. I believe that without an extensive set of robotics ethics, we will eventually have groups of robots segregating themselves from human society because we are so "human". A collective group of robots is likely to form a "society" based on unwavering rules of behavior that will only be violated by defective logic or damaged circuitry and they aren't likely to tolerate the human element interferring with that society.
Unless, of course, we program the robots to tolerate it (abuse, disharmony) in the first place.
I think both of these ideologies (Cannibals, Nazis) are Earth-bound concepts
Well, no offense but I think you mentioned the likelihood crewmembers behavior would become retrogressive, tending towards cannabilism, nazism (extreme facism) and potential anarchy.
My thoughts are intended to build upon the substance of the article, not detract from it or shoot holes in it, and I think yours were largely constructive as well. Certainly the technology to make a generation ship is not feasible at this time in our history but, what if we approach it from the perspective of how future historians might write, "...and this is how they did it."
Humans are known, I believe, for our ability to endure many things in the name of progress and also to invent the means necessary to make incredible things happen when we are driven to do so. Case in point, although it took a very concertrated effort, the fact we invented the atomic bomb in order to end a world war and [ultimately] save tens of thousands of lives.
Although the experiments in closed enviroment sustained living failed back in the 1980's and 1990's (e.g. Biodome), at least there was an attempt to test the practical application of related theories. Advances in solar power, hydrogen powered fuel cells, Lithium ion batteries, self-contained water purification systems and certainly space-oriented propulsion (SpaceShip One and the X-Prize competition) have moved us forward since that time; which amounts to only a decade or two. <EOF>
What planet? RTFA, its 700 years to get from our solar system to the next nearest solar system. We're not talking light-speed here, we're talking about fusion-driven generation ship.
Well, perhaps smaller spacepods, lifeboats or "seedlings" could be launched from the generation ship as it travels along its 700 lightyear path to wherever. This would enable one generation ship to colonize multiple systems by benefit of getting the colonists 'half way there' along the way. The generation ships path(s) would ultimately appear as a branching tree with Earth at the base its trunk. This would be a more cost effective and productive scenario than launching multiple (huge) generation ships from Earth with each requiring the resources to make the entire trip.
At the end of the journey 50 generations later you end up with a starship crewed by CANNIBAL NAZIS.
I think both of these ideologies (Cannibals, Nazis) are Earth-bound concepts (terms). Consider that the initial generation of crew members could be raised onboard the ship while its construction is finalized in orbit between Earth and the moon. These people would not need to be educated in the "worst traits" of humanity and at the same time could be instilled with the highest regard for human (all) life, ethics and morality. They could be taught all the greatest aspects of religion without being exposed to the darker aspects of damnation and "hell" (e.g. they could be taught death is the end of life and so living a good life should be its own reward). The colonists could, as in the movie The Village, be raised in near total isolation from the rest of humanity. And this would also give them the benefit (?) of beginning the voyage disease free; unless passengers with fully built-up immune systems would improve their survivability.
Of course even the health/illness issue is catch-22 and perhaps best left for another discussion, do you want disease free humans or ones with fully developed immune systems who may at the same time carry germs with them.
A book I read that explored a few of these aspects was Voyage From Yesteryear by James P. Hogan. Also, the amount of biomass represented by a single individual is rather negligible depending on the size of the ship, or becomes diminishingly relevant as the size increases.
Thanks for continuing the dialog. Perhaps one day our comments will turn up in a global archive of ancient thoughts and be read by our children's children's children's... well, you get the idea.
Re:Here is an idea of how to achieve it.
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
I would suggest the average person is taxed at a rate more like 30 to 35% unless they live in a country with socialized medicine and many other heavily tax-dependent services (e.g. Great Britain). The 10% difference between individuals' 35% and corporations' 25% taxation probably represents the amount corporations invest back into the health benefits, education and retirement plans of their employees.
Thanks for pointing to this article! Even though I consider myself to be a student of science fiction, I had never heard of the Orion Project in my forty years of existence.
It is no surprise to me the project's history stretches back to 1947, the same year the United States Air Force was created and received further contributions in 1954-1958, 1964, 1973-74, 1989 and 1998 AIMStar.
It would probably require a scenario such as depicted in When Worlds Collide (movie, 1951), before the peoples of Earth would cooperate on such a project.
I do not believe your observation regarding generations to be correct.
Many of the children living in parents basements, or returning to home after a financial crisis, are the result of environmental factors (loosing a job, loosing a second income/spouse, becoming the outcome of their own bad judgement), not poor genetics, lack of education or motivation.
The "environment" aboard a Space Ark would necessarily insulate its occupants from such stress. Income would not be a problem, loosing a job would not even be possible, and we can safely assume poor genetics and education would not be a factor either.
There may be instances of occupants going "insane" or suffering a mental breakdown and in those cases confinement or isolation from the rest of the crew would be absolutely neccessary. The occupants would have to be fully informed of the policies regarding such conditions before the mission ever began and they would have to agree to be bound by the conditions without recourse. Out of necessity (resource conservation, crew harmony) individuals deemed "untreatable" would have to be dropped off at the nearest planet or euthanized.
It seems everyone reading and replying to this discussion understands the risk factors of venturing away from Earth. Risk is something every child must learn from their parents, teachers and peers in order to survive to adulthood. Regarding risk and looking at automobile, self-induced cancers, falls and suicide, I cannot help but ask, "How are we doing with that?"
Regardless of how we go, who should go, or when they will arrive, the best reason to go in my opinion is to insure the survival of the human species. Yes, the travelers may be passed by another crew using better technology, but what if they are not? Yes, there could be political factions that will arise leading to in-fighting and other human tragedies like "murder". Yes, they might have limited resources depending on the size of the ship and its renewable and sustainable "natural" resources.
But what if they turn out to be the only "survivors" of Earth? What if no technologically more advanced ship EVER catches up with them? Hopefully they will be able to avoid the disadvantages of our current limited political systems, and are able to set aside their religious differences in favor of sharing in a common goal.
The idea of casting our hopes upon an interstellar sea, without knowing the eventual outcome of those efforts, would be a great act of faith. It is, or would be, the equivalent of trusting in all the technological resources invented up to the date of departure, fully trusting all the faith-based beliefs suggesting G-d will decide their (our) fate, and hoping that as a "insurance plan" it would be worth the cost and effort to replicate our species elsewhere.
How many tens of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars are spent each year saving lives that may contribute little to society as a whole? It is a bit "harsh" to ask, but it is the sort of question Ark Builders would need to consider.
If humankind is ultimately worthy of being saved from itself, has created "good works" the sum value of which outweighs its atrocities, and has (at least in part) continuously strived to reach the ideals (highest standards) possible. If we have met all this perhaps we should build a Space Ark and send it to the stars even without completely knowing the children of man would survive. Perhaps the greatest challenge will not be the technology, the faith or the "shielding" such a craft would require, but the cooperation necessary of the builders to construct it.
For myself, I would be the first in line to sign-up for such a mission if it existed as it seems there is no place really worse than or less risky then here on Earth today.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding whether what people to do in the privacy of their own home, or their own mind, is ethical and whether "we" allow it:
Don't we already have this problem with the Internet? It takes the cooperation of various law enforcement agencies, communications providers, cyber-investigators, community standards groups and others to "shut down" websites offering questionable content, or providing conduits to allow the trading of outright illegal materials (child pornography, etc).
It basically takes "the will of the people" exerted through their elected officials, some of whom may be participants in questionable behavior, to manage the impact of allowed individual freedoms. The whole structure of our current society is based upon the idea that civilized groups gather together in areas and decide TODAY what they will allow. BUT the standards are subject to change tomorrow.
A motorcycle movie playing in theaters now made me think about people living by their own rules and how outside of so-called civilized areas it is still a jungle. Look around a shopping mall next time you visit and ask yourself, 'what sort of candy coated, artificially sweetened society are we building for ourselves?' Take away the cooperation factor, or reduce its capacity through terrorism or warfare, and the fabric of society likely unravels and degenerates to survival by any means. Look at Iraq, they may not have had utilities and infrastructure to depend on BEFORE the war and simple freedoms were heavily restricted, but it is a regular flea market and swap meet society now.
Take a few million Americans and put them in tent cities and see how unethical behaviors become the core skill necessary for survival. I believe that without an extensive set of robotics ethics, we will eventually have groups of robots segregating themselves from human society because we are so "human". A collective group of robots is likely to form a "society" based on unwavering rules of behavior that will only be violated by defective logic or damaged circuitry and they aren't likely to tolerate the human element interferring with that society.
Unless, of course, we program the robots to tolerate it (abuse, disharmony) in the first place.
700 years; sorry. I mispoke on that part.
I think both of these ideologies (Cannibals, Nazis) are Earth-bound concepts
Well, no offense but I think you mentioned the likelihood crewmembers behavior would become retrogressive, tending towards cannabilism, nazism (extreme facism) and potential anarchy.
My thoughts are intended to build upon the substance of the article, not detract from it or shoot holes in it, and I think yours were largely constructive as well. Certainly the technology to make a generation ship is not feasible at this time in our history but, what if we approach it from the perspective of how future historians might write, "...and this is how they did it."
Humans are known, I believe, for our ability to endure many things in the name of progress and also to invent the means necessary to make incredible things happen when we are driven to do so. Case in point, although it took a very concertrated effort, the fact we invented the atomic bomb in order to end a world war and [ultimately] save tens of thousands of lives.
Although the experiments in closed enviroment sustained living failed back in the 1980's and 1990's (e.g. Biodome), at least there was an attempt to test the practical application of related theories. Advances in solar power, hydrogen powered fuel cells, Lithium ion batteries, self-contained water purification systems and certainly space-oriented propulsion (SpaceShip One and the X-Prize competition) have moved us forward since that time; which amounts to only a decade or two. <EOF>
What planet? RTFA, its 700 years to get from our solar system to the next nearest solar system. We're not talking light-speed here, we're talking about fusion-driven generation ship.
Well, perhaps smaller spacepods, lifeboats or "seedlings" could be launched from the generation ship as it travels along its 700 lightyear path to wherever. This would enable one generation ship to colonize multiple systems by benefit of getting the colonists 'half way there' along the way. The generation ships path(s) would ultimately appear as a branching tree with Earth at the base its trunk. This would be a more cost effective and productive scenario than launching multiple (huge) generation ships from Earth with each requiring the resources to make the entire trip.
At the end of the journey 50 generations later you end up with a starship crewed by CANNIBAL NAZIS.
I think both of these ideologies (Cannibals, Nazis) are Earth-bound concepts (terms). Consider that the initial generation of crew members could be raised onboard the ship while its construction is finalized in orbit between Earth and the moon. These people would not need to be educated in the "worst traits" of humanity and at the same time could be instilled with the highest regard for human (all) life, ethics and morality. They could be taught all the greatest aspects of religion without being exposed to the darker aspects of damnation and "hell" (e.g. they could be taught death is the end of life and so living a good life should be its own reward). The colonists could, as in the movie The Village, be raised in near total isolation from the rest of humanity. And this would also give them the benefit (?) of beginning the voyage disease free; unless passengers with fully built-up immune systems would improve their survivability.
Of course even the health/illness issue is catch-22 and perhaps best left for another discussion, do you want disease free humans or ones with fully developed immune systems who may at the same time carry germs with them.
A book I read that explored a few of these aspects was Voyage From Yesteryear by James P. Hogan. Also, the amount of biomass represented by a single individual is rather negligible depending on the size of the ship, or becomes diminishingly relevant as the size increases.
Thanks for continuing the dialog. Perhaps one day our comments will turn up in a global archive of ancient thoughts and be read by our children's children's children's... well, you get the idea.
I would suggest the average person is taxed at a rate more like 30 to 35% unless they live in a country with socialized medicine and many other heavily tax-dependent services (e.g. Great Britain). The 10% difference between individuals' 35% and corporations' 25% taxation probably represents the amount corporations invest back into the health benefits, education and retirement plans of their employees.
Thanks for pointing to this article! Even though I consider myself to be a student of science fiction, I had never heard of the Orion Project in my forty years of existence.
It is no surprise to me the project's history stretches back to 1947, the same year the United States Air Force was created and received further contributions in 1954-1958, 1964, 1973-74, 1989 and 1998 AIMStar.
It would probably require a scenario such as depicted in When Worlds Collide (movie, 1951), before the peoples of Earth would cooperate on such a project.
I do not believe your observation regarding generations to be correct.
Many of the children living in parents basements, or returning to home after a financial crisis, are the result of environmental factors (loosing a job, loosing a second income/spouse, becoming the outcome of their own bad judgement), not poor genetics, lack of education or motivation.
The "environment" aboard a Space Ark would necessarily insulate its occupants from such stress. Income would not be a problem, loosing a job would not even be possible, and we can safely assume poor genetics and education would not be a factor either.
There may be instances of occupants going "insane" or suffering a mental breakdown and in those cases confinement or isolation from the rest of the crew would be absolutely neccessary. The occupants would have to be fully informed of the policies regarding such conditions before the mission ever began and they would have to agree to be bound by the conditions without recourse. Out of necessity (resource conservation, crew harmony) individuals deemed "untreatable" would have to be dropped off at the nearest planet or euthanized.
It seems everyone reading and replying to this discussion understands the risk factors of venturing away from Earth. Risk is something every child must learn from their parents, teachers and peers in order to survive to adulthood. Regarding risk and looking at automobile, self-induced cancers, falls and suicide, I cannot help but ask, "How are we doing with that?"
Regardless of how we go, who should go, or when they will arrive, the best reason to go in my opinion is to insure the survival of the human species. Yes, the travelers may be passed by another crew using better technology, but what if they are not? Yes, there could be political factions that will arise leading to in-fighting and other human tragedies like "murder". Yes, they might have limited resources depending on the size of the ship and its renewable and sustainable "natural" resources.
But what if they turn out to be the only "survivors" of Earth? What if no technologically more advanced ship EVER catches up with them? Hopefully they will be able to avoid the disadvantages of our current limited political systems, and are able to set aside their religious differences in favor of sharing in a common goal.
The idea of casting our hopes upon an interstellar sea, without knowing the eventual outcome of those efforts, would be a great act of faith. It is, or would be, the equivalent of trusting in all the technological resources invented up to the date of departure, fully trusting all the faith-based beliefs suggesting G-d will decide their (our) fate, and hoping that as a "insurance plan" it would be worth the cost and effort to replicate our species elsewhere.
How many tens of millions, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars are spent each year saving lives that may contribute little to society as a whole? It is a bit "harsh" to ask, but it is the sort of question Ark Builders would need to consider.
If humankind is ultimately worthy of being saved from itself, has created "good works" the sum value of which outweighs its atrocities, and has (at least in part) continuously strived to reach the ideals (highest standards) possible. If we have met all this perhaps we should build a Space Ark and send it to the stars even without completely knowing the children of man would survive. Perhaps the greatest challenge will not be the technology, the faith or the "shielding" such a craft would require, but the cooperation necessary of the builders to construct it.
For myself, I would be the first in line to sign-up for such a mission if it existed as it seems there is no place really worse than or less risky then here on Earth today.
When can I go, "from Virginia to the stars?"