Quality of Life in Multi-Generational Space Journeys

Ethical considerations of human reproduction and life in space journeys

Over the past few decades, both the scientific and popular literature have worked hard to examine and publicize the various existential dangers that can endanger the existence of life on Earth. One of the proposed solutions popularized by science fiction in shows like “The 100” and movies like “Passengers” or “Interstellar” is for humans to leave Earth and live on other planets.

The most likely candidate for an early alien settlement is Mars. However, extensive geoengineering initiatives will be required for the planet to support vast and expanding populations, which poses a tremendous technical problem. In the absence of the ability to travel faster than the speed of light or to harness the power of a hypothetical gravity propulsion system, habitable planets within the perennial circumstellar habitable zone remain out of reach for now. An interstellar ark or a generation ship will be necessary. These are hypothetical spacecraft designed to travel at sublight speeds between star systems. The reason for the need for such ships could be that life on Earth will still be habitable, but only for a limited number of people.

In proposing generational ships, ethicist Niel Levy (2016) identified numerous ethical issues. Despite the fact that the original crews will surely enjoy a higher standard of living, they will have little or no influence over their personal, professional, or reproductive choices, and despite having the best versions of the assets necessary to reach the minimum threshold of well-being, the freedoms of these people will be severely limited.

I think that having children aboard a ship of this type is not inherently ethically responsible, despite the fact that wide access to the basic needs of existence is ensured, and that for this not to occur, parents must do everything they can within their reach to provide a good life for their offspring. So let me show you the specific ethical difficulties that arise when we examine the notion of “generation ships,” which are intended for numerous generations to be born, live, and die to complete the task of transforming humanity into a multi-planetary species. Let us think for a moment how it might not be ethical a priori to give birth in such ships, since it is their innate function, unless we guarantee the offspring a minimally sufficient life worth living, that is, a life with freedom, autonomy, and satisfaction. From my viewpoint, such a position is not morally responsible and that parents should ensure that their offspring live not only a minimally worthwhile life but also a good life before giving birth on such ships and possibly in the initial settlements on destination exoplanets.

Born, Living, and Dying on a Starship

Humans traveling to a different solar system can use gene editing to ensure their long-term survival. Such a journey would surely require many generations, probably more than Earth has seen up to this point. For the crew to survive such a long voyage safely, genome-editing operations will almost certainly be required. According to alien colonization theorists, the delivery of massive numbers of embryos and gametes is one of the best strategies for large-scale colonization initiatives. They can even be created and gestated in artificial wombs through ectogenesis. Germ line enhancements would eliminate the need for post-natal somatic line treatments, as enhancements from any one individual would be passed on to the children.

The Morality of Birth on a Generation Ship

I think that the idea of minimum well-being is not sufficient to be considered morally responsible when determining whether or not to have children on board a generational ship. It can be argued that as time goes on and there are more scientific discoveries and innovations, such germline breeding procedures will become more common. We could confidently expect that the people who benefit from these improvements aboard those ships will be relatively resilient in the harsh environment of such a voyage. The ships are based on the theory that faster-than-light travel has not been achieved or is not feasible. Even if such technology is presented as a doable solution, crew members are more likely to stay, live, and work in close proximity for most of their waking hours. This restrictive element, which would surely be necessary for such companies, would obviously have an impact on the quality of life.

“Surviving on” is not “living on” a generation ship

The lives of those aboard generation ships, and certainly more of those who were born on those ships, are sure to be quite different from the lives of most people on Earth. Many of the emerging environmental, social, and psychological challenges require significant investment to ensure that those who populate such ships can meet the necessities of life.

If we use the minimum well-being threshold to judge the morality of reproductive decisions, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to identify examples of irresponsible reproductive choices. In the extremely fixed scenarios of generation ships, birth must occur if and only if their lifetimes can not only meet that criteria but are also allowed to achieve a full and dignified existence. The traditional minimum criteria do not allow for sufficient variation in the lives of potential children. For example, intentionally giving birth to children with physical defects such as blindness or anhidrosis would be considered liable under this concept as long as the offspring had access to welfare resources.

Consider a ship with a crew of a few thousand people. Accomplishment of such a mission would in effect limit the individual freedom of any crew member. Their lives, of course, would be quite good (materially speaking), so it’s unlikely they would endure considerable bodily pain. Even if one’s life is not one’s own but serves as a vehicle for the prosperity of future generations, that does not mean that people living in the present do not live lives worth living. It can be argued that such an example can be improved by introducing circumstances that gradually deteriorate. Even in this worsening scenario, the claim that their lives are no longer worth living cannot be upheld given the escalating conditions. Such conditions can be seen as isolating, confining, and psychologically demanding without logically determining the unworthiness of their existence.

The idea of a minimum threshold of well-being falls short of accurately characterizing the lives it seeks to judge as worthy or unworthy of living. Adults are considered autonomous in the sense that they can determine whether a sacrifice that necessarily reduces their well-being is worth it. This is not the case with a child, whose value we can exaggerate as if it were worth surviving in difficult conditions.

Moral Obligations for Progenitors on Generation Ships

If we reject the minimum threshold of the concept of well-being, where does that leave us in terms of our moral responsibility and duties to future generations? I think, like Julian Savulescu and Guy Kahane, that not only should we not have children whose lives are barely worth living, but that we also have a moral imperative to create the best offspring. A deeper look at this point of view reveals that it does not logically contradict the concept of the lower threshold for happiness. Even if the genetic modifications were imperfect, it may still be ethically acceptable to create children. Even if we make the optimal genetic alterations for our offspring, this does not guarantee a happy life for them. This perspective is more in line with Bonnie Steinbock and Ron McClamrock’s (1994) concept of parental responsibility.

So… what?

I would suggest that human enhancement methods are an appropriate approach to achieving a proper minimal existence and a happy existence for children in future generations. In the same way, and more importantly from a philosophical point of view, the reasons used to support this thesis, if they hold, also hold for the people who now live on Earth!

And you, what is your point of view on this regard?