SB 2017-152: Enceladus Mission Probe Funding (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Passed 4-2 in the Atlasian House Assembled,

[/quote]

Sponsor: Spiral

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[Senator Spiral]

I'll take this one up.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Senators have 24 hours to object to Senator Spiral assuming sponsorship of this bill.

[Anna Komnene]

After consulting with a friend who's into space technology, I believe this is a good bill and the amounts allocated make sense.

I share some of the concerns raised in the House about section 5, but on the other hand, it's important to ensure peaceful first contact if possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, Senator Spiral is now the sponsor. I invite the Senator to make a post arguing in favor of this bill.

[Senator Spiral]

A bill like this is one that thinks on a long-term trajectory, and that's the sort of vision that we in government should adopt. This would serve to inject a good sum of money into space research. While we are far from knowing what is out there in the universe, we would have the potential to get a better answer should this pass. Perhaps this could even be necessary in the unfortunate event that our planet becomes inhospitable to life.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Thank you, Senator Spiral. Other Senators are welcome to make comments, but I understand Congress will be quite slow for the time being.

[Pericles]

This bill seems reasonable to me, and as a long-term goal space exploration is a worthy one. I support this bill.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I created this bill when I was in the House, and trust me, it’ll be a good step for mankind!

[cinyc]

I don't like Section 5 of the bill. Why should, say, a bacteria discovered during the course of this mission, be considered a person? What if it is the cure for cancer? Would collecting it for the benefit of mankind in the next mission be a crime?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I don't like Section 5 of the bill. Why should, say, a bacteria discovered during the course of this mission, be considered a person? What if it is the cure for cancer? Would collecting it for the benefit of mankind in the next mission be a crime?

I was wondering about why space bacteria gets more protection than kittens, puppies, and unborn humans.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't like Section 5 of the bill. Why should, say, a bacteria discovered during the course of this mission, be considered a person? What if it is the cure for cancer? Would collecting it for the benefit of mankind in the next mission be a crime?

Because any organism discovered in the course of this mission would be, definitionally, the only alien life known to exist in the universe. We will at first contact have no way of knowing how rare that organism is, whether it is endangered, or whether there exist other forms of life elsewhere, in our solar system or beyond it. In light of this ignorance, it would be incredibly careless to sanction  the destruction of alien life forms or habitats before we know anything about them.

This section was proposed in an attempt to prevent the kind of wholesale slaughter and mass extinction that occurred the last time humans ventured beyond the known world. It would be a tragedy both ethical and scientific if these potential alien lifeforms went the same way as the passenger pigeon or the buffalo because of human thoughtlessness. As technology progresses, it is likely space exploration will become a capitalistic rather than philanthropic endeavor, and when that happens it will be necessary to have protections in place to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the name of financial gain. If personhood is a sticking point, perhaps an amendment is an order.

[fhtagn]

I don't like Section 5 of the bill. Why should, say, a bacteria discovered during the course of this mission, be considered a person? What if it is the cure for cancer? Would collecting it for the benefit of mankind in the next mission be a crime?

Because any organism discovered in the course of this mission would be, definitionally, the only alien life known to exist in the universe. We will at first contact have no way of knowing how rare that organism is, whether it is endangered, or whether there exist other forms of life elsewhere, in our solar system or beyond it. In light of this ignorance, it would be incredibly careless to sanction  the destruction of alien life forms or habitats before we know anything about them.

This section was proposed in an attempt to prevent the kind of wholesale slaughter and mass extinction that occurred the last time humans ventured beyond the known world. It would be a tragedy both ethical and scientific if these potential alien lifeforms went the same way as the passenger pigeon or the buffalo because of human thoughtlessness. As technology progresses, it is likely space exploration will become a capitalistic rather than philanthropic endeavor, and when that happens it will be necessary to have protections in place to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the name of financial gain. If personhood is a sticking point, perhaps an amendment is an order.

I don't exactly consider it appropriate to consider the findings a "person", there's plenty of ways to protect species that are found with more appropriate wording. It could be treated as simply a new species with protections until further research on what they are, their ecological roles in their given homes, and the status of their survival as a species. Calling it a "person" is a very slippery slope we should not be heading down.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't like Section 5 of the bill. Why should, say, a bacteria discovered during the course of this mission, be considered a person? What if it is the cure for cancer? Would collecting it for the benefit of mankind in the next mission be a crime?

Because any organism discovered in the course of this mission would be, definitionally, the only alien life known to exist in the universe. We will at first contact have no way of knowing how rare that organism is, whether it is endangered, or whether there exist other forms of life elsewhere, in our solar system or beyond it. In light of this ignorance, it would be incredibly careless to sanction  the destruction of alien life forms or habitats before we know anything about them.

This section was proposed in an attempt to prevent the kind of wholesale slaughter and mass extinction that occurred the last time humans ventured beyond the known world. It would be a tragedy both ethical and scientific if these potential alien lifeforms went the same way as the passenger pigeon or the buffalo because of human thoughtlessness. As technology progresses, it is likely space exploration will become a capitalistic rather than philanthropic endeavor, and when that happens it will be necessary to have protections in place to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the name of financial gain. If personhood is a sticking point, perhaps an amendment is an order.

I don't exactly consider it appropriate to consider the findings a "person", there's plenty of ways to protect species that are found with more appropriate wording. It could be treated as simply a new species with protections until further research on what they are, their ecological roles in their given homes, and the status of their survival as a species. Calling it a "person" is a very slippery slope we should not be heading down.

That's a fair position—any suggestions for improved wording?

[fhtagn]

That's a fair position—any suggestions for improved wording?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'd be happy with this compromise.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd be happy with this compromise.

Same.

[Anna Komnene]

I'm fine with the compromise but what if they actually are sentient? I know that's some C.S Lewis level stuff there, but wouldn't we want to classify them as 'persons' in that instance?

[fhtagn]

I'm fine with the compromise but what if they actually are sentient? I know that's some C.S Lewis level stuff there, but wouldn't we want to classify them as 'persons' in that instance?

That would be something that could be later updated to reflect that scenario after further proof via observation and research. But at the very least considering them a threatened species gives them some protections based off current knowledge of what exists beyond our planet.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Let’s get this started back up! If more debate is needed, I’ll gladly state why this bill is needed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I believe we need a Senator to sponsor President fhtagn's Amendment.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

     I believe we need a Senator to sponsor President fhtagn's Amendment.

I’ll sponsor it

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Status: Awaiting sponsor feedback
Sponsor feedback: Pending

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

I’m good with it, let’s get this passed! To new worlds, gentlemen!

[Associate Justice PiT]

I’m good with it, let’s get this passed! To new worlds, gentlemen!

     I need Senator Spiral to respond to this one.