New Mars Forums

I think it's fair to say that nobody wants a war.

The problem with those arguing endlessy for a "diplomatic solution" and against military action is that without the threat of force, all the diplomacy in the world is meaningless chatter. Do we, as Americans, want to go to war? No. But we need to be prepared for that eventuality and we damn well want Hussein to believe we're ready to do it.

If we take the stand that war is unacceptable under any circumstances, we by implication take the position that violation of UN resolutions, attacking neighboring states, producing and using chemical weapons, and supporting terrorism is acceptable. I know for some of the idealists out there it's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the situation.

Sometimes if you want peace you have to fight for it.

Time to make a nuisance of myself again.

What if humanity doesn't fundamentally change despite immortality and the mastery of space? Space travel is merely a technology, hardly something to alter our basic motivations. Immortality, aside from the potential to feed laziness and cowardice, doesn't seem like something that would necessarily alter our base drives.

In short, we may well live on planets because we like to look up and see sky. We like air that moves and carries the stink of life. We like standing on land rather than floor. Despite our advances, we will remain children of the Earth, attached to its grass and clouds and seas, not for rational reasons but because it is ingrained in the very core of our being.

Making assumptions again. Rationally "Militant Space Imperialism" makes little sense, but the human species has repeatedly demonstrated its enormous capacity for irrational behavior. If someone out there is going to take the MSI approach, the discoveree will not enjoy the encounter.

I am being somewhat tongue in cheek here, just in case anyone is taking this too seriously. Still, it makes you wonder what horrors might be waiting out there. Explore cautiously and carry a planet smasher.

A smattering of random thoughts on the subject:

Forgive the disjointed quote, Vingean Singularity puts us in a whole new game, and being a mere lazy human I don't want to deal with it

It seems speculation on alien civilizations tends to assume they'll be both technologically and socially more advanced. If our own history is any indication, that probably won't be the case. We're essentially a species with Paleolithic minds and motivations, but the technical knowledge to build atomic bombs, alter our own genes, hurl ourselves off the planet and so on. If humanity is any indicator, the first alien race we encounter may well be militant imperialists with warp drives and the ability to implode stars.

In such a case, it behooves us to become militant space-imperialists first so that it is we who discover them.

The current western social structure does "place value on liberty and mutual aid..." However, humans being how they are, there are times when the "intentional destruction" of other humans is required.

Ah, but agreeing on what is great... That's the real trick, isn't it

Exactly right. What is the point of defending something if in the process you destroy everything in it worth defending. People of America, take note.

That's my two cents.

Certainly we can't mothball the shuttles immediately. I'm just pissed that I've been saying we need a new launch vehicle since the Reagan Administration to anyone who would listen (I was a little kid, probably a very annoying one) and watching every attempt to build it shut down.
It's time to quit screwing around and make something better than the half-assed "reusable" spacecraft we've been trucking all over LEO for the last two decades.

This is going to be a pivotal moment. If there are enough people who stand up for a manned space program for whatever reason (exploration, research, satellite maintenance, etc) this could be a huge impetus to proceed with develop of an alternative to the shuttle with renewed vigor.

Otherwise, this could be it. Everyone who gives a shit about the space program, it's time to make your voices heard, now more than ever. We need something new, something high profile to outshine this incident. Mars or bust.

This isn't about the outdated shuttle fleet. It's about who will lead humanity into the future. I choose America over Communist China any day...

Well, we could threaten to shut off their air if they don't comply. Where are you, Clark?

Actually, in the case of Korean, it is a phoenetic language. Each glyph represents a sound rather than a concept, so it could be used with the Latin alphabet, or any other that was desired.

An artificial language like Esperanto is perfect. It has very simple rules, lacks the wide vocabulary needed for casual use, and thus can't realistically be forced on anyone over their native tongues. If there must be an "official" language, this might be the way to go. But it's a pain in the ass, so I still opt for English. If we Americans get off our butts and get on with a Mars mission, we'll have de facto official English simply through dominance.

That's my cue!   One for an English speaking Mars.

Seriously though, despite the lack of consistency and the generally messed-up usage of the language, English is very good at expressing complex and very specific ideas fairly efficiently. English has so many words that mean almost, but not quite, the same thing. The subtle shades of meaning possible make up for the haphazard rules, at least to me. German is also good in this respect, but it can be rather ungainly.

But if we want a "perfect" language, as in "consistent and easy to learn", how about Esperanto. Everyone would have to learn a new language then. just anything but French!

That seems like a good approach, assuming that the distinction between "rights" and "entitlements" is clear. For example, Zubrin's "Rights of Mars" contains many of the latter, which tend to create a poulation of dependents rather than free citizens.

That's essentially what I was getting at. If a group of armed people actually barricade or attack something, they are obviously trying to accomplish something outside the accepted legal process, but if they don't obstruct access to anything and don't discharge a single firearm or use a weapon in an overtly threatening manner it gets a bit fuzzy. The "threat" exists entirely in the minds of those who are the object of the protest. To acknowledge a private "right to bear arms" implies that arms can be borne in public, otherwise it's just a right to "own, store, or use arms in regulated enviroments, but not carry or allow to be seen in public".

Can we prohibit individuals from exercising a right because they might abuse it or commit a crime? If so, then it could be argued that people can be arrested for responding in a disagreeable manner to the State of the Union address. While I was in a kinda goofy mood when I posted this thread, I'm now finding myself increasing drawn to Option C.

Agreed. Under certain conditions (such as colonial Mars, perhaps) a bill of rights reminiscent of that in the US (minus amendment ten, of course) may be all that is required. Basically, "The government has authority to do whatever is necessary as long as it does not violate these basic rights..."

It's either practical anarchism or some form of benign fascism ???

My major problem with the reasoning of the "moon hoax" fringe has always been this: To create a convincing hoax you need not only astronauts to fake the mission, but all the thousands of support staff, engineers, factory workers and so on. The whole thing falls apart if no one can find anyone who worked on the program

Obviously, thousands of people can't be kept quiet about a scam of that magnitude. Therefore, they have to believe that they're actually working on a moon program.

Now, if you're going to spend all the time, effort and money to create a hoax involved enough to fool all the people who are "working" on it, you might as well just go to the damn moon!

Actually, I know several people that drive better after they've had a joint.