athamosstradis wrote:
Inuit and desert dwellers, that's a good point, they seem happy enough. We could always play it safe with a few houseplants
. But the inuits etc have at least the opportunity to go somewhere else, e.g. settle in a city (not that it's necessarily better). Is it ethically right to put someone where they can never change their lifestyle no matter what? Even if many isolated tribes don't know about cities (and vice versa), they still have the chance of finding a different world.
It's a real problem. I suppose people often makes choices which will affect the lives and opportunities that their children will have, though it is true that this decision is a particularly irreversible one.
I suppose when you contemplate signing on for a 100-year voyage to another star, part of the decision-making must be weighing up the effects this will have on your children, grandchildren, etc. If things were going really badly on Earth, or if the prospects of life in a distant colony looked sufficiently glowing, it might seem the best option for your descendants, all things considered. For example, suppose you and your family lived in a slum with few prospects of advancement ... and NASA (or whoever) came along and said that if you signed on for their 100 year trip, then during the voyage your family would have a good standard of living, top quality education and interesting well-paid jobs?
On Earth, the explorers have usually been the adventurous and inquisitive, but early colonists have often been the brave and desperate. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."