You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Oh boy, now I'm the one who's red in the face! Sorry, Runnerbrax, I thought you were making fun of me...
Where's the outrage, huh? Where's Huey Long "The Kingfisher" when you need him? There is NO REASON why we should have hard-working wage slaves making $5.15 an hour with NO benefits whatsoever in this country, while others are laughing all the way to the bank and tax office. This is just not right - not in this country of supposely "equal opportunity." Where's the powerhouse labor unions that used to dominate the American labor force? Where's the fair trade laws that used to balance the level of exports vs imports so millions of people could get a high-paying job at a factory like they could prior to 1973? Why must us *poor people* bow down and kiss the toes of the uber-rich as if they are gods?
Sorry to be immature about this..but I say f*ck that sh*t. Get things back to the way they were...when a fair day's work actually meant a fair day's pay.
*Erm...gee, I didn't think I was promoting -that-!
I agree with your sentiments.
I can't helping wondering, though, how many currently poor/middle income people would be howling about paying 35% tax on their money should they find themselves suddenly wealthy ...say from winning a lottery or writing a best-selling story which would be made into a blockbuster movie ala George Lucas. Can't say that I know much of Lucas' background, but I'm pretty sure he rose from middle-class obscurity to the fame and fortune he has now. Sylvester Stallone is a good example of "rags to riches." In 1974 he might have agreed with your sentiments...but by 1977, when he's a super-rich megastar thanks to "Rocky" (his story made into an Oscar-winning film), he might have changed his mind ("why should I have to pay 35% of my earnings from Rocky because other people can't write a good story, and have to punch a time clock instead?").
Many things in life are relative. I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying out more so the poorer can have a better "go" at life. I agree with you. But I also know how relative things are to many people, and how quickly and "conveniently" minds can be changed.
I think I'll say a little "mea culpa" now and return to our regularly scheduled programming.
--Cindy
35% ! Do you know that in the late forties, back in the days were people when terrified that a Great Depression could happen again, very high incomes were taxed in the 70 to 90% range? Funny how now that kind of taxation levels are perceived to be "unjust"...
While the idea of reviving latin pleases me, there's one thing that bothers me: it's too, well, western... I wish we could know what a chinese speker or an Indian would think of this! Nevertheless, barring the use of living languages and all the problems that would bring, or the invention of a new language, I can't think of any alternative to latin (with the possible exception of greek).
Colonies could adopt any language they want, but Mars needs a lingua franca. I vote for something dead and inoffensive: revive Greek or Latin the same way Israel revived Hebrew! It's the only way of giving the impression that we're starting anew, and to get rid of all the silly nationalistic and cultural fighting that the adoption of any living language will entail.
Hell, I'd rather have Esperanto than any other living language!
I don't have the time to read through this whole thread but I wanted to contribute something (which has perhaps already been said): It will cost far less to become a spacefaring civilization than what is spend each year by the nations of the world on military programs. We have the money to colonize space and, at the same time, feed the hungry, care for the environment and so on. Once private industry takes over no government will have to spend money on space development anyway.
One last thing: Without space colonization there will be no future for mankind.
I second that! But I don't think private industry will ever take over: they can't see any further than the next shareholders reunion... They'll only move in when they think they'll be able to exploit something for a profit i.e. when all the space infrastructure is in place. I can't understand why so many have such respect for private industry: since when has private industry done anything remarkable alone, without governments or citizens pushing them? Some of the most stick-in-the-mud, conservative, no-vision, comformist people I've met worked in private industry: always scared of controversy, always looking for stability and hand-outs, never, but never rocking the boat. And these are the same people that keep telling us to be individuals, to fend for ourselves! Yeah, I love being told to be an individual by some glorified accountant who always dresses in black three piece suits, and spends his days worrying about his job security, his bank account, and fudging accounting numbers and firing people so that he can show a profit ... The only thing they're creative at is charging more and more for less, increasing your workload while cutting on your pay check and coming up with nifty new publicity stunts to make them look like they're cutting edge and actually care about you, the consumer...Ok, ok, I know this is a caricature, that I'm ranting, but I'm willing to bet that many of you have experience this kind of thing, to one degree or another, while you were working for a big corporation. And since now it's all the rage for governments to operate like big corporations, I'll bet you have experience this working for the gov. too...
Don't you sometimes feel that we're living in a period of accelerated decadence?
How about "Not the Earth" ? Just kidding...
just take the US. obviously capitalism works here. the highest GDP, GNP, and the greatest world power status dont really lie.
And 40% of the US belongs to the richest 1% of the population, there are over 2 million people in jail, most of them members of visible minorities, and about 40 to 50 million people are struggling to survive while, in the last twenty years, the people in between (the so called middle class) have seen their quality of life and their purchasing power decrease. Meanwhile, the richest 25% of the US became even richer... The US spends over 300 billion dollars in defence projects that don't do anything to make anyone feel any safer, while refusing to participate in any international initiative that may compromise its power but increase world security! The US may be the biggest economic and military power in the world right now, but this hasn't benefited most of it's population. To me, this means that capitalism, US style, isn't working.
Uhh... I don't know. I'm just giving those numbers out to make a point (the point that light speed is not a limitation to travel, since you can use time dilation to help you get anywhere in the Universe). I don't think anyone would actually just go around the universe just constantly accelerating at 1 g. For once, as you point out, it probably can't be done. However, if you're going somewhere, (say, you want to eventually orbit some distant star) you don't constantly accelerate at 1 g during the whole trip. You accelerate for half of the trip, then you decelerate for the other half, since you want to greatly reduce your speed so that you can get into orbit. Also, time dilation happens whether you're accelerating or not, right? If you keep a constant speed of 97% C for instance, time dilation will still take place, but it won't be as severe as if you just keep accelerating.
It's a one way ticket to the stars!
The should be no more manned fighter planes period.. ever.. UAVs and or space planes will take over.
Yay ! Videogame wars! Just what we need to make people more responsible for their actions. Oh joy!
Looks like there is a go for OSP!!! looks X-38 ish. Rush on production to augment or replace shuttle for Space Station!
Well, that is good news... Could you give us your source?
I'm new here, and I don't know if this has been pointed out or not, so be patient with me if I'm just repeating the bloody obvious!
The light speed limit is not a limitation on space travel! An Interstellar ship constantly accelerating at 1 g could reach the centre of the galaxy in 28 years SHIP TIME! But there wouldn't be any point in coming back: 30 000 years would have gone by on Earth. With a constant 1 g acceleration getting you closer and closer to the speed of light (without ever attaining it) , you could tour the Universe in about 56 years ship time. Humanity can colonize the Universe. But it will pay a hefty price...
It seems to me that there's quite a lot of people arguing, directly or indirectly, for one of the latest US presidential follies i. e. militarisation of space, simply because they hope this will provide the incentive (and the technology) for space exploration. This line of reasoning is, I think, a mistake: anything that might increase the chances for a devastating war in the near (or not so near) future must be actively fought! I'm in as much of a hurry as anyone else here to see humanity stepping on the Martian surface, but first we have to keep from blowing ourselves up! Putting weapons in Earth orbit increases the chance of sending us back into the stone age ! I guess that would be a big blow for Mars colonization, right?
About the Martian Military idea (I'm not sure if it's really needed, but anyway, here's an idea):
Why not restrict its field of action? It could be a purely orbital or spatial force i. e. it wouldn't be equipped (and it wouldn't be allowed) to set foot on Mars (they could go down to Mars, but only off duty and without any weapons). On the Martian surface and atmosphere, only local militias (that could be organized similarly to NATO, to keep rivalries to a strict minimum and to ensure that they would be able to collaborate, if needed) would be allowed to operate.
I've read the Red Mars trilogy! I'm going to look into that constitution thread.
Runnerbrax: "Surfer So Sad" ?! What is this? Look, if you can't respect people who don't share your opinions, I suggest you stop posting! Now that has been taken care of...
I'm not proposing that Mars colonies should all be governed the same way. If people want to be ruled under systems were they only have to "follow along", well, they can always arrange to do so. However, I don't think many will really want to live that way, given the choice! I think one of the reasons why most people in the so called western democracies seem apathetic is simply due to the fact that they know that they don't really have a say concerning the way how things are run... Anyway, what if some people just follow along? As long as they're a small minority, it will be ok.
But if you don't trust the people to govern themselves (that's basically what you seem to be saying), then what do you propose?
Whatever the outcome, I think it is pretty much certain to make a better world if we get rid of totalitarian arrangements in society, like the ones that exist inside corporations, and replace them with free, democratic ones.
I second that! I mean, what's the point of going to all the trouble of getting to Mars if we get there and repeat the same mistakes we have made here on Earth? I want humanity to go to Mars to change and be changed, not to recreate the Earth!
I think that the only hope left for the US civilian space effort lies in the Chinese doing something spectacular... Sad!
Hi, I'm a newbie, so don't shoot me!
One of the things that makes me support human colonization of Mars is the possibility of cultural diversification. In this optic, I think that there shouldn't be any kind of "Mars Government", only general rules about a Martian colonists duties and some kind of human rights charter to prevent human rights abuses (however, I think that a small number of humans exposed to a tough, unforgiving environment will tend to naturally develop a sense of solidarity and equality). Let people experiment! Different colonies will develop different kinds of government.
Personally, I would like to live in a colony where principles of equality of opportunity and social responsibility are the norm. One think I do abhor about most so called western democracies is the undo influence that money and image has on electoral politics. Regularly conducting popularity contests is no way of forming a government! What I would like to see is either some kind of anarcho-syndicalism, or maybe the members of government should be chosen the old Athenian way i.e. by drawing lots! This would ensure equality, citizen participation, avoid the formation of a professional politician class, and that minorities and women are fairly represented. It would also be in the interest of the everyone under this kind of government to have a well educated population, used to debating ideas and accepting divergent opinions.
Pages: 1