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

Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs

> From: KellySt@aol.com
> 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?
> 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.  
Bureaucratic convenience? How come?
Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-))

> Big morality issue difference.
Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...  

-- Zenon