Generation Ships--- Can we build one now?

So, now we have a capitalist economy on our ships? Crew have to pay for food and shelter? How, exactly, are we going to "incentivise" this?
Vouchers do not mean a captalistic society, and in fact, implies it might be something else. If it was capitalism, we could just give the voucher a monetary value and the rest comes on its own. The vouchers are the incentives, of course.
If it's not capitaism, it might grant access to bigger housing, extra vacation time, extra entertainment/wellness access.

You're missing my point Innovation is EXPENSIVE. It takes many, many failed experiments before you get on that succeeds. There's a reason that companies spend billions of dollars on research. And, while, sure, you need to have supplies, you simply cannot afford to waste them on possible innovations.
A failed experiment however does not mean you have to throw out the entire material of the experiment. You recycle what you can. If some research is too prohibitive, it won't happen, but innovation comes in a wide range. It might just be that someone builds a better mouse-trap, instead of inventing nuclear fusion or 1nm chip wafers. Innovation will happen within the constraints of the ship, just as our innovation on Earth is also limited on the constraints of Earth.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
So, on contraception - you do realize that that's voluntary, right?

Now, in the United States it is voluntary, yes.

You do realize that you can't just put modern America on this ship, and have it succeed, yes? People will have to give up some of what we currently feel are rights, for the sake of the mission. You want humanity to reach another star, you have to give up a few things. If you aren't on board with that, you shouldn't be on board. We are talking less about putting just folks on here, and more about putting together a paramilitary organization, and putting it on board.

Imagine, for our purposes, that every person on this ship is a highly trained NASA astronaut - because they'd have to be. Start with that level of dedication and agreement to follow The Plan. You will have exactly zero problem finding 10,000 people who will agree to give up some of their reproductive rights for such a mission.

And, again, very few contraception methods are 100%. What are you going to do about "accidents".

Absorb them in the system. We are going to have some accidental, unexpected, unplanned deaths, too. The system will have to have wiggle room both up and down.

And, as far as innovation goes, well, show me a closed society with extremely limited resources and virtually no outside contact which has then gone on to display innovation.

You have outside contact. You're at sublight speed - radio and comm lasers will work just fine to reach the ship from Earth, and back again.

Even reaching Alpha Century means an 8 year turn around for any communication. Not going to happen.

You're not going to have personal conversations, no. But, you *are* going to get all the technical journals and design specs you want, beamed to you 24/7/365. There's probably an entire industry that grows up on Earth to design new things that ship (and, after that, the colony) might use. Labs galore doing R&D for them.

And, let's not forget, we're in a closed system with ZERO additional resources. Any resources lost cannot ever be replaced. So, how do you innovate, create, experiment, without losing resources?

You keep hammering on the fact that this is a closed environment. That means that unless you very specifically open the environment and throw things into the vacuum of space, you actually can't lose any resources. They're still in there with you! You simply have to have a method of reclaiming them - in other words, everything gets recycled. The reasons we don't do this on Earth are not technical - they are economic and cultural.

Note, on the notion of personal freedoms, I did mention upthread that if your generation ship is large enough, then my issues go away. But, even with a population of 10000, that would be extremely limited. And, frankly, if you can create a closed system for that many people, you have zero need for leaving the solar system.

It isn't like you get to dictate to me what size population "we" are talking about, dude.

No need?!? Let us be clear, there was no "need" for humans to migrate out of Africa - at the time this happened, the population pressure was not high. But we did it anyway. We expanded and explored every continent long before population pressures made it necessary. If you see no need to leave the solar system... that's your problem. I am 100% positive that, given the technical possibility, the biggest problem with finding 10,000 volunteers will be in culling down from the millions of applications you'd get.

And, by the way, if you can do this for 2000, I don't think you'll see any particular technical issues arise if you increase the population size by a factor of five. You can do 10K with just more of what you'd use for 2K, with probably a bit more economy of scale on your side for the larger group.

But, perhaps most importantly, if you are talking about colonization, then you want 10,000 on board. Not only does that make for greater genetic diversity in the breeding population (though you can overcome some of those limits with frozen gametes or embryos), but unless you posit humans gestated in tanks, your colony growth is limited by how many babies you can churn out once you arrive. With typical human population growth rates, it'll take that 2000 person population about 540 years to reach a million+. The 10K population can do it about 120 years faster.
 

Janx

Hero
Now, in the United States it is voluntary, yes.

You do realize that you can't just put modern America on this ship, and have it succeed, yes? People will have to give up some of what we currently feel are rights, for the sake of the mission. You want humanity to reach another star, you have to give up a few things. If you aren't on board with that, you shouldn't be on board. We are talking less about putting just folks on here, and more about putting together a paramilitary organization, and putting it on board.

In the zombie apocalypse, there's always that one loudmouth who argues, "who put you in charge?"

Shoot him first.

The kind of people who make a project like this work are not the kind of people who intrinsically follow the OSS guide to sabotage.

The society that makes it to the landing will be more like the Martians in The Expanse and less like us.
 

Ryujin

Legend
In the zombie apocalypse, there's always that one loudmouth who argues, "who put you in charge?"

Shoot him first.

The kind of people who make a project like this work are not the kind of people who intrinsically follow the OSS guide to sabotage.

The society that makes it to the landing will be more like the Martians in The Expanse and less like us.

Why do they never shoot THAT guy?

Punishment for acts that could endanger the ship would by need be brutal and final. If you did something that could have ended all life, you're out the airlock. Drumhead trial, combat justice.
 

Janx

Hero
Why do they never shoot THAT guy?

Punishment for acts that could endanger the ship would by need be brutal and final. If you did something that could have ended all life, you're out the airlock. Drumhead trial, combat justice.

closed system, can't afford to jettison the body. Need to recycle everything. Just think how much water and even air bubbles is in a corpse.

back to shooting loudmouths, I think the average survivor would have a problem with the leader just shooting a fellow survivor. Even though we all know as the audience, that the loudmouth is always a disruptor and not going to make things better.

I guess I could see two ways of how strict a ship-culture could be. On the one hand, can't afford to lose crew. on the other, it could be considered very valuable to pass on ones genes, and excising problem members from that might be a means of establishing order.
 

Ryujin

Legend
closed system, can't afford to jettison the body. Need to recycle everything. Just think how much water and even air bubbles is in a corpse.

back to shooting loudmouths, I think the average survivor would have a problem with the leader just shooting a fellow survivor. Even though we all know as the audience, that the loudmouth is always a disruptor and not going to make things better.

I guess I could see two ways of how strict a ship-culture could be. On the one hand, can't afford to lose crew. on the other, it could be considered very valuable to pass on ones genes, and excising problem members from that might be a means of establishing order.

True 'nuff, so you smoke 'em and stuff 'em in the recyc, like the Snouts did in "Footfall."
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
So, now we have a capitalist economy on our ships? Crew have to pay for food and shelter? How, exactly, are we going to "incentivise" this?

A Capitalist economy is probably the worst economy that we have ever invented except for all of the other economies.

Incentivise is practically its second name.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I agree with most of what you are saying, except the characterization that his argument is a Strawman. Being a bad argument isn't what a Strawman is. Hell, it doesn't even necessarily make it a fallacy. It just makes it a bad argument.

I think it is a classic example of a Strawman. You can see it when he says things like well a 10,000 population ship would work but I was talking about a 2,000 population ship. Its like, ah huh o_O
 

Hussar

Legend
Now, in the United States it is voluntary, yes.

You do realize that you can't just put modern America on this ship, and have it succeed, yes? People will have to give up some of what we currently feel are rights, for the sake of the mission. You want humanity to reach another star, you have to give up a few things. If you aren't on board with that, you shouldn't be on board. We are talking less about putting just folks on here, and more about putting together a paramilitary organization, and putting it on board.

Imagine, for our purposes, that every person on this ship is a highly trained NASA astronaut - because they'd have to be. Start with that level of dedication and agreement to follow The Plan. You will have exactly zero problem finding 10,000 people who will agree to give up some of their reproductive rights for such a mission.

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.

You have outside contact. You're at sublight speed - radio and comm lasers will work just fine to reach the ship from Earth, and back again.

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.

You're not going to have personal conversations, no. But, you *are* going to get all the technical journals and design specs you want, beamed to you 24/7/365. There's probably an entire industry that grows up on Earth to design new things that ship (and, after that, the colony) might use. Labs galore doing R&D for them.
/snip

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?

Again, good luck with that.

AFAIC, generation ships make good SF but terrible reality. It's just not feasible. 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?

Good grief, the ISS is the most expensive man made structure in history. It houses less than a dozen people in rotating shifts and doesn't actually go anywhere. You're talking something that is several orders of magnitude more expensive to build and maintain. There is just zero chance of this ever (ahem) getting off the ground.
 

Hussar

Legend
I think it is a classic example of a Strawman. You can see it when he says things like well a 10,000 population ship would work but I was talking about a 2,000 population ship. Its like, ah huh o_O

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.
 

Remove ads

Top