An interesting article over at Slate that raises similar concerns to mine:
If we send heterosexual astronauts, of different sexes and of reproductive age, on extended space missions, then the possibility of pregnancy looms. To ward that off, could it be ethical to demand sterilization for any potentially fertile astronauts in a mixed-sex crew? Radiation exposure may eventually take care of the issue by causing infertility, but some pregnancies could happen before infertility occurs. Is conception even possible in the zero-gravity of space, or in the low-gravity, high-radiation habitats on Mars? If so, would a fetus develop normally?
We don’t know, since it would seem patently unethical to even conduct these sorts of experiments today in space or anywhere else, at least with human subjects. Again, the physical and psychological dangers of procreating and living outside of Earth can seem inhumane, especially for involuntary subjects (the children). Yet many plans for space exploration already take it as a foregone conclusion that humans will reproduce in space. For some, it’s a crucial part of the business plan, as in the case of Mars One’s goal of moving toward a “permanent human settlement.”
As I noted:
What I would suggest to the Mars One people, though, is given that they’re planning to spend billions on this project, and the long-term goal is to have true human settlement of the planet, which necessarily involves offspring of the settlers, they devote a modest amount of their budget funding research that NASA has completely neglected for decades, but that others have privately proposed, to establish a variable-gravity laboratory in orbit where we can start to understand these issues. The fact that NASA (or Congress) have never given such research any priority whatsoever is eloquent testimony to how unimportant both consider the goal of spreading humanity into the solar system. But until we do, young people who want to go off to barren (at least initially) worlds will have to continue to face the prospect of remaining barren themselves.
Space really isn’t important, politically. Just “space” jobs.
[Update a few minutes later]
Meanwhile, Kate Greene says that economics would dictate that a Mars mission consist of all women.
Here’s my problem with that. While of course mass is an important consideration, it isn’t the only one. I would argue that any Mars mission would have to be based on an affordable mission concept, and that if it is, mass won’t matter that much, and if it isn’t, no one will go. Beyond that, I think there’s a flaw in the logic here, or at least insufficient information:
Week in and week out, the three female crew members expended less than half the calories of the three male crew members. Less than half! We were all exercising roughly the same amount—at least 45 minutes a day for five consecutive days a week—but our metabolic furnaces were calibrated in radically different ways.
During one week, the most metabolically active male burned an average of 3,450 calories per day, while the least metabolically active female expended 1,475 calories per day. It was rare for a woman on crew to burn 2,000 calories in a day and common for male crew members to exceed 3,000.
We were only allowed to exit the habitat if we wore mock spacesuits. So many Martian hassles, so little glory.
The data certainly fit with my other observations. At mealtime, the women took smaller portions than the men, who often went back for seconds. One crew member complained how hard it was to maintain his weight, despite all the calories he was taking in.
She doesn’t say, but is it possible that maybe the men were doing more physical work? If so, it might be that if the women had to do all of the heavy lifting, their calorie consumption would increase too. In any event, if you just want to send people to Mars for the sake of sending people to Mars, a female crew would be fine, but if you want to settle the planet, there would be a problem…
[Tuesday-morning update]
There seems to be a lot of off-topic whining in comments about what will be “allowed.” I said nothing about government involvement. I simply expressed an opinion that, given current knowledge, it would be unethical to attempt to have children on Mars (or even in weightlessness). I stand by that opinion.
Life Will Out….
It seems intuitive that if there’s a biological process during pregnancy that requires gravity, 1/3 Earth gravity ought to be sufficient. Weak bones would probably result from growing up in low gravity unless you had twice your mass carried so that was stressing your skeleton all the time. On the other hand, weak bones might not be much of a handicap in low gravity. Not quite as easy to break your hip in 1/3 gravity.
If for some reason conception and child raising requires 1G, then we’re expert at providing artificial gravity in carnival rides so it seems like low gravity shouldn’t be a show stopper.
“It seems intuitive that if there’s a biological process during pregnancy that requires gravity, 1/3 Earth gravity ought to be sufficient. ”
Would be good to know for sure before we go through the effort and expense of building large settlements and have people popping out babies.
” If for some reason conception and child raising requires 1G, then we’re expert at providing artificial gravity in carnival rides so it seems like low gravity shouldn’t be a show stopper.”
What would the mechanism be on the surface of Mars? You wouldn’t want to live on an amusement ride. I can see how a variable gravity space station could be a work around but then you wouldn’t be on Mars raising kids.
“On the other hand, weak bones might not be much of a handicap in low gravity.”
Yup, who knows?
Is it any less ethical to give birth to a child on Mars than it was to have a child in the 1600’s American wilderness, as opposed to the relative comfort of non-wilderness 1600’s Europe?
Yes. People have been having babies in one gee forever. We don’t even know if it’s possible to create a normal healthy child in such an environment. It might be born with debilitating and torturous defects.
The bogyman will get ya.
Parents have no right to make their own decision. The state must make it for them.
Now where did I put those goose step boots?
I didn’t say anything about the state. I simply said I think it would be unethical. I continue to believe so.
Rand, it’s a little rich to suggest one needs to do scientific studies before having a child in space. Do you also think it’s unethical to bring someone into the world who has a genetic disposition to likely be born with debilitating and tortuous defects? If someone has “defects”, how is that worse than not existing at all? Were Adam and Eve unethical to be the first to try to have kids in the Garden of Eden without doing a scientific study first? If there’s a 20% risk of death, are all people in Afghanistan unethical if they have a child when the infant mortality rate is 18.7% in their country? Maybe you should read the book, Safe is Not an Option.
Do you also think it’s unethical to bring someone into the world who has a genetic disposition to likely be born with debilitating and tortuous defects?
I’d say it depends on how strong the disposition is, and the nature of the defects.
If someone has “defects”, how is that worse than not existing at all?
Born into a lifetime of pain and suffering? That might be worse.
I think Sam nailed the problem with your argument Rand. Procreation has never been risk free, for the parents or the conceived. “Safe” is not an option.
Also, your argument seems to forget much of modern medicine. Pregnancies can be monitored and fetuses screened for viability throughout gestation. Moreover, truly non-viable fetuses are often handled automatically, albeit sometimes painfully (physically or emotionally) by the female body, and for the less squeamish can be medically induced if necessary. A social(ist) cost of raising “tortured” souls on a faraway colony isn’t a reasonable assumption.
And as for tortuous existence, I doubt extra-terrestrial radiation, toxin, or low g induced defects would necessarily be worse than what people experience here on Earth who have ALS, Cystic Fibrosis, MS, down syndrome, schizophrenia, quadriplegia, Huntington’s, etc… yet for some reason choose to live even with such debilitations. Life can be painfully hard for people even in 1g, it doesn’t necessarily make it unethical to pursue it, and so far, life is impossible for all of us in the long run. That doesn’t make nihilism preferable.
Procreation has never been risk free, for the parents or the conceived. “Safe” is not an option.
I missed where I said it ever has been. Go read my PJMedia piece. There is no precedent for this in history.
I continue to think it would be unethical to attempt it without at the very least doing some animal studies. The notion that I am advocating “nihilism” is nonsense.
Sorry Rand, wasn’t trying to imply your viewpoint was nihilistic, just communicate that mine wasn’t, to counter all the “inevitability of death” and that rot.
Having babies outside 1g will be unprecedented when it happens, but the risks are not: failed pregnancy (miscarriage or stillborn), death of the mother, less functional and/or short-lived offspring requiring more than normal resources, etc. That all happens here too, the fundamentals are the same.
That said, I wouldn’t try it personally without more data even if I had the capability, so I’d welcome a similar path forward that performs more animal testing. I just wouldn’t preclude those who would like to tempt the risks from doing so. I’ll learn more from their experiments than I will with some other animal model. Heck, I would even be willing to fund others willing to perform the experiment. Maybe we can get a kickstarter together to make some babies on the ISS, better and more useful than Mars One in any case 😀
Also, better potential (and established market) for TV reality shows: Kate Plus Eight…. IN SPACE!!
“Having babies outside 1g will be unprecedented when it happens, but the risks are not:”
How can you say that when you don’t even know what the risks are? The risks are known for any of the ailments that you brought up as examples on imperfect babies here on Earth. Spina Bifida is well known. There are surgeries that can help if it is severe or in less severe cases lifestyle choices can mitigate risks. But we know nothing of the risks of micro gravity or partial gravity procreation. You can’t make an informed decision on the matter.
“Parents have no right to make their own decision.”
The fact is that they are bringing a child into the world who has not consented to this experiment. Who will pay for the child to return to Earth if they don’t like living as their parent’s science experiment? What are the implications if they are not allowed to return?
I didn’t consent to being conceived and born. You didn’t either. You are dropping context, “consent” is not a concept that is applicable to non-existent non-rational subjects. Every life is its own experiment.
Who will pay for any child who doesn’t like living as their parent’s experiment in child rearing? The question illegitimately assumes someone other than those parties should.
“…not allowed to return”. Allowed? In that they want to and have the means to do so but are prevented by force? Or “allowed” in the leftist sense that they want to, and someone else isn’t providing the means for them.
Ryan, in this case “not allowed” might be equivalent to “unable”. We don’t know if someone who grows up in less than 1 gee has a heart strong enough to get blood to the brain in 1 full gee. There should be several mouse experiments on the ISS to find out the answers to these questions.
Ed,
Sadly, the strain of gravity is too much for my feeble heart to pump blood to my brain while basking in the diamond rains of Neptune. My life will be forever bitter melancholy because of it.
Fortunately, I do not live there and it is otherwise a non-issue.
Unless you are an Earthling grandparent wanting your Martian grandkid to visit pappy’s hometown, which would be the source of nearly unimaginable family feuding, it really isn’t a reasonable problem.
Hell, I’d like to visit the cradle of civilization, the Tigris and Euphrates, see the land of ancient Babylon where I almost certainly had ancestors live, but I couldn’t survive there very long either. Slightly upsetting, but my life and its value to me remain fully intact.
I’m all for performing variable gravity and animal gestation experiments on the ISS though. Not sure mice would be a good model for humans, but it would be a fast gestating start at least.
Also, I’m not sure the 1g blood-to-the-brain thing is a real issue. Our bloodstream is a mostly closed hydraulic system in somewhat stretchy tubing right? I’d think accelerations (like standing up quickly) are more of a problem for bloodflow than static operation at a particular Xg’s. Besides, mice take most of their g’s transversely (if positive g’s are measured by the brain-to-tail axis), so acceleration would have a less pronounced effect on their brain bloodflow, barring mitigating anatomical differences.
That, and there’s the stress element. Humans can make sense of a micro-gravity environment and even find a sense of Serenity in space. Mice are probably freaking out non-stop, which could cause all sorts of hormonal havoc.
If you launched some late-pregnant mice, it’s unlikely that the zero-gee offspring would be freaked out. They’d know nothing else. That wouldn’t address the conception/gestation issue, of course.
“Who will pay for any child who doesn’t like living as their parent’s experiment in child rearing? The question illegitimately assumes someone other than those parties should.”
Not really. I am just posing the question, which should lead you to thinking through some different scenarios.
Are people who are born on Mars going to be allowed to return to Earth? What if they refuse or are incapable in participating in a Mars society?
Having a settlement on Mars without even knowing the minimal effects it will have on human procreation is rather stupid. Ignoring that there will be significant social problems is also stupid, if your goal is to have a settlement.
You want to claim that having children, without any idea of what difficulties they will face due to gravity issues, and stranding them on a planet that is not their natural habitat is a “right wing” thing and that isn’t doing you any favors. These people can’t just go outside and live in the woods. Should they be significantly handicapped, someone will be taking care of them. Perhaps it will be their parents if they are wealthy enough but if it is a society wide problem, then society will pay for their care.
You seem to be saying, “Who cares if people are born handicapped and incapable of taking care of themselves. It isn’t like anyone will be responsible for them other than their parents and they aren’t really responsible either.”
“Also, I’m not sure the 1g blood-to-the-brain thing is a real issue.”
That is the thing. No one knows. In the absence of that knowledge, some people are proposing we do some minimal research before spending trillions of dollars on a Mars settlement. Think about it.
How smart would you look if you spent that amount of money to create a settlement on Mars only to find out afterward that humans couldn’t create viable offspring there? Your settlement wouldn’t last very long. Your investments in infrastructure would be a total waste. It would be a generational setback or even end all the talk about human exploration and settlement.
I am tired of the YOLO doctrine that permeates our society in the age of Obama. I want a serious approach with competent people working on finding problems and solutions.
“Mice are probably freaking out non-stop, which could cause all sorts of hormonal havoc.”
No. http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2301
“Having a settlement on Mars without even knowing the minimal effects it will have on human procreation is rather stupid.”
I generally agree, although I wouldn’t go so far. A reasonable hypothesis would be sufficient. After all, you can’t “know” a thing will turn out unless the experiment has been performed and documented. If other people want to be silly (and ultimately self-destructive) with their own money though, I won’t stop them even if they refuse to listen to reason.
“Should they be significantly handicapped, someone will be taking care of them.” I don’t accept the premise.
If they again refused to listen to reason (they’d be living in an extremely hostile environment after all) and failed to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that the fetus wasn’t developing correctly because it had mars syndrome or down syndrome or locked-in syndrome… (side point being that already known Earth based development problems would still be risks) then it should fall to those parents, and only those parents, who choose to shoulder that oversized burden (compared to the already large burden of healthy offspring).
The stork isn’t dropping these infant kids off and abandoning the unlucky buggers at Mars (or space stations, asteroids, moons, etc.), and we aren’t talking about people that get pregnant without knowing it like ignorant high-schoolers are oft to do. These adult females would be making conscious choices in their well monitored pregnancies, the first of their kind, *kind of a big deal*. Having less than nominal offspring from these pregnancies would be a choice – in an extreme environment where even fully capable humans are hard pressed to survive – having less than capable offspring would be a bad one. And the chooser (the parents) would be the one(s) responsible for it. And if you think a deity will condemn you to hell for terminating your non-viable pregnancy in an effort to seed that deity’s alleged creation of life amongst the stars, you’re already on Mars, how much worse could it get?
As for: “…It would be a generational setback or even end all the talk about human exploration and settlement.” Well, yeah, discovering it is not possible to successfully have offspring on Mars would certainly (and reasonably) end talk about human settlement of the non-earthlike cosmos. Having a failed colony though wouldn’t stop us, anymore than it did the people that came after Roanoke, or Jamestown.
You can fund and advocate for that which you think is the smartest path forward, and I’m 100% for that, as long as you aren’t demanding control or appropriation other peoples property to do so. If a bunch of YOLOnauts want to have a hopeless baby making party on Pluto, that is their business if they fund it on their own dime.
If you launched some late-pregnant mice…
I knew a guy in undergrad (around 2003) working in the Astronautical Engineering department at UW that worked on a satellite to do just that. Sounded like an awesome experiment, still does. Clearly didn’t happen though =(
No. http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2301
Thanks. I read the summary, but it didn’t seem to address the body chemistry part, just that some animals seem to acclimate to micro-g faster than humans, which probably precludes “freaking out” for prolonged periods. I presume you’ve listened to the show? Does the discussion go into more technical detail, like biomarker measurements they might have taken of the animals?
“In any event, if you just want to send people to Mars for the sake of sending people to Mars, a female crew would be fine, but if you want to settle the planet, there would be a problem…”
Not really. Suppose there are two groups of 50 colonists. The first group consists of 25 couples, the second group is 50 women, plus one tank filled with liquid nitrogen containing a few thousand sperm samples. All other things being equal (equal catastrophes, equal supply lines etc), in 50 years the second group would be far larger.
Mars Needs Women!
I think the risk of catastrophe goes up considerably with increasing homogeneity of the population. Especially when you consider the (perhaps dubious) claim of the McClintock Effect that females in close quarters will sync their cycles.
Reads like a lot of hand wringing by a bunch of left wing, bleeding heart, nervous nellies.
So where is the mouse breeding experiment in a centrifuge on the ISS?
Anyway Mars is a dumb place to go. Having got out of a hole why go back into another (albeit shallower) one?
Yeah, really dumb. People are likely to do anything on mars and you can’t control them. You can’t cut off their water and power. You can’t shut down their oxygen. They can go out and get any mineral resources without having to beg a captain. A complete nightmare for control freaks.
NASA wanted to do variable-gee experiments on ISS. The CAM was cancelled in the budget squeeze of 2005. I know that a number of scientists inside and outside NASA thought it was the most important research facility planned for the ISS.
Parts of it are on exhibit in Japan.
Aren’t they doing variable gravity experiments now?
I made a comment on a NASA PR tweet a few weeks back saying we need a variable gravity station and they responded that we already have one they are using to study microorganisms or some such.
The NAUTILUS-X design included a rotating torus, and it was meant to be tested on the ISS first. However, since the design first came out… crickets.
“However, since the design first came out… crickets.”
Except from all the space cadets saying how awesome it would be if we built one. Maybe when China sends a capsule around the Moon later this month in order to test its heat shield, we will wake up and start swimming rather than treading water.