Generation Ships--- Can we build one now?

[Shasarak]

How is it a strawman?

You are not allowed to have children. The population has to be carefully controlled. How exactly do you plan to enforce that? Forced sterilization? Forced abortion?

Also, since it's a closed system, any child born is replacing an adult who has died. So when Bob the Engineer dies, Suzie gets to be born and she has zero choice. She must become an engineer. She can't be a botanist because we already have those. She can't start her own business, because the ship requires an engineer. So, from birth, Suzie is chosen to be the next engineer to replace Bob, that's the only education she is allowed. Because it would be a waste of resources to train her for anything else and the ship cannot afford to waste resources.

Which, of course, brings up another elephant in the room. Exactly when does Bob the Engineer die? Once he is too old to work, does he get to take a long walk out an airlock? How exactly do we care for our elderly and infirm in a system with tight population caps and virtually no extra resources? It's not like we have space for those who cannot contribute to the function of the ship. So, are we recycling Bob on his 65th birthday? When would retirement age be anyway? Can I retire early?

Oh, right, I can't quit. Somehow I'm not a slave, but, I cannot choose my job and I can never, ever quit my job. But, I'm not a slave, apparently. Because you cannot have institutional slavery apparently. Slaves must be owned by someone to be a slave.

So, @ Shasarak, how do you deal with people who want to change vocations?

It is a strawman because your plan just does not work. Why would you have a set capacity of, just for an example, 100 people on your ship and then start with the maximum population already on board? That would mean that you have to wait for someone to die before having any children to "replace" them. Which means that for the next 15 to 20 years or so you are having to some how get by without someone that you really really needed.

And likewise for machinery, why would you be operating at 100% capacity all of the time? How do you maintain something if you literally can not turn it off without killing everyone on board? I mean I am not an Engineer and even I can see that would be a badly designed ship to try and travel 1000 years in.

Population control is not hard we have it now, it is called the contraceptive. The largest country on earth practises a pretty extreme version of it right now. The best way to deal with population control would be through a social agreement with exceptions built in to take into account those people who dont want to or are not able to have children.

And as for forced job assignment, would you personally want to be traveling through space in a ship that is maintained by who ever is born into the Engineering class or would you prefer that position to be filled by the person who is best qualified? Hereditary systems dont work on Earth so why would you try it on a Generation ship?

So that is why I think that your whole proposal can be summed up as a Strawman, something that is set up because it is easier to defeat than a real argument.

 

[tomBitonti]

So ... I don't think it has been set what is the ratio of the ship's population to the number of roles which would need to be filled.

There might be 1000 people and just 100 distinct roles.

We also haven't specified how many roles a single person can cover. Given that they might not have much else to do, learning several roles might be the norm. Then we might have 1000 people each with three different roles (on average) covering 100 distinct roles.

My numbers are made up here, of course. But are they unreasonable? Or at least feasible?

As to highly constrained environments (what others are calling environmentally imposed slavery). That has to be considered in comparison with other environments. Say, growing up poor in Mexico City, or in a large city in many many places in the world. It's hard to pursue this very far without invoking too many real issues, but I don't think I have to go there: There are a lot of places which would much much worst than the ship environment. (At least, assuming that the ship environment is not a complete nightmare, which might be the case, but we haven't set what the environment would be like.)

Also, this does not consider how the Earth's environment might turn out in not too much time. Again, I don't think I need to enumerate this to make the point that the Earth might become a very terrible place to live, in comparison to which the ship environment, however constrained, might be a lot better.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Tonguez]

As to highly constrained environments (what others are calling environmentally imposed slavery). That has to be considered in comparison with other environments. Say, growing up poor in Mexico City, or in a large city in many many places in the world. It's hard to pursue this very far without invoking too many real issues, but I don't think I have to go there: There are a lot of places which would much much worst than the ship environment. (At least, assuming that the ship environment is not a complete nightmare, which might be the case, but we haven't set what the environment would be like.)

Also, this does not consider how the Earth's environment might turn out in not too much time. Again, I don't think I need to enumerate this to make the point that the Earth might become a very terrible place to live, in comparison to which the ship environment, however constrained, might be a lot better.

Thx!
TomB

I don't know if its possible for earthbound humans to actually envision what living in an entirely closed environment is like, because even in the most highly constrained environments (say the middle of a dense urban ghetto) people can still see the sky, feel weather and imagine what its like to go out into the country - imagination and hope are immensely powerful forces in maintaining human sanity.

Now imagine a closed densely populated urban environment, even one with bright lights and flashy visuals but where there is no sky and you know that if you step out of the residential space, you will just find more ship and beyond that the empty vacuum of space (ie death). How does that affect sanity of someone who is miserable where they are and just wants to 'get out' and visit that far away island?

(NB then again I live on an island and I've said in the past "man I'd got stir crazy if I couldnt visit the sea" , yet I've meet people who were in their 20s before they even got close to an ocean - how did they cope without it? )

 

[Hussar]

So, on contraception - you do realize that that's voluntary, right? We're talking about a closed system. Contraception cannot possibly be voluntary. And, again, very few contraception methods are 100%. What are you going to do about "accidents". And, as far as China goes, well, I'm not really sure I'd hold up China as an example of how not to violate human rights.

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. It's okay. I'll wait. Because, sure, for the first few generations, communication with Earth isn't a problem. But, after we've travelled more than a couple of light years away from Earth, communication is virtually impossible, at least any two way communication. Even reaching Alpha Century means an 8 year turn around for any communication. Not going to happen.

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? The whole point of innovation is that you are going to lose LOTS of resources before you succeed. How many failed crops before you manage to increase crop yields? How many systems go kablooie because you overload the circuits while trying to increase engine efficiency or reactor efficiency? On and on and on.

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. We were discussing a ship with a crew of about 2000. Which is where my issues lay.

 

[Tonguez]

We were discussing a ship with a crew of about 2000. Which is where my issues lay.

or is it?
I am reminded of Battlestar Galaticas ragtag array of available spaceships, and although that was a neccesity due to the cylons attack, maybe even in the best conditions it will be determined that a single Generation Ship isnt going to work and that it is necessary to send a fleet of smaller craft together. The smaller craft might then allow some mobility as people move from one ship to another and in desperate times the smaller ships can be cannibalized for the benefit of the central colony ship.

As to innovation I'm sure that even that should be possible - maybe better ways to process bioplastics from organic waste? GM modification of algal colonies so that they taste like strawberries?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, on contraception - you do realize that that's voluntary, right? We're talking about a closed system. Contraception cannot possibly be voluntary. And, again, very few contraception methods are 100%.

Nothing is a 100 %. The generation ship has to live with that.

Including the possibility that some people don't want to use contraception and rather churn out kids. But there will also be some that don't want kids and rather focus on their career.

There are obviously ways to incentivize not having too many kids. For example, everyone gets a child support voucher. So a couple can get child support for two kids. If they meet someone that doesn't want children, he or she might give them their child support voucher.

That doesn't mean that people with less child support vouchers will have to starve or anything - just that it's much more comfortable to have only as many children as you have vouchers available.

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? The whole point of innovation is that you are going to lose LOTS of resources before you succeed. How many failed crops before you manage to increase crop yields? How many systems go kablooie because you overload the circuits while trying to increase engine efficiency or reactor efficiency? On and on and on.

Even without innovation crops can fail. Innovation can make sure that the crops don't fail again.
Fundamentally, you have to be prepare for the unexpected, because you're flying around for centuries. If you don't have supplies and procedures that can let you survive a few failed crops, a few hull breaches, a few reactors breaking down, a few engines blowing up, a computer crashing, a disease outbreak, and so on, then your generation ship will fail.

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. We were discussing a ship with a crew of about 2000. Which is where my issues lay.

I wasn't discussing a crew of 2,000. I am discussing what would be neccessary for a generaton ship, and if we decide that we need a crew of 10,000, then we need a crew of 10,000.

I am actually believing that it's more likely we need a crew of a few millions at least, and a ship that has roughly the size, shape mass and composition of the 3rd planet in the solar system. Or maybe the entire solar system.

 

[Hussar]

Nothing is a 100 %. The generation ship has to live with that.

Including the possibility that some people don't want to use contraception and rather churn out kids. But there will also be some that don't want kids and rather focus on their career.

There are obviously ways to incentivize not having too many kids. For example, everyone gets a child support voucher. So a couple can get child support for two kids. If they meet someone that doesn't want children, he or she might give them their child support voucher.

That doesn't mean that people with less child support vouchers will have to starve or anything - just that it's much more comfortable to have only as many children as you have vouchers available.

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?

Even without innovation crops can fail. Innovation can make sure that the crops don't fail again.
Fundamentally, you have to be prepare for the unexpected, because you're flying around for centuries. If you don't have supplies and procedures that can let you survive a few failed crops, a few hull breaches, a few reactors breaking down, a few engines blowing up, a computer crashing, a disease outbreak, and so on, then your generation ship will fail.

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.

I wasn't discussing a crew of 2,000. I am discussing what would be neccessary for a generaton ship, and if we decide that we need a crew of 10,000, then we need a crew of 10,000.

I am actually believing that it's more likely we need a crew of a few millions at least, and a ship that has roughly the size, shape mass and composition of the 3rd planet in the solar system. Or maybe the entire solar system.

This I agree with.

 

[MarkB]

As to innovation I'm sure that even that should be possible - maybe better ways to process bioplastics from organic waste? GM modification of algal colonies so that they taste like strawberries?

And how do you check that your strawberry goop is safe to cultivate and eat? Maybe it's carcinogenic if consumed over several years. Maybe it leeches nutrients from the system when grown at industrial scale. You'll need packs of lab rats to test for the former, and sequestered vats for the latter, all extra resources to be carried in order to sustain tests that will take years to complete - and that's just to test for two out of numerous potential issues.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, since it's a closed system, any child born is replacing an adult who has died. So when Bob the Engineer dies, Suzie gets to be born and she has zero choice. She must become an engineer. She can't be a botanist because we already have those. She can't start her own business, because the ship requires an engineer. So, from birth, Suzie is chosen to be the next engineer to replace Bob, that's the only education she is allowed. Because it would be a waste of resources to train her for anything else and the ship cannot afford to waste resources.

That would be a really bad way to go about the replacement system. First off, you'd have an aging population that lives an average of X years. So when members reach a time where they are Y years from death, a replacement would be born/test tubed in order for that replacement to be old enough to actually, you know, replace the person who died. Unless we change drastically, infants can't actually replace anyone at any job that doesn't require crying, eating or going to the bathroom. Since there would be many such replacements at any given time, you can see which one would be best to replace Bob at engineering when he does, and which would replace Al the botanist, and which would replace Mary the Astrophysicist. And so on.

So, @ Shasarak, how do you deal with people who want to change vocations?

If they are good at the new job that they want and there is a replacement that can step into the old one, you handle it by saying enjoy the new job. If there isn't, you handle it by saying sure, but not right now.

 

[Maxperson]

It is a strawman because your plan just does not work. Why would you have a set capacity of, just for an example, 100 people on your ship and then start with the maximum population already on board? That would mean that you have to wait for someone to die before having any children to "replace" them. Which means that for the next 15 to 20 years or so you are having to some how get by without someone that you really really needed.

And likewise for machinery, why would you be operating at 100% capacity all of the time? How do you maintain something if you literally can not turn it off without killing everyone on board? I mean I am not an Engineer and even I can see that would be a badly designed ship to try and travel 1000 years in.

Population control is not hard we have it now, it is called the contraceptive. The largest country on earth practises a pretty extreme version of it right now. The best way to deal with population control would be through a social agreement with exceptions built in to take into account those people who dont want to or are not able to have children.

And as for forced job assignment, would you personally want to be traveling through space in a ship that is maintained by who ever is born into the Engineering class or would you prefer that position to be filled by the person who is best qualified? Hereditary systems dont work on Earth so why would you try it on a Generation ship?

So that is why I think that your whole proposal can be summed up as a Strawman, something that is set up because it is easier to defeat than a real argument.

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.