Quote from: go4mars on 06/05/2012 01:12 pmAs to the effects of gravity at the surface of Mars, there are 2 ways to do it with arguments for either: Build something near earth that simulates Mars gravity and test out health and strength of mice and men for a decade or so, or just do the mission and see what happens. Like Dr. Bob, my preference is strongly toward the latter. Yes. If your intention is to send people to die on Mars, what's it matter what they die of? You get the information you need, right?</germanaccent>
As to the effects of gravity at the surface of Mars, there are 2 ways to do it with arguments for either: Build something near earth that simulates Mars gravity and test out health and strength of mice and men for a decade or so, or just do the mission and see what happens. Like Dr. Bob, my preference is strongly toward the latter.
I bet there's a LOT of people in the world that would not mind to be BOTH the first human on Mars AND the first human to die in another planet.
First astronaut training 10 years before first flight and before any technology testing? Additionally, their timetable contains no unmanned technology demonstrator for landing, power production, life support, etc. The whole project looks more like a simple TV plot than a real adventure...
So I went to the MarsOne website. Just trying to catch up on this topic.So the idea of this TV show is that they are going to outright fake a manned mission to Mars and use some easy to fabricate/utilize some accessible props (SpaceX red tag hardware) to maximize profits for the show?
Quote from: Alexsander on 06/05/2012 04:00 pmI bet there's a LOT of people in the world that would not mind to be BOTH the first human on Mars AND the first human to die in another planet.So what? It's unethical to experiment on humans without due care for their well being, even volunteers who know they will die. Don't you think there's people lining up to be infected with fatal diseases and experimented on in the hopes of finding a cure? We don't do it, because it's wrong.
Why? Our policies on medical testing seem pretty ridiculous to me.
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 06/06/2012 02:00 amSo I went to the MarsOne website. Just trying to catch up on this topic.So the idea of this TV show is that they are going to outright fake a manned mission to Mars and use some easy to fabricate/utilize some accessible props (SpaceX red tag hardware) to maximize profits for the show?Sounds about right.. complete with radiation poisoning of the cast. I, for one, can't wait to see Dutch actors die a slow death with no access to modern medical treatment. I always wondered why it was called "consumption", and now we'll finally see!
Go read about the proposal!
Some areas around Ramsar have the highest level of natural radioactivity in the world, due to the presence of radioactive hot springs. In the high-background radiation districts of Ramsar, the average dose of radiation received by a person for one year is about 10 mSv, and can reach levels in excess of 260 mSv.(...)This high level of radiation does not seem to have caused ill effects on the residents of the area and even possibly has made them slightly more radioresistant, which is puzzling and has been called "radiation paradox".
What is wrong is to tell other people what they should, or should not do with their own lives.Some medical advances happened when doctors deliberately infected themselves and then tried experimental treatments.
And when it is possible for someone to own their own spacecraft and go do anything in space, you might have an adequate analogy. Until then it is people on Earth sending others to their death.. in this case, for entertainment. There is no moral case for that.
Quote from: gospacex on 06/06/2012 02:58 pmWhat is wrong is to tell other people what they should, or should not do with their own lives.Some medical advances happened when doctors deliberately infected themselves and then tried experimental treatments.And when it is possible for someone to own their own spacecraft and go do anything in space, you might have an adequate analogy. Until then it is people on Earth sending others to their death.. in this case, for entertainment. There is no moral case for that.
Was there a moral case for or against sending prisoners to Australia to eventually face their deaths?
What about people who want to move to Australia and expect to eventually die there?
What if people want to move to Australia but can't afford to; but then someone agrees to pay for their tickets if they would just send back some photos of Australia? Is that wrong too?
Umm.. almost all criminals sentenced to transportation on the first fleets were commuted from death sentences. Don't they teach that in school anymore?
Death is not the point, health is.
if I pay you to go live in a nuclear reactor, and you agree, I'm in violation of a dozen workplace health and safety laws..
If you'd like to make a libertarian argument that the government should not get involved in our private transaction, I expect I'll be receptive to it.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/07/2012 01:04 amUmm.. almost all criminals sentenced to transportation on the first fleets were commuted from death sentences. Don't they teach that in school anymore?So you want us to send people who are awaiting execution of their death sentence?
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/07/2012 01:04 amDeath is not the point, health is.What about sending a heroin addict with no heroin? Or a terminally fat person with no potato chips? Just time-released low-calorie healthy meals.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/07/2012 01:04 amif I pay you to go live in a nuclear reactor, and you agree, I'm in violation of a dozen workplace health and safety laws..Would it be immoral if you bought my plane ticket in exchange for photos of poisonous snakes in Australia? (might get bit) Or volcanoes? (might erupt) Or coral reefs? (might drown).
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/07/2012 01:04 amIf you'd like to make a libertarian argument that the government should not get involved in our private transaction, I expect I'll be receptive to it.If I am king and call myself the government, is it moral for me to keep people from engaging in activities which place only themselves in possible danger? Is it my moral obligation to also outlaw skydiving? Driving? Those are worse because they place others at risk too.