New Mars Forums

Actually, just to clarify, the suggestion for removal and storage of reproductive parts is more in terms of providing alternatives for the astronauts once they return from a very long trip with large amounts of radiation.

The suggestions for looking for women with hysterectomies was also taking practical limitations of any long duration space mission. The worry is not about unwanted pregancy- this is a virtiual impossibility since no fetus can develp well enough in zero-g, who knows about micro-g. Furthermore, even if the baby could come to term, it would be almost impossible to bring the baby into normal g.

Women with hysterectomies will not have to worry about menstrual cycles, and I believe they have lower incidences of certain cancers- something that should be carefully considered.

While I think the refrence to replacing the heart was made in jest, it really is an impractical idea since a replacement would be faultier than the original.

I think as a matter of course all Mars astronauts should have their appendix's removed. Both men and women should also have parts of their reproductive systems saved for latter use as well. Women with hysterectomies would be more ideal than without. It might also be wise to remove tonsils.

It's a very brutal way to treat humans, but it is practical. Maybe save on some mass and weight...

Any other parts we can do with out?

Good suggestion regarding the background info. However, I wonder if the issue of "isolation" might be a bit exagerated. Conceivably any space mission would have a pretty sophisticated computer and communication array- they would in effect be the most well connected isolated people in space.

Email, radio transmissions, video feeds, internet access- the whole works could be provided to them. There will more than likely be several people going together, so they won't be completely alone- I would actually thinnk we have more to fear from a lack of personal space than from isolation.

Excellent, thank you all for your points of view.

Let me preface that Rosseau is discussing the "ideal", which I am sure you are aware of. It seems you have presented two seperate, but related questions. First, there can only be two avenues for action when it comes to the expression of the General Will, that is, either the General Will is represented, or it is not. In those instances where the government acts contrary to the General Will, the Social Compact has been violated and has been usurped by individual or group self interest within Society. It is then no longer considered an Act, but a Decree, which holds no power to compel us within Society. An individual within Society can "know" wether or not a politcal leader is acting consistent with the General Will by assessing the Acts which they execute in the name of the General Will. If the Acts are not applied equally, and uniformally, or serve the best interests of Society, then it is a Decree. Where the problems arise is in the means used to Execute the Will of the people. The farther removed the people are from direct control over the discussion, creation, and enforcing of the Laws, the greater the possibility and role of self-interest in determing what might be the General Will. The only true way the General Will can be known is for everyone to express their view. Do I still need to answer the second part?

There can be no such thing as a faction within Society. The Social Compact is between individuals- the dilema you have presented is another mini-social compact between individuals within the same Society- in this instance the General Will can no longer be expressed since the factions are expressing their particular intrest, and not Societiy's as a whole. Individuals can hold different opinions, which is motivated by their own self-interest- this is good. However, a group within Society has it's own self-interest, and when it uses the individuals within it to leverage more influence within the overall Society, it is no longer equitable.

They are BOTH usurpers of the General Will, the same way that the politcal party system in America usurps the will of the people- they twist it to represent the will of the party. This is actually why I suggested earlier to limit politcal association in such a way as to prevent politcal groups, but foster dissemenation of information for individuals to understand issues.

The General Will on this issue has never been directly addressed at the Federal level- it's left in legal ambiguity for a reason. The unique thing about this issue though is that Rosseau suggests that the best way to monitor the progress of a Society is to look at birth rates.

I don't know what God favors, do you? As for the General Will, it does not favor anything save itself. The General Will is a disembodied representation of every individuals personal Will. It cannot favor anything, becuase to do so is to place everything else at a disadvantage, and thus would be unequal- the General Will by defintion can never be unequal.

A valid point, yet the same can be said for religous texts. Again, the idea is that there can be only two options, either the General Will is expressed, or it is not. When it is not, then the individuals are acting against Society and should be punished in the extreme (death penalty for corruption is not such a bad idea since corruption implies that an individual is placing their own self interest before the interest of Society, upon whom we ALL derive our rights). The basic agreement for the Social Compact is that we abide by the General Will in exchange that everyone else will- at no time did any of us agree to abide by the will of one individual- such an arangment is merely slavery.

Which is an argument against certain forms (government types) of the Expression of the General Will.  Society is allowed to use physical force against those who do not comply with the General Will, since they are breaking the Social Compact by not complying.

Wisdom.

"dissent" would be disagreement with the decision of the General will.

Individuals can disagree,  but they cannot disagree from the General Will. To do so would violate the basic foundation of the Social Compact, which as I understand it, is that those in a Society agree to abide by the decisions of the General Will.

Not exactly. "Majority rule" as I understand it is implying a sub-group exsisting within Society- it would be in this instance that the decisions made by the "majority rule" would be motivated out of that groups self-interest, and not Societies interest as a whole. The General Will is synonymous with the idea of the majority of like minded individuals reaching their own conclusions based on their own self interest and not influenced by any other special interest. Groups lead to the destruction of the Social Compact- that's the whole point of the Judical branch, to combat the effect of group intrests within Society corrupting the General Will.

No, that is not equitable, and therfore it is an illegal action which has no basis within the Social Compact or the General Will. The General Will cannot be particular in its application and treatment of individuals within Society, to do so is to create inequality, which again leads to a master-slave relationship.

Rosseau deals with this question directly in the Social Compact- If the General Will declares that some within Society must go forth to protect the Society then you have no choice but to obey the decision- that is the agreement of the Social Compact (ie following the General Will). If it not the expression of the General Will, but the expression of self-interest on the part of the leaders, then it is illegal and you are not required to obey. And if it is discovered that such an action was perpetrated for self-interest and not the intrest of Society, those people responsible should be shot.

A very valid point and a sentiment I share, however, Rosseau also addresses this by stating that the General Will can never make the wrong decision. In those instance where it seems it might, it is due only to the information presented to it. This is yet another reason why I suggested the dissolution of politcal affiliation, and an establishment of some means to distribute factual and unopionanted information.

You may legitametly dissent from any Act that is unlawful, becuase in those instance you are not bound by the Social Compact- you are actually compelled to ignore. There is no such thing as "minority" within Society- if there was, it would again imply that there is a sub group within society with it's own seperate self-interest. There are only individuals with their own self-interest, each with their own point of view- calling anything minority or majority is merely a means to artificaly lump individuals together based on a set criteria and determine who has more people.

Yet both books offer us insight into the corruption of the General Will, not the application of it. In both instances a group forms within society that uses it's position to utilize the General Will to execute their own self interest. How does this temper Rosseau?

True, but Rosseau isn't really arguing for or against a type of government- he is discussing the basis of Society. Every Society is free to choose how it wishes to express it's General Will. All governments are equal, they are merely a means to express the will of the people- some forms avoid certain pitfalls associated with other forms, and vice versa. It's like choosing a car to drive- they all will get you to a destination, but each different car provides a different ride.

Jar Jar is in it, and is responsible for handing over the Republic to the Emperor. If Lucas continues this uninspired crap fest in the same vein, you will see Jar Jar in the next movie as well- however, he will redeem himself in some measurable way- my bet is that Jar jar will be responsible for saving Luke/Leigh in some way.

Lucas likes the "arc"- look up the hero's journey for a better appreciation. If you view the character of Luke in the first movies, you will see the arc over all three films (as well as within each film). This is true for almost all of the characters within the original movies, and it seems to be developing that way for the new ones. Jar Jar started off badly, but by the end of Phantom he had bumbled his way to success- read a complete arc. In the second one he has only a minor part that is responsible for the entire story- so in a sense he has a fall from grace which places the character of Jar Jar in a state of imbalance- which will be restored only by ensuring that he does somethign that will restore the balance- saving the kids who overthrow the Empire goes alonmg way towards this goal.

No relief in sight I'm afraid.

In what way would it be emotionally good? Why is it so neccessary?

What is the difference? Why should the role of executive be determined by heredity? What sense is there in this? Just becuase one man is good does not mean their children will be good, or better- yet that is what we must expect from a Monarcgy, in any form. A Monarchy is also a statement that certain individuals are chosen by God to rule over Us- how can you establish a seperation of church and state if the executive power is established by a mandate from God?

And I am merely asking you to justify this stance and this belief. I am hoping to learn, not neccessarily teach.

Why? As long as a monarch maintains a hold on enough neccessary physical force to maintain his rule, the wishes of the general population are meaningless. Look at Cuba- Castro maintains control through the monopoly of control over force- he only has to answer to those individuals he is dependant upon that gurantee his position. In the monarchy system, the ruler needs only fear the general population, which can be controlled through repression- the monarch is not accountable since he gets to choose when and how he acts, yet the people have only two choices- revolt or live with the dictates. Why would you want to reduce your options from many, to only two?

Yes, look at Le Pen. Imagine him as a Monarch- yet in the democracy his rule is prevented peacefully by allowing the Public to decide. If he was a prince an heir apparent, there would be nothing the public could do to voice it's dissent other than open rebellion. How can we progress as a society with internal conflict like this?

That is due to the resources located within the country, and not a direct product of the form of government.

Even uneducated individuals know what they need. What level of education bestows the neccessary wisdom to make decisions for other people you don't know?An individual generally knows what is best for their particular circumstances- do you contend that people do not know what is best for themselves, and there are those who do not know them, are inherently better suited to make the decisions for them? Uneducated does not mean dumb.

Actually, in the USA, you can be a prostutie- if you live in Nevada. As for what you are trying to demonstrate, you are missing the point- a job denied to everyone is equality- no one gets preferential treatment. Why do you think there is such a debate on allowing gays or women to serve in the front lines? denying them access based on arbitray and artifical reasons is inequitbale, and thus unfair.

No, in a monarchy, the peasants are the servants of the master- all that they possess belong to the master. If the master decides to take any of their property, who can they protest to? The very person that can legally take ownership of their possesions is also the person who will decide if it is legitimate. In a democracy, if an executive proceeded in the same manner, the people are allowed to turn to other parties to settle the legality of the action- they are not forced to rely on the same person as is the case of a Monarchy.

No, it is not the same thing. Buying the title was a means to expand opportunities which are denied those without titles- a mansion confers no such advantages. In order to move up the class scale, a title HAD to be purchased- otherwise, you would forever be relgated to the lower echelons of society. In a democracy however this just isn't the case- by exceling at whatever you do, you can attain status- which is not related to the amount of money you aquire.

You are correct, congress is not all people- that's why America is NOT a democracy. It NEVER has been a democracy other than at the local level, and only occasionaly. The USA is a Republic- if you look at my previous post, you will notice I made a differentiation- I did so for a reason. I also pointed out that our government is held accountable and that we are ALL able to voice are dissent in a peaceful way. When they make bad laws, we can change them without having to revolt- this is not true with the Monarchy system you have advocated for.

No, they were tolerated at the King's conveniance. If the King decides there will be no demonstration, for whatever reason, there willbe no demonstration. That is the kind of power you give one individual. Why allow yourself to be ruled by the whims of one person?

So only those revolutions that are capable of overcoming a tyrant are good ones? Otherwise, hey, it's not a problem.

You are wrong. Even the titled nobility were beholden to the Czar- they were still slaves. Just becuase they were higher up in the social hierarchy dosen't change the fact that the King could make or break them dependant upon his mood. The Jews who acted as police in the Jewish concentration camps were prisoners just like the rest- just becuase they got to order around other people within the jails, they were still not free.

A CRASH program to Mars? LOL

I wonder if the people on the Titanic had a "sinking" feeling bfore the ship went down...

Voyager?  Lol, what a piece of crap that was. I never could get over the idea that it was merely "Gilligans Island" in space. Look at our intrepid explorers, marroned in a distant part of the galaxy- will they ever get home? Voayger failed for me becuase it had bad acting, and the stories were underdeveloped and underwhelming. The whole idea of Star Trek is to go FORWARD , not back. Voyger just had the wrong perspective.

And Diana Troy on STNG is a worthless character. Half the time she "senses" nothing when she is supposed ot, the other half of the time she senses everything that is already painfully apparent to everyone else.

Farscape is a great show... unfortunetly i fell out of dedicated viewing in the middle of second season- looking at it now, I'm just lost. It's like trying to pick up X-files in the 8th season- too much has happened between the characters- I miss half the show in the subtext of character interaction and response to situations.

Men in Black was a fun SF movie- as well as Independance Day.

I saw star wars over the weekend- let me say, piece o krap. Great visuals. Great ideas. Great scenes with Jedi's fighting to the death in a gaint war scene- story- unimagintive and trite. Characters, uninspired and wandering- romatic subplot- painful to watch and all over the map. The movie is good eye candy, and the battles scenes are what made the the movie worthwhile- however, the rest of the movie (the other 2 hours) is filler.

I'm watching the seasons as they are released on DVD- I haven't seen them since their original air date, and I didn't see a lot of the later seasons.

So far, I've liked Measure of a Man (Data is considered property, but Picard defends him in court) on season 2.

Hotel Royale was a good one two (season 2) Wharf, Data, and Riker trapped in an alien created hotel basedon a bad pulp story from the 20th century- it was on a planet of methnae gas.

There were a couple others from season 2 that I liked, but the names escape me.

Any of the episodes with Q are good as well.

Any with Diana Troy as the major actor tend to suck- just my 3 cents.

You?

Are you aware of any evidence that would make this general assumption invalid?

And then again, we may not. Aren't you really trying to exchange one assumption for another?

Great idea. I checked the website, and you know what, you lost me at the "requirement" for graduation was to go on a spacewalk. I agree with the lofty goal of discovering that spiritual connection...blah, blah, blah. However, the fact of the matter is that it is an act of the State requiring a particular behavior to teach a certain philosphy or belief- it is wrong to do this.

It also asscoiates the act of a space walk with a "requirement" to get something that is economicaly neccessary today, or even for post-graduate studies. Why not change the emphasis from one of cumpulsorary behavior to one of reward? Allow the OPPORTUNITY for a trip to space for academic excellence- it changes the emphasis and makes the act of visiting space a reward, not a punishment.

What's wrong with those people who do not want to go on a space walk? Nothing. Yet the system advocated on that website PUNISHES those who wish to not space walk.

I like space, but I recognize there are those who do not- neither one of us is correct, neither is wrong. We should ALL be wary of ANY ideas that take away choices from us.

There is NO track record for sending a human to another planet. There is no track record for capital investment into technolgies without a promise of a return on investment.

Here is the situation:

You can go to Mars in ten years if you begin a crash course in research and development. Not only will there need to be sufficient progress in all the show-stopper technologies (ie dealing with long term zero-g or mini-g exsposure, bio-regeneration, man rated interplanetary space ship, aero-braking, automated off-site fuel production, etc.) Now, having all the technology and just having to build the ship after the tech has been developed, that's one thing- but that is not where you would be operating from.

You need intial capital to invest in the neccessary tech gaps to make the Mars mission safe and practical. Now, there is no guareente that any of the technology will be, or can be created- it's an unknown, so it is a BIG risk, since any delay in the development of the tech ultimetly delays the final mission. So you will have to require that people invest in this idea with no promise of actually delivering the Mission.

Now lets say we have the tech- okay, there is still the risk inherent of launching all components of the mars mission- any loss of material is a loss of critical infrastruture neccessary to complete the mission. This is in addition to the risk of developing the tech, now we also have to worry about getting the ship into launch position in orbit.

There is the risk asscoiated with the ship sitting in orbit as it is being constructed- sure you can mitigate this, but again, it is an unknown, and a risk- all of this risk beofre you haven even fired the engine.

Then there is the trip to Mars
Then there is landing on Mars
Then there is returning from mars

The media rights don't kick in until you have something to sell- ie, an actual Mars mission- and even then there is no guareentee you would get the neccessary subscriber base to create some of the numbers mentioned.

I know, Ranoke.