New Mars Forums

Whew, after posting that I got a little worried it might not be taken with the level of jest I intended. Mention Hitler around some people...

Actually, no. Because you're not producing one burger, but to the bigger point: Why is vegetarianism better for the planet? Is the presence of animals destroying it? If so, shouldn't we kill more of them? And what better way to dispose of the carcasses then to eat them?

The idea that vegetarianism is somehow better for "the planet" is absurd. First, the amount of farmland that would be required to feed the entire human population solely on vegetable matter is staggering. All that forest being cleared, all that water being diverted. What was that about destroying the planet?

Farming is also not particularly animal-friendly either. Having worked on a farm for a season I have a first-hand understanding of how many field mice, birds and other small creatures are mangled by farm machinery. If people would eat that stuff we could wipe out hunger in a season. Which brings us to this point, If farming is destructive to the land and needlessly kills animals, then true enviromentalists should want a solution that minimizes both. Logic dictates that the best option is a large, herding animal that can live on uncultivated land. Grass-fed beef for everybody!

Finally, vegetarians overlook the importance of protein found in meat. Not only is it essential for the development of the human brain in individuals, it was essesntial for its evolution. If vegetarians only bred with other vegetarians for long enough, they would decline in mental capacity. A whole feeble-minded sub-race could result. And given their slow wits and herding instinct, somebody would eventually eat them.
Yep, that's a three-eyed mutant chewin' on vegan flesh.

I'd probably be right behind you.

I really don't like comparisons between Mars and colonial America as they lead to these kind of bad analogies. Unless an Earth government has troops on the ground it's a completely different scenario. When the British told the American colonists how things were gonna be, they had soldiers ready to come in to town. If Earth tries to direct the Martian colony, assuming they've reached the point of self-sufficiency, what can they do if the Martians give the homeworld the rigid digit and go about their business? Trade embargo? Maybe. Harsh condemnation? Ohh, I'm quaking. Saddam is here too and utterly mortified.

If Earth is actually in a position to compell compliance from Mars, then the people will be united but otherwise without that outside threat they'll fragment. Even here in the US I'm beginning to believe to we stay as unites as we are by tradition more than anything, given the tone these days. Terran powers have the ability to ensure that Mars is unified, but that involves intentionally setting up a colony that is going to be hostile. If Earth is not bullying the Martians, they won't care.

Not that I oppose a unified Martian government, far from it. I just don't think it's going to prove practical without first establishing a colonized, fragmented Mars and then binding them together with the theat of force, whether military or economic.  I'd prefer that you be right on this one, but I'll be holding my breath for a very long time indeed.

To us, looking at the Martian colonists they wouldn't seem to have any significant differences, but it isn't about our perceptions. My point is that human groups will always find differences.

For example, I don't see any difference between one black teenager in L.A. and another, yet the Bloods and Crips aren't exactly on good social terms. While possibly an extreme case, the same general trend will still be present on Mars once the population reaches an appreciable size. Maybe the colonists near the Mariner Valley will develop some hostility toward the Cydonia group over some issue or another. Maybe an American colony and a Chinese colony will face off. Maybe one part of a single colony just won't like the construction style of another and that sets off something.

Not that rivalry or conflict are inherently bad, it drives progress, but attempting to force a planetary government when it isn't wanted will only create problems, unless one nation seizes the entire planet from day-one or sufficient force is to be brought to bear to unite the colonies, but I hardly think that the western powers have the stomach for that. Of course that life-support kill-switch could come in handy

Only because we had a mutual desire to kick some British ass, a self-defined difference with another group occupying the same territory. And then the States drifted apart under the Articles of Confederation.

I've often wondered what would happen if we, all of us on this board, got to Mars and suddenly had to govern it. I would expect that some fisticuffs would ensue.

No, a Jew and a Muslim, two different people. Sorry about the confusion. Interesting and odd conversation though...

A friend sent me the transcript of that speech just yesterday, with the comment "What does it say when a world leader can say that Jews run the world in front of 52 other world leaders and get a standing ovation?"

Personally, I don't get the whole anti-semitism thing either. I see why the Palestinians would be a little pissed, but that's life. Irrationality of it aside, I expect a major Arab-Israeli war sometime in the next 25 years, maybe the next 10. In that case I'm unenthusiastically rooting for Israel.

Another anecdote comes to mind, several years back I was having lunch with a flaming liberal Jewish acquaintance and a card-carrying member of the Nation of Islam. I'm a confessed and not quite reformed Fascist, making it quite the odd group. Malik (of the NoI) made a comment, only half joking, about jews controlling the media (the very media we were all working for at the time) After the assertion was vehemently pounded, with a grin he asked "Then explain how come Seinfeld is on six damn times a day."

Wow, I find myself agreeing with Clark more every day...

The "pill" was developed privately if I'm not mistaken, I'll look into it.

Sometimes they benefit, other times they get screwed. In the absence of government prohibitions all of this banned research would be carried out if there was a realistic chance of making a profit from the results.

Byron, in theory you're right, but have you ever seen government make anything more efficient? I haven't, with the exception of organized armed forces of course. And certainly lawsuits are a serious problem in this country, not only in the medical profession but many others. But this can be solved without nationalizing the entire healthcare system.

On this point I'm in complete agreement.

Of course then we'd have to drill more oil domestically. I personally like the idea, but the same people who want this universal health care would never go for it. Romping through the magical fantasy-land of the Left where fuel burns clean and never ends and money falls from the sky for good causes...

Ah, so the smokers and drunks should pay for it! Seriously and slightly off topic; this has big problems. Drinking and more so smoking are unhealthy behaviors, so if we tax them to fund a government function then we cannot actually do anything to stop these behaviors because too much money is at stake. In which case, why is cocaine illegal? Why not tax it, just at a higher level? It's a system that is forced to condone if not encourage people to engage in activities that will likely have serious health consequences in order to pay for the medical care of everyone. It creates a caste of people on whom the system is a parasite, who then in turn drive up costs for everyone else with their preventable health problems.

Simply because a government entity is the closest thing to an immortal being we have in this world. They are rarely removed except by force. Besides, many of the people in those countries are happy with it, it's only decades down the line when they pay taxes of 60% and have to wait 3 years to see a doctor that they'll get angry enough to do something about it.

Dicktice, all I have to refute your anectodal evidence is anectodal evidence of my own. I'm open to any hard data you have, but I'm skeptical.

The vast majority of our technological progress is the direct result of the search for more efficient methods of killing one another and much of our social development is the result of fear of those new, more efficient methods. As a species we haven't changed, we're just more careful now.

But the drug companies are run by their executives, not the scientists. The executives are interested in making money, the scientists are interested in keeping their jobs. If the company does well, meaning makes a profit, the scientists continue to get paid to work. If the company does badly, meaning does not make money, then the research and development will suffer. If there is no hope of recouping the development costs of a new product in a reasoanble timeframe (remember executives think quarterly) then what's the point?
Drug companies are not out to help people, they are in it for the money, forcing them to continually improve. To a point of course, there is far more money to be made treating a disease than curing it so don't look for those magic AIDS vaccines or cancer-killers anytime soon ???

Given what has historically happened when one culture makes contact with another of lesser technology, I would say woe to the people of Mars. And they thought they had problems before...

Of course we likely wouldn't be able to reach Mars until the mid to late sixties , by which time the whole "Western civilization has left a wake of destruction behind it and we feel so guilty we need to fix it right now" mentality was just starting to take hold. This would seem like a golden opportunity to atone for past crimes.

But it wouldn't last, particularly if Mars were habitable by our standards. The mining would start, colonization would get underway, the natives would increasingly become an irritation. If they were much like us they would begin to resist, after all we'd be stealing their planet from them. Of course they would be hopelessly outmatched and forced to resort to terrorism. The colonial government(s) would crack down, tightening the reigns. More of the Martian natives would begin to sympathize with the extremists, angry over discrimination and the hassles of Martian profiling. 

Eventually some settlement could be reached, likely with native Martians living on reservations graciously set aside for them, away from anything of value.  Perhaps a Martian state, sovereign except for a few "guidelines" could be established. Life would go on for generations, then descendants of the human colonists would begin to feel sorry for the poor, exploited Martians. This would make the Martians realize that "yes, we are pissed off dammit!" A Martian civil rights movement (Martian Luther King?) gets underway, most humans support it at least in spirit. The Martians are free at last. But they've been exploited and need help. They end up dependent on the Martian government, which gives them whatever they may need, using words like "compassion" to cover up their low opinion of the natives. "Poor, stupid Martians" they think, "they'll never accomplish anything without our help." Meanwhile a Martian aqueduct is bulldozed to make room for the new Wal-Mars.

Yes! Medical care is absolutely vital, but why stop there? If we add universal food and housing then every American can enjoy the same benefits as... my cat. Surely American citizens deserve the same benefits as an animal that begs for table scraps and defecates in a box.

No? surely complete dependence is a small price for such bounty. It may severely undermine freedom, self reliance and pride but isn't our collective health worth it? A relevant quote comes to mind:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
                                       
That was James Madison, something of an authority on the matter. Universal health care certainly qualifies as an "object of benevolence."

Now, I know that sometimes people get sick or injured and can't afford the exorbidant cost of medical care, but I also realize that turning the responsibility over to the government will destroy the nation. Do not be tempted to use the Canadian system as a model for triumphant success, it owes more to Canada's proximity to and good relations with the US than the brilliance of the system's design. Yes, drugs are cheaper, but those drugs are developed primarily with the US market in mind. Destroy the profit potential of new products and you destroy the motivation to develop them. The Canadian system feeds off the United States. I don't hold it against them, it's a wise move given their situation, but if the US adopts a similar system the people of both nations will suffer.

There appears to be some support here for bribing the Third World into quiet compliance. This approach will almost certainly breed resentment once benefits begin to materialize from space colonization. Given recent history (the last century or so) this will cause the sort of fanatical asymetrical warfare we want to avoid. If we leave them out of the loop, they'll react violently. If we pay them off, they'll react violently slightly later (or maybe sooner) which leaves us with including them in the mission as partners.

Now let's be honest here, as far as this endeavor goes they're useless. They have nothing to offer the project. Including them is nothing more than extra-planetary welfare to alleviate our collective conscience. It only hurts.

Which brings us to this nugget of uncomfortable truth. Nothing great is ever accomplished by committee. Individuals and small, unified groups make history, everyone else follows giving the appearence of a mass action. Even the pluralistic, democratic United States exists solely because a handful of wealthy colonials decided to revolt. Many followed (not a majority, mind you) but the initial impetus was from a handful of idealists who went ahead regardless. What does this mean for Mars colonization and international cooperation? Simply this: Assuming America undertakes the first mission, if any nation wishes to sign onto the plan as-is and can contribute something useful, welcome aboard. Everyone else, sorry, but you lose this round. This way leads to a Western powers Martian settlement and alot of resentful, pissed-off third-worlders. A massive international approach leads to the same pissed off third-worlders but leaves us with a mess if anything is accomplished at all. Can anyone actually see the U.N. running a Mars Mission, for example? The thing would never get off the ground! Sure, there'd be thousands of pages of studies, dutifully translated into a multitude of languages so even a dirt-farmer in Afghanistan can read the details, but nothing more. And the Western world will be sitting here wondering why we ever tried in the first place and afraid to see the cause of failure.

An American Mars until the Martians can take it for themselves :angry: