New Mars Forums

Hi Cindy!  Great topic!

I hope this doesn't start an argument (yeah, right! ), but I'd take the Christian Bible with me.  Though not technically a work of philosophy, the principles for interpersonal relationships set forth in the New Testament teachings of Jesus in particular could have an incredible impact on an infant society.

I'd probably add to that the work of Karl Barth, John Warwick Montgomery, and (believe it or not) Nietzsche.  I'm a study in contrasts.

[Edit:  I almost forgot S?ren Kierkegaard!]

Well, as you might imagine from the quote in my signature, I'm partial to those kinds of stories.

Okay, I am now officially jealous.  Did you ask him to write a sequel?

^^^  What excellent taste you obviously have, Bill...

This is a very tough choice.  Probably The Matrix.  I know, that doesn't make me very noteworthy.  Oh well.  It's the truth.

On top of that, I'm a huge fan of anything Star Trek...but I suppose that doesn't make me exactly unique around here either, does it?

clark, thanks for taking the time to post such a detailed reply.  If you'll forgive me, I'm not going to respond.  Aside from the fact that you've given me a great deal to think about, I'm feeling more than a little over my head in all this. I'll just say this:  now that I have a clearer understanding of your position, I have a great deal of respect for your intellect.

Again, thanks...

Interestingly enough, history is full of stories of communities that put their religious convictions above community survival.  Some would say that humanity as a whole is better for their convictions.

Though I disdain being perceived as overly technical, I'd argue that religion is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."  Of course, I'd have the dubious distinction of having the dictionary on my side.  Thus religion itself is not "supposed to bring order to a disordered universe," as you postulate, but rather the acknowledgement that someone/thing already has.  I hope you can understand why such an understanding of the cosmos would drive an individual, community, or society to choose adherence to their religious convictions over survival.

Rather than answer the question you posed in the above quote, I prefer to point out the unconscious assumption you made in posing it:  that religious thought cannot lead produce "progress" (a frighteningly subjective term in a discussion such as this one, but you chose it, so I'll use it).  Personally, I don't find your assumption offensive, though many would.  I'll merely point out here that no serious historian -- or sociologist, for that matter -- would agree with that assumption.  Perhaps you'd like to rephrase the question?

Here again I would have to disagree.  While I question your motivation in characterizing religion as a "beast," I would put forth that it is, at least in societal terms, uncontrollable.  Check with the Nazis, Soviets, Sandinistas, or Chinese Communists if you're unsure about this one.  Because of the unique nature of religious thought, it defies all attempts to eradicate or subjugate it.  (Please try to keep in mind that I'm not talking about any one form of religious thought or philosophy here; rather, I'm pointing out the character of religious philosophy as a system of thought.)  An understanding of this fact often leads those who would "control" religion to a third option:  adulterate it.  However, watering down a system of religious thought tends to strengthen the faith of the "orthodox," ensuring that their doctrine continues to propogate.  Of course, I'm overgeneralizing almost to the point of foolishness here, but as St. Paul said, "you drove me to it."

Again, your unspoken assumption rears it's intellectually disreputable head.  Many would argue that western civilization hasn't "moved beyond the limits of Church teachings."  In fact, a quick perusal of the New Testament, the Pentateuch, or the Qur'an would all indicate that western civilization has a long way to go, at least from a societal standpoint.  To quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

As for explaining "technical and scientific evidence that only serves to discredit certain religions in of themselves," I will only say that Galileo, Ptolomy, Newton, and Einstein were all religious men.  The implications of that fact are yours to do with as you please.

In keeping with my tradition, my intellectual integrity, and my conscience, I would have to disagree once more.  While the individual may have complete control over his own choice of religion (and many would argue with even that hypothesis), society as a whole can no more control religious thought -- and, I dare say, expression -- than it can the weather.

To prove (or at least strengthen) my point, I challenge you to point to one society in all of human history that has managed to eradicate, subjugate, or adulterate all religious thought that it deemed to be contrary to its own best interest, and survived to tell the tale.

I'm a staunch proponent of nuclear fission on Earth (I was a nuclear engineering minor), so as you might imagine I have no problem using a fission reactor to power a Mars settlement.  However, I forsee it being a hard sell for earthbound mission planners who have to deal with Earth's political agendas, petty provincialisms, and media-fueled ignorance.

What about constructing solar arrays in Martian orbit and beaming the power down to a settlement via microwaves?  I've not done any significant study of the concept, but I know it has been advocated as an alternative energy source for this planet...and with the Martian atmosphere so much thinner than Earth's, I would imagine the efficiencies would be significantly higher there.

To quote Shakespeare, clarke, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

For better or worse, right or wrong, religion always seems to trump reason.  Unless this is a local effect caused by some undiscovered element in Earth's atmosphere, I have no doubt we will take this truth to Mars with us.

There are some very interesting religious offshoots to your question, Phobos, given that an early colony is likely to be made up of people of many different faiths, each with its own rituals and beliefs regarding death.  In the harsh environment of a Martian base or colony, would those beliefs be subordinated to basic survival, a la the floating colony in Waterworld?

Shawn, thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my position a little.

From my perspective, any extant life that is found to have existed on Mars prior to humanity's arrival is indigenous for all intents and purposes.  I'll confess I'm a bit confused by your reference to "earth-type" life.  Unless it could be proven that a lifeform was brought to Mars by one of our landed probes (a very difficult proposition, I would assume), then we would be forced to conclude that it was Martian in origin regardless of how much it resembled some previously known Earth organism.

If such an organism is found -- life on any order -- then there are serious ethical questions to be considered before proceding with a colonization program, or any permanent presence, for that matter.  It's simply a matter of precedence.  Once humanity chooses to exercise dominion over single-celled life on Mars, it becomes that much easier to exercise it over higher-order life we find on other worlds (because, for example, they destroy Earth native crops or livestock used to provide food for a fledgling colony).  The logical extension of this kind of a galactic "manifest destiny" is to confine, relocate, or exterminate "semi-intelligent" or intelligent lifeforms who get in the way of human progress.

This may sound far-fetched, but from a legal standpoint it's just a hop, skip, and a jump from colonizing Mars without regard for the bacteria that were there first to forcing Centaurians onto "reservations" so that we can plant Earth crops on their land.  What we need are some firm guidelines before we determine whether Mars has life or not -- a "Prime Directive," if you will...

...or have I been watching too much Star Trek again?

I think having a trained psychologist, with expertise in counseling and non-drug therapy, would go a long way toward fulfilling that "design requirement."

Regarding your first thought, Phobos, the "destabilizing" of a crewmember is an important concern that mission planners would have to prepare for.  (Kim Stanley Robinson and Ben Bova have both had literary field days with the possibility!)  Hopefully, careful crew selection and training would reduce the probability of such an occurance to nearly nil, but what if the "impossible" happened?  Just off the top of my head, here are a few options:

-- Incarcerate the ill crewmember in his stateroom or in some empty storage area.

-- Sedate the ill crewmember for the duration of the mission.

In either of these cases, some mission objectives could still be achieved, although significant mission resources would be required to care for the ill crewmember and guard against any danger he might cause to himself or the mission.  Dependent upon the specifics of the situation, mission planners might deem it wise to abort the mission entirely and simply return to Earth.  If a crewmember became a danger to himself or others, I think this is the safest alternative...barring one:

-- The ill crewmember could be executed.  As harsh as it sounds, such a step might appear necessary to ensure the safety of the crew and the mission.  However, the phychological load that such an execution would place on the remaining crewmembers would likely be so high as to affect their efficiency or even their mental health and stability.  Such an option in the relationally tight dynamic of a small (less than 12) crew could have devistating effects.

None of these options are "pretty," and all would severly limit the amount of useful work a mission could accomplish -- in fact, such a radical destabilization would more than likely force the aborting of the mission.  Any other ideas out there?

Hi Christina!

I'd remind you that the above photo is from a source that GOM would undoubtedly believe to be on the "inside" of the conspiracy...so, as evidence, it is basically unusable, and any conclusions drawn from it are suspect at best.

Someone remind me never to discuss religion on this BBS...