Generation Ships--- Can we build one now?

tomBitonti · Feb 12, 2019

Hussar said:
Totally agree. But, are we now going to allow those 10000 people to give up their reproductive rights for all following generations? The choices that these people make now will be binding on EVERY subsequent generation. How is that not a massive rights violation?

I'm not really sure of the morality of allowing a decision to bind then next dozen, or dozens, of generations.

I agree that there is a moral problem. But, I don't think this prevents a generation ship from being built. I do think this issue will cause problems in later generations, unless the ship is truly massive -- on the scale of Starship Warden, which held about 1.5 million people.

Umm, no you don't. As you travel further and further from Earth, it takes longer and longer for each signal to get back and forth. As in by the time you reach even the closest star, messages are taking decades to go back and forth.

Sure. But, messages can still be sent and received. Just nothing like having a conversation. There ought to be nothing preventing advanced knowledge from being sent from Earth.

So, now, we're investing hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of Earth's resources as well? A project that is going to be massively expensive, won't pay off for a thousand years, and will be ongoing for dozens of generations without fail?

Yeah, depending on ongoing signals from Earth may be too much to count on. Priorities changes. Governments fall. Civilization itself might fall.

You need a closed system with nearly perfect recycling (never minding the violations of thermodynamics that requires), where you are going to consign thousands of people to what is tantamount to slavery for hundreds if not thousands of years, while at the same time supporting said mission for hundreds, if not thousands of years, from Earth.

We still haven't even talked about how you build this structure in the first place. Something that will house ten thousand people that has a propulsion system that will function for hundreds of years while still managing to keep everyone on board alive?

There wouldn't be any thermodynamic problems: Nuclear power could keep a ship going for a long time. (There would be an increase in entropy in the fuel, and it would eventually run out, but not necessarily for a very long time.)

The problem that I envision is more along the lines of keeping the ecosystem stable. Based on our experience here on Earth, we have a long ways to go to demonstrate a stable closed ecosystem.

I think I agree with your basic sentiment, which is that we are quite far from having either the technology or the environmental skills, or the social skills, to make a functioning multi-generation ship.

Thx!
TomB

Shasarak · Feb 12, 2019

Hussar said:
Go back and reread the thread. You'll find early on I talked about how a larger ship would alleviate most of the issues but, others insisted on that 2000 number. Dunno who as I don't pay that much attention to the poster. But, it is there.

Funny thing this. Everyone else seems to understand my argument perfectly clearly, even if they don't agree and we can have a back and forth discussion without resorting to trying to invoke logical fallacies in order to "win" the discussion. You're the only one who seems hung up on this notion of straw man.

I think no one understands your argument and I have seen no one agree with it. Take your 2,000 population number for example. No one is talking about that. And your Slavery example, no one is agreeing with that. And your contraceptive argument and your equipment maintenance argument.

And now your closed system argument. We know its a closed system. We know that we have to take everything with us. We got that. So what happens if we send unmanned resupply ships before (and after) the launch of the generation ship? They can accelerate and maneuver faster then a ship with people on it and that would help to deal with the closed system. And thats just one idea off the top of my head.

But honestly Slavery? Is it just for click bait or the shock horror value? Meh, it is not because you know what slavery is anyway.

Hussar · Feb 12, 2019

Yes, TomB, that is exactly my point.

One other moral issue is that you couldn’t allow free speech. After all, any dissent would need to be utterly crushed. It’s not like a group can vote to leave.

Which would basically require a totalitarian society of brainwashed cultists to continue to function.

MarkB · Feb 12, 2019

Shasarak said:
I think no one understands your argument and I have seen no one agree with it. Take your 2,000 population number for example. No one is talking about that. And your Slavery example, no one is agreeing with that. And your contraceptive argument and your equipment maintenance argument.

Maybe don't speak for everyone else in the thread?

Yes, there are issues which can be eased by having a larger population. But there are other issues that will be exacerbated. Aside from increasing the technological challenges involved in building a larger vessel, you run into the "Wall-E" issue mentioned earlier in the thread, where a large portion of the population have little or nothing to do, and doing nothing becomes ingrained over generations. There's also strong likelihood of creating societal stratification between the 'passengers' and crew.

And whether "slavery" is precisely the right word to use or not, almost any viable social structure within such a vessel will require the curtailment of many rights and privileges that we associate with a free-willed society.

Shasarak · Feb 12, 2019

MarkB said:
Maybe don't speak for everyone else in the thread?

Ok that is true. Just because I have not seen it does not mean that there was some agreement, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, there are issues which can be eased by having a larger population. But there are other issues that will be exacerbated. Aside from increasing the technological challenges involved in building a larger vessel, you run into the "Wall-E" issue mentioned earlier in the thread, where a large portion of the population have little or nothing to do, and doing nothing becomes ingrained over generations. There's also strong likelihood of creating societal stratification between the 'passengers' and crew.

And not only that, there is strong evidence to support the belief that, like in the matrix, humans without something meaningful to do would rather burn the whole place down then live an idyllic lifestyle.

And whether "slavery" is precisely the right word to use or not, almost any viable social structure within such a vessel will require the curtailment of many rights and privileges that we associate with a free-willed society.

I dont see that at all. If you said that passengers would have more responsibilities then we have in our current western society then I would agree with that. I mean if you knew that for every child you had meant that someone else had to die then would you have as many as you could? Is that a responsible action? No, no one could argue that.

Shasarak · Feb 13, 2019

Hussar said:
Yes, TomB, that is exactly my point.

One other moral issue is that you couldn’t allow free speech. After all, any dissent would need to be utterly crushed. It’s not like a group can vote to leave.

Which would basically require a totalitarian society of brainwashed cultists to continue to function.

You need free speech to maintain your society. Society needs to balance between Chaos and Tyranny and free speech is the best way to maintain that. If you dont have that then you would have to balance it the old fashioned way by killing the other guys.

Just as a thought exercise imagine we were all on a Generation Ship called Earth, on our way to the Andromeda Galaxy. Do we need to have a totalitarian society of brainwashed cultists to continue to function? Could a group vote to leave and go somewhere else?

MarkB · Feb 13, 2019

Shasarak said:
I dont see that at all. If you said that passengers would have more responsibilities then we have in our current western society then I would agree with that. I mean if you knew that for every child you had meant that someone else had to die then would you have as many as you could? Is that a responsible action? No, no one could argue that.

The same could be said here and now on Earth, though. Given the effects of population growth, anyone having more than two children per couple is contributing to the misery and death of others. Yet plenty still do.

When it comes to the right to breed, people will not always act rationally. Going into an endeavour like this on the assumption that they will would be a recipe for disaster.

Shasarak · Feb 13, 2019

MarkB said:
The same could be said here and now on Earth, though. Given the effects of population growth, anyone having more than two children per couple is contributing to the misery and death of others. Yet plenty still do.

Yes and yet we are holding up the ability to have as many children as you want as some kind of "right" rather then looking at it as a responsibility. Take China for example, they have had a one child policy in place for years so it is not as if humans can not do it.

When it comes to the right to breed, people will not always act rationally. Going into an endeavour like this on the assumption that they will would be a recipe for disaster.

Which is why if we were building a Generation ship that this is something that should be decided before it goes.

Look, lets take something less controversial like driving a car. We dont have an inherent "right" to drive a car, you have to get a license first and then there are rules you have to follow or the license will be revoked. Our society seems to get along fine with that rule and society has many more then that without becoming a totalitarian regime.

Hussar · Feb 13, 2019

And, again, I’ll note that no one has commented on what happens when someone violates the population controls.

More responsibilities? Seriously? Violations of human rights that make North Korea look like freedom central and it’s just “more responsibilities”?

And no you can’t have free speech because free speech allows people to disagree and that leads to changes in society. But you’re on a spaceship where you can’t actually change anything. You are born into a system where you have virtually no rights or freedoms and you will die in that same system and you can’t possibly do anything to change that.

Oh and now the most expensive undertaking humanity could do gets even more expensive because now we have to send supply ships for the next thousand years. :uhoh:

Shasarak · Feb 13, 2019

How do you expect a society to exist for 1,000 years without changing. Heck the Constitution of the USA did not even last 2 years before being changed.

Generation Ships--- Can we build one now?

tomBitonti

Adventurer

Shasarak

Banned

Hussar

Legend

MarkB

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Shasarak

Banned

MarkB

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Hussar

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Similar Threads