The Ethics of Space Tourism?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We need a Drama Fail subforum. So I can put it on "hidden".

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd think putting that same level of importance, urgency and funding into programs to salvage this mote of dust we currently share with so many living things would be preferable, and more realistic ..long shot though it may be.

I would suggest that salvaging this mote is also of prime importance, although more realistic is only arguable. I'm not sure I can articulate what kind of investment or project would actually succeed in salvaging this mote. However, the projects and steps for moving some of humanity off this rock are certainly more concrete and achievable.

Secondly, there is the reality that even in the best of circumstances - our current level of technology and standards of living are only sustainable for a short period of time, and then it will have to end absent an influx of resources from off-world. That's on the order of centuries. Maybe a one or two thousand years -- otherwise, limitations on resources will force us to adopt more limited lifestyles.

[cronus]

Except we know nothing of the advances exploits like nano-technology and genetic engineering will bring I guess there is a point? It is what we miss whilst we are dreaming that makes being awake worth the wait. So let us wait and stay awake and see what dreams made real will bring?

[Blind groper]

To Coito

You said our current level of technology is unsustainable. Sure. But our current level of technology is not what we will be surviving on in 100 years. It will be a much, much greater level of technology. Life is about change.

Will the future level of technology be sustainable? Why not? After all, humanity is learning new stuff at an incredible rate. New Scientist magazine estimate that the sum total of human knowledge will double in the next 40 years. And they may be being too conservative.

The growth of scientific knowledge and technological ability tends to be exponential. Computer science capability doubles each two years and has done for the past half century. Other technologies may take longer to double, but are nevertheless growing at a stunning rate.

For this reason, it is not possible to make blanket statements about future sustainability.

[Seth]

I'd think putting that same level of importance, urgency and funding into programs to salvage this mote of dust we currently share with so many living things would be preferable, and more realistic ..long shot though it may be.

This planet is fucked, one way or another. We need to get the hell OFF this planet and populate the cosmos if the human species is to survive.

The planet's not fucked. It will be fine. It's us that are fucked, unless we change our ways. I say do both (space investment/tourism/exploration and environmental work).

One relatively small asteroid and it's extinction time. True, the planet will go on without noticing, but we've got to get the hell out of here to survive in the long term.

[charlou]

Related philosophical question ... If we stop breeding we'd just die out, as individuals and as a species. If we stopped producing more people we'd not need to concern ourselves with how future generations will manage to survive. Why are we so driven to believe that the continuation and survival of humans is so important?

[Seth]

Related philosophical question ... If we stop breeding we'd just die out, as individuals and as a species. If we stopped producing more people we'd not need to concern ourselves with how future generations will manage to survive. Why are we so driven to believe that the continuation and survival of humans is so important?

It's genetically driven.

[charlou]

Fundamentally, yes. Seems to be a strong emotional component to it. And plenty of ego.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, it's an interesting phenomenon. As an existentialist atheist, I couldn't really give a shit if our distant future generations survive or die. It makes no difference to me. But I still can't help thinking it is a worthwhile goal to strive for. May as well.

[Coito ergo sum]

To Coito

You said our current level of technology is unsustainable. Sure. But our current level of technology is not what we will be surviving on in 100 years. It will be a much, much greater level of technology. Life is about change.

Quite possibly. But, if history is a guide, it will change in a way that neither you or I can predict or imagine, and the things we imagine it changing into will be deemed quaint dreams of people from a simpler time.

Will the future level of technology be sustainable? Why not? After all, humanity is learning new stuff at an incredible rate. New Scientist magazine estimate that the sum total of human knowledge will double in the next 40 years. And they may be being too conservative.

I hope so. The difficulty is in the use of resources, the production of foods, etc. Eventually, they run out. And, there is an inherent danger in being a bunch of eggs in on basket. Diversification can only be an advantage, and there are resources up/out there that can be harnessed and used.

The growth of scientific knowledge and technological ability tends to be exponential. Computer science capability doubles each two years and has done for the past half century. Other technologies may take longer to double, but are nevertheless growing at a stunning rate.

For this reason, it is not possible to make blanket statements about future sustainability.

Well, my blanket statement was not offered as a guarantee. It's my assessment of a significant possibility. I think the risk is high, and the damage if that risk comes to fruition is catastrophic. Diversification of humanity to other worlds is one solution, and it is a great, big, wondrous universe out there with lots of stuff to see and know. To limit humanity's existence to on fleck of dust in a spiral arm of an ordinary galaxy, in an ordinary local group, in an ordinary supercluster, does not seem to offer much of a long term future. We know the Earth will change dramatically in the not too distant future. It's done so before and it will do so again and it will be at a civilization destroying level. Think of the Yellowstone caldera erupting, for example. May not happen for thousands of years, but even thousands of years is not a long time species-wise. However, the Yellowstone Caldera could erupt on the order of a century -- there is that possibility. If it does, our civilization will collapse, and very likely billions of people will die. There are many such risks on, in and coming toward the planet, and one of them is ourselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

Related philosophical question ... If we stop breeding we'd just die out, as individuals and as a species. If we stopped producing more people we'd not need to concern ourselves with how future generations will manage to survive. Why are we so driven to believe that the continuation and survival of humans is so important?

I think it's because we are human, and as part of a species we identify with that species. It's our team.

Also, there is an aspect of empathy with a concern for future generations. Most people have an empathy, sympathy and concern for their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. This usually also entails some empathy, sympathy and concern for other people's future generations. There are those people who view life as only relevant in the sense of what effects them personally, and they tend not to care about the well-being of others, such as future generations. However, I think those people are a small minority of people. Most people are good, I think, and part of being good includes the ability to empathize with others, sympathize with them, and to have a healthy concern for what happens even after we are gone.

[Blind groper]

On survival.
Looking back over time, it appears that extinction level global events are rare. The last such asteroid impact, for example, was 65 mllion years ago. Vulcanism is unlikely to have that impact. There have been many major volcanic events over the past umpteen million years, and (apart from the Permian extinction event???) had only local effects. I do not think humanity is at imminent risk of extinction from any natural disaster. Man made disasters may be different. A terminator robot perhaps??

However, I agree with Stephen Hawking that getting self sustaining colonies off planet would be a good form of insurance.

To Coito

On resource depletion.
I do not see this as a likely cause of major disaster. Inconvenience yes. Maybe a little slowing of economic and technological growth, but not disaster.

We have just too many options open to us. Very recently we have seen that fracking has opened up vast new resources for extracting natural gas. Disaster by hydrocarbon depletion is something that has been predicted for more than half a century, and has still to strike. Reserves are now greater than ever. My view is that, long before it happens, we will have economical and practical biofuels available. After all, Exxon is spending $ 100 million per year on developing oil from algae, and they are not idiots.

On minerals.
We have developments under way to retrieve minerals from sea water, from deep mines, and even from near Earth asteroids. Most mineral reserves are at least 50 years using traditional sources. Long before we run those out, we should have new sources. After all, we have not even begun to tap the oceans, and we have tapped only a small part of the top one kilometre of the Earth's crust, which is 40 kms thick over continents. And as for asteroids..... Am I permitted to say that the sky is the limit?

[pErvinalia]

The most obvious threats to humanity in the near future will be climate change related phenomenon and (also related to climate change) disease pandemics. Neither of these are likely to make us go extinct, but they could severely reduce our populations if bad. I think looking at the evidence, these problems are going to confront us well before we can seriously get off planet. That means we need to seriously deal with our destructive practices that we engage in here on Earth. The thing is, it's not really a matter of funding. We can afford to do both. It really is a matter of political will power. At the moment, the political will power isn't quite there. It had better fucking hurry up, though.

[charlou]

If Earth becomes uninhabitable, how would some other inhospitable rock .. or a space station ... be better able to support and sustain humans?

[pErvinalia]

Good point. I suppose it would have to be some sort of terraforming effort like from the books Red Mars and the like. I'm not sure how realistic the idea of terraforming is, though.