Evacuate Earth

[Skyler4856]

Think they will be happy collecting trash and cleaning toilets? You cant have the 250,000 smartest people on the ship.

Einstein did his best work doing horribly boring jobs...

[Souper]

Diversity and imperfection are what make us human. I'd rather see Humanity go extinct than watch it turn into genetically-selected fascist dystopia.

The odds of that happening are slim.

No way i'm going to sabotage the ship. In fact, i'd sabotage the other sabotage-ers.

[Skyler4856]

The odds of that happening are slim.

No way i'm going to sabotage the ship. In fact, i'd sabotage the other sabotage-ers.

Yeah, anyone with enough wealth to make a large impact on the construction, would probably use it instead to insure a ticket on the ship...

[ScopusAurelius]

I only read the first few pages of responses, but most seem to imagine that a great, huge ship would be sent out with 250K people on it.

A) Nobody in a position of planning this thing would be so simple-minded as to send out ONE freaking ship. The thing could break down in 3 days. They'd send out more like 25,000 ships with 100 people on each, more likely. If your interest is in survival of the species in an environment suited to killing your species, one need look no further than sea turtles for inspiration.

Why is it always "one" ship anyway? Resource limitation? These "what if" things always have "omg in x number of years to build an ark" as a premise, but people imagine that we wouldn't build thousands of the things in parallel.

C) The day we're able to build these "arks" there will hardly need to be an impending disaster to head to space. If the arks can be built and if there is a reasonable assurance of a habitable destination, half the population will exodus anyway.

D) If, though, there IS only a single ship, on the day it launches without Cletus and Billy Bob things will get seriously pragmatic and anarchistic the final few years before the "omg disaster."

E) Rush will write a 30-minute song about it.

[Rus-Evo]

A) Nobody in a position of planning this thing would be so simple-minded as to send out ONE freaking ship.

Think again. There might be economies of scale that can only be achieved with a big ship. In terms of fuel storage, food production, power production, propulsion, system redundancy, genetic diversity on a generation ship etc etc.

Also what makes you think it would be planned efficiently and not with typical human bias, politics, selfishness. Plenty of simple minded things would happen.

[DerpenWolf]

If I'm not selected this will be my exact response:

- F@%# this $#!+, I'm building my own spaceship!

Hence a kerbal grade space program is born.

[ABZB]

Think again. There might be economies of scale that can only be achieved with a big ship. In terms of fuel storage, food production, power production, propulsion, system redundancy, genetic diversity on a generation ship etc etc.

Also what makes you think it would be planned efficiently and not with typical human bias, politics, selfishness. Plenty of simple minded things would happen.

I think that a fleet of medium ships moving together would give the best of both - this way any of the myriad catastrophes that might seriously damage a single ship and end all can be avoided by multiple redundancy, while maintaining diversity. Also, having multiple distinct communities can help encourage cultural diversity - and allow for psychological health in that one who has a public falling-out can move to a different ship and be somewhat insulated from bad communal feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

If I'm not selected this will be my exact response:

- F@%# this $#!+, I'm building my own spaceship!

Hence a kerbal grade space program is born.

Crowdsourcing an Mutliply Redundant Earth Escape System

[Souper]

The fact of the matter is:

CURRENCY WON'T MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE. HAVE YOU ALL FORGOTTEN THAT?

We'd probably only limit the ship(s?) construction to resources. Then we'll just give the passengers a whole new economy.

Oh and by the way, this will most likely be an international effort.

Edited June 27, 2014 by technicalfool
Text size reduction.

[Red Iron Crown]

I dunno, super, I can't quite make out your point, could you possibly emphasize the important part of your post?

I think one ship is a recipe for trouble. Better to have several, each with enough population to be genetically viable and enough supplies to set up housekeeping upon reaching their destination. Each ship should be capable of founding a colony independently. That way if something goes wrong with some or all of the other ships, we've still got a chance.

[78stonewobble]

You all scare me, you know that? I guess the Godzilla Threshold argument stands, but it still feels like leaving 99% of the population to die.

A decision that kills only 99 percent of the population will allways be morally preferable to one that kills 100 percent of the population.

Or turned the other way around it's infinitely more moral to save someone, than to let everyone die.

In regards to genetic screening in an abandon earth scenario. I think it's allright for the following: Diseases that gives a relatively high chance of significantly shortened lifespan and/or significantly decreased quality of life.

I actually think we should voluntarily screen ourselves nowadays for these kinds of diseases. To me having kids with a disease like that would be like injecting a random stranger with a mixture that gives X percent chance of that person getting the disease. Something which would be allmost universally morally appaling. The only difference is in the "delivery method".

What is ok to inflict on me? Is a guideline... Can I accept someone giving me the flu? Sure... Another hair colour? Sure... 20 years of agony or 20 years off my life? Hell naw...

It's genetic profiling, but not with the purpose of finding the best of the best (we cannot predict which traits will be good/bad in the future), but instead weeding out the worst of the worst (the biggest killers and the biggest "hurters").

[Seret]

We'd probably only limit the ship(s?) construction to resources.

What do you think money is a measure of?

[Red Iron Crown]

It's genetic profiling, but not with the purpose of finding the best of the best (we cannot predict which traits will be good/bad in the future), but instead weeding out the worst of the worst (the biggest killers and the biggest "hurters").

Care would have to be taken to avoid a slippery slope. If you eliminate the biggest killers and hurters, then something less lethal or crippling becomes the biggest killer/hurter. Do we keep stomping out anything genetically undesirable until there is no heritable disease left? If not, what criteria do we use to decide when to stop?

[78stonewobble]

Care would have to be taken to avoid a slippery slope. If you eliminate the biggest killers and hurters, then something less lethal or crippling becomes the biggest killer/hurter. Do we keep stomping out anything genetically undesirable until there is no heritable disease left? If not, what criteria do we use to decide when to stop?

I think that the dangers of slippery slopes (not the literal ones, those things can kill ya) are somewhat exaggerated.

In anything we discuss, when the first person calls out "slippery slope", we all become aware of the need to properly define things and limitations.

I'm worried about "slippery slopes", that we are not aware off, not the ones we know of.

More on point.

It is possible gauge averages for ie. how much a disease will cut a lifespan on average, it's possible to gauge it's average progression. It is possible to gauge pain and suffering and how invalid it leaves a person.

Offcourse, it will take quite a bit of debate, to properly define the diseases, that we, as a society, think would be too inhumane to inflict on others, if it can be avoided.

I'd love to be able to cure everyone, but that is currently and for the forseeable future, impossible. Til then, I'd like to minimise the suffering brought on people, who has no choice in it.

[karolus10]

In such scenario humanity would be pretty much doomed as a whole, even if we would had couple decades to escape on moon/mars from doomsday event on earth much more than 99% of population would stay on the planet.

Also I'm not very sure that we would be able to send enough people and equipment to moon or mars to preserve our social and technological level even with few decades, not ever mention situation when we would had less than 5-10 years of warning time.

[Skyler4856]

I dunno, super, I can't quite make out your point, could you possibly emphasize the important part of your post?

I think one ship is a recipe for trouble. Better to have several, each with enough population to be genetically viable and enough supplies to set up housekeeping upon reaching their destination. Each ship should be capable of founding a colony independently. That way if something goes wrong with some or all of the other ships, we've still got a chance.

That seems like it could cause some sociological issues at the end of the journey...

[Red Iron Crown]

That seems like it could cause some sociological issues at the end of the journey...

Possibly. In such a scenario some sociological problems seem a small price to pay to give the species a better chance of survival.

[Kryten]

Possibly. In such a scenario some sociological problems seem a small price to pay to give the species a better chance of survival.

This really seems to be one of the big issues here; in the long term, humanity has no chance of survival. Immortality is as impossible on a species level as it is on an individual one. Viewed in that context, these kind of 'murder most of humanity to save a few sods' proposals are similar to people being kept alive with intrusive, quality-of-life ruining treatments; it'd be better to let humanity die with dignity.

[SargeRho]

There is no such thing as dying with dignity. It's always ugly.

If losing most of humanity is the price to pay in order to save us from extinction, then that's how it will have to be.

[Kryten]

There is no such thing as dying with dignity. It's always ugly.

That doesn't mean it should be made worse.

If losing most of humanity is the price to pay in order to save us from extinction, then that's how it will have to be.

There is no price that can achieve that; that's my whole point. It's just delaying the inevitable.

[SargeRho]

Sure, we will go extinct, eventually. But we should do everything in our power to delay that in my opinion. The best way to do that is to spread throughout the galaxy and perhaps even universe at some point.

[Ralathon]

This really seems to be one of the big issues here; in the long term, humanity has no chance of survival. Immortality is as impossible on a species level as it is on an individual one. Viewed in that context, these kind of 'murder most of humanity to save a few sods' proposals are similar to people being kept alive with intrusive, quality-of-life ruining treatments; it'd be better to let humanity die with dignity.

Extinction means we deny all possible future humans the joy of existence. We may very well be the only sapient species in the entire galaxy capable of witnessing its splendor. Throwing that all away because humanity needs to go through a few centuries of harshness to survive is absurd. It's like committing suicide because you have to live on ramen noodles for a few days.

Your metaphor falls apart because humanity can fully recover from this. Yes, it'll be tough going for a few centuries, but eventually humanity would bounce back.

[Dedjal]

Now why would not aspergers get to go to space?

Highly logical. Redused animal instincts, superb specialization in a certain field and would not have the psychological problems NT's would have.

Do you really want to send some backwater hillbilly to space because he got the "right" genes, but an IQ of 60?

And what if Aspergers is the next step in the evolution of humanity?

Leaving them behind and filling the ship(s) with NT's would set the evolution back some time.

So, would I sabotage it if it was to be filled with NT's?

Yes.

The ship would be a disgrace of the human race.

[ZetaX]

Evolution does not have a "next step". That is simply not how it works, there is no goal, everything is only measured by survivability (which for aspergers generally is probably lower in a more natural environment).

[78stonewobble]

Now why would not aspergers get to go to space?

Highly logical. Redused animal instincts, superb specialization in a certain field and would not have the psychological problems NT's would have.

Do you really want to send some backwater hillbilly to space because he got the "right" genes, but an IQ of 60?

And what if Aspergers is the next step in the evolution of humanity?

Leaving them behind and filling the ship(s) with NT's would set the evolution back some time.

So, would I sabotage it if it was to be filled with NT's?

Yes.

The ship would be a disgrace of the human race.

I'm no expert, but I highly doubt that ALL aspergers are like that and in areas that are usefull or needed. I also think that no matter how smart a person is, if you're gonna be stuck in a spaceship with other people, the ability to socialise and teamwork might be paramount.

Still I see no problem that a socially high functioning aspergers person comes with.

A person with an IQ of 60 would be a person, which in the old days, would have been called mentally ******ed.

I doubt we would have to take a person like that, allmost no matter how good his/her genes are in other areas.

Disagreeing is one thing. Purposefully and knowingly taking an action that leads to the death of 250.000 people is quite another. I've seen the subjective "disgrace to humanity" argument, many places in the history books and they've often been used as rationalisations to kill...

From my subjective point of view... To sabotage the ship would be as disgracefull as those other things in our history.

[Dedjal]

I'm no expert, but I highly doubt that ALL aspergers are like that and in areas that are usefull or needed. I also think that no matter how smart a person is, if you're gonna be stuck in a spaceship with other people, the ability to socialise and teamwork might be paramount.

Still I see no problem that a socially high functioning aspergers person comes with.

A person with an IQ of 60 would be a person, which in the old days, would have been called mentally ******ed.

I doubt we would have to take a person like that, allmost no matter how good his/her genes are in other areas.

Disagreeing is one thing. Purposefully and knowingly taking an action that leads to the death of 250.000 people is quite another. I've seen the subjective "disgrace to humanity" argument, many places in the history books and they've often been used as rationalisations to kill...

From my subjective point of view... To sabotage the ship would be as disgracefull as those other things in our history.

But Aspergers would rationalize instead of socialize. Why talk about the weather when one can talk about how to create weather.

And why would an asperger have to be highly social to be accepted?

Let the asperger do what (s)he does best.

(S)he will be focused on that, and when you get to the arrival point, the asperger would go " oh, we are there? Okay, just need a few more mins..."