Schisms aren’t inevitable, and often don’t show up for long periods of time. There are plenty of long-lasting examp0les in world history. And the risks of NOT having a strng cohesive force, in this case, are even worse.
That is where the military structure would come in instead.
What are the ethical and moral grounds by which someone could commit their descendants to this life and goal? I can’t think of any decisions that I could make that would affect my children as radically as this one. Even if I move my family to some desert island, there is a possibility that they could move back if they wanted. I could throw up a lot of hurdles and make it hard on my kids, but once the colonists board the spaceship, it would be (nearly) impossible for a descendant to decide they want to live on Earth after all.
Sure, if the Earth’s doom is imminent, I could see it happening. And then future generations would be motivated to get to their destination (or at least not go home).
If the ship were full of religious zealots escaping an Earth of evil, that purpose could be handed down as well (although why the government would build them a ship is unknown).
But what else? For the spirit of scientific discovery? It seems the spirit would have to be of cult-like proportion. Otherwise, what would keep the 2nd and 3rd generations from abandoning the mission? And why shouldn’t they?
Yeah, but everybody who worked on them got to go home (to an ordinary, Earth-bound home) at the end of the day.
I don’t think it would be that hard to recruit the crew from the ranks of younger science oriented and military (tech) oriented people. As to subjecting your future kids to such a one-way trip… Well they probably would just end up doing it in the belief that their kids won’t be the ones disappointed in the choice. Hell with the indoctrination that would happen on such a ship, I doubt it would even end up being much of an issue.
What are the ethical and moral grounds by which someone could commit their decendants to staying on Earth? I wasn’t born on a spaceship, and by no fault of my own, I’ll probably never have the opportunity to live on a starship, no matter how much I would like to. How is the situation of the kid who never got to live on a planet any less fair than mine?
kidchameleon, NASA has plans for telescopes which could in fact determine the presence of habitable planets around nearby stars. They’d already have been launched by now, if the political climate in this country were a little more friendly to science.
Well that’s the thing, the indoctrination would have to be on the order of brainwashing, wouldn’t it?
As a parent, I’d have one of two ways to raise my kids. 1) Give them a strong sell on how important this trip is to mankind. They’re my kids, they’ll probably buy it. But this wouldn’t be encouraging them think for themselves and is selling your kids short. 2) Encourage them to question the crew’s mission while encouraging them to agree that the mission is worthwhile. Great, this is much better. But what if they give it thought and decide it is not worthwhile enough for their own purpose? Then what? They’re trapped by my decision.
As a parent, I can’t see making the initial decision unless there was either a) a great need, or b) some sort of extreme belief.
The kid on Earth has options. Want to stay on Earth? Go for it. Want to build a spaceship and fly to a new system? Sure, go ahead. Want to live under the sea? Get your friends together and build a bubble.
The kids in the OP don’t have a choice. The ship is not turning around. You can stay on it or die.
A better analogy would be if a group of settlers build a compound in the wilderness and don’t allow their kids to leave (directly or through brainwashing). This certainly happens and of course it isn’t right.
It is not about what rights you have to be born into something so much as what rights you have once you are born.
I don’t think the indoctrination would be “brainwashing”. It would be no better or worse than religious indoctrination or strong nationalistic indoctrination. It would work for many and fail for others but as there are no other options anyway it would probably not be that hard.
ETA: Apparently you would not go or volunteer, no problem. I bet you that if you polled everyone on the Dope, you would find at least 100 volunteers from maybe a pool of 5000 people. If you were recruiting from just the US, I still think it would be simple to find the 10,000 people or so needed.
BTW: I would not go either as I have a family already, but I would have jumped at the chance when I was 22.
I meant it would have to be on the order of brainwashing in order to convince most or all. But if you want to allow for some or many to not be convinced, then I agree it wouldn’t be as strong as brainwashing. But in this case, how do you reconcile making such a life-affecting decision for your kids knowing that a fraction of them won’t agree with the decision? And not just your kids, but their kids? And when I say kids, I don’t mean children – we all make decisions our children don’t like. But is it appropriate to make life-affecting decisions for our adult kids?
I might have jumped at it at 22 as well, but I wonder if I would have fully considered and understood the consequences on my descendants.
I’m not convinced that it is ethically or morally wrong (which is why I asked the question). It may be there are plenty of examples in man’s history where this was done and the results were fine. I just have a hard time seeing the justification for anything less than extreme need.
Maybe one could justify it by showing that the descendants would have a radically improved quality-of-life?
Earth’s doom isn’t immanent, but it’s inevitable. There will eventually be an ice age, a volcano explosion, an expansion of the sun. We’ll eventually need to get a few of our eggs outside of this one basket.
We can guess when the inevitable will happen for some scenarios, and schedule things accordingly. But there will always be other doom scenarios that could happen suddenly. In a sudden scenario, there is suddenly not enough time to colonize enough humans offplanet to have a broad enough gene pool or enough offplanet tech for viability. So proper forward planning requires colonizing whenever it becomes possible. Just in case.
Well, I grew up in Alaska. In a state with 500,000 people, how many medical schools were there? Zero.
Sure, you can have an apprenticeship program, and years ago that’s the way doctors were trained. And you can train people to prescribe aspirin for a fever (although where do you get the aspirin?), deliver a baby, draw blood, pull a tooth, and saw off a gangrenous leg, just like doctors in the 19th century. But this practical doctor isn’t a “real” doctor. There isn’t going to be any advanced training, since the only way this kid can learn is from the older doctor or doctors, or from computer training. The advantage the kid has over 19th century doctors is that he can get advice from an advanced computer database and so isn’t going to try counterproductive nonsense like a lot of 19th century treatments. But he’s not going to be doing anything “advanced”. He’s not even going to have the training a family doctor of today has.
I’ve always taken solace that there are aliens somewhere that live on desert planet dreaming of a water planet to live on…and vice versa.
Every weekend, when I drive away from the beaches I live 5 minutes from, I have to chuckle to myself as I pass people from elsewhere passing me on the highway going the other direction with their surfboards and boats 
Yeah, but likely he wouldn’t have equipment for the latest advanced medicine anyway. So the skills that can be learned as an apprentice could be the extent of what can feasibly be done in such a closed environment with limited resources.
I’ve read a short story where this situation had been planned for, even though the crew isn’t any more aware of it. A lethal gas is released and the crew has to leave or die.
Anyway, it wouldn’t be necessary. Curiosity would win, and people would leave the ship. That’s our nature.
You’re right here.
Your last clause is an oversimplification. Capitalist societies fail too, & the existing social structure can be supplanted. The thing is, what you need is a society that’s committed to its own life support. On Earth, we can rely on gravity to keep our air supply available, etc. That sort of environmental fallback doesn’t exist on a ship.
Quoth CaveMike:
Beg pardon? I’m a kid on Earth, and believe me, I can’t just “go for” building a spaceship and flying to a new system. I do not have a choice in the matter.
Quoth foolsguinea:
We have to be committed to our own life support, too. Food doesn’t just grow itself (at least, not in sufficient amounts to support our society), and we need food just as truly as we need air. So why would we immediately jump to the conclusion that our spaceship must use a system which has historically resulted in things like food shortages? Capitalist societies can in fact manage their food supplies, so why wouldn’t they also be able to manage their oxygen?
I can imagine the stability of a micro-society where you might not afford your oxygen if you lost your job at the hydroponics following the collapse of the berthing bubble.
Yeah well you also had contact with the outside world where you were inculturated to an economic environment, and had an economy that reached beyond the ship. So you had new things to offer the ship.
Yea I just don’t think an economy of any kind would be feasible. Unlike on your ship there wouldn’t be outside goods brought in, so you’d have to capitalize on the communal resources in order to sell something to someone. I don’t think competition is the only motivator.
I don’t see it as running away, they’d be people who thought that the dream was worthwhile, they would be doing something they believed in, something important, like spreading human life to another solar system so that it is not dependent upon one system for continued existance. It’s a very lofty goal. They’d be true believers, not people running away. They’d be running toward.
I don’t think that such cynical logic is a necessary motivating factor.