38 thoughts on “The Bioethics Of Mars One”

  1. It does bring up the subject of the naked elephant in the room. I think it will be inevitable that the pron industry will likely be one of the first space habitat customers. They have the bucks and most likely a long list of volunteer actors willing to take the risk, for some cash. The question will be do they purchase their own space studio or will someone rent to them. That still leaves clean-up in either case.

  2. I’m thinking this should be sort of an Old Man’s War scenario. Only healthy people past a certain age should be considered to start the colony, with new team members sent to replace those who die. (And yes, I’d go!!!)

    Once the colony is established and the proper research in to the child bearing of primates is done…only then should younger couples be allowed to migrate. Of course…this demographic wouldn’t play well for “reality TV”.

    1. Just what gives anyone the right to say who can by passage to Mars?

      We have enough government intrusion without thinking up new things to make illegal.

      1. And what gives a parent the right to inflict life on Mars to their offspring? Where does personal responsibility for the welfare of children come into play?

        1. That is their responsibility, yes.

          It’s not Bas’ responsibility to ensure they don’t have that responsibility by, say, demanding they be sterilized before leaving Earth.

      2. No one said anything about “buying” a way to Mars. We’re talking about starting a colony…and whoever starts that colony, whether it be goobernment or private enterprise, will very much have the final say in who goes.

  3. Rand, as you know, I give a shoutout in my Reports for the Gravity Lab (and the E-lab) as often as I can.

    It’s crazy that we haven’t done this work already, but that’s the nature of the crapped up framework for space we’ve been living in.

    What would be the positive equivalent of “Carthago delenda est? We need to shout “Gravity Lab must fly” as often as possible.

  4. We’ve already been over my opinion of your lack of trust in your fellow humans’ abilities to make their own decisions, so I won’t repeat it. Instead, let me ask you, who’s the jerk that broke the comment section on PJ Media? Looks like they failed string escaping.

    1. We’ve already been over my opinion of your lack of trust in your fellow humans’ abilities to make their own decisions, so I won’t repeat it.

      Thank you for not reiterating that nonsense.

      Instead, let me ask you, who’s the jerk that broke the comment section on PJ Media? Looks like they failed string escaping.

      I don’t know — you’d have to ask them. But I’ll try to pass on the comment.

          1. Yes. So the very first commenter was apparently unable to read.

            I didn’t say “all of us” agreed. I just said that Lansdorp and I did, as far as it went.

            So you are unable to read as well?

          2. I’d also add that it wasn’t the “very first comment.” It was just the most highly rated one, which means that most of the other commenters were equally disabled in reading ability…

    1. Well, once again, you are declaring yourself an idiot if you think that I told you, or anyone, to “shut up.” Given that, I’m not even going to bother to read your “response.”

      1. Not what I meant. I had in mind that old saying…

        “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

        I do admit that having discussed the issue the phrase ‘shut up’ was on my mind.

        Rand, I continue to offend you which is not my desire. Please accept my apology for my unartful way of expressing myself. We simply disagree on some issues which brings another phrase to my mind…

        “When two people always agree, one of them is not needed.”

        I believe it is in disagreement that progress is made. Otherwise we just live in an echo chamber with the world passing us by.

        OTOH, not reading my response may be best. I bow to your wisdom.

        1. Well, you know, Ken, this isn’t that hard.

          If you don’t want to offend me, don’t accuse me, just because I disagree with you, of wanting you to “shut up,” and don’t accuse me (insanely) of being a leftist because you imagine that’s what I did.

          As I said, it isn’t that hard, yet you seem to continue to find it difficult.

          1. Perhaps it is harder than you imagine?

            An observation is not an accusation and it may have no merit. One of the tools of the left is to take offense and it is for the purpose of silencing others.

            I never accused you of being a leftist. That is ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t observe some behavior that seems leftish.

            May I speak freely? Not if doing so provokes wrath. That’s not the same as saying shut up and if I did accuse you of that, or even if you just perceived it as such, I sincerely apologize.

    2. “So let’s research it. I agree, but not at the cost of holding up everything else. ”

      Sounds like you guys are actually fairly close on your positions.

      1. I believe it’s $38 for the USA. Don’t know about the second largest group, China?

        Also, it’s a process and not all 78,000 from the first two weeks have completed it.

  7. And there is no ethical quandary at all. Individuals have picked up stakes and moved elsewhere all through human history. Sometimes it has taken awhile, perhaps generations, to adapt to new environments that lack, say sunlight for vitamin D. Those who are wimps will stay on Earth and wish they could control the decisions of others so as not to look like cowards in comparison. Those who do go, will do their share of dying on the frontier… and they will *be* the future of the human species. The ones who stay on Earth are the australopithecenes when looked at from the far future.

    1. The ones who stay on Earth are the australopithecenes when looked at from the far future.

      Not to worry. I’m sure there will be plenty of people in the far future that share your master race ideology who’ll round them up for the extermination camps.

      But for the present you’ll have to continue to rub shoulders with these subhumans who can’t recognize your genetic superiority. Perhaps you and your like minded friends can wear distinctive arm bands or something so the rest of us will know whom we’re dealing with? Maybe shirts of a certain color?

      1. Jim, are you saying people that choose to go could have no qualities different from those that stay? What does this have to do with genetics?

        1. Jim, are you saying people that choose to go could have no qualities different from those that stay?

          No. I’m saying that drawing conclusions about superiority, genetic or otherwise, based on where one chooses to live or what personal enthusiasms one has is irrational at best, dangerous at worst.

          What does this have to do with genetics?

          Dale’s comparison of people who stay on Earth to an extinct hominid species was a not so subtle implication of genetic inferiority, wouldn’t you agree? He could have hardly made his point clearer if he’d used the dodo or the dinosaurs.

          1. Suppose somebody takes their family, with some difficultly, from some hell hole on earth to some garden spot on earth. Is it totally inappropriate to speculate that person represents different qualities that those that made no attempt?

            Recently I read an article about a bridge that fell leaving people in the water below. That article speculated that America had changed much in that they docilely waited for rescue rather than swimming to shore.

          2. Suppose somebody takes their family, with some difficultly, from some hell hole on earth to some garden spot on earth. Is it totally inappropriate to speculate that person represents different qualities that those that made no attempt?

            Certainly not. It would also be entirely appropriate to speculate that the ones that take their families, with some difficultly, from some garden spot on earth to some hell hole on earth represent different qualities than those who made no attempt to do so. Your point, if you have one, is escaping me.

            Recently I read an article about a bridge that fell leaving people in the water below. That article speculated that America had changed much in that they docilely waited for rescue rather than swimming to shore.

            This is so true. I read somewhere that 40 years ago that ambulances built to handle 300 lb patients were adequate for all but the most extreme cases. Nowadays, they have to be built for 600 lb patients to handle the same percentile. But again, I’m afraid your point eludes me.

          3. I’m afraid your point eludes me.

            I didn’t think I was being that opaque. Dale’s comment seemed pretty innocuous even with his hyperbole about wimps. You responded by calling him a nazi (“your master race ideology.”)

            I took what he said as speculation, not drawing conclusions (even though I would agree he couched it as such.)

            I simply did not understand your response and my query was an attempt to do so. That’s all.

          4. I didn’t think I was being that opaque.

            You were and you are. I still have no idea what you’re driving at.

            Dale’s comment seemed pretty innocuous even with his hyperbole about wimps.

            If he’d been content with “wimps” I would agree that would have been fairly innocuous. It’s the “australopithecenes” comment that’s way over the top. If he’s the Dale Amon I’ve heard of (and how many people with that name can there be?) he’s an official with the Space Frontier Foundation or the National Space Society (I forget which). Can you imagine either of those organizations issuing statements comparing people who aren’t interested in living on Mars to australopithecenes?

            I simply did not understand your response and my query was an attempt to do so. That’s all.

            The connection between my response to Dale and your query still escapes me.

  8. In my understanding, we still have a paucity of information on fertilization, gestation, birth, and post-birth development in microgravity. That data would help us at least bound the gravity related risks, and we don’t need a gravity lab to get started.

    Send up mice to the ISS – and keep them there. Let them try to breed, have offspring, and monitor any offspring (and possible subsequent generations) for developmental differences from 1G mice. If the next resupply mission to the ISS doesn’t have a fully manifested cargo capacity it could potentially be done on the next trip up.

    Also, a gravity lab built for mice could be a lot smaller than one for humans. They are much shorter, so I anticipate they’d be able to handle much smaller rotation axis than humans can without getting sick from vertigo. You could fit such a lab into a dragon capsule to take to the ISS to bolt on outside (certainly in parts).

    1. Wikipedia def: Microgravity is more or less a synonym of weightlessness and zero-G, but indicates that g-forces are not quite zero, just very small.

      0.38g is not microgravity.

      1. Understood.

        My point was that if we can capture mammalian developmental risks at 0G, in addition to our plethora of data at 1G, we will have bounded any potential gravity related development problems we are likely to see on any celestial body with gravity less than Earth’s.

        As a hypothetical, if 0G development destroys vestibular sense development leaving babies without our normal means of determining our attitude in a gravitational field, but nothing more life threatening than that, we will know that Mars’s or Luna’s lesser gravity will not have effects that are any worse.

        Or as a more scary hypothetical (which I don’t conceive would be this extreme), 0G obviating any bone development in mammals leaving 0G offspring as squishes worse than any lib 😉 and ultimately in a state inimical to human life (as we all know ;).

        1. Even having that 0g data point isn’t enough, as we cannot assume that the detrimental effects of low gravity follow a linear relationship. It could turn out that gestation is fine right down to 0.05 gee, or it could turn out that anything less than 0.8 gee is catastrophic. We’d need a variable gravity centrifuge and a lot of mice, but finding out is doable.

  9. Also, I don’t understand why ‘unethical’ is being used to describe conceiving on Mars (or elsewhere not Earth).

    But when it comes to bringing new human life involuntarily into a world with a very high, or at least completely unknown risk of debilitating or even agonizing results…

    This and more happens all the time, right here on Earth. To the extent the concept makes any sense whatsoever, any birth is involuntary for the baby, only the parents had volition in the child’s creation. Likewise, all babies are born with uncertain futures.

    There are many non-viable babies born every day (not to mention miscarriages). Some can be helped, with modern technology and procedures, to become functioning or semi-functioning humans – many can’t. A lot of babies, today and historically, are born into agonizing conditions. We rightly don’t consider it ethical to prevent their parents from breeding.

    Ultimately, the only ethical question related to creating offspring (in any environment) is: will having a child improve my life? If you can’t answer that in the affirmative, the choice would be unethical.

Comments are closed.