Then you would desire meaning. — Willyfaust

And what if you were free from the desire for meaning?

You can always confirm that the plant works the way you think it does, and broaden your view thereafter.
It's a step by step process, and with the lower steps acting as a base for the higher ones - they can't be negated. — Shamshir

But in practice "broadening your view" tends to involve completely throwing out everything that was believed before. We know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, but we came to that almost completely different conclusion through completely new methods. I don't think its 100% safe to say we know how plants work until we know at least think we know about everything else too. Of course, I don't advocate telling botanists that they're morons, in fact, I think they are probably on the right track, but I also don't think that we should consider everything they say the absolute truth just because the small amount of understanding we have now matches up with what they say.

Well, you don't need to study every other cake - merely enough similar cakes.
You derive matches from comparison, and study the ingredients that match.
Soon enough you should be figuring out the cake in question. — Shamshir

But what if the cakes you don't know about give you a completely new perspective? Don't get me wrong, what we know about cakes and how we think they work is probably good enough to make them now, but I don't think it's safe to say we know everything about cakes, not until we know every cake and everything related to them.

To be free is to be free of desire/need/concern. This definition of course negates life. — Willyfaust

What if you were free from the need for desire to create meaning in life?

The source, more or less, is a self-written law.
When you study the plants, you're learning how nature has manifested itself as the plant, but there's plenty of other things; and the understanding of those things compiled with the understanding of the plant would be the understanding of nature. — Shamshir

You may have misunderstood my intention. Studying the plant for sure gives you understanding of nature, but it's impossible to confirm that the plant works the way you think it does without knowing everything else (or at least having some kind of theory to compare it to).

To paraphrase your last sentence - you wouldn't be learning the recipe for the cake, but taking a slice and examining that; which would still be learning of the cake. — Shamshir

To clarify my point a bit more, sure you would be learning of the cake, but how do you know its ingredients until you have studied every other cake and all of the ingredients you believe to be in those cakes?

well, probably not blindfolded.

Possessing the knowledge of the fruit innately, will remove the bars.
The con lies in that the knowledge gained from the fruit is second hand, so it is easily manipulated - which is how illusionists con the public.
You're essentially reading someone else's notes, rather than reading from the source. — Shamshir

And where did the source get their information from? I suppose even the source is just notes. Even if you were to study the inner workings of a plant, you're just learning from what the plant does with the laws of nature, not the actual laws of nature.

As if man is truly free, how can he be tempted to sin? — Shamshir

There are things we like to do that aren't sinful, yes?

The tons of dog dung produced every day in every urban centre add up to a real public health and disgust threat when the feces are left on lawns and sidewalks. Fifty years ago, dog dung everywhere was pretty much the SOP. NOBODY picked up their dog's production. By the 1990s the social norm was shifting strongly in the direction of people cleaning up after their dog. Now one almost never comes across dog dung. — Bitter Crank

I suppose it's easy to be wrong about what is a threat when you've never had to deal with said threat. Good info though, it was interesting.

Well then! I'm just going to take the lazy way out and post something I wrote for an assessment task a little while back. It's on point... — Theologian

I'll have to set aside some time later to read all that. It looks good from what I skimmed through.

Which is why, just like how a dream can turn sour if you don't roll with it, man is largely free but tends to deny being wholly free.
To go off on a tangent, that has to do with attachments, as attachments produce setbacks. Freedom is merely playing the game with nothing in mind; no win or lose, hence harmonious. It's ultimately a still joy.
And that's what's discussed in Genesis; the con with the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil robs man of freedom and provides the artificial prison bars' barrier I mentioned. — Shamshir

I can't help but think about how we could use the fruit to remove our artificial prison bars. Of course, that train of thought might just be a continuation of the prison bars. Well, if I never try, I'll never find out.

To me, free will would have to be something deeper than that. Free will would have to be what most people believe it is. And what most people believe it is is something that isn't actually coherent in reality. Something logically impossible. The concept of free will that most people believe in is a delusion ... and compatibilists just confuse matters. Better to acknowledge that X doesn't exist than to redefine it. I have the same problem with naturalistic pantheists who wish to merely label the universe as God. — luckswallowsall

I suppose it's also worth noting that we don't know if free will does or does not exist. If you think that X doesn't exist, that seems fine, but people who do think X exist should ideally look for why they think X exists.

In a newly emerged nation the largest freedom is the freedom from the old nation that had people under it's control and had lost the legitimacy to it's power among the people. Typically this has been another people who either had been or had evolved into being foreign entity. This usually creates a very different atmosphere in the nation than in other more established countries where their Independence struggle is just a course in history, not something that happened just year ago or so. Hence newly formed countries look as to be very patriotic/nationalistic (well, they have to be actually) as they are still pouring the foundations of a new nation. The legitimacy of the state has to be earned, you know. Hence just what about in freedom is important changes through time. — ssu

A strangely vicious cycle this is. Eventually, the new nation becomes one of the old nations, and a new nation comes up to replace them. I think this might be a symptom of a people too anxious to settle down. I can't blame them for wanting something new.

Perhaps you have to be a Kurd or a Palestinian to understand just what it means not to have one's own nation state today, because today we take it as granted as our credit card working when shopping online. Of course there are many various people's that don't even have any dreams of an own independent nation and these people are really just fade away to being the another people as the last members knowing the language die of old age. — ssu

A survival of the fittest scenario then. It sucks, but sometimes you lose.

However, I do wonder about how outsiders feel. What if you are a citizen of a nation but don't consider yourself to be a part of its affairs. For example, a natural born American citizen who doesn't vote because the affairs of the nation don't concern them. It is strange to be a member of a nation that doesn't really care too much about the nation.

The freedoms of an individual is a totally different issue than a freedom of a people. So when you ask above about "if you were to create or live in a new nation", that kind of freedom is actually bit different from the question 'how much the government intrudes into my personal life?' The latter question is especially close to the American heart. — ssu

Whenever I make a post, I usually end up asking many more questions than I originally intended. So in a way, I asked about both the freedoms of an individual and the freedoms of a people. However, I do think these two are connected somewhat. A people is made of many people, is it not? On various levels also, apparently, as that map seems to show.

From this paragraph in particular, I take it that you intend to start a thread looking at the problem from the perspective of political philosophy. In other words, not to address (arguably) more fundamental problems such as free will vs determinism. — Theologian

I'll be honest with you, I'm notoriously bad at keeping anything in focus. My original intentions, my past intentions, my current intentions, and my future intentions rarely match up, I'm afraid. If you wish to discuss free will vs determinism, go ahead. I like to discuss that too. However, I don't think I intended to exclusively discuss political philosophy. It is certainly part of the question, but ultimately I think this question touches on much of what we know as a species, as opposed to just politics.

These are to some degree at least empirical questions. I don't think we're going to be able to answer them entirely a priori. — Theologian

I suppose I was trying to get both from people, their experience and their speculation. The reason I bring this up is that I think when one person says "freedom", an entirely different set of rules and values can be thought of by another. I also think that if we want to have a useful conversation about freedom, we should be able to address what kind we are discussing.

Not only are they empirical questions; they are questions to which the correct answers may change over time, as society and technology change over time. Thus, they cannot be answered once and for all. They call for an ongoing program of research. — Theologian

Which is what I hope I can spark here. I think someone above said something along the lines of "freedom depends on your place in time and space". I think that holds up.

These are questions that go to the fundamental structural basis to our entire society. Whatever our answers, they have profound implications for our freedoms. And those answers will change over time. — Theologian

I suppose that means that some answers are desirable because they give us desirable freedoms. Let's hope we can answer those questions in a way that benefits us.

It's a start, certainly. "Mind your own business" vs. busy bodies meddling in everyone else's affairs, sure. But "Everyone with their own little world", not quite. Society requires regular maintenance, and it is very desirable that the people who are minding their own business pay attention to the commons, the shared world, the community. Having the freedom to mind your own business, requires community maintenance. — Bitter Crank

It really relates to our own instincts as a species. We are territorial, but we are also social. We desire a place for ourselves, but we also belong to groups, and so we designate our land into smaller areas for individuals. However, when there is a threat to the group, all of the individuals are expected to defend the group's land.

Of course, I wouldn't consider a dog relieving itself on a neighbors lawn a "threat" per se, maybe a threat to your neighbor's lawn.

I think a sense of freedom is achieved in harmonious relationships with the universe, as much as we understand them. The more we interact with the universe, the more we understand, including what everything and everyone needs for harmonious achievement - and so the more we feel obliged to adjust our actions in order to achieve harmony, and consequently experience freedom. More freedom allows more interaction and more understanding, but more interaction plus more understanding demands what appears to then be less freedom, relatively speaking. — Possibility

This kind of reminds me how, at least speaking in terms of physics, everything in the universe (besides energy) is just made up of atoms. Where a wood table starts and a wood floor begins is ultimately up to us. All things, sentient or not, interact. Even with our higher awareness of this world, we are still bound by that which all other life and non-life are bound. That being the chemical reactions and laws of nature that make up the active, ever-changing world we live in.

I tend to think of freedom as being free of something, just what that is I’ll have to think about a bit more. — Brett

So you think more about what you don't have to do, as opposed to what you now can do. That's interesting. I'd like to hear what you have to say after you think about it more.

Imagine having ability to do everything, would you feel free then? I think limitations are essential to feel free. The infamous “Arbeit macht frei” seems true for me. — Aleksander

Ah, but what if you had freedom from the fact that you need limitations to feel free?

Well, I simply think, if we were to take cogs as an example - that working for others and yourself is the same to the free man.

Whereas stressing on helping yourself or your neighbour puts up the cage bars.

Going with the flow is good for everybody and everybody who's ever looked at the sky knows this, though it may not be apparent - and that unstressed realisation is essentially freedom. — Shamshir

Human Instrumentality then, every man working for every other man. Essentially then, freedom is a state of mind, and doing what you are "supposed to do" (something decided through eons of social evolution) isn't necessarily a limitation on that freedom because it's what you are supposed to want to do.

I assumed you were referring to your ideal freedom in relation to others as well, but if being an isolated farmer brings you your ideal freedom and peace, that actually sounds great.

I guess I never said your ideal freedom couldn’t be difficult to achieve. Well, unless you want to pull an Evangelion on everyone.

Maybe I took your OP too literally. — I like sushi

If you did, I'm honestly glad you did. You definitely brought more to the table than I was expecting.

If you’re more concerned with politics and society at large then I’d say “freedom” means the “freedom to make mistakes” rather than being told what to do and how to behave. — I like sushi

This is kind of like a "spoiler free life" in a way. Instead of someone telling you that fire is hot, you get to figure it out on your own. It's the fun of figuring things out on your own, well, if getting burned is your thing.

As an extreme example I can murder and rape if I wish to. There is no “how I should behave” imposed by societal norms I have any serious inclination to take as an absolute; anymore than I’d live out my life according to ‘laws’ in some religious text. In more tangible terms this is to say that I care not for what is deemed ‘lawful’ I only care for I deem ‘right’ - I suffer the burden of the consequences fully if I’m wrong rather than submitting my error to some erroneous law and washing my hands clean of any responsibility. — I like sushi

This is an interesting and at the very least well-intentioned way to think about it. I don't know how practical though, at least in the modern world.

This moral position plays into my whole life and hence my thoughts on ‘freedom’. The ‘freedom’ you seem to be outlining sounds more like hubris to me - in that you believe you know that there is a law and will of the universe (a placating thought, yet doubt is indestructible whether in direct eyesight or not). — I like sushi

A law or will of the universe? I don't particularly think that. I think that the universe works a certain way and that certain way can be uncovered via inquiry, but I don't think there is a "will" or reason for any of it. It's just the game we happen to find ourselves in. A game we have to both learn and win the first time we play.

Freedom is harmony. So you're always free to an extent, but rarely wholly free. — Shamshir

Harmony as in multiple parts working to make the whole? A sort of "working for the whole in order to have nice things" kind of freedom?

So you go with a "mind your own business" sort of freedom? Everyone with there own little world, conflicting as little as possible with others?

"The Line" between too much interference and too little protection, or between our own and others' reasonable restraint in exercising our freedom TO is changeable over time and place. The Line has to be negotiated by the people at various levels. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but where is it for you? I'm interested in finding out where others lie.

Clearly ... or not apparently. — I like sushi

It really is like that sometimes.

I mean in the sense that to “know” anything completely is to be unable to know anything new ... ergo “freedom” and “static” - I don’t find much appealing about a void (except when I grow weary of living) — I like sushi

That is interesting. Maybe we could make new things to know? I suppose we do make up new things all the time, but where the limit is on our imagination is hard to say. I suppose it wouldn't be to the person who knows everything. Maybe we can make people who think in new ways, and those people make more that think in even newer ways? Either way, I don't think you're too interested in the answer anyway.

People who wish for ‘freedom’ don’t really understand that such necessarily comes at a cost. In that sense people, more often than not, claim to pursue ‘freedom’ whilst putting themselves in shackles - in that sense I’m an anarchist so such reaching for freedom doesn’t concern me. I don’t seek ‘happiness’ either! Yuck! — I like sushi

I suppose the key then is to use your freedoms to get back what you gave. I'll look into that.

Such is the delusion of the dogmatic. That one holds something dear should be warning enough for any sensible individual to cling to doubt no matter what! You never though you may get lucky AND I’m for commitment to some end or another as a means of exploration (exploration is the key feature of life for me; it’s a tough balance to regulate safety and exploration though - I’d say one must be pushing oneself in some manner, quite hard, some of the time in order to explore most efficiently) — I like sushi

To say such a thing without evidence is surely the delusion of the dogmatic, but I wish to actually prove that these things are absolutely true to the point they are ingrained into everyday life. I'm certainly willing to "pay" for such freedom because with such freedom I should be able to make back what I lost.

I’m not ‘happy’. “Better” seems to be worth striving for :) — I like sushi

Ok then, if you're happy better, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.

If you don’t push yourself at all you don’t know when you’ve pushed too hard - I’ve pushed myself VERY hard before now and it was incredibly painful ... I’m ‘better’ for it though. I guess this is what you would refer to as ‘freedom’. It comes with pain and loss, suffering and death and whole host of demons; such ‘freedom’ is not for the fainthearted and I know I recoiled after a little taster. Maybe next time I’ll do better? — I like sushi

I hope there is a next time. You seem to know at least something.

I think you see what I’m getting at. You can argue the semantics with yourself if you wish. Ignorance can only expand once the illusion of ‘knowing’ is reestablished - call it ‘doubt’ if you want, but doubt is rather static my mind where ignorance grows and lives. — I like sushi

I think I see where you're coming from. To you, all that matters is that you feel more ignorant, not that you actually became more ignorant.

Note: It’s my view of things, you don’t have to agree with it. I believe it is clear enough what I’m saying. If not, don’t bother yourself with it if you don’t wish to. — I like sushi

If I do understand, then I respect where you're coming from. If you wish to indulge in pleasure I see no reason to stop you. However, my pleasure comes from the process that frees us from this slavery. I simply enjoy knowing that I'm making some kind of progress toward that end goal, even if I don't know how much.

Aka “Freedom”. You may prefer to view this as ‘ascension’ because it has a nicer ring to it though. — I like sushi

Are you implying that what you quoted was freedom?

I believe you need to expand your ignorance a little more in this area ;) — I like sushi

I did a quick google search and found that some blind people can sort of echolocate. So you either meant that or something else. I honestly can't tell.

To be more charitable ... yes, I agree. Therein lies my problem. If I agree I must doubt that which I agree with if I am to embrace ignorance. I must push further and unravel what seems MOST ‘true’ and ‘obvious’ to me when and where I can. — I like sushi

Don't push yourself then. If being completely free makes you uncomfortable, then you wouldn't be completely free because you wouldn't want to be there. If that makes any sense. You're better off where you're happy, at least I think.

If you follow through the perpetual ascent you either reach an ultimate plane of slavery or remain a slave playing slave master ... I think it is perhaps better to accept we are necessarily enslaved by the truths we hold most dear. — I like sushi

But what if we could absolutely confirm the truths we hold dear? We will never do it in our lifetime, but it should be possible to cross confirm everything in existence and get at the very least an incredibly accurate model of the universe. Then we wouldn't have to fear that our beliefs are wrong.

All of this is framed in how I view “knowledge”. I prefer to say I ‘ken’. To say I ‘know’ is a bound truth not a ubiquitous ‘knowing’. I ken and that is satisfactory enough - in that it propels me toward some ultimate knowing only in negative terms. — I like sushi

If you're happy, I'm happy for you. I just hope that one day we can all have something even better.

Nope! The greater the information the greater the ignorance. — I like sushi

Any claim of ‘knowledge’ necessarily leads to a plethora of new problems that we cannot frame properly. Knowledge is ignorance in this sense. — I like sushi

Perhaps the more information you have the more you realize how little information you have, but that doesn't make you any more ignorant than before. What you didn't know about before did exist before, didn't it? You may feel more ignorant, but in reality, you were always that ignorant, if not more so.

When we find certain kinds of antonyms they show themselves to be something quite extraordinary. Freedom requires an understanding of limit, limitations are inhibitors on said freedom - or rather, forced (slave like) limits are necessary for any sense of freedom. — I like sushi

But would complete freedom not imply that you can both understand and ascend limitations? Perhaps it goes like this

Ignorance plus stupidity is the ultimate form of bondage. You don't know how to do anything and you don't wish to do anything.

Ignorance with intelligence implies that you may one day not be ignorant. Your intelligence makes you curious, makes you wish to perform actions, and your intelligence also allows you to work out how to perform said actions.

The ultimate form of freedom is knowledge plus intelligence. You know about everything and how to do everything. You aren't bound by any limitations, even though you know what they would be if you were bound. However, you are not bound because you know how to circumvent those limitations

Furthermore we could regard the concept of ‘sight’ and ‘blindness’. A species of animals that are ‘blind’ are not ‘blind’ - they are blind only from our forcing our position on theirs. — I like sushi

And so we are all partially blind. Bats can use echolocation, and we cannot. A truly free being could see all.

There are many tricky elements to such apparent antonyms as some negations are taken as antonyms (which in colloquial use they are accepted as antonyms yet under more close scrutiny they often dissolve; life and death is another antonym that is more or less negation rather than two opposing elements). — I like sushi

Perhaps this isn't the same concept, but I think good and evil are comparable to life and death. Good is simply what others wish for you to do, and evil is what others wish for you not to do. They aren't "opposites" (antonyms) per se, but they are opposing. A strange middle ground, I suppose.

Also, “truth” only comes through “slavery”. The limits are set out and bounded. Only from such limitations can ‘truth’ emerge. — I like sushi

Truth comes from slavery, but once you know the truth you are less enslaved (or at least that is what I was getting at above). You can't become more enslaved unless you lose the ability to do something, and truth gives you the ability to know things. Through slavery comes truth and through truth comes freedom it appears. One step at a time, ascending out slavery through the fruit it bears.

You Are A:

True Neutral Half-Elf Wizard/Sorcerer (2nd/1st Level)

Alignment:
True Neutral- A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:
Half-Elves have the curiosity and ambition for their human parent and the refined senses and love of nature of their elven parent, although they are outsiders among both cultures. To humans, half-elves are paler, fairer and smoother-skinned than their human parents, but their actual skin tones and other details vary just as human features do. Half-elves tend to have green, elven eyes. They live to about 180.

Primary Class:
Wizards- Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.

Secondary Class:
Sorcerers- Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.

Funnily enough my aim in life is to become more ignorant. I fear ‘knowing’ far more than ignorance. — I like sushi

Well, at least your goal is achievable, you definitely get points for that.

The more I explore the more my ignorance is revealed. Ignorance is my primary pursuit. — I like sushi

I know this very thread stresses that dictionary definitions aren't everything, but I think you might have ignorance and stupidity confused.

Ignorance
noun
lack of knowledge or information.

Stupidity
noun
behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.

By exploring, you gain knowledge, so that is the opposite of ignorance. You may, however, see the truth and refuse to acknowledge it. Not paying your taxes despite knowing the consequences is stupid for sure, but probably more fun at least in the short term. If I understand you correctly, the more you see the complexity of the world, the more you wish to be simple, yes? I think it's almost undeniable that while you might live a shorter life, that life will be much more fun.

He couldn't have gotten everything right. Ignorance certainly isn't strength, or we would all be gods.

There is no prospect of a economically viable colony in Antartica, and that is a piece of cake far more than ANY where outside earth's orbit. — Sculptor

That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any reasoning behind thinking this other than what I've already refuted? Keep in mind that I don't want the resources of Antarctica, but with the reserves of an entire planet. I think that when that much wealth is involved, such obstacles as the temperature (that can be negated via technology) should be ignored. I just can't help but think that a net-positive like that is worth exploiting.

I've not forgotten gravity at all. Zero gravity is totally hostile to the human body. And building in a space suit is not easy at all. — Sculptor

So the only slightly troubling thing is this? Something astronauts deal with daily and combat with regular exercise? Guess we should cancel everything then.

Can cats go? If they can, then that should solve a lot of the problems inherent in human dissatisfaction while traveling interstellarly. — Hanover

I don't see why not. We could even bring mice for them to chase.

All the elements that we use are present on earth in quantities easy enough to extract. Antarctica has as yet completely untapped mineral resources. But there is a very good reason we've not done that yet - it's too bloody cold. But it would be a picnic compared to ANYWHERE outside earth's orbit. — Sculptor

You forgot about the single most infuriating force when it comes to building, gravity. The temperature being so hostile is nothing compared to how easy building is under lower gravity. Besides, it being a little too hot or cold has never stopped our species from expanding before. People cannot survive in a desert without water they take with them in man-made containers. I don't see why it being so cold is a deterrent especially when we can get better insulated space suits or even use drones for stuff outside.

3D printing might help, but only of you want plastic shite. The body of a tooth brush would be easy enough but the bristles would be difficult. Printing is limited to plastic items which require a massive backup series of industries from oil extraction, processing, chemical industries, and energy generation. — Sculptor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da5IsmZZ-tw

You can 3D print with metal, by the way.

Regardless, essentially all you would do with a 3D printer is make parts you need for the more complex industry later. You print all the parts you need for whatever you are using to mine minerals from the ground, power that with solar, fission, or any other local power source,(the means to collect these sources of energy could also be built via printer) and then you process the minerals with a machine you made in the same way as the drill. After that, you continue the process until you can make something like a toothbrush. If we need anything REALLY special that we can't manufacture or mine on another planet, we also likely don't need much of it.

Essentially, all you need to bring is the printer, the few odds and ends that you might not be able to get there (like nuclear fuel to get you through the first few months) and enough metal powder to make the basics, and then the basics produce everything else.

It will definitely be hard. We might fail our first few times, but we can be 100% certain that even with just today's tech, it is achievable. It won't be the traditional romanticized kind of space colonization, but gathering more resources and lessening our impact on Earth's environment is plenty of motivation for us to do it.

Would you be able to cope with low/zero gravity; space radiation, and stay healthy? Can you deal with boredom, aging and maybe dying on the shit before you even got near your destination? — Sculptor

Genetic augmentation at the level we've already mastered solves this. Making super-humans might make you uncomfortable, but it certainly solves the problem.

To get a colony established would take more effort than it ever could be worth taking. Image the most simple everyday item necessary to your life or health. and consider the massive range of support industries necessary to make the object economically. All these support industries would have to follow you in a massive fleet of ships. Take a toothbrush, a cup, a pair of shoes. — Sculptor

3D printing and basic manufacturing solve this. You don't need a machine to make a toothbrush or every other basic item you need. What you need is the blueprints for those machines and the basics required to make those.

To get a colony established would take more effort than it ever could be worth taking. — Sculptor

Do you know how many resources you can extract from a planet when you don't care about keeping it intact? The main draw to colonizing other systems is that you don't have to disassemble planets that you have a history with like Mars or Venus. It's easier to justify completely strip-mining some unknown world in some other system than it is to strip-mine Venus and completely erase it from the night sky.

BS. "Take me back. I'll be your indentured slave for five years in exchange." — Unseen

Right, because there was definitely a shortage of people to use in the homeland. I'm sure the massive cost of shipping people back was definitely worth it when labor was more abundant and cheaper in the old world. Not to mention that the plantations in the new world did need those people who so desperately wanted back.

I think the only viable way to let the mid-trip crew know about Earth is to tell them it is gone, even if that's a bald-faced lie. — Unseen

You've presented a solution to a problem you haven't proved we even have. You didn't even really respond to the forest hypothetical.

I did say "theoretical." Wherever there's a slim hope, there's hope. Where there's no hope, that's it: there's no hope. — Unseen

But the vast majority never had that hope. Putting indentured servants and actual slaves aside, the average person could never have gone home. It was impossible because they couldn't have ever afforded it. They might as well have had no method to travel back, to begin with. To me at least, there's no difference in the amount of hope you have when there is a ship but you can't use it, and when there is no ship.

I see no way around keeping them ignorant of Earth, unless perhaps to depict it as a horrible place their people were lucky to escape from. So, I don't know what would be safe to give them. In fact, the more I think about such a venture, the more untenable it seems, beyond the ethical question, but that's a topic for another forum. — Unseen

Maybe I should present the question like this: If there are no negatives to returning to Earth, but also no positives, why would someone go back? Say that you are relocated from one house in the woods to another. The trees are the same species, all of the animals are the same, even your house is a complete mirror of the one you used to have. Sure, the landscape might be a little different, but there are still ponds to fish in and birds wake you up in the morning.

You, retaining your memories of the old forest, might want to return because of the good times you had there. However, any children you have wouldn't have those memories. In the time it takes you to become homesick, these children will have made memories of their own in the new forest. If after you die, someone offered to take them back to the old forest to stay, do you think they would take that offer?

But a colonist basically understands that he's colonizing and can, at least theoretically, return to whence he came. — Unseen

A very fortunate colonist can. Realistically, a majority of colonists ever haven't actually had that option. Colonists are always the poor of a nation wishing to find riches in a new land. The already rich have no reason to leave, especially when they can just send the poor to get riches for them. The funny thing about poor people is that even if they can ride a boat back, they can't afford it. There have been exceptions, but I would say 95 percent of long-distance colonists have never been able to go back. I don't see how bumping that number up to 100 makes it all of a sudden unethical.

If you're keeping the crew ignorant of the mission and making them think that the ship is the only "world" there is, you're not going to be regaling them with images of balmy beaches and Netflix videos to watch. — Unseen

That was never the intention. The second generation colonists knowing their mission is important because it gives them a common goal. The idea behind sending them thousands of years worth of culture is to remind them who they are doing all of this for, and also entertainment. And to be fair, they're getting a hell of a lot more than pictures and videos. All of the greatest works from every corner of the globe all compiled into the storage of the colony ship is plenty, especially for just one lifetime. Not to mention computer simulations of wonders from Earth both man-made and natural. They have would have every experience there is to have on Earth and then some. Not to mention the culture they create themselves up there. They certainly don't need to be distracted, but if it comes to that, we have more than enough to distract them with.

Do you wish for them to be able to experience Earth because you think it is special? Someone who didn't grow up here might disagree. Honestly, it might be for their own good that they can't come back. Imagine a "born in the wrong generation" kind of person who longs for Earth, and when they get there, it bores them. They have seen the grand canyon and the Eiffel tower as real as possible already through virtual reality, and now that they are finally on Earth to see the real thing, it doesn't really matter. Sure, the first time they see a real monument they will love it, but that excitement will wear off. Every time they go to see a new monument, it won't be any different from the models and simulations they've seen. Eventually, Earth will just be another place for them, similar if not inferior to their real home, which would be either the colony ship or the destination planet.

So that our species continues was never a part of the OP. It might well be just a pure science probe or even religion-driven. You're introducing your own complications not referred to in the OP. Just stick with what's there, please...or what isn't. — Unseen

But the problem was the same between our species continuing and sending off colonists (which is really much in the same, actually). They both present the same moral issue, that people are giving up freedom for the happiness of others, and I give the same solution to both, that we are eusocial animals and it is absolutely in our nature to do such things. Can it be unethical if it is both universal to do and accepted in every society that has ever existed?

I'm not talking about the ones who reach the destination, though there are arguments to be made on their behalf as well. What about the ones in the middle, used as virtual slave labor who both had no choice about being on the ship and who will never see the Promised Land? — Unseen

I'm pretty sure you said that they wouldn't belong on the ship, not the colony, so I was also referring to the ship. As for if it's technically "slave labor", I would argue that slaves don't usually get high-class accommodations, free high tech healthcare, and access to the entire wealth of human knowledge and art that would likely have been given to the colonists before they left. Unless you're a communist and would argue that they are "wage slaves", I don't think you can say that is anything close to slavery.

Well, you totally missed the point, then. It was about how ethical is it to take human on a space mission they didn't consent to go on and to use their labor to complete a mission they probably will never see completed and quite possibly without even being told what the mission is. — Unseen

I suppose this is just an antinatalism thread then. Every human being since before the dawn of time has lived so that our species continues, which is a mission we don't consent to go on using our labor to complete a mission we will never see completed. If that is your issue, then I would say it's a non-issue.

Humans are eusocial animals. We make sacrifices in the name of our tribes and the species as a whole. Doing that is in our DNA. If you really have a problem with sacrificing your life working, then you don't deserve the benefits of living in civilization. If the people aboard colony ships refuse to simply live and die in paradise so that the human race can propagate, they don't deserve paradise. These people certainly aren't going to live bleak, horrible lives on colony ships, and the work they have to do to maintain their luxuries will be relatively low compared to even us. All most of them have to do is sit back and relax so that their ancestors can do the slightly less automated task of colonization.

At the end of the day, the only reason we have nice homes and live happier lives than our ancestors is that we have made this decision already. I live a wonderful life thanks to the genius who invented video games, and that guy lived a wonderful life thanks to whoever invented air conditioning, etc. I plan to give my ancestors a better life by creating something that makes it nicer. If you don't want to do that, most countries won't outright kick you out, but you won't get access to the same amenities as others.

OK, skip the practical solutions then. How is all these people spending their lives on a ship less ethical than imprisoning them on a planet? It's the environment they're born in, one good enough to live out a life. What's wrong with that? I don't see myself being issued a world cruise as apparently is my right, and certainly not a spaceship ride.
— noAxioms

You're not imprisoned on Earth. Earth is your species' natural home. And no third party decided you or I were going to spend our meager existences on Earth. Except for those who are there at the end of the journey and, one hopes, find suitable digs, the generations of crews are born for one purpose only: to get that last bunch to the new Earth-like home. Their lives are being used, ;pure and simple. In order to keep the peace, they may not even be told that they are basically slaves. They may never be told about the home planet they left or even that their ship is on a mission. They may simply be led to think that being born and living on the ship is, well, natural. Just the way things have always been. — Unseen

Honestly, I think "humans don't belong there" is a better argument than "what if they don't want to be there?" When you can gain as much land and resources that an entire solar system has, I don't really think that the feelings of a few generations of colonists even matters, even ethically. What about the billions of children back home that need resources from the new system to have schools and homes and clothes? If we're colonizing another system, one would assume we're running short on those.