Would you?

[Tex]

Today I'm asking a more serious question. I guess a lot of you guys like my questions, which is always nice to get 60+ replies!

So we all (hopefully all) know that one of the theories of having astronauts reach distant stars with current-ish technology is to simply cryogenically preserve an astronaut's body, to be revived upon arrival. A different theory similar to this is freezing embryos, then basically lab-growing astronauts for use on these alien worlds. Sick though this sounds, in an odd way... it is tempting.

More recently, several of the Mars human-habitation plans include a permanent stay on the Red Planet. My question is one of morals:

Would you, an aspiring space explorer, be willing to:

a) Leave your friends and family behind to make history for the rest of the world?

Have yourself frozen to travel to an alien world, knowing that every single human being you have ever (or would have ever) interacted with has been dead for thousands of years? Even assuming that you were not forgotten about, accidentally destroyed, or the technology rendered inoperable?

c) Donate sperm or eggs to allow the growth of what is, essentially, a human being whose only purpose in life is to follow orders from a space agency?

[Mitchz95]

A) Not sure. Only if the trip could be completed in my lifetime, and only if the ship/settlement was comfortable to live in. If it's a nearby base like Mars, I'd like to have the option to visit Earth every now and then.

Probably not. In my opinion, any mission that cannot reach its destination within a decade or two should be held off, and the funding for it instead be channeled toward developing faster ships. Otherwise we could wake up to find that we've reached our destination safely, but it's already home to a massive human settlement that was founded centuries ago. The only exception to this would be if humanity faces imminent destruction, and our only hope for survival is to get as many people off-planet and on their way to a new home as soon as possible.

C) No, for the same reasons above.

[ecat]

a) Leave your friends and family behind to make history for the rest of the world?

By the end of my life many friends and most of the family I've grown up with will be lost or dead anyway. Better to spend life in pursuit of a worthy goal than worrying about sentimental nonsense.

Have yourself frozen to travel to an alien world, knowing that every single human being you have ever (or would have ever) interacted with has been dead for thousands of years? Even assuming that you were not forgotten about, accidentally destroyed, or the technology rendered inoperable?

The vast majority of human beings I could ever have interacted with are already dead, many have been for centuries - this does not weigh heavy on my shoulders. Can you give me any guarantee that I will not be forgotten about, accidentally destroyed or rendered incapable/inconsequential if I choose to remain on earth?

c) Donate sperm or eggs to allow the growth of what is, essentially, a human being whose only purpose in life is to follow orders from a space agency?

Is this the moral question you mentioned in the OP?

On first read I did pause for thought but considering the vast majority alive today spend most of their lives following orders from governments, teachers, employers and that the vast majority alive today did not consent to this prior to birth... I see little in the way of a dilemma.

[KOCOUR]

A) no They are too important to me.

no What would be the point of trawelling that far and that long? That just doesnt make any sense, unless you are sending huge amount of people (probably hundreds of entire families) and equipment to colonize the planet. then i would go.

C) No problem.

[Nibb31]

a) Making history by earning a Darwin award isn't exactly something to be proud of. So it would really all depend on the context. If you're plan is to go to Mars and die there 6 months later just to be the first, then you will be portrayed in history books as an idiot.

Not a very appealing idea, but your hypothesis is too broad. You would probably only have a 1% chance of the cryo and wake-up systems even surviving the trip anyway. We're probably not capable of building any complex machinery that can survive thousands of years.

c) Nope. There's a principle called human rights. For the same reason, it would be unethical to breed humans to serve only as organ donors or cannon fodder. If you start ignoring those principes, you end up pretty quickly in an inhumane society.

[Luckfish]

a) I'd have to hear more details. If it was a pre-fab colony with a bit of creature comforts, and other humans (either there or travelling with me) I'd probably go for it. If it instead meant signing up to be a camping hermit with nothing more than algae stew to look forward to, probably not.

Probably, if the cryo technology were fairly reliable, and I could take diversions the keep me occupied even if the destination turned out to be a dud.

c) Most likely not, unless it were the literal End of the Road for the rest of us on Earth. Barring that situation, I don't think I could/should make that decision for them. It brings up an another interesting point however... If I were a colonist aboard a one-way ship out to the stars, I wouldn't have any moral compunctions about procreating. My offspring wouldn't have had a choice in the matter, but somehow it would be different.

[Skyler4856]

A) Probably, I always have been an introvert. I would like the option to email friends and family on earth.

Sure most of the people I know today are *******

C) Natural selection would be proud (yes)

[lajoswinkler]

Today I'm asking a more serious question. I guess a lot of you guys like my questions, which is always nice to get 60+ replies!

So we all (hopefully all) know that one of the theories of having astronauts reach distant stars with current-ish technology is to simply cryogenically preserve an astronaut's body, to be revived upon arrival. A different theory similar to this is freezing embryos, then basically lab-growing astronauts for use on these alien worlds. Sick though this sounds, in an odd way... it is tempting.

More recently, several of the Mars human-habitation plans include a permanent stay on the Red Planet. My question is one of morals:

Would you, an aspiring space explorer, be willing to:

a) Leave your friends and family behind to make history for the rest of the world?

Have yourself frozen to travel to an alien world, knowing that every single human being you have ever (or would have ever) interacted with has been dead for thousands of years? Even assuming that you were not forgotten about, accidentally destroyed, or the technology rendered inoperable?

c) Donate sperm or eggs to allow the growth of what is, essentially, a human being whose only purpose in life is to follow orders from a space agency?

a) No. I am not very sociable, but to end it all? As much as my social life is quite poor, it exists. I'm not willing to toss it through the window.

No way. That's like Russian roulette. I don't want to play with suicide. Even if I stay alive, that's scenario a) all over again.

c) Absolutely not. That's fascism. If I have an opportunity to destroy a part of such system, I'd destroy it. Probably with bombs. Guerilla style.

Edited January 8, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Themohawkninja]

A. Sure. The thing I love most about college is that I am away from my family. Being as far as Mars away would be the greatest.

B. Too much risk of hostile alien life and deadly diseases.

C. I may hate the idea of bearing children, but the thought of creating a child who would do nothing more than aid a space agency is just too good to pass up.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Themohawkninja

[peadar1987]

c) Nope. There's a principle called human rights. For the same reason, it would be unethical to breed humans to serve only as organ donors or cannon fodder. If you start ignoring those principes, you end up pretty quickly in an inhumane society.

Slightly off-topic, but if you could create a "human" with no higher functions in their brain, and keep them hooked up to life support to "grow" organs for transplant, would you consider that unethical?

[lajoswinkler]

Slightly off-topic, but if you could create a "human" with no higher functions in their brain, and keep them hooked up to life support to "grow" organs for transplant, would you consider that unethical?

This is a too interesting question to ignore, so pardon my wish to hop in.

The very act of growing such body would not be unethical towards anyone if certain conditions are met:

a) inability to feel pain

inability to have thoughts

c) no physical basis for a) and because there is no brain present or the brain is completely nonfunctional (no neurons, only neuroglia, or similar completely nonfunctional layout)

d) there was never a period of brain functionality - the body was made with a non-functional central processing unit

Ignoring these would account for torture and specifically ignoring d) would account for a murder. Ignoring these on a larger scale, would be crime against humanity and subjected to lifetime in prison in civilized societies without pardon.

There were people commiting very similar crimes in the past, although the technology wasn't that advanced. For example Mengele and his assistants in Germany, and various doctors and medical staff in Japan during World War II. Horrific stuff.

So if someone engineers a brainless body (anencephalic) which could, if you hook it on life support system, nurture organs that can save lifes either by direct transplantation or by studying it in experiments, that would not only not be unethical, it would actually be ethical. This is not a person, because a person is inside a functional brain. This is merely a spare body.

People are working on this, but so far we've officially reached the level of growing organs and tissues.

One day we will be able to have our own, brainless duplicate(s) we could use for saving our lives after an accident. Got your hand grinded by a woodchipper? Spare part is available.

I guess it will be very expensive to pay for a complete nurture program of your spare body, but individual body parts will become a usual thing.

That is, if the world doesn't sink into religious fanaticism from Christian and Islamic denominations. They oppose in vitro fertilization, for fu*k sake.

Edited January 9, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[MBobrik]

a) yes

yes

c) maybe ( depends of the purpose of those orders, it the same as a) and then yes ) EDIT: to avoid misunderstanding, I mean of course voluntarily following those orders, not some sort of slavery or forced labor.

Edited January 9, 2014 by MBobrik

[lajoswinkler]

A question for you people that answered "yes" for the last question (I can't believe there are so many of you; very dissapointing) - are you aware that you're actually defending slavery? You know that's a huge crime, right?

[MBobrik]

A question for you people that answered "yes" for the last question (I can't believe there are so many of you; very dissapointing) - are you aware that you're actually defending slavery? You know that's a huge crime, right?

.

it is slavery only when you are forced to follow orders. An astronaut on an interstellar mission will spend his entire life following orders from the mission command center, yet he is not a slave because he does it voluntarily.

Edited January 9, 2014 by MBobrik

[lajoswinkler]

.

it is slavery only when you are forced to follow orders. An astronaut on an interstellar mission will spend his entire life following orders from the mission command center, yet he is not a slave because he does it voluntarily.

Breeding human beings with the intention of using them as workers is slavery. It's ripping away their right to chose what to do with their life, aka removing their birth given freedom.

I doubt you'd be happy if you were made with the purpose to do something you have no interest in.

"Hey, we made you to operate this lighthouse."

"But I don't want that. I want to become a bus driver."

"Well tough luck, you were made for this sole purpose, so shut up and get to work".

Freedom? I don't think so.

Edited January 9, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[MBobrik]

Breeding human beings with the intention of using them as workers is slavery. It's ripping away their right to chose what to do with their life, aka removing their birth given freedom.

Intentions don't to anything on their own. You may intent that the person you've created should do this or that, to your heart's content, unless you actually force them to do so, you are not removing their freedom to ignore your intentions and go doing something else.

[rpayne88]

Maybe A. If we have the capability to return to Earth, but the mission is to set up a permanent settlement, I would go (kind of like how the Pilgrims could've gotten back on the Mayflower and returned to England.) But if it was a one way, you are guaranteed to die there sort of mission, then no.

B. No. Technical and ethical reasons, the fact humanity may have died out by the time you wake up, and the fact you would likely be out of contact with Earth would stop me there. And its pretty much the same thing as A.

C. So you are sending a sperm cell and an egg to be fertilized by robots and developed to be dropped onto an alien world with no parental supervision? Lets see what is wrong with that. First, the child would have to be living to consume milk, or what ever substitute you decided to use. Next, the child would need to spend about 24 years being educated (and fed.) During those 24 years, s/he is living in TOTAL isolation from every other human being, being raised by machines that look nothing like him/her. Humans are intelligent enough to tell the difference between themselves and something else. What happens when the child becomes aware of his/her origins and isolation? What happens when s/he becomes aware that with every passing second, s/he is becoming only more isolated from the rest of humanity? I can see this driving an individual to madness (this is a person, not a physiologically conditioned astronaut), possibly resulting in suicide and the failure of a multi-billion (which may be an understatement) dollar space mission? Assuming that s/he gets to his/her intended destination alive, why would s/he obey commands from Earth? At this point, s/he has likely discovered the reason s/he was sent. I would not be surprised if s/he wound up P----ed off at humanity for his/her creation and decided to rebel by not preforming his/her mission and shutting down the comms link.

Now send a group of eggs and sperm, and you now get several children that must be raised by machines and may become aware that, other than each other, they are alone.

Breeding a child in a test tube with no family or parental guidance for a scientific pursuit is, IMO, wrong. How can we still call ourselves humans knowing we sent the building blocks of an unknowing child out to the stars, and eternal isolation? IMO, this is one example where science conflicts with humanity. If the study of science is a human endeavor, made to better humanity, how can we justify an extreme lack of to one or more of our offspring by sending them on such a mission?

Edited January 9, 2014 by rpayne88

[lajoswinkler]

Intentions don't to anything on their own. You may intent that the person you've created should do this or that, to your heart's content, unless you actually force them to do so, you are not removing their freedom to ignore your intentions and go doing something else.

How is putting bred kids on a spacecraft to turn them into workers not removal of freedom of choice? It's not like they have other options in such situation.

With or without guardian/parent, that's morally wrong.

[Themohawkninja]

A question for you people that answered "yes" for the last question (I can't believe there are so many of you; very dissapointing) - are you aware that you're actually defending slavery? You know that's a huge crime, right?

It's only slavery if they are forced to do work and for no pay at that.

As was already stated, intention to do something != that thing.

[Themohawkninja]

How is putting bred kids on a spacecraft to turn them into workers not removal of freedom of choice? It's not like they have other options in such situation.

With or without guardian/parent, that's morally wrong.

Morals are what hold us back in society for one thing.

For another, they may not be "bred". It's only asserted that they are not produced via sexual intercourse, but rather born, or at least conceived outside the womb.

Lastly, it is simply stated that their sole purpose is to work for a company. There are no other alternatives. Slavery is slavery because there are other alternatives. A person in that situation can't do anything else productive, and therefore it's not slavery. If you lived in a mining town and had no way of getting out of the town due to the high cost of moving somewhere else and you therefore must mine, that's not slavery, that's just life.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

No,

No,

And

No.

[lajoswinkler]

Damn, I feel like I'm the middle guy in this famous photo. Either this is a trollfest or an abnormal amount of sociopaths lingers around this forum.

It's only slavery if they are forced to do work and for no pay at that.

As was already stated, intention to do something != that thing.

Paid? On an interstellar spacecraft? And what are you going to do with that money? Go to Hawai? Oh, you can't. You're trapped in a can in the void of the space because someone put you there to work for him.

Honestly, are you trolling? If someone traps you somewhere with the intention to work, no amount of money will help. You're a prisoner.

Morals are what hold us back in society for one thing.

For another, they may not be "bred". It's only asserted that they are not produced via sexual intercourse, but rather born, or at least conceived outside the womb.

Lastly, it is simply stated that their sole purpose is to work for a company. There are no other alternatives. Slavery is slavery because there are other alternatives. A person in that situation can't do anything else productive, and therefore it's not slavery. If you lived in a mining town and had no way of getting out of the town due to the high cost of moving somewhere else and you therefore must mine, that's not slavery, that's just life.

Please don't lecture me with Nietzsche's quotes. You're advocating for slavery using quotes from a philosopher. Fail.

If he had access to today's knowledge, he'd think differently. Back in his days, there wasn't any sociology, psychology or anything like that. Quoting Nietzsche is a fallacy.

By "bred" I meant "made". If you make people with a purpose to put them to work, and not because you want to have kids, that's reducing human beings to cattle, and you breed cattle.

So if you're put on a small island with no food or water, and you die, the people who put you there aren't murderers, because you didn't have an option to survive?

What kind of backward lunatic reasoning is that?!

The very act of producing a human being to make a working unit physically trapped and without other option is violation of human rights. It's precisely a case of slavery.

[Kryten]

It's only slavery if they are forced to do work and for no pay at that.

They'd be faced with a choice of work or death, which is being forced to do work under any sensible definition. Money wouldn't even be remotely meaningful in this kind of situation.

[Themohawkninja]

Paid? On an interstellar spacecraft? And what are you going to do with that money? Go to Hawai? Oh, you can't. You're trapped in a can in the void of the space because someone put you there to work for him.

Nobody said you had to be paid with money. If it's a ship large enough to hold 250k people, you are going to need a lot of people to cook, clean, maintain the ship, etc. How do you get people to do that? Give them food for their work. It's not going to be easy out there in space. It will be run like a military vessel, and as such, work in going to be the key factor of everything.

Honestly, are you trolling? If someone traps you somewhere with the intention to work, no amount of money will help. You're a prisoner.

I'm only a prisoner if I was put there for the purpose of being a prisoner.

Please don't lecture me with Nietzsche's quotes. You're advocating for slavery using quotes from a philosopher. Fail.

If he had access to today's knowledge, he'd think differently. Back in his days, there wasn't any sociology, psychology or anything like that. Quoting Nietzsche is a fallacy.

Really, I quoted Nietzsche? Cool.

By "bred" I meant "made". If you make people with a purpose to put them to work, and not because you want to have kids, that's reducing human beings to cattle, and you breed cattle.

No, cattle don't do work, they're just getting fattened up to die for food. Making people is the basis for the continuity of the human species. Chances are that the nearest habitable planet is a generation or so away at .9999% the speed of light, so it's either make babies, or hope you have mastered cryostasis by then. Since we know how to fertilize eggs outside the womb right now, that's the more reliable tech, and when you are talking about the continuity of your species, reliability is important.

So if you're put on a small island with no food or water, and you die, the people who put you there aren't murderers, because you didn't have an option to survive?

What kind of backward lunatic reasoning is that?!

If I had no food or water, then they resulted in my death and are therefore murderers, but in the OPs scenario, there would surely be both.

The very act of producing a human being to make a working unit physically trapped and without other option is violation of human rights. It's precisely a case of slavery.

No it's not, because there isn't another option as explained by my mining town analogy which you have yet to refute.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Themohawkninja

[Comrade Jenkens]

Morals are what hold us back in society for one thing.

erm... that's quite a worrying opinion. **** Germany ring any bells?

as for the topic. A and B: No I have a life here that I'm not prepared to throw away. That and that fact I require regular medication to function so it would be a very short trip for me....

C: No as simply breeding humans and workers with no choice in their lives is just wrong and is a breach of their human rights.