New Mars Forums

You are confusing issues. Necrophilia is not "bad" in and of itself, now I, and most people would agree that having sex with dead people is repugnant, that is a personal feeling based on customs and culture, so while I would be averse to anyone who did this, I wouldn't neccessarily condemn them to death or scream that they have somehow violated the dead persons rights.

Please tell me where a dead body derives rights... ANYONE.

Dahmer was a socio-path and that is the frightening part- him eating his victims, that is repugnant becuase it violates many of our shared beliefs or cultural taboo's- I find eating monkey brain to be just as repugnant, but I understand that there are some cultures that do this- who is wrong Cindy?

No, the outrage stems more from the fact that he killed with such ease and pleasure- contrary to popular belief, most people do not have it in them to kill another human being, and when they do, they generally do not surround themselves with "trophies" unless they've gone nuts.

Sounds like a statment backed up by empirical evidence... I'm sure we could expect nothing less from a student of Voltaire...

So, where's the proof of the validity of your statement that respect for the dead and society standards are linked?

Personal feelings aside, where does a dead body derive any personal rights?

It very well may fall to next of kin, however, my point is that Society still has the right to ultimetly determine how a body is disposed of.

I'll bite- Do you have the right to enslave yourself? The right to die is a complicated issue because it stradles the line between individual liberty and the role of society in and of itself. Society exsists solely to ensure your rights as an individual, of which, the right to control your own body is but one right Society ensures. However, the individual making the choice to terminate their own life sets the individual at odds with Society, since the act of termintating ones life is also the act of forsaking all of your other rights- please remember, Society is charged with ensuring ALL of your rights, and LIFE happens to be one of them. Society MUST protect the individual, and as such, it must protect you from yourself if you look to cause bodily harm to yourself. But what about your personal right to control your own body? How can this conflict exsist?

What would be the role of society if you were murdered? Well, it would be charged with avenging your murder- it was also charged with preventing your murder- that's why there are laws such as "do not kill". At all points Society is taking responsibility for your life and ensuring the rights inherent in life- if you allow the "right to die" you are in effect saying there are some times when Society does not have to guraeente our rights or our life, which is a bit of a paradox becuase Society exsists SOLELY to guraeente our life and rights.

Your body is your own to with as you wish? So then we should oppose all laws and regulations that limit or compel us to act with our bodies in a certain manner? Silly. Shall we allow public drunkness? How about allowing children to shoot up heroin? It is there body after all. Shall we allow people to urinate in public? How about sex in public? After all, the laws that regulate these behaviors are actually Society telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies, and where. What if I have a transmittable disease, but do not want treatment, it would seem that society would now be powerless to protect itself from the threat I represent.

Your body is your to do with as long as it does not infringe on Society (ie any one else). Please avoid absolute statments, they weaken your point.

So you suggest that people still retain a right over their body even after death? Silly. Does a dead person still retain a right to their house? Their car? Their dog? No. No. And no. If you do not retain any rights or control of any property, how can you claim any right over your body? Why one, but not the other? Also, it creates a rather large problem if we accet this silly argument- that we retain a right to our body even after death- how can we ever even consider touching ANY grave? After all, to move a grave or unearth a dead body would be to violate their rights...

The issue about rights during life is not really debatable (at least not for me ) The issue though in death is- if you say we have rights in death, and that these rights extend to our bodies, you are in effect granting "rights" to an inanimate object. Does your TV have rights? Does your steak?

Fair enough, but why is Society required to respect or even consider the dead's parting wishes? Allowing the next of kin decide is merely allowing certain individuals to take into POSSENSION the dead body, it in effect becomes proerty of the next of kin- if that is the case, then again, Society can determine how that property is utilized- the same way society can decide certain areas need to be parks and certain places need to be homes.

If you are dead you have no rights- the situation you present deals with someone who is very much alive. If you are in a coma, does Society have a right to "pull the plug" if no one else can speak for you?

Not even close. I am suggesting that the LIVING have rights and the DEAD do not, as such, the bodies of the dead can be disposed of in any way that society deems fit, even if it goes against what the person wanted when they were alive.

Okay, say someone does deficate on my dead body, what do YOU think my response would be given that I am DEAD? Why would I care, I am dead. How would I voice my objection, I'm dead. I don't belive I have any serious problems BGD, I believe you however are letting your personal feelings cloud an otherwise rational discussion- look at your statements, it's just ridiculous to suggest that a dead person cares about what happens to their body- it is the living that care.

"respect", or what is considered respectful is subjective- you are actually stating that Society can do whatever it wants as long as it is "respectful". What if Society finds that there is only ONE way to dispose of a body that is respectful, yet you disagree with it?

Umm, just a guess, but the act of being ALIVE gives you rights. Being able to understand who you are, and who others are allows you to EXERCISE those rights.

Society is "the people"- society guraeente's "the people" their rights. When some of "the people" die, are they still part of Society? Are "dead people" still part of "the people"? If not, then where does a dead body derive "rights"? Society only includes "the people" which dead people are not a part of- if dead people are a part of "the people", why don't they get to vote? Shouldn't "dead people" have fair and equitable representation?

Silly.

Think it through.

Deconstruction dosen't disallow opinions, it only requires that we acknolwedge that no viewpoint is any more correct than any other viewpoint. I may not agree with you, but that dosen't make you "wrong" and it will never make me "right". So what's left is to understand how people arrive at their opinion, how they justify it to themselves- I voice a strong opinion specfically to understand others, and myself, better.

Take Bill for example, we have had some rather strong "discussions" where we both occupied some rather extreme positons (I am or course applying a value ). While I cannot agree with everything he has said, I find I can at least understand why he says it- where he is coming from so to speak.

To be fair, this tangent began when you started discussing Reason as a better substutite to Religion- I guess you could say I have a problem with you saying "better" and now I am asking you to justify your position...which has forced you to make me justify my own... I'm having fun, if nothign else. I want to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to flesh out some of my silent viewpoints. Thanks.

The EVIL of Deconstruction.....

And what shall we tell the parents of the extremists who extolled their son to sacrifice his life in the name of Allah? Tragedy aside, how we view events- wether we determine if actions perpetuated by another are good or bad, that is all subjective, and you have to know that. Is it wrong to kill? No. Is it wrong to kill without reason? yes. Did the people who committed 9/11 kill without reason? No. So then what was their reason? We view their actions though our prism of values- so we deem their "reasons" as irrational. But the point is, they made completely rational decisions- that determination is solely made by them- not by you, me, or a panel of appointed judges. You view certain behavior as irrational becuase the behavior does not fit into your personal value system, but  that in of itself does not make the behavior irrational- it only makes it irrational for you. Is polygomy rational? Is abortion? Is the death penalty? It depends on who is answering the question- either way you answer the question, it is not inherently more right, or more wrong than any other answer.

LOL!!! I don't think you can have an "extreme" point of view with deconstruction- extreme implies a value, and deconstruction is about avoiding the inherent values we place on things. Derrida is correct.

Let me clarify- when you place a value on a certain color- say white is "good", that implies that all colors not white are "not good". There is more to the philosphy, but this is what i am getting at for this discussion.

Why is child molestation bad? How do you derive this value? Would it still be "bad" if it was a right of passage? I am in no way condoning the practice- but when all is said and done, it is simply an action- neither good nor bad. For example, an asteroid hitting Mars is not a bad thing, is it? What about an asteroid that was aimed at Mars to hit a dome that people were living in? Is that bad? In both instances, the action- Mars being hit by an asteroid is exactly the same- yet one could be classified as "bad". Now lets say it is a dome full of convicted child abusers- is it now a "good" thing that mars was hit by an asteroid? WE create the value, it is therefor subjective, and meaningless.

Irrational behavior, as I understand it, is doing something without a reason. It is irrational behavior to kill yourself. It is rational behavior to kill yourself by throwing your body over a gernade to save your friends. Nothing you have cited is irrational in and of itself.

Nothing can be wrong- wrong is a value determined by comparing a thing to what is right- how do you knwo what is right? How is that determined? That determination is subjective, based on personal experience. That being said, there are such things as morals and standards and values, I do not deny any of that- however, all of those things are SUBJECTIVE, they are not objective truths. Is it right or wrong for people to conceive children out of wedlock? What do you base your verdict? Can others have differnt views? Who is right? Adolh Hitler and Mr. Rogers ARE completly equal, neither one is noble, neither one is horrible- each perpetuated a series of behavior and action that was justified at the time- WE interpret the behavior and apply OUR value system to it- but their actions are just that, actions. Abrham Lincoln was the greatest president or the worst president, depending on who you ask- the difference of opinion is the result of different value systems evaluating the actions. So how can anything truly be evil or good if it is all determined subjectively to begin with?

It is a philosphy- you see, you are placing a value on it as we speak. I actually like this point of view becuase it helps me see through some of my own limitations so I am better able to see, or try to see, other points of view. I grant you that it is much easier to just say "Hitler was evil" and be done with it- but the truth is that his actions are considered evil by many people based on shared values.

no, it dosen't- I think you misunderstand. It lowers no one. It elevates no one. It simply holds that evaluating something beyond what it is is applying your subjective experience and impuing it with the properties you see. You can describe their acts, you can describe their reasons- but that's it. Saying so and so is evil tells more about you, then their actions.

You do it yet again! You say this philosphy is wrong, what that implies is that a philosphy that allows us to favor one set of values over another is good.

Value systems are inherently equal- they are artifical and arbitrary, based in the rationale of our subjective experience- Deconstruction is the philosphical expression of this system of thought.

Voltaire's Reason is a set of values, which I and most people agree with- but those, if any, who disagree with those sets of values is no less right, and no more wrong than we are. To assume so is arrogant and presupposes knowledge that is simply unattainable.

Let me put it another way: If there is ONE good and right value system, then everybody would have it because it IS good and it IS right, and to avoid that value system would be an irrational behavior.

If we will always have our ideas of bad and good, dosen't that mean the determination of each is based on our personal and very subjective experience? I like your test,but all you have to do is ask them- people will tell you what they think is good and what is badl. However, there is no test really to determine if something IS good or something IS bad.

Measure "bad" for me Cindy, tell me how much it weighs.

Reason is predicated on Science, so demonstrate how Science can give an answer for something that cannot be measured.

That "stink' is only the dead and rotting corpses of the flawed philosphical thoughts that preceeded this paradigm.

So then objective truth is the result of similar subjective experience? By comparing our subjective experience, and noting the similarities, and the disparities, we are able to conclude what the "objective truth" or reality is?

So how do you know the difference between a shared mass delusion and the objective truth?

Religion dosen't change? Would you care to revise your statement given the overwhelming  historical evidence that demonstrates that religions CHANGE? Western Christianity is built upon two different versions of the same god- how can you credibly make your assertion?

No, religion does require proof, in the same way that science requires proof to validate it as a belief system. The criteria for what is considered proof is different betweent the two systems, but both require a measure (pun not intended) of faith in the accuracy of the belief system. Again, science in and of itself is the act of proving or disproving a hypothesis Cindy- that's it. It's an answer to one specfic question. Now you can take what you learn from one experiment and apply the learnings to PREDICT what SHOULD or MIGHT happen to construct your next hypothesis for science.

Lets look at the falling person scenerio- what is the hypothesis: If I fall one hundred stories, I will die (the null is that you will live). Science, in and of itself, does NOT tell you what will happen to you. Science will provide you the means to ANSWER your hypothesis once the experiment has run its course. At no time does Science provide you with a FACTUAL answer to your hypothesis- that is until after you have fallen. Now, you guessing, or predicting, or assuming- no matter how correctly, consistently, or accurately - based on previous facts provided by Science is YOU exercising YOUR PERSONAL FAITH in the system of Science. You are implicitly TRUSTING previous facts, you exercise FATIH in the validitty of science becuase it produces consistent results.

Look, FAITH, as I understand it, is assuming you know an answer without the facts or evidence to prove the answer. Prove to me before YOU jump off a 100 story building that you WILL die. You are assuming an answer (even if you may be correct...it is a 50/50) before you know- so what do YOU call that?

Probably not- and that conclusion is based entirely on my faith in the system of science that has previosly shown that electrical devices cannot derive enough power from pudding- however, I can't prove with any facts that MY computer WOULDN'T function unless I did put in the pudding.

No, becuase I have FAITH in the system of science that has shown that electricity, water, and humans together in one place can be a bad thing. I ASSUME that if I did such a thing, I would probably die. However, I have no evidence that demonstartes conclusively that "I" will die. Are you at least understanding what I am driving at here?

I would think that objective truth is the truth no matter what, irregardless of wether or not it is perceived, or by how many. The situation you describe is flawed becuase it relies on SHARED human perception in order to establish what the "objective truth" is- but it isn't- you are merely combining the general sensory input experience by most people- it is therefore subjective since its exsistence is defined by our shared experience. Sounds more like shared-subjective experiences- not objective truth. Case in point- if everyone thinks they see a flashing light, yet can find no tangible evidence, yet everyone agrees that they saw it,  then that becomes the "objective truth"- a flashing light that leaves no trace- however, that might be some mass delusion- or a small minority of people could know the "real" truth, which would be marginilized or labeled "crazy" by everybody else...

I said:

To which you replied:

No, it is NOT a matter of fact because YOU CAN'T PROVE YOUR HYPOTHESIS UNTILL I DIE. Everyday that I live is proof AGAINST your FAITH that I will die. If I never die, then what Cindy? It is a matter of fact that biological organisms die. It is a matter of fact that I am a biological organism. However, these facts can only be applied and used if I have faith in the system in which the facts were derived. These seperate facts also do not conclusively prove anything either- each of these facts are an answer to a seperate hypothesis. Thats all science can do- answer a yes or no question Cindy.

LOL- how trite. Couldn't you do better? Your statement, in of itself is not proof that you have a mind- it is proof that you can type though. If we are to rely solely on this flimsy piece of philosphical rhetoric, we would have to examine the opposite (null hypothesis)of this statement- "I do not think, therefor I am not". How exactly do you prove that something does not think? You prove the exsistence of mind by claiming you think- how do you measure "thinking"? How do you know something does think? What does thinking look like? How much does it weigh? Can it be quantified?

I notice you didn't even attempt to address my imagnation question.

Becuase of your apparent attitude regarding belief systems other than Science. I call it a high horse becuase you assume that your system is far superior to other belief systems without acknolweding that it is as valid as other religious belief systems- no better, no worse. You assume your faith is correct, and others are not- no matter how well reaoned or proven the track record of your belief system, it is still faith, and thus only as valid as any other belief system.

Some are, and when I meet them, I call them out too. It's like the Screaming Sermon people who yell at you for not believing what is so fundamentaly obvious and true to them- you are doing it too (not as bad, and much more skillfully)

No, science has given us the means to systematicaly ask and answer a single question. Our faith in the system that created the results allowed us to create all of those things you listed. I would like to add that Religion has given us literacy, education, history, philosphy, human rights, altruism, community, social cohesion, compassion, drive, awe, appreciation, order... I do not deny the contrabutions of Science, but you do a disservice to yourself by believing that Religion is the enemy. Religion is a tool- just like Science, which has been used throughout mankinds long history for ulterior motives.

Your turn, define it.

I do not deny the reality of jumping- however, my point was to differentiate between an article of faith and actual fact. Fact is evidence, in the situation you described, you would not have enough facts available to you to make a final conclusion on the result of your jump until AFTER you jump. You can claim all of the previous "facts" and experience you want, but the situation you provided was ultimetly one of faith- you had faith in your previous experience and knowledge- not fact. How can you know absolutely that something will happen to you until it happens? You can guess, you can surmise, you can hypothesize- all of which is taking your experience and applying it to the situation- at no time are you using ANY facts to PROVE your final statement (falling 100 stories, I will die) becuase the facts do not exsist yet. You have 'faith" in the system of laws that govern physics- the FACT that people do survive these types of falls only further prove my point- you don't know for sure until after it happens.

So what, right?

Now lets apply this thinking to the eternal after-life that is so popular with todays religions.
Believers have faith that when they pass on, they will meet their creator- they have no facts, becuase there is no means to provide facts (ie, something we can tangibly measure). The facts to validate their faith will not exsist until they meet their creator (If that is)- the same as your faith in the laws of physics will not be validated until you hit the ground and die.

You might counter with all of the "similar" evidence that coorborates your primary assumptions- well, many of the religous folk I have encountered have evidence that cooberates their primary evidence- maybe they call it a feeling- maybe a certain religious book- but they use that as means to further validate their faith. The problem between science and religion is just like most relationships- one of communication. Science is a language of measurement- if it can't be measured in some way, it simply cannot exsist in science. Religion begins where science ends- when measurements fail, what do you have left?

Here is a simple test: Do you have an imagination? Anyway you answer it, prove it. How do you measure "imagination"? How big is it? How small? Where does it reside? How do you know? Can it be combined, divided, stretched, shrunk, or boiled?

All science can provide us is that it is unable to tell us becuase it can't measure anything. We could say it therefore dosen't exsist, but that is merely avoiding the situation caused by a failure in the reliance of a limited belief system.

Science is a belief system- it is a belief in measurments, comparisons, and causality- but it is a belief (as well founded and rational as it may be). Your example once more, a person falling one-hundred stories- do they live or die? Science suggests that yes, a body falling at a certain velocity will die on impact- but look what you are REALLY saying- Previous experience, and applied knowledge suggests that we can reliably expect that the body falling at a certain velocity will die on impact. You are really saying you have faith in your previous experience's and/or knowledge, and that based on this, and your belief in the validity of the data, you expect to die if you fall one-hundred stories. But at no time do you have any tangible fact that proves that you will die- at least your death could be considered a sacrifice to prove the exsisitence of your belief system.

No, experience is subjective- understanding dosen't have to be. My experience is my own, just as yours is- neither experience is more valid or less valid- they are merely experiences. The problem arises when people start to place values on things- things have no value, they are inherently valueless- WE, through our experience, give them value, but that value is limited to only our little minds.

What exsists in this world that is "objective"? If we are stuck in our own minds, how can there ever be any objectivity? If we can be "tempered" by objectivity, that implies we can step outside our subjective world- but we exsist within our mind, so how can we do that?

No, that is a matter of faith. Where is your evidence that proves You, I, and everyone else who participates on this message board will die someday? You can show me how biological life-forms function, you can point out how EVRYONE else in recorded history is now dead- but you can offer me no tangible proof of your statement. It is a belief predicated on faith in the system of science (i'll grant it is hardly ever wrong, but that is not evidence nor is it fact).

Prove I have a mind (I know there are quite a few of you who have wondered that about me yourself). How do you measure a "mind"? You can weigh a brain- you can measure electrical activity between the synapses- but what the hell do you measure to prove you have a mind? If you can't prove it exsists, how do you know what happens to it?

The electrical activity in the neurons in my brain will someday stop assuming that historical precedent is followed, but you, nor I, have the slightest clue what happens to the "mind" (assuming of course there is one)

Now, the point of this diatribe, is simply, to knock one more Science-ist off their proverbial high-horse. Science is a belief system, just like religious belief systems. Now, that said, science is a pretty accurate belief system in my OPINION (what it says generally happens)- however, it is no better or worse than any other belief system- which is determined subjectively.

I believe we got started on this train of thought becuase of "Reason" which was the product of enlightenment- it was a secular belief system that was trying to undo the religious belief systems of the time by being what they were not- a means to measure and quantify "things". It's like my mention about a new government type- new governments, when they form, are not the BEST, it is simply a form of government that speaks to preventing or limiting the PREVIOUS perceived abuses. But it still quacks like a duck.

If you really prefer facts, then you can never know anything. Facts are mere measurements for a particular event or thing- once you use a "fact" to make an assumption or a prediction about another event, or similar event, or the exact same event, then it becomes faith in the system upon which you derived your facts- but you don't want faith...

Happy Headache.

If you could add my emal too the voltaire list, I would appreciate it.

Thank you Bill, if it means anything to you, you are one of the few on this board that I regard highly- even if we have disagreed from time to time.

All true Josh, however, what you are discussing is true independance, which is highly unlikely given the environmental constraints imposed by space. For TRUE independance, you must be able to provide all neccessary resources for the maintence of the individual, i.e. water, air, food, and shelter. ALL of these requirments must be MANUFACTURED. Nothing is free, which also means that POWER itself- energy, becomes a neccessary component for life. All of these manufactured resources are dependant upon high-end technology- you can't take a saw, a hammer, and a knife and go live off the land- you need semiconductors, micro-processors, heat sinks, special alloys, radiation resistant machinces, tempture restitant mateirals... the list goes on. All of which requires a high level of infrastructure just to build the tools neccessary to build the tools that will create the neccessary finsihed product. All of this infrastructue must be created there to withstand the extremes of Mars- we've had hundreds of thousands of years to learn how to live on Earth and get to the point we are now, it all starts over on Mars due to the environmental conditions.

Then there is the question of the neccessary infrastructure in order to obtain your "true independance" and the economic cost associated with it- you talk about effeciency- once again, how effecient is it to have a toilet paper factory on mars (you know what I mean, insert any high-tech gizmo if you prefer)? You have to build the machines, power the machines, operate the machines- all of which cost more becuase it all has to be created on an alien planet hostile to human life- then, with every reduction in launch costs, the effeciency of "doing it yourself" on mars makes less economical sense- it could develop that local mars products wouldn't be able to compete with terrestrial manufactured goods that are shipped in bulk becuase a bean-stalk on earth has made it easy to get into space.

Hermits are better people? This is subjective and it flies against human nature- we are social animals- and we are an ADVANCED society built on the idea of specialization which is allowed becuase we are able to build these interdependant communities.

In a nutshell, yes. This is actually the only realistic and practical reason for going into space- eventually we will convert most of our usable resources into energy, then heat- leaving us with very little. We feed until there is no more... just like the Sun.

Look at the situation you describe- a Middle East that DOESN'T need to trade- so then, they would own a valuable commodity which they have no need for, and for which we can offer them nothing whihc they might need. Exactly how are WE in control in this situation as a consumer? They have a product we need, but we can offer them nothing they don't already have- they can set any price since they don't have to sell it in the first place. Trade only works if you have something of value, which is ultimetly determined by the OTHER party in the trade.

So then you agree that State funded subsidy programs would be okay on mars to maintain those critical areas neccessary for independance- critical areas would be ANY industry and/or product that is neccessary for life to be maintained on mars. Looks like communism is the ONLY form of government that will work.

One person's irrational behavior is anothers legitimate means to express their will. It is subjective.

Deconstruction is a philosphical system of thought, the basic premise is that when you validate anything, you do so by exluding and invalidating everything else. If you say this is "good" it neccessarily implies that anything not exactly like that thing is "bad". In order to have a majority, you force the creation of a minority- in this case, deciding a certain behavior is irrational implies that there is other behavior that is completely rational- the act of which makes a subjective and artifical judgment seem to have more validity then it really has.

Would it be worthwhile to establish one?

No, that is all of it. America's preeminence in the world is the DIRECT result of our geographical location and the resources available here.

LOL, not trying to condescend, but I am begining to build some expectations from you- Maybe I take for granted certain information and reasoning that I belive you "should" understand- in this insatnce, understanding the role of governments and the role of resources in relation to the predominance of the US.

Impossible is a word to be used sparingly- impossible is only something that hasn't been done..yet.

I wonder what you state that the colonists should have independance on their mind, yet later you suggest that the colonists can expect that humans on earth will guareente that the Martians receive the neccessary items they need for survival- a seeming disparity.

And how did the inquisition begin? It was begun by King Phillip (Bill White will no doubt correct me if I am wrong) to reunite the Chrisitan faith back into the Catholic fold. It was about resources and control- to prevent the fragmentation of the catholic power base and King Phillip's kingdom as well. There was a lot to it, but resources, as always, was the real reason.

Yes, he does. He is calling for the establishment of a Caliph, an Islamic state. He is calling for the overthrow of the Saudi government, and he and his followers also call for preventing the distribution of oil to non-islamic states. You should try to see through the rehetoric- it's like saying we went to save Kuwait in Desert Storm... it was, is, and continues to be about resources, even if our leaders say it's for democracy and freedom- you see, people in power use the instutions (ideas and beliefs) that will unite the will of individuals to overcome others.

No, there is more to it, and you should educate yourself. "Terroists" stepped foot on our soil and now we feel justified in killing and destroying anyone anywhere- it's all a matter of perspective Cindy.

I feel this way about anyone who thinks that Mars is the end all be all of the "fronteir"- it neccessarily implies that everything else is somehow less, and I am unwilling to accept that. It's fine to claim that Mars is great, but you must also allow that there are other opportunites of similar magnitude available here on Earth- if you don't, then you are implicity stating that everyone else that disagree's with your point of view is wrong.

Just selfish motives really- but the real reason is that it pushes the boundaries of humanities reach. Eventually the current nations of the world will fail. Eventually we will descend into the abyss, like we have in the historical past, and we will once again have to relearn how to obtain our previous glory- I for one would like to see how far we can reach before we fall again- and I think Mars is a nice goal. However, I am willing to admit that my desire is not grounded in what is practical, and that it is also no more valid or "right" than the Amish who think going back to simpler times is the answer.

It's the difference between a person and a fanatic- a fanatic only belives their personal truth, a person believes their personal truth, but accepts it as such. Many people (present compant excluded) deal with the issue of exploration of Mars like fanatics.

Josh, America revolted becuase of a lack of responsiveness from King George- if they had been represented, history might have been different. My impression of pioneers was that they merely wanted to start a new life in a land full of opportunity- independance, I belive, was not the reasomn people left everything and everyone they knew.

This is begining to become a debate about history... I wonder how you reconcile your statement with the historical fact that America desperatly needed France's aid in order to make "independance" work.

A tradition of learning to breath in vacum... marvolous.

So then, according to this argument, most of the industrial world is not independant. Mars will never be independant becuase the basic neccessities of life, that allow for a person to survive and be "independant", require a large technological  infrastructure, with the manufactured and finished goods neccessary to survive precariously perched at the top. It's a house of cards to easily knocked down- any independance is illusionary.

Take a major metroploitan city for example: It can only be independant and sustainable if the neccessary infrastructure it relies on is operating- if you destory or limit the transportaion system in any way, you affect the ability of the city ot remain independant- denial of trucks prevents medicine and food- people now die- prevention of oil or other power sources on Mars would be even worse. I suppose you could be independant on mars, but it would be so precarious as to really be questionable.

OR, they will simply be what they were before they had such a valuable resource... there was life before the West.

A matter of perspective- you are judging other cultures by placing certain values derived from your own culture, and stating that these other cultures are deffecient- that is an arrogant attitude, no?

And what of "independance" if some of the neccessary resources are missing from mars?

My stance is what is reasonable and makes sense- so if you provide me a good argument, or a good point, I will change my views to accomdate it. Only a fool does not look at what is offered him. I'm surprised you ask me this, after all, you're one of the few people who have been able to make me reconsider certain beliefs I had.

It would be nice to belive that humanity would do this, however, history says otherwise. Look to Iraq- millions of children are dying due to the embargo, how many americans have "rioted" in the streets? Justifications aside, it is a similar situation to the hypothetical Mars scenerio, and it dosen't play out.

Base it on precedent and I will convert, otherwise, you shouln't be so optimitic (dangit).

No, but then I am an idealist at heart.

These are philosphical stances- it's like me asking you if you have any objections to the tenets of the Ten Commandments.

However, the devil is in the details- and the question now falls to how we should do this, when we should do this, who should do this, is it feasible, is it prudent at this point in time, are humans on mars neccessary at this time, when would be the appropriate time, will it provide the results we are looking for, how will it provide the results we are looking for, etc.

I try to look criticaly at the proposals or ideas that are offered, I assume that is what others want, becuase how else can you improve?

I hear you Josh, however the problem arises that the Mars Society, and the members themselves are urging for COLONIZATION of Mars. As you have pointed out, Mars Direct is a scientific endeavour completely seperated from the issue of colonization.

Now if this is an issue of solely scientific endeavour, then yes, we can learn a great deal by having humans on Mars- but there is NO urgency for such a thing. We can plod along for the next 50 years and still do an amzaing amount of worthwhile science- and in 50 years, who knows where robotics will be, further reducing the neccessity of having humans in space.

The issue of Mars Direct needs to be sperated from the issue of colonization, but in doing so, you eliminate any urgency for sending humans.

Clark the unbearable doom and gloom sayer speaks again... 

Let me clarify to all those who have declared that I am the nay-sayer for Manned Missions to Mars. I support whole-heartdly the desire, dream, and goal of getting SOMEONE to Mars.

Where I differ with the Zubrin sycophants is that I want to be honest and truthful in the means, and reasons for going to Mars. My "negative" comments are not negative- they are legitimate critques of what I preceive to be half-thoughts and out-right lies. In other words, I am taking nothing at face value.

Show me the economic model that makes Mars work. It dosen't currently exsist.
Explain to me how you can plan for a long duration space mission without an effective plan for dealing with the radiation, bone loss, and muscle deteroroation of such a journey.
Show me the working plans for a space-ship with artifical gravity (the only currently availabel solution to health problems for long term micro-g).
Explain to me how such a ship will be developed, tested, and constructed within the "10 year" time frame.
Please explain HOW we will be able to overcome the politcal hurdles that prevent much of the neccessary technology we need for a viable long term Mars program ie nuclear power in space).
Please demonstrate conclusively the importance of colonizing mars for politcal freedoms when such freedom are available here on Earth.

I WANT mars, but I am detached enough to realize that this is a desire not largely grounded in "practicality". I UNDERSTAND that it is MY position to convince others that do not share my DESIRE to understand why the DESIRE should superceed the impracticality of the whole endeavour. The Mars Society, and ANYONE who presents the goal as practical does a disservice to the Goal- namely, they are trying to fool others.

The reason I play devils advocate is that I want legitimate reasons, not desire disguised as flimsy reasons. mars Direct is a suuicide mission, so be up front about it. DECLARE it as such. Mars makes no economic sense- ADMIT that immediately. There needs to be further research into specfic technologies to make a practical manned mission to mars viable and sustainable- BE HONEST about it.

Admit the flaws, and say, irregardless, it is in our best interest as a Society to overcome these hurdles and make it make sense.

An argument to do something that has never been done becuase it has not been possible, until now- is honest and more convincing than an argument built on half-truths.

There are 6.9 billion people in the world, mental collapse is not all that great given the numbers. It just seems like there are more crazies because of our ability to focus onn these individuals- communications being what they are allow us to artifically inflate the problem.

5,000 people a year die in truck-car related crashes in California- not all that much copared to the number of drivers- but each of those 5,000 is a story which can be told to make it seem like a larger issue. Human beings, by and large, are resiliant and self-correcting. The mind generally "snaps" when it is unable to cope with a certain situation- it "snaps" in order to preserve a system for continuing biological functions.