3 ms·

There's a crucial difference though: if a child decides they don't like living in a trailer park, apartment, or igloo, they at least have the potential to chang

There's a crucial difference though: if a child decides they don't like living in a trailer park, apartment, or igloo, they at least have the potential to change their situation and live somewhere else. (And to the extent they don't have that potential– i.e. if social mobility is declining– we call that a serious social problem that needs to be addressed) A child on a generation ship would have no such choice: you're going to live and die on that ship whether you like it or not. And that's at the very minimum. It's pretty likely that, to be sustainable, a generation ship would dictate your profession, marriage partner and number of children as well, with no exit rights. Forcing that life on someone with no say in the matter is pretty unethical.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Again, that describes the lot of much of humanity for most of existance. To call it unethical is to claim, not being a modern liberal American is unethical. Of course I exaggerate. But I see this as a First World Ethical Problem.
- Analemma_ 8y ago
  > Again, that describes the lot of much of humanity for most of existance. Of course. But you hopefully agree that civilization has progressed since then. I do not find it ethical to force people backwards in time compared to the contemporary environment they could have. If I forcibly teleported you back to the kind of agricultural, tribal society that existed for most of history, where leaving would be death (either by punishment or just lack of protection from the dangerous outside world), and the tribe's elders dictated most of your life decisions, would you consider that ethical? What about if I pledged to do it to your unborn children? That's what we're talking about with generation ships.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Again, nothing we're not built to survive. We're currently condemning our children to live in a world with melted ice caps and extinct ecosystem. Perhaps these lucky few will count their blessings.
AckSyn 8y ago
You're looking at this completely wrong, and with over-emotional sentiment about "Station". Generational ships will have their own culture, rules, and design to facilitate humans across the galaxy. As long as we can communicate with each other so we can understand each other's circumstances etc, we're good.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Again, that describes the lot of much of humanity for most of existance. To call it unethical is to claim, not being a modern liberal American is unethical. Of course I exaggerate. But I see this as a First World Ethical Problem.

Analemma_ 8y ago
> Again, that describes the lot of much of humanity for most of existance. Of course. But you hopefully agree that civilization has progressed since then. I do not find it ethical to force people backwards in time compared to the contemporary environment they could have. If I forcibly teleported you back to the kind of agricultural, tribal society that existed for most of history, where leaving would be death (either by punishment or just lack of protection from the dangerous outside world), and the tribe's elders dictated most of your life decisions, would you consider that ethical? What about if I pledged to do it to your unborn children? That's what we're talking about with generation ships.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Again, nothing we're not built to survive. We're currently condemning our children to live in a world with melted ice caps and extinct ecosystem. Perhaps these lucky few will count their blessings.

AckSyn 8y ago

You're looking at this completely wrong, and with over-emotional sentiment about "Station". Generational ships will have their own culture, rules, and design to facilitate humans across the galaxy. As long as we can communicate with each other so we can understand each other's circumstances etc, we're good.