New Mars Forums

I answered the question, under the conditions you specified (without a question) in return. What form of genuine discussion is there if all i am doing is giving you nothing more than statements to your questions?

I can understand the issue of "public commitment", however, you avoid the point I am conveying, which is finding fault with the way in which you direct the question.

If the issue is "public commitment" then direct the question accordingly. Instead, you are dressing up the real question by relating it to the act of marriage.

I ask YOU now, is marriage the only means with which to demonstrate the commitment neccessary for a Mars mission.

If you say yes, then this "discussion" is worthless.

If you say no,  then you have to see my point.

You are trying to equate the act of marriage as a final litmus test on a persons ability to make a commitment. I am saying that the act of marriage, in and of itself, is a poor means to judge whether or not someone truly has the commitment neccessary for a mars mission.

Can marriage be a means to guage commitment level, yes. Can other behavior be used to guage commitment as well as marriage, yes. As such, wouldn't a more generalized question regaridng what you have done to demonstrate yor resolve be a better question than one that is specifcally biased towards a certain way of looking at the world?

As to playing devils advocate, it is my personal opinon and nothing more, but I believe that you can never truly understand an issue unless you understand all sides of the issue. But in regards to the last two posts and this one, I am telling you what I think.

So my personal answer is that your question is biased and unfair. It automaticaly places me on the defensive whereby i must now prove that i am equal to those who get married in terms of level of commitment.

People can be commited to ideals. People can be commited to ways of doing things. People can be commited to their work. People can be commited to helping others. People can be commited to many things, marriage just being but one. People can also be commited and not be married, but your question as stated asssumes this to be false.

I reject the question on the grounds that it is arbitrary and meaningless. This idea of "public committment" does not apply to the situation at hand and is misleading. The question assumes that the best way to evaluate the level of comittment we may expect from an individual can be guaged by their willingness to enter into marriage.

Marriage means different things to different people, it's value as a means to screen potential canadities for things like trust is highly questionable and the same results can be obtained from other avenues or evaluations.

The question also assumes that if you are unwilling to be married, then you obviosly cannot make a commitment... which is shown  to be false by  the commitment that many religious figures make- all sans marriage.

If I am married, then the question should be what behavio in marriage demonstrates the level of commitment neccessary for a mars mission.

If I am not married, then the question should be what behavior do I demonstrate that shows the level of commitment neccessary for a mars question.

Your question Cindy automaticaly  penalizes those who do not subscribe to a certain world view.

The simple reason we do not launch spent fuel rods into the sun is that it would involve LAUNCHING spent fuel rods into the sun.

Rockets are great when they work, but what happens on those oh so rare occasions where one explodes?

One rocket filled with spent rods explodes in the upper atmosphere, and leukima rates soar worldwide...

Why do you think the environmentalists get up in arms everytime there is talk about putting a probe up with nuclear rods as fuel?

Just remember, what goes up, generally, it comes down.

Five words or less, on getting to Mars:

Its not like it's rocket-science.

Of course I did use a contraction and a hyphen, but eh, whada ya do?

What is marriage?

A contract with another individual.

What is divorce?

The dissolution of the contract with another individual.

What role does the State, Society, or anyone else have in deciding who I live with, or who I don't live with?

Other than REGULATING the manner in which we make the contract, or the manner in which we disolve the contract, what role can their be for society?

To all you who think I am willing to sacrifice personal liberty, wake up.

The most disgusting laws in exsistence are the ones that dictate in what manner we may live with another individual. The consentual contract made between  individuals (even polygymy) is between those  individuals- that's it.

Society can only become involved when and if one of the individuals violates the contract- ie, adultery, etc.

Will there be falanders on mars- sure, it'll be like a college dorms in many respects (not all). By and large, monogomy is the way things go. However, who knows with mars- the environment is going to be much different, the population is going to be much different.

Who knows what happens when an entire population is on birth control, has no fear of STD's, and see's no economic advantage of having a partner. Space undermines the whole sociological neccessity of marriage- unless there is reproduction- yet even the role of marriage is becoming antiquated in terms of usefullness for reproduction.

Better questions to answer: Why do people marry on Earth? What reasons carry over to Martian living? What reasons don't? Can the same benefits of marriage be reached, or can components of marriage be reached, without actual marriage?

Is it so hard to imagine situations where people are little more than genetic material, to contribute to future offspring- but rearing is left to other "parents"? Sperm banks and ovary banks are the reality if you think "impossible". Other than role-modeling, what do parents provide that someone else cannot?

That is a matter of opinion which I am at least defending. If you honestly think it will be otherwise, please explain how and why. I believe, and others see it as well, that the environment of space will radicaly alter our concepts of personal freedom and personal responsibility. Does it have to be like this, certainly not. However, if it ISN'T like I say, what is the alternative? The same issues, the same risks I have been pointing out exsist, and they MUST be addressed.

I'll tell you what will happen if we accept otherwise: A system of selection and exclusion will be created to vet potential canadites for Mars. This system would screen all individuals looking for the specfic criteria that is "deemed" neccessary. Instead of rules instutited that require everyone to submit to the rule of law, only complacent cows will be allowed to go. You will in effect put Mars further away for most people- you will in effect be lying to others about their personal prospects for getting to Mars- yet getting to Mars is dependant upon the masses of people who will never get to go to mars without the instutions that I we have been discussing.

Ah, so your qualms are related to the effeciency of action then. It seems too easy to you. I ask you what a court trial to determine if a man should be executed is any less easy? That is a judical process- the same thing I am suggesting.

On earth we have to "hunt people down" becuase they can go walk outside- anywhere. On mars, you are limited to small areas and can go as far as your air and water supply will allow- if the radiation dosen't get you.

How the judical process is handled- the appeals, the arbitration, the decisions, etc- none of that has been touched on, so your claims that the judical process is not enough are groundless- there has been no discussion to warrant a factual claim against the judical process as inadequete- only your continued assertion that it isn't "enough".

That is currently what the President of the United States can do- in 20 minutes he can end the world on his command alone. Yet most people accept that as rationale. With  consent from 12 people on a jury, a man may be injected with chemicals that will end his life- with a flip of the switch.

The saftey or the idea that it is not easy here on Earth for the executive to kill someone is wholly illusionary. We rationalize it as acceptable- but here I am, spelling it out in dark colors- in very frank terms as to what it is that we have rationalized and unsurprisingly, you and many others revolt at the idea.

So why do you have problem with a system of coercison and retribution that you currently live under and accept? Just tell me you think the death penalty is wrong, otherwise, explain why it is OK here but not there.

So a death penalty that is difficult in execution (pardon the pun) is better? Why would we want the decisions we make, or the decisions made by our governing instutions, be difficult to enact?

That's like having the governmentdecide to build roads, but then finding ways to complicate the enactment of the decision to build roads... silly.

What would be sufficeint (since a judge and jury are apparently insufficient- that is a judicial process btw) in your opinion  to merit an executive action of that magnitude?

Should the president poll the populace everytime we bomb a city on Earth? Do you believe that is practical?

I agree, and the discussions have helped me codify some ideas into more sensible wholes.

Maybe an interesting discussion would be to look at what independance could be allowed legitametly, given the constraints imposed by mars.

Remeber, the "human condition" is the result of millions of years of adapation to our native environment, i.e Earth. Mars requires that we adapt to her environment in the same way. The "human condition" is not absolute, it can be altered (by man or by nature).

I wonder how many people still would want to go to Mars if they realize how it might really be. (before others scream, please note the word MIGHT).

I for one can understand the "romantic" promise, but that romance is predicated on a certain amount of freedom that I believe can only come for small bases on Mars.

Even assuming that mass-production can reduce costs- it would have to reduce costs by a magnitude of 1000 before individuals, or even small groups would have the financial resources for the investment neccessary to start an "independant mars". I laughed reading KSR's vision of nomads wandering in caravans of rovers mining for Nitrogen... those rovers would cost millions, if not billions of dollars- even if they were made there you can't escape the cost factors associated with living on mars.

This is the fundamental reason I have a problem with Zubrin and his politcs- he marginalizes the reality of the situation on Mars. 
???

Well said Byron, I wish I was able to summarize myslef as clearly. 

I think this may be why people have the wrong impression of some of my statements. A central authority is nothing more than the physical manifestation of Society's will. What that means, is that if you are a democratic republic, whatever "central authority" you have to represent you would make the decisions that the represenatives YOU elected decide it should be able to make.

In America, we have a central authority- it's called the federal government. Every system of government has a central authority- how that central authority is composed, derived, acts, controlled, etc is determined by the PEOPLE. I have never once called for a tyranny or a democracy in this discussion (or many of the others).

Otherwise, Byron, you understand my point view.

So AJ, does that make Byron crazy too? 

I wonder how you justify the moral superiority of capitalism. Superior to what and how?

Certainly not, yet you speak of atrocities that do not exsist (Mars). I have provided an idea, from which you extrapolate "atrocities" occuring- fine, but what do you expect me to do? Defend actions that have not taken place? You yourself urge for "justice" as the defender of our liberty, to which I am inclined to agree- which is also made evident in that a judicial process occurs prior to the act of life support termination. When, how, and if this ability is used is not for you or I to say- but the framework can be legitimately discussed.

You are correct, Submit or die. Those are your choices. What are your choices in America if you do not like a law but are unable to change it? As far as I can figure, you can submit. OR you can break the law, and then be subjected to whatever punishment is associated with that crime- which may include death. Can you change the laws peacefully- yes. Have I somehow DENIED that ability in ANYTHING I have offered? No.

The "have" has to do with permanently residing in a new base- think of it like moving to another country- if you want to live there, you HAVE to agree to abide by THEIR laws. Let's not forget WHY these people are forced to move as well, they have broken a law which has warranted the action of life support termination- which laws that would be, I certainly haven't made any indications as to which laws should warrant which punishment.

So if you go around telling people that you are going to kill me, I am without recourse? If people advocate for the violent overthrow of the government and advocate for the killing of civilians, we as a society are without justification in preventing these people from carrying out their threats prior to action? I explained, if your thoughts or views call for violating the sanctity of another individuals life, then you should be prevented. There is no reason, other than immediate self-defense of self, that requires you to violate anyone else's self. It is akin to censoring people from shouting fire in a crowded theater. Is that censorship to you?

I am as free as I am independant of anyone else. The more we become dependant on others, the less true freedom we have becuase part of it is dependant upon another. On Earth, humans alone can be pretty self-sufficent in providing for our own basic needs- as such, we have the opportunity for a great deal of freedom. On Mars, everything and everyone becomes much more interdependant on one another- this reduces the amount of personal freedom we each can have (compared to us now). All of my concerns are formulated from the environmental reality on mars- I am not trying to advocate social policy, only to figure out what makes sense.

Please site ONE post ANYWHERE where I have called for violating the sanctity of self. One. I have called for the REGULATION of liberty- which we do now on Earth. The regulation I have called for is where individual liberty meets- reproduction- which can affect my personal liberty if we live in a closed environment plastic bubble. burial of the dead- there may be a need, caused by the lack of organic material on Mars, that may require that bodies be disposed in a specfic way to ensure the succes or survival of the martian colony. Drug use- again, an individual behavior that could jepordize everyone else's rights. I haven't called for religious oppresion, economic oppresion, or any other hallmarks of totalitarian states.

i don't believe I have called for EVERY realm, but I will work on it. K? 

Do you honestly believe that the environment on mars will allow people the lattitude of freedom we enjoy on Earth? Why? It is a closed environment. It is a highly advanced machine that will keep people alive- one that requires a massive amount of resources and energy to create. It will be like living on a nuclear sub.

No, it probably won't. That's one of the reasons I suggested anyone going to mars agree to the over-riding "bill of rights" (whatever you want to call it). A scenerio where people violate that code is what I envisoned when the Executive authority to terminate life support is utilized. If you think this is still wrong, I would ask if you thought the Civil War was wrong- the federalization of the National Guard in Alabama, etc. It is in effect, the same thing.

Governments must maintain the monoploy of force, and should be the only instution with the legitimacy of use of force- it's how you get people to comply and makes the whole thing called "justice" possible.

Hardly. can you have justice through inequality? Equality is justice- it means equal, as in fair. Justice is also the equal application of law to all people.. equal. I say we drop this as we at least agree in principle, but not in language.  ???

Act without limit? Where do you get that from? I haven't even approached the issues of checks and balances. I am discussing function, not form.

I really don't want to keep posting this over and over again (but I guess I will if you keep making this stupid, yes STUPID, accusation about my argument). I HAVE STATED THAT A JUDICIAL PROCESS WOULD TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO TERMINATION OF LIFE SUPPORT BY AN EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. The rulers, the majority, the whoever would have to go through the courts- equality through the application of justice (is that better?) ensures that all members of scoiety are treated the same in regards to the application of law or punishment.

let them eat cake, eh?

Yes the poor do at least own something, which is a great way to stave off rebellion and maintain the staus quo. Your darling capitalism of "less inequality" has ended up with 1% of the people controlling almost 50% of the wealth, 10% of the people controlling the remaining 90%, with the rest of the population to divy up the last 10% of the 50%...

So is proof of God, but we still try.

not quite. If some are free, and others are not- then there can be no justice for those who are not free- there is no justice until there is equality. Justice exsists to reestablish equality.

If no property exsists, what would you need justice for?

Please clarify, I don't understand your meaning.

Not for shock value, I am actually exploring the possibbilities. I listen to others views, which have tended to be more "libertarian" in optimism regarding mars. I have read KSR and other novels and I find the social structure depicted in the stories and in people's expectations to be unrealistic.

Mars is not the American Fronteir. Mars is not a jaunt or a holidy. Mars is not Earth, filled with clear air, puddles of water to drinnk from, and miles of land that we can easily walk unencumbered on.

Mars will be isolated. Mars will be dangerous. Mars will require a lot of technology, a lot of infrastructure, and a lot of resources. It will be an investment that exceeds all other human endeavours. You honestly think that no one will have a problem with free drug use in a multi-billion/trillion dollar investment? Do you honestly think that you will have the same lattitude of movement and freedom in a closed environment where any one person can kill everyone else?

Sure, a base of 6 people is a moot point.

A colony of several hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? I wish it were otherwise, please show me how it can be otherwise- but I just don't see it.

Now you see, that's an example of a good post limited to what has been offered- calling me insane does little to add any understanding, for either side of the discussion. Thanks for taking the time to reply, instead of react AJ.

If you find my ideas repulsive, why not limit that revulsion to the text? You offered your personal opinion of me, which moves the debate from the realm of ideas to one of deragatory and meaningless statements.

You are of course correct, it wouldn't be very American would it. I suppose if we really wanted to be American we would perpetuate a society that profts at the exspense of others. A society that claims equality in principle, but anything but in practice. Privelage for some, and all men created equal... just some are more equal than others, right? Is that the American thing to do?

By no means am I saying that. However, don't you find it disturbing that the American populace DIDN'T react to the atrocity? I was trying to show a real world example of how supposed atrocities can be acceptable. I for one am not saying it is acceptable, only that very few people spoke out against what happened- during or after. In fact, the person in charge of the people who did this is running for Govenor of one of the largest US states, and is considered a "good" canadite. Soemthing to consider as an American.

Oh, that's nice. Did I state that children would be killed? No. You infer what you want to suit your own view of me. My suggestion to this whole thing was based on the example given: A man enslaves the people in his colony- I suggested my solution, which would provide for the ultimate means to force compliance.

Did I somehow suggest that everyone be locked up in the base? Please. By simply turning off the power to the base you give the inhabitants TWO choices. Stay, and die. OR, put a suit on and go to another base- where you would have to consent to the new bases exsisting laws.

Once again, back to my ORIGINAL statement- all people who go to Mars would agree to the governing principles of Mars- you know, the basic fundamnetal stuff that we all SHOULD agree to as fair and equitable.

What standard have I suggested that is unreasonable? What doesn't make sense to you? I'm all for respecting the diversity of thoughts and views, but if your thoughts and views represent a danger to my ability to just LIVE, then I'm sorry, you don't get em. There is but one rule that governs all else, the sanctity of self. You have any right that does not violate the sanctity of another. If you want to violate THAT standard, then there can be no room for discussion.

Totalitarian? How? I have suggested roles for the State- I have never really delved into how the State is composed. The State has certain powers, the different forms of government are the measn by which it enacts the will of the people- that's it. Totalitarian is a form of government as legitimate as a democracy- it becomes illigitimate once it no longer represents the will of the people- just like a represenative democracy becomes illigitimate when it's represenatives no longer express the will of the people. I have been discussing FUNCTION, not FORM.

Not if you exsist, but if you take part in Society in any shape, then you become a part of that Society. The means to exclude yourself from society exsist, as such, your inaction to avail yourself of those opportunities implies that you wish to remain a part of Society.

And? Justice can only come through equality- something Rosseau repeadtly comments on in Social Contract. I suggest you read Social Conntract a bit more closely. The word equality cannot be abused. Either something is equal, or it not. No equality means no justice.

LOL. Thanks for equating my philosphy with the bible. Have you read the bible? It allows for many of the things I suggest- do you hold it with the same contempt?

A philosphy is like a gun, depending on who uses it, and for what ends, determines the value ot it.

What people? LOL. Who on Earth is on Mars?!

Until facts change, I am, and will be, just discussing ideas.   

A.J., thanks for your insightful and well thought out post. I appreciate your opinion, I just wish I had more than your personal feelings about me or my arguments to better understand why you disagree. I understand if your abilities are limited, please feel free to say whatever you want, I promise not to get upset or fault you for you own inability to express yourself in an adult manner. I know I haven't always, and I strive to improve myself, so if I can help you, I would love too. 

Quite the contrary. My personal agenda is to seriously look at the reality of settling mars and what that means to us as individuals. I have never once advocated tyranny- unless you feel that a represenative democracy which creates the laws for the people is a tyranny. You may be confused, I have limited my arguments to the actual problem whenever possible (in this case, execution by the state)- I am not stating what type of government would be in place, only that whatever governmnt IS in place, should have this ability.

Well, you've nailed the nationality- why don't you enlighten us to as WHICH TYPE of American will go. I am an American, and I think I have at least as much insight into "america' as you, what i am currently suggesting is actually extending many of our shared cultural practices.

Umm, no, you are wrong. I was debating whether or not Society has the right to determine how an indivdual's body is disposed of after death. Why does discussing ideas bother you so much?

I can accept that reproduction might be a problem- however, that avoids the issue I was addressing- one where reproduction is NOT a problem- what then? If it is, then my argument is made moot, but if reproduction isn't a probelm, then we should face the consqueces and think it through. Again, I am simply discussing ideas and possibilities- why does that bother you?

How is that different than what happened at WACO? You also take me out of context- I did happen to mention that such an act would not be allowed until some sort of judicial process is completed.

Um, I think you use the word genocide without comprehending the full meaning- genocide is the act of wiping out a people based on common cultural or physical traits, solely based on those reasons. How am I suggesting genocide?

crazy Crazy CRAZY Argrggghhh btbbthbtbjk iajsdlkjd  Insane....grrrrr [foaming at the mouth] LOL- that was fun.   

Well, if A.J says I be crazed, I be crazedee!

This should be interesting, AJ, what IS my politcal philosphy? Please, I for one would love to know.

That was me.    Sorry, didn't mean it as an attack, just a statement of perceived fact. I appreciate it when people challenge my thoughts- it forces me to learn and think through what I think. If I can't defend what I say, then I will conceed the point.

I for one am a staunch advocate aginst censorship, while I appreciate Adrian's hard work, and I understand the need to maintain some semblance of civility, outright deletion of posts should be reserved for the most severe violations of civility and/or decourm. I don't think AJ is that bad, even if he has to make his displeasure with what I say personal.

Cobra, please re-read my previous post (the QUOTES). I am not suggesting we skip that process. Judical review FIRST...look in the post and you will see.

Thanks all.

I am not Rousseau. Why are you making the comparison?

Reality is what can be objectively measured Cindy. The reality of Mars is that it is a cold, inhospitable place that will require massive technological infrastructure to support human life. How is that NOT reality?

If you cannot objectively measure something, then it is subjective- which means it is all a point of view. A deconstructionist cannot argue that 2+2=5. But to argue about morality and ethics, again, I'll give you the same challenge, how do you objectively measure "good" when it all depend on who is measuring?

Objective means "apart from", seperate. 2+2=4- no matter who I am, I will always see this. Killing someone though can be considered good or bad depending on the circumstances and who is observing the action.

I jump on people for using it improperly, which I try to show. Here is an absolute: All people have a childhood. All people have a biological father and a biological mother. All people breathe air. These are facts, these are objective- each can be measured. Me saying all people love their mothers is subjective, because it is based on a value system that does not readily apply.

So I am told...

Um, follow the scientifc principle Cindy and all will make sense.

If it can't be measured, tested, repeated- it ain't true.

Objective measurement = reality.

Everything else is in our heads.