02 Feb 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59These children are free to work towards mounting their own mission or joining a later one. The people who dispatched the ship their parents missed were children once too and were on Earth and therefore benefitted from all the options and freedoms that this conferred..
What about the children of the astronauts who turned down their place on the ship?
Subjected to an Earth-bound existence with no choice in the matter.
Knowing that if it wasn't for their parent's change of mind they could be out there with the stars ...
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by joe beyserSaying that "a child that does not know any different may be perfectly happy with a life aboard a spaceship" doesn't really mitigate the fact that they have not been given any opportunity whatsoever to "know any different" or to exercise free choice about what being "perfectly happy" might amount to for them as free and self-determining individuals.
A child that does not know any different may be perfectly happy with a life aboard a spaceship. What seems to someone that has experienced waterfalls, flowers in a field, riding a bicycle etc… would probably be a different outlook by someone that hasn't experienced an earthly life. Would the viewpoint change any moral considerations as well?
02 Feb 16
Would anyone's views [I assume that hundreds of lurkers are lapping up our cogitations] on this issue be affected by the physical nature of the spacecraft? If, for technical reasons, it had to be small and was therefore far more cramped and spartan than what science fiction movies and TV series might have led us to imagine for such a scenario, would it have a bearing on the moral issues surrounding bringing children into the "world"?
Originally posted by jcandanceThe existence of options and freedom of choice would be the key differences, even if they don't kick in until the age of majority [or whatever term it ought to be] is reached.
how is this different then raising them in a town of your choosing under a religion of your choosing? It is what it is.
The kernel of this question is, to my way of thinking, what options and freedom of choice do the children born in the spacecraft have when they reach the age of majority? Basically none at all, as far as I can see.
Aren't contrived circumstances such as these dehumanizing at their very core. What would humanity actually be bringing to a new 'colony' if bringing it there was achieved by generation after generation of dehumanization?
Perhaps there are moral barriers to even attempting such a mission caused by the reality of what the human life span is.
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by jcandanceWhat opportunity would children born in the OP's spaceship have to "move on"?
I think that there are some things that just are what they are. If your folks moved to antartica or mars, this is the lot you were dealt in life, you move on.
this is the lot you were dealt in life
Yes and the question is - are there moral considerations pertaining to "the lot" (life long incarceration and forced labour, for all intents and purposes) that these potential parents are knowingly and deliberately dealing to their offspring?
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by jcandanceInfra-human wages in sweatshops, corrupt government appropriation of land, and detention without trial are "some things that just are what they are", but it doesn't make considerations of the moral dimensions of such realities go away.
I think that there are some things that just are what they are.
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFThere is a difference between discovering new worlds, and pushing humanity into the future.... and making ipads.
Infra-human wages in sweatshops, corrupt government appropriation of land, and detention without trial are "some things that just are what they are", but it doesn't make considerations of the moral dimensions of such realities go away.
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by jcandanceThe issue is children ~ and the adults they grow into, destined for lifelong captivity ~ being systematically and deliberately deprived of fundamental human rights in both cases.
There is a difference between discovering new worlds, and pushing humanity into the future.... and making ipads.
How does reaching a planet literally generations of travel away justify such a thing? How would reaching that planet benefit humanity on Earth or all the humanity essentially sacrificed in getting there?
How many more would be treated in this way ~ generations of captivity and forced labour ~ to bring messages back to Earth like 'don't bother with Planet X, it's no good' or 'we struck out on Planet Z and are now setting out on a 10 generation journey to Planet Y... hope you get this message within 30 generations' ? 🙂
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFIt would obviously be cruel -- the kids wouldn't be able to understand Parks & Recreation.
What moral issues would surround bringing children into the confined and arguably dehumanizing environment of a multi-generational manned space flight to a hugely distant location where their childhood experience would be extremely restricted and their entire adult lives would involve nothing other than [1] continuing a mission they did not volunteer for and [2] procreating so as to produce the humans that would continue the mission after they die?
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by FMFThere is no future mission.
These children are free to work towards mounting their own mission or joining a later one. The people who dispatched the ship their parents missed were children once too and were on Earth and therefore benefitted from all the options and freedoms that this conferred..
It's mankind's last hope! 😛
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 176494
02 Feb 16
Originally posted by wolfgang59Sounds like the discussions after my golf matches..."what if I'd used a 3 iron instead of the four". 😉
I think it's possible to imagine a scenario where it would not be immoral to embark on such a mission.
And equally possible to imagine a scenario that I would demonstrate in the streets over!
So many "what ifs".
