[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RE: RE: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs

In a message dated 10/16/98 8:59:13 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

>> From: "L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>
>> > One factor I suggested long ago in the group was that our starships group
>> > survey tems would be few in number, and subjected to intence quarenteen. 
>> > If they arn't sure their clean, they don't get to come back to the 
>> > ship. If the ship can't convince earth they are clean, 
>> > the decel microwave beam isn't turned on.
>> Zenon, did you see that? Kelly is proposing suicide missions.... <G>
>Yes and no  ;-)
>I have mentioned that (cautiously... ;-) in my letter to Bjorn,
>as another argument (namely, the Earth-contamination problem)
>for one-way missions.
>However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
>but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
>safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not 
>go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam, 
>and let them perish in space.
>Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
>it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them 
>to perish in space, it is OK.
>Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
>-- Zenon

I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having to kill them to
protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues.  In the other we ask for
volunteers to die for buracratic convenence.  Big morality issue difference.