goo experiments - moral dilemma?

[KerbMav]

Has to be based in the news I read yesterday about a cyber-school-kit for attaching a control device top cockroaches and the discussion that followed in the comments, but while looking at a smaller version of the goo container in a mod under development a thought crossed my mind.

The .22 animation shows a goo-squid-creature and the science reports ("feels right at home", "escapes into the water") indicate that the Kerbals are launching these creatures into space and not just a secreted substance.

Are children learning here it is OK to shoot lifeforms into space, freezing them in the cold dark vastness of the vacuum and abandoning them in a small cage far away from home?

I know, I know, it is just a game. But it got me thinking nonetheless ...

Maybe I should stop sending goo containers on non-return missions, but bring them back home like I do with my Kerbals ... ?

Maybe the part should be edited for the science to be not retrievable and have no transmission value, but be endlessly repeatable?

... and I started digging a bit:

"Regulations for animal research are more intense than for using people in research because people can give consent. Animals can't object, so people need to work on their behalf. Animal housing rules are more extensive than the requirements for human children day care centers. NASA facilities that house animals for research are accredited by an organization that requires proof that animals are cared for in a facility that meets those standards."

"Animals don't go into space very often," Lewis says. "There are so few flight opportunities for a mission to include animals, so the project has to be pretty important to earn a spot on any trip into space. When animals do make the trip, their welfare is a key concern."

NASA Policy Directive

Subject: Care and Use of Animals (Revalidated 6/25/13)

But for the most part, returning animal test subjects are immediately dissected so that researchers can study in detail how spaceflight has affected their bodies.

U.S. NASA space experiments

[Red Iron Crown]

Are children learning here it is OK to shoot lifeforms into space, freezing them in the cold dark vastness of the vacuum and abandoning them in a small cage far away from home?

Personally, I think it is OK as long as it advances our knowledge.

[Bomoo]

No, killing and borderline torture are not acceptable means of advancing our technical expertise. This is speaking in absolute terms, of course. As this society already teaches children it's alright to murder non-humans to satisfy their gluttony, teaching them that the practice of shooting animals into space to observe the colourful ways in which they die is acceptable is neither more nor less ethically bankrupt, relatively speaking.

[7499275]

This is where I may become hated for my response... I do not like the idea of torture for science but loosing up to 20 animals for example out of millions is perfectly acceptable. As long as they did not suffer and have a painful death.

I care more about learning and advancing in science then I do about losing a handful of animals out of millions. For example, dogs. NASA and the USSR launched dogs into space to see if they survived, in America alone there are stray dogs who are put to sleep. Could very cheaply use those to test experiments as long as it is not cruel and unusual punishment.

[NASAFanboy]

The interests of the Kerbal race are superior to that of any creature. They are more important, why?

Because animals have no potiental. They aren't intelligent, they eat, they poop, they mate, they die. But Kerbals and other intelligent races are capable of engineering wonders and spreading out to other planets. They are capable of truly great things.

It might just me me (I'm a Human Supremacist), but I believe that the deaths of animals for advancing science and technology are OK, as long as these deaths provide data.

The loss of an animal in the name of knowledge is an acceptable loss by all means.

Edited March 14, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Random Tank]

It's a conspiracy man! A conspiracy!

It'd be a good challenge to always bring them back; I hardy ever use probes so it isn't too much of an issue for me, but I might try it still

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I assume that when a kerbal on EVA gets the "science" from a goo canister and stores it in the capsule, he is actually removing the goo itself - so, it usually has as much chance of survival as the crew (which might not be saying much).

[WaveFunctionP]

I could say that a fungus looks right at home on that dead tree stump outside or that my pumpkin patch has escaped into the neighbor's yard. I really wouldn't give either of those things the level of care/attention I give my hypothetical monkey/dog/cat/ferret/fish/snake/spider/bird though.

[Poryy]

It's not as much of a moral dilemma as crashing Kerbals. The sapient beings have a natural right to benefit from nonsapient beings. There's plenty more Goo where that came from.

[jwenting]

The only "moral issue" is the question why we shoot up containers of goo instead of "animal rights activists" to experiment on.

The goo has done nothing to hurt us, the "animal rights activists" have, with their agenda and fraudulent presentation of their goals, caused immeasurable harm to both people and animals alike.

Animals aren't human beings, they're not our moral equivalents, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with using them for experiments that further human knowledge, health, and prosperity. Certainly not if there are no viable equivalents.

Anyway, goo isn't animals, it's goo.

[Sirrobert]

How is this any different than exterminating rodents because they bother you?

Actually bad example. If we do it for science, atleast we get some information before they die

[KerbMav]

I could say that a fungus looks right at home on that dead tree stump outside or that my pumpkin patch has escaped into the neighbor's yard. I really wouldn't give either of those things the level of care/attention I give my hypothetical monkey/dog/cat/ferret/fish/snake/spider/bird though.

Does not look like fungus to me.

Having started thinking about it, I see the reactions/answers in the thread below from a totally different perspective.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53507-What-do-you-think-the-Mystery-goo-really-is

Edited March 14, 2014 by KerbMav

[aleis]

You are all going about this wrong. See the Kerbals aren't torturing the goo for there own advancesment. The goo is actually an extraterrestrial and the Kerbals are spending unfathomable amounts of money and lives trying to figure out where they belong so they can return all goo to where it came from.

This they are sending rockets with small goo bits and seeing if it accepts the location add outs natural habitat. The Kerbals are incredibly humane (kerbane?) In this regard

[KerikBalm]

What about the ethics of contaminating potential alien biospheres with the goo? (ie Duna, Laythe)

I always assumed the goo was some sort of bacterial/fungal sludge that you might find growing in some container left in the back of your fridge too long...

[Kasuha]

This unit was something one of our engineers came upon while dumpster divin-- Erm, while researching alternative applications for existing technologies. It's a sealed container which appears to be filled with a strange-looking substance. We couldn't reach in or break the canister open, but watching how the Goo behaves when subjected to different situations could be very educational.

Nothing suggests it is an animal IMO.

[KerbMav]

Then what is the squiddy thingy from the .22 teaser?

[Wallace]

Then what is the squiddy thingy from the .22 teaser?

Well, the video is entitled Squid, not Goo. I see no indication that the creature is a goo, I think it is supposed to be more of a space kraken origin story. Radioactive squid accidentally launched into space, I think we all know how that would go in a movie. Squidzilla.

[problemecium]

Points noted, but judging by the goo's responses (e.g. in deep space it "feels right at home") I've always been of the opinion it's "secretly" a baby Kraken, in which case putting it in space is far more harmful to the Kerbal species than it is for the goo.

[AndrewBCrisp]

Just a note: the squid-thing crawls into a Science Jr. Materials Bay, rather than a Goo Canister in the trailer. Given that, and its similarity to a certain anomaly on the surface of Bop, my guess would be that the squid thing is the "anomaly" - just larger, older, and, er, deader.

As for the Goo itself; I'm going with fungus / microbal colony / some classification of life unknown to us but known to Kerbals. Either that, or some form of reactive, non-living, matter.

On a personal note, I tend to take a dim view of the philosophy of "whatever we do to animals is justified because we are more important than they". My primary reason for not liking this philosophy is that that same line of thinking can - and has - been used to justify tortures on people who were deemed Not Human by the powers that be. Likewise, we may find ourselves subjected to the same callousness at some point in the future, if we encounter advanced aliens or if we develop sentient machines that surpass us. The old rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would seem to apply here.

[regex]

It's a container of goo, not a container of animal. I'm going to assume that human children are smart enough to know the difference and not start torturing my cat.

Edited March 14, 2014 by regex

[KerbMav]

So, how do you explain the reaction to different circumstances if the goo is nothing sentient?

[Wahgineer]

Personally, I think we need to at least be humane towards animals, considering that many of them play an important part in our planets' ecosystems.

[Frank_G]

Because it is MYSTERY goo... And that it will remain, regardless of where a kerbal exposes it to whatever... I find nothing offending or morally wrong in that. And hey... The goo likes to be in strange environments.

[Ravenchant]

So, how do you explain the reaction to different circumstances if the goo is nothing sentient?

Lots of plants and fungal species display rather complex "behaviour". Doesn't mean they are sentient. And I'd wager that very few people would question the ethics of sacrificing something that doesn't even have a neural system for science.

Edit: and the radioactive squid in the animation hitches a ride, it isn't put there deliberately.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Ravenchant

[Geschosskopf]

Are children learning here it is OK to shoot lifeforms into space, freezing them in the cold dark vastness of the vacuum and abandoning them in a small cage far away from home?

Why shouldn't this be OK? Animal testing is necessary for many things we use here on Earth every day. Why should it be any different in space?

Questions like this always crack me up. I'll try to put that in perspective. There's this term called "acceptable casualties". Military planners use it routinely because they take it as a given that some of their troops are going to die while accomplishing their objectives; after all, the enemy is trying to kill them. So you measure cost-benefit in terms of how many troops you can lose and still leave your unit able to carry out more objectives tomorrow.

Thing is, though, civilians rely on the same harsh logic of "acceptable casualties" every day without realizing it. Take driving cars for example. Even with all the safety features of modern cars and tougher DWI laws, still somewhere around 30-40 THOUSAND people get killed every year in wrecks on US highways. Until recently, it was like 50,000 people. Every. Single. Year. Think about that number. It took the VC and NVA a whole 10 years to kill that many US troops in Viet Nam, and they were trying as hard as they could, whereas wrecks are almost all accidents. But does this carnage stop people from getting in their cars every day? No. Why not? Because the casualty rate for drivers, appalling though it may be, doesn't outweigh the convenience, even necessity, of driving a car. Thus, the level of casualties is acceptable.

And the same goes for everything else. Workers in mines, oilfields, farms, and all the industries that manufacture, maintain, and transport every single consumer good get killed or maimed all the time, but we don't feel bad enough about this to stop buying those products. Or stop using the buildings where construction workers got killed. Or even working in any of these industries ourselves. And if we do work in such industries, the last thing we want is for people to stop buying our stuff because then we'd be out of a job. So all this carnage is also "acceptable".

Now sure, these days there are shelves full of safety regulations published by organizations like OSHA, NIOSH, etc., intended to minimize casualties. But the very fact that it took bigtime special-interest lobbying to get such organizations created and charged with improving safety shows how "acceptable" industrial casualties are to the general public, because the general public simply doesn't care. If it had, the safety regulations would have been in place from the get-go.

Bottom line is, everything around us is built on human blood, from the nations we live in to the shoes on our feet. But we cheerfully accept this. In fact, we accept these casualties so easily that we don't even think about them until tragedy strikes home. And even then we accept those as the cost of doing business, or just fate or bad luck, and keep on as before. Given this, why should we feel any differently towards animals?