↪Unseen If we lived in an unconscious state all the time, I doubt we would have been able to create the technology we have. The unconscious mind basically allows us to survive without analyzing, judging etc... To analyze, requires consciousness. — halo

The preconscious mind IS conscious in the required way. What call and perceive as consciousness is what that mind passes on to us as consciousness. So, to be paradoxical, we ARE conscious (in the way you say is necessary) without being conscious of it.

It's easier, by Occam's Razor, to simply accept that this is the way things are.
— Unseen

Actually, it is a definition of crazy to accept that one with 0% chance is how things are. Ironically, randomness is one which is magical in your vocabulary, and God, who is the existence, is actually easier to accept. If normal thought is applied.

By the way, you keep mentioning Zeus, for example, in your inquiry about who is God. You should at least be aware that Zeus is a claim for a god in certain sense, just as Michael Jordan is a god to some people, in certain sense. But Zeus is not a claim for God. And God is not a god. At least understand a claim when you pretend to argue about it.

Anyway, it's nonsense piled upon nonsense, starting from first post, and people are reading it and nobody says a thing. — Henri

If anyone out there understands this gobbledegook, please explain what Henri thinks.

It refers to predictable and reliable regularity in how things in the world and universe behave.
— Unseen

Ok, thanks that's a nice clear answer. I'm not agreeing with Henri in general, but it seems that your claim that the universe is law-driven is a figure of speech in the sense that what you mean by 'law' is not a kind of force that drives things. I do think the universe is law driven, but I mean it more literally, in the sense that I think it is will-driven. Regularity of observed behaviour is a function of persistent will. Are you OK with pillowcase length answers? — bert1

But don't you see, even if you believe that a will enforces that we call laws, that is also random in the sense that one might say "Well, natural laws could be will-driven or they simply could be there, a feature of the universe we find ourselves in, built-in as it were. We got the will-driven one more or less on the toss of a coin."

But as I've said in another post, invoking God is basically invoking a magical solution and that's an explanation that raises more issues than it solves. It's easier, by Occam's Razor, to simply accept that this is the way things are.

But on the gross (atomic level and above) level, the universe is overwhelmingly law-driven.
— Unseen

What does 'law' refer to, for you, in this context? — bert1

It refers to predictable and reliable regularity in how things in the world and universe behave.

It was impossible because they couldn't have ever afforded it. — TogetherTurtle

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

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? — TogetherTurtle

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.

A very fortunate colonist can. Realistically, a majority of colonists ever haven't actually had that option. — TogetherTurtle

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.

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. — TogetherTurtle

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.

But the problem was the same between our species continuing and sending off colonists (which is really much in the same, actually). — TogetherTurtle

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

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. — TogetherTurtle

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.

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. — TogetherTurtle

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.

Honestly, I think "humans don't belong there" is a better argument than "what if they don't want to be there? — TogetherTurtle

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?

What do you mean by "would be"?
— Unseen

I meant - it would be if this is random-based reality.

In that sense, regarding your ethical question, one from the OP I guess, in random-based reality everything exists and ceases to exist, ultimately, randomly. There are no principles of survival that govern such reality. So there is no need to be puzzled why we would have this or that. We would have it just because. And it would be to our advantage or disadvantage just because. Like some presumably failed species, in evolution story, that randomly got some attributes which put them on the path to extinction.

Now, if you see that this is a purpose-based reality, question becomes, "Why did God give us consciousness?" You don't ask that question because you assume there is no God, but that's absolutely illogical assumption. — Henri

But on the gross (atomic level and above) level, the universe is overwhelmingly law-driven. Randomness doesn't hold planets in orbit or enforce the inverse square law. The same laws make some mutations fail while others succeed. The only random thing about mutations is that they are unexpected, unforseen, outside general normality. Cosmic rays hit DNA and cause mutations, for example.

As usual, introducing God explains nothing but rather introduces even more problems. The only way it doesn't is if you don't ask any questions about God.

You use the word "God" as though there's only one to consider. Yahweh? Ahura Mazda? Krishna? Zeus? Jupiter?

But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness.
— Unseen

What you call "lawful activity" would be a collection of randomly created random laws, ultimately, randomness. Statistically, it is more probable by the order of magnitude that you are insane and don't know the extent of it, than that you came into existence through, ultimately, randomness (including randomly created random laws). — Henri

And that impacts the ethical question how?

What do you mean by "would be"? Why not "could be"? or "is"? "Would be" is typically be followed by something like "except for," so the use of "would" seems to imply a follow up of some sort. What is it?

I thought your point was that it's unethical to send people to a new planet that they "don't belong on". If you can't define where a human belongs, that argument falls apart. — TogetherTurtle

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.

I was paraphrasing what you seemed to be implying.
— Unseen

No, that wasn’t me, wasn’t my comment. — Brett

I apologize.

Isn't the intelligence required to build big domes and space suits an evolutionary adaptation? Besides, if we can build big enough to terraform a planet, (something we can't do yet, one of those problems you mentioned) then we wouldn't need domes at all.

The only real things in my eyes that separate humanity from the rest of the biosphere is a higher relative sense of awareness and the ability to learn quickly. That's something that we evolved to have, and if it allows us to walk among the stars, we should certainly do that if it's beneficial to our continued efforts in survival. — TogetherTurtle

The dome technology would be Earth technology brought with them, not an adaptation to Planet X. And it's not a technology we "evolved to have." We evolved to have intelligence and curiosity and to have hands with an opposable thumbs. They are an invention and didn't come to us the way nest building comes to squirrels or robins, as an instinct.

You can disagree or agree, but I don't see it as in any way central to the ethical question here in the Ethics Forum.

Evolution can still go on inside the dome because nothing can stop mutations from happening.

People are just not that reliably nice, when you get right down to it. — Bitter Crank

And this is why for those on the crew in the middle of the trip who probably won't be told about the mission, who see the ship as a world they live in, probably must be kept in the dark. For psychological reasons and to forestall rebellion.

↪Brett Slavery changes people for the better. Whether they like it or not, I guess.
— Unseen

I don’t understand this. — Brett

You had said, "It's just not like Homo sapiens to see an apple tree bearing ripe fruit and not taste it. If the apples taste good, we'll pick every last one of them and haul them home. We might even cut the tree down for fire wood."

I was paraphrasing what you seemed to be implying.

But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. No getting around that.

The universe has no purpose whatsoever and a life has only the purpose you give it.
— Unseen

Cosmic sorcerer and magic aside (you look like you’re having fun here), what if there were more lawful activity and less randomness than we currently realise? What if the purpose we think we are choosing to give our life actually stems from laws that we have yet to discover because they require a broader awareness of the universe than we currently have? — Possibility

Indeed, the randomness we perceive may BE lawful if we could but understand those laws, but the impediments to doing so are massive, and so we use statistical methods with a lot of success. If you're making some sort of point against me, I'm missing it. Clarify.

Earth is where humans can survive (assuming we don't continue to eff it up). No other place is as suited because this is where we evolved.
— Unseen

Does evolution end when we learn about it? I see no reason why through natural or engineered means we can't go places in the future that we can't go now. — TogetherTurtle

I'm far from claiming we can't go, at least as a possibility, and assuming a LOT of problems are solved. But if we go there and live in a glass dome only going outside in space suits, we aren't really adapting to the planet in an evolutionary way.

You're not imprisoned on Earth. Earth is your species' natural home.
— Unseen

Is a child born into slavery actually free because his parents were slaves? What seems more likely is that freedom is hierarchical and we can only be free or enslaved relative to others. — TogetherTurtle

Earth is where humans can survive (assuming we don't continue to eff it up). No other place is as suited because this is where we evolved.

settlers on Earth always have the OPTION, however remote, of turning/going back.
— Unseen

The chances of Homo sapiens sapiens (like Columbus) seeing a new and unexpected land and then sensitively turning back before first contact is made is vanishingly remote. It's just not like Homo sapiens to see an apple tree bearing ripe fruit and not taste it. If the apples taste good, we'll pick every last one of them and haul them home. We might even cut the tree down for fire wood. — Bitter Crank

Wow! A great and successful attempt to miss my point. While the vast majority of settlers stayed, I think you'll find some soured on the idea and sought, some successfully and some not, to return to the civility of England or Europe.

Natural selection keeps or rejects? Like, mother nature, a conscious being, keeps or rejects something? But you don't really mean it, it's a figure of speech, right? — Henri

You mean like "figure of speech" is a figure of speech?

There is no other deciding factor to "random universe" than "randomness". A combination of various random elements, which some men decided to group and label nature, doesn't reject or keep anything. It's all, ultimately, random event. In such world, when something exists, it's random existence. When something dies, it's random death. And that's all it is. The problem is, probability that you exist through, ultimately, a random event, is mathematical or absolute 0%. — Henri

If by nonrandom elements you are implying a deity, you're correct. The notion that the entire universe was created by a cosmic sorcerer through an act of magic is absurd on its face the moment one REALLY begins to consider it intelligently.

But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. No getting around that.

The universe has no purpose whatsoever and a life has only the purpose you give it.

Is there some way to do such an enterprise in a fully ethical manner?
— Unseen

On-topic, but thinking laterally, I wonder if travelling to the stars is ethical from the point of view of the resources it would take to mount such an expedition? It looks almost certain that we will have to give up a lot of luxuries, quite soon, to salvage what we can of our ecosystem. In the context of this topic, perhaps air travel is the best example: it is entirely unnecessary, and it takes resources, causes pollution and global warming, etc, etc. Can we really contemplate interstellar travel under these circumstances? — Pattern-chaser

You left a lot out. During our (meaning the European) exploratory period, we introduced those we encountered with a mix of new resources (steel working, horsemanship, etc.) and new challenges, mainly in the form of our taking their and mostly unconsciously bringing our diseases with us, to which they had no immunity whatsoever.

We could be doing the same with any new planet we were to try to colonize.

OR they could see us as vermin fit only for target practice or to be used as beasts of burden.

For example, you actually believe there is such a thing as "survival value" in a universe established by "randomness". — Henri

Randomness generates new possibilities which natural selection can keep or reject.

Slavery changes people for the better. Whether they like it or not, I guess.

There have been quite a few anti-natalist threads over time, some straight forward, some more devious, that always boil down to people being the victim of existence without their consent. The passengers on the L O N G journey to another star, even the nearest, would be composed of generations of people who hadn't signed up for the trip. Even if earth was dead 15 minutes after they left, it is doubtful that they would be grateful to find themselves the remnant of a species -- of the entire planet. — Bitter Crank

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the children and descendants of early expansionist settlers on Earth always have the OPTION, however remote, of turning/going back.

↪Unseen

You’re probably right, though sailing to the New World (I was actually thinking of the settlers who left the East Coast for the mid west) might have seemed like that back then. — Brett

Your statement, like many, overlooks the fact that the space slaves don't have even a prayer of going back.

So, like man, God has a pre-conscious mind feeding his passive conscious mind experiences?
— Unseen

Oh, so you claim to understand inner workings of God. — Henri

Didn't you say we were created modeled after him? That how human beings work.

We are conscious (at the level we are conscious at) because God is creating a man in His image. — Henri

So, like man, God has a pre-conscious mind feeding his passive conscious mind experiences? Weird.

BTW, I'm assuming the God you're referring to is Zeus. Or is it Ahura Mazda?

Is this service a voluntary act? Is the first generation in the space craft serving a purpose for the sake of the future of mankind or seeking something better for themselves like the settlers of the mid west?

I don’t imagine the following generation of the first settlers in the mid west felt they were slaves to an idea. However, if they heard that they had been used to perpetuate an idea from the past then they may consider it differently. — Brett

There is no parallel between the spacecraft as described people brought to The New World on ships because since ships can go in both directions, there was at least a theoretical possibility of returning.

↪Unseen This is a sneaky anti-natalism thread, because the second generation of space travellers would face the same problem that everybody has faced on earth for a couple hundred thousand years. "I didn't ask to be born!" the angry teenager whines.

Right. You didn't. You didn't exist yet, so you couldn't ask. Or refuse, either. That's life. Get used to it. — Bitter Crank

I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me. By being kept in the dark, they aren't even free to give an informed whine.

If we're propagating to the stars, then the galaxy is my species' natural home. — noAxioms

No, you're an invasive species. Unless, of course, Asian carp and house cats are native to the United States.

I'm of dutch decent and some third party (my parents) decided I was going to spend my meager existence on another continent. — noAxioms

But the people on the spacecraft don't have the option of going back.

And the one purpose of that last bunch is the bunch that comes after them. It's my purpose here as well right now, so what's changed? — noAxioms

The difference is that you know your situation, giving you the information you need to opt out to whatever degree possible. I think a space mission like the one described would have to keep the ultimate goal of the trip a secret to avoid rebellion.

You want this mission to not fail, but you're not going to tell the people why they're on the ship? Not a great way to go about it. — noAxioms

Well, I'm not in control of the mission, but I think keeping them in the dark is going to be necessary to stem rebellion.

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.

I'm politely asking everyone whose "contribution" is to poo-poo the entire idea of interstellar travel to go away. If you want to accept the premise of the OP and discuss the ETHICS, please stay. I, too, believe interstellar travel is unlikely bordering on impossible.

I'm asking a "What if?" type of question. It involves accepting the premise. Please don't hijack the discussion to a different question that isn't even about ethics (this is the Ethics forum).

The question is moot. We are not going anywhere. — Stephen Cook

This is not a discussion of whether interstellar travel is possible. Why not do something constructive like accepting the premise as a hypothetical?

I feel this discussion is largely tapped out, so I'm tapping out and moving on to my new discussion of the ethics of space travel.

Do you think it's possible you are actually on the surface of the Moon? I mean, Cartesian doubt is always possible, so maybe we can't be sure about anything outside mathematical certinties(?).

↪Unseen
You might enjoy this lecture by Peter Watts on the exact question you proposed.
The TL:DW is "No one knows, maybe consciousness is a parasite?, anyway it's a really good lecture and I highly recommend watching it entirety (don't be discouraged by the low amount of views) — FreeEnergy

Looks interesting. I will take a look.

I don't believe free will is possible, so what sort of will are you talking about and how does it work?
— Unseen

The ability to self-move I think. Just as our own behaviour is determined by our values, thoughts and feelings, so is the behaviour of fundamental particles and fields is attributable to some kind of value and feeling. — bert1

You may be new to this discussion, so you may not know that I don't respond to article-length bedsheet tracts. I'm responding to several others and I don't intend to let this forum take over my life.

So, if you have a point, make it again briefly and in plain language. Remember that Einstein once said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

Can I play? — creativesoul

Do.

All I'm objecting to is your introduction of the notion that other (presumably non-human) evolutionarily successful creatures are non-conscious is a given. It's not. It's an assumption. — ChrisH

Based on everything we know, it's a reasonable a justifiable assumption that amoeba can't have experience. I can't make assumptions on what I don't know.

I can't fight Cartesian skepticism. Maybe the truth is that the Evil Genius he invoked is feeding me lies, but based on what I know, amoebae are no more conscious than a rock.

Given that an experience is defined as ‘practical contact with and observation of facts or events’ or ‘an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone’, do you believe it is possible to have an experience without self-awareness? — Possibility

For me, to be conscious is to be having experiences, and they are given to me by my pre-conscious mind. My brain. The only "contact" is the passive one in which the brain offers up an experience. In the case of conscious actions, the brain gives me the impression of both initiation and follow through.