Generation Ships

[Sindri]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Going through the motions of exploration while our obsolete existence is simply tolerated by our betters is rather depressing for a sci fi setting in my opinion.
If you can get enjoyment out of that, then more power to you.
I would just get all existentially bummed out.

I like A.I.s in some settings, but only if they have intrinsic limitations that humans/aliens don't. Too many settings either have A.I. superior to us in every way or they don't. There's so rarely any middle ground.

It's like bionics, either robocop or peg legs. I tried making a mixed powerful but pitiable full cyborg, and not many posters liked my ideas.

Well it's hard to justify AIs having significant intrinsic limitations compared to humans. Making AIs that are in terms of capabilities largely like humans in a box with some advantages due to their boxes is one thing. Making AIs that have disadvantages compared to humans is another. I suppose if one presumed that some advantages were considered important enough to accept disadvantages in return it could happen but the amount of plausible trade offs due to fundamental limitations rather than limited knowledge with respect to mind engineering would be limited at best.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's one thing to be sent to greener pastures as an individual. It's a whole other thing to watch your entire species go the way of past hominids, but without any family taking over from us.
And while A.I.s may metaphorically be our children, they aren't literally that.

Literally as in what? Actual flesh and blood descendants? Sure they aren't genetically linked to a given parent but... So what? Plenty of people consider people who aren't genetically linked to them their children. For that matter while I admit a certain appreciation for the human form due to it's age and sentimental value (Why not look like a human anyway? Most advantages to changing it could be duplicated by hanging out or controlling a robot body when necessary.) I don't especially care about Homo Sapiens Sapiens and would be delighted for any children I have to be members of a superior (and heavily tested!) species.

Originally Posted by ericthered

I honestly think the only way we're going to get AI capable of equaling or surpassing humans is going to be by simulating a human brain. thinking about programming the ability to make a grandoise, abstract choice based on that many variables makes my head spin.

people often compare the human brain to a computer. guess what: its not a computer. It doesn't even appear to be a Turring machine.

coming back to topic: I agree with the people saying that once an AI's can raise children, humanity is irrelevant. The system will either spiral out of control or fall apart, neither of which case is going to give us an interesting generation ship.

As for population control, you need not look further than china and its methods for population control: you fine breakers of the law. The larger the infraction, the greater the penalty. If you have multiple "habitats" you can occasionally send serious infractors to single gender habitats.

of course, some people would find this utterly abominable, my self included (I'm the oldest of 10 children), but you probably don't need to have them on the ship.

In fact, rather than making it illegal, you could simply tax children past a certain point. If birth rates go up, raise the tax. If they go down, lower it.

(its also a good idea to plan for growth on the way up).

Why are the only choices spiraling out of control and falling apart? And how are they different exactly?

Population control through law is better for emergency breaks and controlling large disparate areas. I think social norms would be enough to keep the population steady.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

No, but all that separates your adopted child from a personally made one is no more than around 40 thousand years. There is no true familial connection to an A.I.

Where "true familial connection" means what exactly? I believe people can have true familial connections transcending genetics and species so why not between a human and an AI?

Originally Posted by ericthered

Pets are not a counter: the psychological connection is still there.

There is also a major difference between proud ownership and parenthood.

The counter is (I believe.) that a psychological connection can exist between humans and pets.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Two left handers have only a 50% chance of having a left handed child.
It seems like no matter how you stack the deck, the deck is still stacked for right handed humans and oddly all hominids where there is reliable data.

It's less than 50% as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I can love my cats without believing that they are my future the way human children are... not just because they have been castrated, and I can't afford kids of my own.

That doesn't mean that other people couldn't consider intelligent non-humans children.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Genetics is far more complex than that.

Not really. It seems like a much easier method to put the research in to change peoples genetics directly but that doesn't change the fact that if you can identify a gene you can breed it.

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

You assume that it's only a few genes coding for handedness. It could be many many genes that code for a weighted die. And that it's impossible to make the die come up 6s or 1s every time without radically changing the genome.
Mendelian genetics and the age old punnet square is way outdated.

It doesn't matter how many genes code for it. Eventually his methods work.

Originally Posted by ericthered

we're not. There's just two large obstacles:

1) of course, the human element: its not ethical and we'll throw a fit

2) life cycle length. The pugnet square being "outdated" means you can't get results as fast as you might like. horses, dogs, cats, cows, goats, pigs, chickens, sheep and almost every other animal we have domesticated can breed within 4 years, most before that. Humans can't breed untill.... well, much longer than 4 years, and in modern society we don't until quite a bit after that. This means the project is going to take quite some time.

and yes, I can think of one "domestic" animal that has a longer life cycle than above: elephants, where the female is ready at about 13. And considering the all the different breeds of elephants man has bred, I'm going to call this one the exception that proves the rule.

(I will admit that its also harder to handle elephants though)

Neither ethics nor time necessary are really relevant to theoretical possibility.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Left-handedness is a complex trait if it's fully controlled by heredity at all.

There isn't any if. Handedness isn't fully controlled by heredity.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Where "true familial connection" means what exactly? I believe people can have true familial connections transcending genetics and species so why not between a human and an AI?

People can develop significant attachment to software that doesn't even talk. There's a really good fictional exploration of relations with low-capability AIs in Ted Chiang's story The Life Cycle of Software Objects.

There isn't any if. Handedness isn't fully controlled by heredity.

An example: my father was one of identical twins. One right-handed, one left-handed.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Sindri

Because the AIs want to get rid of them and it's easy to shove them into ships than kill

- AI Bob, you're going with the MeatBagGenShip #256.
- Why? I don't want to go on a millennia-long flight with meatbags!
- Well, someone has to sacrifice itself by doing it, so that the rest of us AIs can live without them on our conveniently uninhabitable-for-meatbags planet.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It's like bionics, either robocop or peg legs. I tried making a mixed powerful but pitiable full cyborg, and not many posters liked my ideas.

Do you consider GURPS TL9 modifications as robocop-level? (I assume yes, since stuff like artificial hearts is advertised within the films' commercial breaks.) I'm not sure where the middle ground would be though. Any lower than robocop, and you get TL8 (modern). And I'm not sure there are all that many settings that are TL8-derived, but don't have mid-range prosthetics. BSG, perhaps, though they're not quite TL8-derived.

That being said, I'm interested in taking a look (again, if I already did) at your cyborg. Edit: found it. Would you like to revive the discussion?

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Genetics is far more complex than that.

Another factor is that, in any realistic future were a generation starship might be created, breeding would be the slowest and least effective way to modify the population's genetics. Transhuman Space already has people buying genetic up-grades for their children, and they aren't depicted as being ready to send out the first generation starships. Clearly, if the starship's crew/passengers want a particular genetic profile for the future of humanity, they'll design it themselves.

[ericthered]

Breeding may be the slow way, but its also the safe way. We had such great hopes for sequencing the human genome. Then we found out only a small fraction does what we thought was the important part. Genetic Engineering is likely to be one of the hardest fields man is likely to tackle.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Another factor is that, in any realistic future were a generation starship might be created, breeding would be the slowest and least effective way to modify the population's genetics. Transhuman Space already has people buying genetic up-grades for their children, and they aren't depicted as being ready to send out the first generation starships. Clearly, if the starship's crew/passengers want a particular genetic profile for the future of humanity, they'll design it themselves.

The discussion also (at least originally) mentioned that it was a TL8 genship. TL8 medicine doesn't have that capability; on the other hand, it does have the capability of selective breeding.

[Astromancer]

If we assume a GURPS TL10 society, with a TL10 biotechnology as per THS, then sex and reproduction need have no link. Only gametes count.

Father O'Neill is told by the Bishop of Ship Seven, reproduce, but stay within your vows. Father O'Neill goes with is old pal Father De Luca, who has also been told to reproduce without breaking his vows, to the reproductive medical center. Both men are chaste, celibate, and strictly hetero. The doctors take cell samples, they determine the best way to form useful gametes in this case. The create a zygote. After nine months of ectogenesis the two guys have a baby boy. They filp a coin, the winner gives the baby his surname, and the other guy chooses the given names.

However unlikely you think that senario is socially or theologically, it is likely to be a biotechnical commonplace long before a generation starship leaves the solar system.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

If we assume a GURPS TL10 society, with a TL10 biotechnology as per THS, then sex and reproduction need have no link. Only gametes count.

...

However unlikely you think that senario is socially or theologically, it is likely to be a biotechnical commonplace long before a generation starship leaves the solar system.

Of course, the OP isn't about this senario. Its about TL 8, or in other words:

"what does a generation ship look like if you take away genetic engineering, and AIs, and all that other "transhuman" (in the original meaning) stuff?"

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that once the ship is put together and you have a quarter million people headed off to alpha centari (or where-ever), the ship will have to run itself and I'm guessing you started off with a rational bunch of people. I am going to say self preservation will see the colonists to their destination. They might not want to get off the ship afterwards, but thats a different matter.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

Jealousy isn't always sexual, in fact sexual jealousy is a minor part of the whole. We are jealous a great deal of the time, it's called the sin of Envy.

No, envy and jealousy are two different things, though they overlap in places. Envy does not necessarily implly that you want to take away something someone else has, or prevent them from having it. One can be envious of status, wealth, etc, and set out to match or better them, without necessarily seeking to take them away from someone else.

Jealousy is different. If one envies the new sports car of someone else, one can get a sports car of the same model or fancier. Jealousy means you want to have that particular sports car. You want it to be yours instead of his.

Obviously that can overlap with envy, but it's not the same thing.