Evacuate Earth

[Albert VDS]

So in one seat you don't care for the live of others and in the opposite seat you are very pissed off at the person on first seat.

[ZetaX]

he's talking eugenics, which Stalin supported.

If you don't know (as he doesn't know) the difference between eugenics and genetics I suggest you do some reading.

Stalin supporting Lysenkov has nothing to do with him "believing" in genetics or not. Lysenkov had ideas that fitted well with communist philosophy, so they fit the Party agenda. Anything else was secondary.

Lysenkov was mostly used as an alternative to the "decadent bourgeois theories" about crossbreeding that were the mainstay of "imperialist capitalist agriculture", thus for political reasons, not scientific ones.

I know the difference between both. The genetic profiling you mentioned requires genetics itself and not just eugenics. You can't do it without. And you ignored the main point at all, namely that you gave no argument to support your conclusion that "genetic profiling is bad cause Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever did it".

[CalculusWarrior]

"genetic profiling is bad cause Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever did it".

Eugenics (and some forms of genetic profiling) is bad because it is essentially justified mass murder. Those evil people above are evil because they did it, not the other way around.

[ZetaX]

Eugenics does _not_ imply mass murder. It did in most cases, yes, but the already mentioned sterilizsations do not kill anyone (yet still are a pretty heavy attack on ones human rights), and simply forbiding certain people to mate does so as well. There are many other attempts, read any source on the topic (didn't check the wikipedia, but it should do).

[SargeRho]

Eugenics (and some forms of genetic profiling) is bad because it is essentially justified mass murder. Those evil people above are evil because they did it, not the other way around.

Not necessarily, but it always is a pretty heavy attack on human rights, but if you can only send a small number of people, you may not have a choice.

[Agent86]

I'd try to sabotage the mission even if I was selected. I think the human race deserves to go extinct. Especially before it gets a chance to infect the rest of the galaxy.

[Copenhagen_Suborbitals]

Cameron Smith who happens also to be making our space suit has made several studies and wrote a book about the subject.

http://www.springer.com/astronomy/extraterrestrial+physics%2C+space+sciences/book/978-1-4614-1164-2

http://www.amazon.com/Cameron-McPherson-Smith/e/B001JRXZQY/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0

The spacesuit.

http://pacificspaceflight.com/

As far as I recall, he told me that a viable human gene pool would be around 40.000 people or so.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Copenhagen_Suborbitals

[SargeRho]

I'd try to sabotage the mission even if I was selected. I think the human race deserves to go extinct. Especially before it gets a chance to infect the rest of the galaxy.

Then they would be well justified in having the military defend the launch sites.

[Nibb31]

So we have:

- Eugenics

- A strong military regime to protect the tiny minority who are genetically acceptable.

- A majority of the population who are doomed and who will be shot on site if they argue.

How is this preferable to just going extinct? Would this our only contribution to civilization that deserves being saved? If we have to become fascists to allow a minority to live a miserable life floating in a tin can in space, I'd rather just see us wiped out.

[Ralathon]

So we have:

- Eugenics

- A strong military regime to protect the tiny minority who are genetically acceptable.

- A majority of the population who are doomed and who will be shot on site if they argue.

How is this preferable to just going extinct? Would this our only contribution to civilization that deserves being saved? If we have to become fascists to allow a minority to live a miserable life floating in a tin can in space, I'd rather just see us wiped out.

Because that fascist regime still has a chance of redeeming itself and becoming a pleasant and tolerant place to live, even if it takes a few centuries. Extinction means game over. Game over for humanity, all the species on earth and if the rare-earth theory is proven right, maybe even all life in the universe. It seems ridiculous to sacrifice so much over politics.

[Z-Man]

I have no worries about fascism on one hand and terrorism on the other in such a scenario. If there is enough time to build a Space Ark, there is also enough time to determine the crew/survivors selection process in a global democratic election. It doesn't even have to be a single selection process; multiple systems could be used, each picking X crew members according to the results of a proportional voting run. The result could be:

- 1000 spots auctioned off, profits used to help fund the project

- 9000 spots auctioned off, profits distributed to those left behind (though how the economy on doomed earth is going to work is anyone's guess)

- 90000 spots for people who have useful skills for the challenges ahead, selected by committee

- 50000 spots for the same, plus genetic screening

- 99990 spots distributed by lottery

- 10 spots for celebrities determined by a popularity contest (what can I say, I expect that even in the future, there will be idiots)

- 0 spots for the suggestion "Me and however many hot chicks I want to take along" (Darn. I made such a compelling case!)

Since then, the whole process is essentially agreed on by the whole world, the military would have a strong mandate to protect the project from the few that disagree or are miffed they did not get a spot (for that reason, the final selection should happen as late as possible. You probably work harder while you think you still have a chance in the lottery, or because you want to impress the selection committee). And if those are more than a few, maybe it is best to go extinct.

I'd also expect such a thing to either happen in one of two ways:

- Suddenly and without much prior warning. Black hole sneaking up on us. Unexpected gamma ray burst. Not much one can do then.

- Detected centuries in advance. We are talking astronomy here with the appropriate timescales. That would mean the Ark can be (and probably has to be) launched more than a lifetime before the disaster finally hits. Nobody would have to die from it. Those left on earth could just voluntarily decide to no longer procreate. Keywords "could" and "voluntarily".

[Nibb31]

Since then, the whole process is essentially agreed on by the whole world...

When was the last time the whole world agreed on something?

[Ralathon]

When was the last time the whole world agreed on something?

You don't need to convince everyone, just the guys with the biggest sticks.

[Seret]

So we have:

- Eugenics

- A strong military regime to protect the tiny minority who are genetically acceptable.

- A majority of the population who are doomed and who will be shot on site if they argue.

How is this preferable to just going extinct? Would this our only contribution to civilization that deserves being saved? If we have to become fascists to allow a minority to live a miserable life floating in a tin can in space, I'd rather just see us wiped out.

Where in this thread is anybody suggesting that genetics would be the primary criteria for selection?

Any sensible selection process would include medical screening for candidates. These days that would include screening for any known genetic issues. You can't really separate genetics from the rest of medicine these days, a lot of conditions include genetic screening as part of the diagnostics. It's normal. If doing so is fascism, then we're already fascists.

Selection processes are inherently elitist. That sucks, but the premise of the thread is that we can't save everybody. Why just give up and die when we can save some people?

How would you select the survivors Nibb31? Lottery? A vote?

[NASAFanboy]

The survival of the human race is more valuable than anything I can think of. Our extinction would mean everything that we ever worked for would be in vain, a total waste, and we might not have deserved to exist at all.

Even if it requires total genocide, I will willingly support any effort to make humanity survive an disaster that will destroy the Earth.

[Z-Man]

When was the last time the whole world agreed on something?

This morning. "Yep, getting a gas mixture containing some oxygen into my lungs is a pretty sweet idea".

I said "essentially". Not everyone will be happy with the result. That is the nature of democracy. What is important is that pretty much everyone agrees with the process that got you there and accepts the result.

Random interjection: "But not everyone likes or lives in a Democracy! What if there are non-democratic autonomous regions?"

Well, offer their dictator to vote on behalf of the whole population, of course. Or let them opt out and build their own. As has been correctly pointed out, multiple smaller vessels are a good idea anyway.

[Seret]

Even if it requires total genocide, I will willingly support any effort to make humanity survive an disaster that will destroy the Earth.

Given how often you seem to voice your enthusiastic support for genocide, I'm tempted to wonder:

[Pawelk198604]

So in one seat you don't care for the live of others and in the opposite seat you are very pissed off at the person on first seat.

You right again, you may say that i'm hypocrite, but every human being, fight for their life.

But now I think a better idea is to hack the system, or pay a hacker to do this for me, and just adding to the list of the lucky ones. Why is that someone has to have a chance of survival because he or she has better genes than me? It's f.. unfair. If they don't invite me fine thanks. I'll invite myself:D

[Albert VDS]

I doubt you would be denied due to your genes. Most likely you will be denied because "it's all about me and I'll make sure of that" isn't a quality you need on a spaceship where everyone depends on everyone else.

Just a small nitpick: Why would a hacker take your money and put you on the list? Being on that list would be worth more than anything you can offer him/her.

What I'm wondering is; when do you actually place other life as the most important thing?

Like what has said before in this thread, the continuation of life should be put in front of anything else. For all we know our planet is the only place in the universe that harbors life, which would make it

the single most precious thing in existence. It's importance exceeds far beyond our precarious society's politics, religions and other believe and ideas. It shouldn't be denied continuations because of the people who are alive now, but

granted to continue because of all the people, animals and other living things which came before us. Imagine it as a tree, a 3.8 billion year old tree. You don't burn it down because one microbe thinks it's more important than

the tree. You don't burn it down because some microbes don't like the believes of the other microbes. Even if the only living things are the worst the world has to offer, even then you don't burn down this tree.

Because it's not about you, me or anyone else. It's about the tree.

[Pawelk198604]

I doubt you would be denied due to your genes. Most likely you will be denied because "it's all about me and I'll make sure of that" isn't a quality you need on a spaceship where everyone depends on everyone else.

Just a small nitpick: Why would a hacker take your money and put you on the list? Being on that list would be worth more than anything you can offer him/her.

What I'm wondering is; when do you actually place other life as the most important thing?

Like what has said before in this thread, the continuation of life should be put in front of anything else. For all we know our planet is the only place in the universe that harbors life, which would make it

the single most precious thing in existence. It's importance exceeds far beyond our precarious society's politics, religions and other believe and ideas. It shouldn't be denied continuations because of the people who are alive now, but

granted to continue because of all the people, animals and other living things which came before us. Imagine it as a tree, a 3.8 billion year old tree. You don't burn it down because one microbe thinks it's more important than

the tree. You don't burn it down because some microbes don't like the believes of the other microbes. Even if the only living things are the worst the world has to offer, even then you don't burn down this tree.

Because it's not about you, me or anyone else. It's about the tree.

And what is wrong with the desire to survive?

True, maybe I'm a little selfish, but generally people like me and try to help others. As for the selection process is that I should not be based on discrimination based on genetic, it should be a number reserved for the most talented scientists and artists, maybe 20%, but the rest of the seats should be distributed by lottery?

While maintaining an equitable distribution of course by the Countries?

On Earth, there are 196 countries, the Ark can accommodate 250,000 people, so we divide 196 by 250000, which gives us enough 1275.5 This much place should be allocated for every country.

[SargeRho]

It absolutely has to be based on genetics. And I'll tell you why: You don't want ALS, Parkinson's, or other severe heredetary diseases in your gene pool, and you want a gene pool that is as diverse as possible. But after genetics, skills should be the next most important criterium by which the candidates are chosen.

Also, 250000 is rather optimistic.

[NASAFanboy]

Not a lottery.

Take 30,000 skilled scientists, engineers, statesmen, the best you can find.

Take 10,000 skilled law enfrocement officers with a good record and gene pool.

Select 110,000 people of above average IQ and good gene pool.

Select 100,000 people through lottery. Must be literate and willing ti learn and survive.

All of above must have no violent crimes in their record. They must have no record of disorders.

We want the best of our best to live on.

[ZetaX]

Dividing the seats equally among the 196 countries is also a bad idea due to them being very differently sized.

[Albert VDS]

And what is wrong with the desire to survive?

True, maybe I'm a little selfish, but generally people like me and try to help others. As for the selection process is that I should not be based on discrimination based on genetic, it should be a number reserved for the most talented scientists and artists, maybe 20%, but the rest of the seats should be distributed by lottery?

While maintaining an equitable distribution of course by the Countries?

On Earth, there are 196 countries, the Ark can accommodate 250,000 people, so we divide 196 by 250000, which gives us enough 1275.5 This much place should be allocated for every country.

There's nothing wrong with trying to survive, but it's not okay if you think you are the most important thing in the universe.

You only pick the best possible candidates, because it gives the survivors the best possible chance of making the mission a success.

The lottery would only add increased possibility of failure.

[jwenting]

Not a lottery.

Take 30,000 skilled scientists, engineers, statesmen, the best you can find.

Take 10,000 skilled law enfrocement officers with a good record and gene pool.

Select 110,000 people of above average IQ and good gene pool.

Select 100,000 people through lottery. Must be literate and willing ti learn and survive.

All of above must have no violent crimes in their record. They must have no record of disorders.

We want the best of our best to live on.

ok, translate into how it'd really work:

Take 240.000 people with political or financial ties to the 10.000 people committee who select themselves to all be on the flight as well.