New Mars Forums

Do you think this statement is true, or not true:

'Freedom is relativistic. That is, that 'freedom' is only true freedom when the circumstances allow for it in the manner that the particular 'freedom' (meaning one unit of freedom, if that's possible) can be classified or defined.'

Advancement and power are two seperate things, and the terraformation of Mars serves only to say 'we are powerful' and 'we can do this'. That serves humanity not one jot.

And 'vastness of space' doesn't make Mars less valuable /as it is/. There are six billion people on this planet, and one life is worth just as much as all of those six billion together. As Mars is worth just as much as all the rest of the universe put together. I'm not saying that we just shouldn't terraform Mars because its Mars - I'm saying we shouldn't terraform on a large scale, full stop. Low level terraforming (ie, the insertion of enzymes into local fauna to aid their digestion of Earth fodder, so the local fauna won't be harmed by the genetically altered grassoid that we'd need for fodder for our equally genetically engineered ovines, bovines and whatever other vines there are that I can't recall right now) I don't have a problem with - thats simple adaptation, and there really actually isn't any inherant change required.

But changing X to Y is very different from changing X to another X, but in a different font.

And it wasn't circular logic. I was merely pointing out the fact that at this point, and at any conceivable point in the future, we will not understand sufficient facts to enact planetary engineering on a large scale as,

a) we would not be fully aware of the risks
b) we would not be fully aware of the risks
and c) - yes, you got it, we wouldn't be fully aware of the risks.

You /cannot/ plan a military option without intelligence guiding you, and in the same vein, you cannot terraform a whole damned planet if you don't know what the final net effect is actually going to be.

And if we cannot even claim to predict the weather here on Earth for much more than 24 hours /accurately/, and meteorologists are largely at a loss as to how to improve that rate, I fail to see how we could ever predict even a small component of the massive and largely chaotic morass that a terraforming project would represent.

And the very reason that mistakes are made over and over and over again is because people say, "We've learned now. There's no reason to hold back; why would we make the same mistake again?"

Lastly, I have to admit a certain amount of confusion as to the purpose of terraforming in the first place. There is no hope of moving a significant portion of people from Earth to Mars, or from Earth to Venus - not now, and not ever, unless we acquire wormhole technology or master the workings of quantum tunneling or teleportation or the like - and without that hope, the reason for doing it evaporates. Whats the point? We'd just be creating another potential population problem, say, a few thousand years down the line. Not to mention an immense expense.

What if, by the time that Mars atmosphere loss begins to get severe, a massive recession hits Earth, and Mars cannot afford to continue to exist? Then all the previous work would be lost. I know its something of a whining example, but the fact remains that the probability of Mars being abandoned before the terraforming is even completed is likely very high - economic concerns might encroach, or even territorial ones. What if interstellar travel is developed? As I've said before, Mars would quickly be bypassed in favour of easier targets for planetary engineering. Cheaper targets, I would hazard a guess to say, too.

I know I said lastly, but I have to come back to this. Saying that the 'universe goes on forever', and thus each component somehow is less important, is like calling the engine in a car less important than the whole. Both are equally important, because without either, the entire thing is something different.

There are billions (well, xrillions, really) of stars out there, and each and every one is equally important, because without each one, the others couldn't exist. And by a similar token, the planets are the same. And therefore, not just the planets, but everything on them, including their current and natural state, is just as important as the whole universe. And if the universe is important enough not to damage (heh, like we could - yet), then the mote of dust on your finger is just as important.

Of course, the mote of dust is much harder /not/ to damage. But that doesn't mean that you should go get an atomic scalpel and proceed to carve it up, because you think it would look better a different shape.

We are a part of the universe. But we don't own it by divine right, and I think acting out fantasies such as changing an entire planet to our will is just the extension of the fantasy that the entire universe exists only for us.

Its the Sun orbits the Earth, all over again.

VERY LAST comment.  :;):

How do we know that terraforming Mars would not affect the Earth in some detrimental manner? If a butterfly beating its wings in South America can cause a hurrican in the Pacific...

The only path to freedom is by being free.

You may quote me on that.

The problem with libertarianism is, that if you don't force people to act, then actions they do take infringe on the rights of others, and force others to act, thus decreasing the average number of acts allowed by the average number of people. You follow? Therefore, having laws, taboos, and social structure that 'force and coerce people to conform' are essential to the freedom of people. You can't be free unless there is a framework for freedom - oh, the irony. This, of course, isn't true in small groups. But the annoying thing is, we breed like... well, like humans. Those dirty animals.

And the more people there are, the more laws, regulations, taboos and social structures that are needed to keep the most people free for the most amount of time. Both is important. Have either one or the other, and you're not really getting the point - like a modern republic or psuedo-democratic-monarchy.

So to have more freedom, you need more guidelines. Which, of course, is paradoxical in itself - how can less freedoms equal more freedoms?

Well, it doesn't in todays society. If you were to follow that philosophy now, you end up with a police state. (See New World Order for details.)

Basically, in order to generate maximum freedom for the maximum number of people, you need a partly-democratic, partly-autocratic, partly-socialist, partly-libertarianistic system. And capitalism can go to hell.

Capitalism is too feudalistic, as KSR's characters seemed so fond of saying. And its true. The old system is failing. (See Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, Indonesia, North Korea, China, Libya, Cuba, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Austria, Lichtenstein, Andorra - to name a few, who all have extremist/despotic/extremely corrupt regimes - for details. And quite a few of whom are capitalist states - or socialist ones destroyed by the capitalist corruption that always devours such systems). I personally would list Australia, the US, Britain, France, and Russia on that list as well - but I know most people wouldn't agree on some or all of those.

Education, as I've said a thousand times before, is the key. Money needs to be considered less important. Sharing, human spirit, compassion, betterment of the species - /those/ should be brought to the forefront, to replace capitalism.

I'm not saying do away with money; its very a conveniant method of quantifying effort and so forth, but the current system, is unweighted and doomed to failure. (Well, any system is, but we'll ignore such petty facts.)

The only way forward is to take the emphasis away from money; destroy the 'hoarde the capital' attitude; change attitudes via careful education and social engineering so that people begin to view money as a means, not an end; illegalize financial lending/banking once /that/ is done, to keep capital flowing, so the majority of people have the majority of capital.

Also, remove power from a centralised elected government, and shift to an advisory non-elected 'luminary' system (where great social contributors are rewarded for their efforts to improve society) style House along with a minority of Lower House selected people, sitting above a semi-elected, one quarter selected, one quarter randomly chosen citizen House, which then sits over smaller, half-elected, half-selected-from-above local area councils (who in turn sit above similarily created lower area councils, in larger countries), in a semi-republic semi-somethingelse system. Or something /like/ that, anyway, if people hate it. [shake fist at people] Which, considering people, they probably would. [/shake fist at people]

Something like:

Luminary Council - 51% selected 'luminaries' (judges, generally exceptional citizens, but NOT media-associated celebrities like tv stars and the like, or sports stars except in fantastically extenuating circumstances - nothing worse could happen than THEM gaining such power), 49% selected from lower houses by election from Lower House

Lower House - 50% elected, 25% selected by aptitude 'from below', 25% 'lottery' selected

Area Councils - 50% elected, 50% selected by Lower House by aptitude

Lower Area Councils - 50% elected, 50% selected by appropriate Area Council

The top house would be the legislative branch, and the second house would be the executive, along with a 'veto council' - a council of 15 members with no clear leader (the cabinet, essentially), but instead a First Speaker-style ceremonial head - that would have the power to veto any executive-branch directive with a super-majority vote.

The 'Veto Council' would work as follows:

Veto Council: 39% (or as close to a majority of 75% as possible) elected by populace - candidates may step forward from any government body, Luminay Council members get an additional 12% added to their vote, and a descending scale applies to introduce 'seniority' into the equation, assuming that experience=results.  36% elected by Lower House from the Luminary Council. 25% elected on an 'anyone who wants to run' basis, with 51% of the voting 'mark' being accounted for by the population, and 49% of the voting 'mark' being accounted for by existing Veto Council members (who may not run in the third category; all runners must specify their category in order for the system to work).

Anyway.

See? Its damned easy!

Socio-democratic decentralism, anyone?  :;):

Does anybody have any idea what the most ambitious ideas on the terraforming of Mars are?

And I just thought of something.

Someone here mentioned that we're intelligent life - and the we should think rationally because of that.

I'm afraid thats not really true, though, is it? I mean, we aren't intelligent life. We're /emotional/ life.

I noticed this link earlier on in the general discussion board on a MUX that I play on, and wondered what you all think of what is contained herein:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/angiej/60881.html

Hmmm.

Yup. Inert machines small enough could probably be used to reinforce every cell in your body, and non-inert versions could 'feed' boron and calcium into your bones, to increase their strength further.

So, yeah, probably.

If the Chinese ever did arrive in America, most of the people on whatever ship or fleet that was were dead on arrival. They simply could not carry enough supplies for the number of people on the junks to get that distance. But I have no doubt that ships were carried there by the circular Pacific currents, as I said before.

I'd also like to point out that for a very long time indeed, the Chinese had the best-kept records in the world. Very big on bureacracy and documenting everything, were/are the Chinese.

I don't think we need to merge with machines in order to fulfil our potential. Sure, symbiosis with some of the products of nanotech would be great - and I'm all for that. But I'm not all that keen on the whole 'augmenting' thing. Is a very dangerous road to go down, with our current society - with the haves, and the have nots, etc etc.

But rather I think that a better avenue would be simply using machines to deepen our understanding - and thus enhance our perception and get closer to our potential - of the universe, and using machines to do pretty much the same as they've always done - maintain us.

And we don't need to replace anything. Nanotech implants could flit around your brain, delivering messages far faster than chemical messages. And they could be designed to interact alongside those chemical messages - I don't see why we need to become machines, or leave the biological behind at all. That would be to deny what we are, I think, personally.

And that would be a bad thing, IMHO... because we do that too much already. 

I was just thinking.

No, don't act all shocked.  :;):

Seriously. I was thinking, 'Are humans still actually evolving, or are we doing something different?'

Assuming we 'evolved' as perception suggests, anyway. (Don't leap on me for that. I feel compelled to say it. Ignore it.)

I'm basing the question on one thing: in the last few hundred years, humanity has slowly gained more control over its future. Today, it /might/ be said that we have utter and complete control over the direction of our species. Not right now, perhaps, but the fact that that control is within grasp is a bit like the observer affecting the observed - we can see the benefits, and are thus affected by them even though they aren't yet available.

So the question is, are we still /actually/ evolving, or is what is happening a form of forced evolution?

In which case, can we expect far more turbulent times ahead than ever before due to the fact that the forced evolution will progress us at an unnatural rate?

And lastly, do you think the fact that humanity has spread to more areas of the globe in greater population density has affected the emotional stability of our species, due to a lower proportion of the general world population living in areas that recieve a higher proportion of sunshine the year round?

When did you visit ?

Holland doesn't have a heroin problem anymore. And those addicts that they do have, have been addicts for a large number of years - Holland has an ageing heroin addict population. And of course, they have so-called 'shooting-galleries' where they can get their gear.

So um. When did you visit? 

Oh, and 21 year olds (and most other age groups) drink too much because their parents set the wrong example - as did/does society. And they've been exposed to alcohol advertising for so many years, also.

No, solar power isn't unreliable. Hydrogen-cell solar panels are unreliable. And the weather is unreliable.

Which is why I said /strategic/ - ie, solar panels where they are most useful, and wind power everywhere else. Generally, where it isn't sunny, its windy. And tidal power can provide power anywhere with a coast.

Nuclear power is valuable, and no doubt cleaner than most other non-renewable methods of producing electricity, but its not 'clean'. See those cooling towers? Ever hear of thermal pollution of natural habitats for fish by nuclear power plants?

I don't doubt that it's a /better/ method of power production than coal, or erimulsion, or gas, or any other non-renewable fuel source (and nuclear fuel is kinda renewable, I know, but I'm ignoring that for ease of writing) but the fact remains that its not the /only/ better-than-fossil-fuels method of power production available today.