[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs
In a message dated 10/19/98 7:27:26 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> >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... ;-))
To save the money or time nessisary to work up a two way mission. Staying
longer has little other benifit.
>> Big morality issue difference.
>>
>Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...
I what sence?
>-- Zenon
Kelly