New Mars Forums

Clark:  "Sounds like arrogance."

*You're entitled to your opinion. 

Clark:  "WHICH opinions and viewpoints are of equal worth or merit? Which opinions and viewpoints are more valid, which less valid? What makes them so? How do you know? What is the criteria? What is the criteria based on?"

*What result will they have?  What sort of fruit will they bear?  What is the purpose/motivation/intention/aim/agenda behind them?  Are they destructive or constructive in nature?

Clark:  "If some views are worth "more", that neccessarily means others are worth "less"- how can someone be ENTITLED to a lesser opinion? How can someone's viewpoint, or belief, be LESS than something else?"

*I simply said everyone is entitled to their opinions and viewpoints, and that not all of them are of equal worth or merit.  How can someone be entitled to a lesser opinion?  Look at Germany circa 1946.  What sort of fruit did Hitler's ideas ultimately bear?  Look to history, Clark.

--Cindy

*I think it's a marvellous idea, and I'll consider doing it.

I wish the Mars Society would draw up and publish a pamphlet, based on "The Case for Mars."  It could be, say, a 7-page booklet with the basics outlined as concisely but fully as possible, a few illustrations, the org's web site address, etc.  These could be purchased in bulk by Mars Society members and distributed.  It would just very handy if, say, someone sitting beside you on the airplane trip expressed interest [perhaps you're reading Zubrin's book or reading at the MS -- or related -- web site/message boards on your laptop]; simply ask if they'd like a pamphlet explaining more, and give it to them if they answer yes.  These pamphlets would also be easier, and more affordable to many people, to mail to governmental officials.

Just a thought. 

--Cindy

Clark:  Okay, so you are equating the lack of rights for dead people with the lack of rights of certain oppresed people... Do you see where this is going? Shall we make the next step towards including dead people in society so that we finally have a just and fair society?! This is absurd.

*You apparently keep missing my point, that being the LIVE person has a right to funerary requests.

Clark:  "Accepting that everyone is EQUALLY correct in their views allows for the respect of others and allows for self-determination"

*Not everyone's opinions and viewpoints are of equal worth or merit.  They are entitled to their views, however.

Clark:  "- instead  of forcing some supposed absolute beliefs on those who might differ in opinion."

*You are misinterpreting using philosophical Reason as being synonymous with/advocating "forcing" someone to believe differently.  Denis Diderot was right when he said it is NOT the philosophers who have murdered, tyrannized, and punished persons who disagreed with them, but the religious establishment which has.  I'm all for freedom of thought, opinion, etc., etc.  However, not all views/opinions are of equal worth or merit; however, everyone is entitled to theirs.

Clark:  "Before you quote the Nazi experience you should see how it DEMONSTRATES my point- the Nazi had a belief system they thought was correct- that they forced on other people. If there was a simple philosphy and/or acceptance that beliefs and values are subjective, then it would be less likely things like that would happen."

*There's a huge difference between blind fanaticism [the Nazis] and utilizing Reason as a guide to recognizing Naziism as the monstrocity and fanaticism that it was.

Clark:  "Question Cindy, did Voltaire ever figure out what was absolutely good or absolutely bad?"

*He definitely had his ideas of what good and bad were.  He also encouraged his readers to keep in mind "how little it is we really know."  Have you ever READ Voltaire, Clark?  Do you have an idea of him as being a one-dimensional sort of character?  He wasn't.  Have you ever read Ayn Rand?  Or do you simply read -- and prefer to read -- what panders to your viewpoints and opinions?  I've been all over the spectrum of thought.  I've read and studied Nietzsche, Anton LaVey, Timothy Leary [yeah, the "LSD guru"], Dr. John Lilly [the first man to jump into a sensory-deprivation tank while on LSD...his experiences provided the basis for the movie "Altered States," and he's written books as well],  Robert Anton Wilson, Carlos Castenada [I recommend his book _Journey to Ixtlan_ especially; there's a lot of wisdom in that book]  -- people very different from Rand and Voltaire.  I've challenged myself to take into consideration drastically differing points of view, from personalities and lifestyles radically different from one another.  A year ago I began reading Voltaire and other 18th-century philosophers...and I found myself identifying, in great part, with what they had to say.  However, I continue to read and expose myself to differing points of view.  I've learned a lot from Voltaire.  I've also learned from -- and incorporated into my life -- some of the sentiments of Lilly, Wilson, and etc.  I'll read ::anything:: which tweaks my interest.  Are you willing to do the same?  Have you?  Some of the most self-proclaimed liberal people I've known turned out, in their own way, to have their own peculiar brand of dogmatic and dead-end/self-pandering ideas.

Clark:  "What makes an action good or bad Cindy?"

*Motive and intent.

Clark:  It's perspective- the man who gets shot thinks it is bad, and it is becuase now he is dead (and no longer has rights!  )But the person I saved thinks it is good.

The example you give, the nazi- lets say they did that but found some medical info out that saves 100,000,000 starving babies- to the babies and the family, this one action is good- yet we hold that it is bad- so which is it? It's neither- it is an action which we apply meaning to in order to understand it.

*Is forcible rape neither wrong nor right?

--Cindy

Phobos:  "I think Star Trek the Motion Picture presents an interesting idea.  If you did create an A.I. life form then sent it out without it having knowledge of its origin, would it get curious as to who created it and attempt to find its creator?  And would it view its creator with reverence? Or would it do like we do and just create some god in it's own image?   

*Maybe it would never occur to the A.I. to try and figure out who created it.  Perhaps the lack of this trait in the A.I. would distinguish it from homo sapiens.  Interesting questions you ask.

Phobos:  "As for Voyager, it's not *quite* out of the Solar System yet...So it's still ticking, hopefully it won't come back and nuke us with big balls of lightning."

*LOL!

Phobos:  I think A.I. will far surpass anything we can achieve with genetic engineering.  Fairly recently Stephen Hawkings said that we need to genetically engineer ourselves to compete with future advances in computers...

*Erm...I wonder if he truly feels this way about it, or if he's merely echoing a trend?  Probably the former, considering the debilitating disease he suffers from, i.e. wishing to eradicate --or at least alleviate to a great degree -- disease and human suffering.  What's interesting is that Benjamin Franklin wrote to a friend his anticipation of perfecting mankind.  He ran the risk of being branded a crackpot for saying, in the 1700's, that perhaps one day science would lead mankind permanently away from disease -- and perhaps even death.  He also said he regretted having been born so soon, for he anticipated further great advances in science, technology, machinery, etc.

Phobos:  "The absolute best episode of all the Star Treks is the one where Kirk finds a perfectly harmonious society where there's no death, no fighting, plenty of food for everyone, and then turns them into raving, murderous lunatics after he destroys their god Val.  Then for Kirk to have the nerve at the end of the movie to basically tell Spock, "well we fixed them, now they'll have to rely on themselves!"  So much for the prime directive."

*Aw, but Captain Kirk was so cute and adorable, Starfleet Command let him get away with it...didn't they?  Heck, they even let him get away with actually going against command and temporarily "borrowing" the Enterprise!  Yes, when you've got a handsome face and a cute derriere, you can get away with just about anything 

--Cindy

*I couldn't agree more.  Unfortunately, many humans have a tendency to quickly slap a label onto others, and thereby lump each other into "categories," many of which have assumptions as broad as the Grand Canyon; it's a convenient cop-out for folks who don't want to take the time to THINK THROUGH what the other person is saying, much less give the other person the benefit of the doubt that they may actually have something worthy of further investigation and consideration in what they're saying/proposing.  Labelling also has the unfortunate [but very real tendency, in my experience] to promote "guilt by association"  -- or, as is often the case, SUPPOSED association.

It's not fair to assume all environmentalists are fanatics who tear their hair out when anyone so much as accidentally steps on ant hill.

Yeah, the Mars Society needs to carefully define itself in this manner, and try to draw in support from the more reasonable and moderate sectors of the environmentalist sector.

--Cindy

*I've read [before I began reading Voltaire...I'll get to him in a minute] The Tao of Pooh, The Te of Piglet, The Way of Chuang Tzu, and various writings of Bruce Lee dealing with Taoism.

I don't consider Taoism as mystical, any more than grass, a rock, or my body is mystical.  They simply ARE -- the evidence for them is there; they exist.

That's my understanding of Taoism -- it is knowledge/consciousness of existence.  It is knowledge/awareness of interconnectedness, individuality, and relatedness.  It is the philosophy of Life.

By the way, Voltaire had very high regard for this sort of Eastern philosophical thought; he does not give it a name [maybe not having known what it was called], but he was a Deist -- and the way he relates his knowledge of Eastern philosophy sounds very much to me like Taoism.  I think Voltaire could easily have equated his Deism with Taoism...but, of course, I cannot speak for him and I'm not attempting to; I'm just relating my impressions gathered from his writings.

Also, mystics have derided rationalists too.  It's worked both ways.

--Cindy

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

*Please tell me where a dead body ::doesn't:: deserve rights...particularly when the dead body was alive and that person made specific funerary requests [i.e. cremation with scattering of ashes versus burial versus whatever else] during life in preparation for death.

Clark:  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?

*There's a difference between monkeys and humans...usually, anyway. 

Me:  IMO, this entire matter is, for humans, an ethical one.  Start screwing around with respect for the dead and related issues, and watch a society's standards sink.

Clark:  I'm sure we could expect nothing less from a student of Voltaire...

*Thank you!    Yes, I'm a student of Voltaire.  I profoundly respect and admire the man; he's my hero. 

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

*I can't give you that proof, sorry.  I think I can, however, give an example of what may constitute proof:  Nazi Germany.  Nazi propaganda and its belief system felt retarded people had no rights [a Nazi might ask an non-Nazi ethicist where's the proof retarded people have rights?]; crippled/disabled people had no rights; elderly people are "weak," therefore more "useless," and Nazi thugs therefore felt justified in beating up elderly people on the street...Or we can take the example of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and their deplorable treatment of women [a Taliban member might ask a non-Taliban ethicist where's the proof women should have rights?].

To me, the issue at stake here is an ethical one.  How a society of people treats its dead, elderly, and weaker members is an indication of its benevolence and humaneness or its brutality and harshness.  Once the "green light" is given to disrespecting those who cannot speak for themselves -- or can no longer speak for themselves -- further [higher] levels of disrespect will follow.  Many individuals follow "the lead" of society [the proof of that is well documented in history, i.e. the Nazi movement, for one], and react to the signals given in their society; thus, if the bar of tolerance, respect, and benevolence is set higher, people will generally respond in like fashion...and vice versa, should the bar be set lower.  I believe the patterns and examples from history bear me out on this.

--Cindy

*And that's assuming there are other intelligent entities "out there" who can -- and just may -- judge whether or not homo sapiens is an "advanced-intelligence" species. 

--Cindy

*Well, in that event, the multi-tentacled entity will find plenty of competition already here!  Actually, that could be ::the key:: in it leaving Earth! 

--Cindy

*Hmmmm.  It doesn't seem to me that so many people are interested in terraforming Mars...if we're speaking of people ::outside:: of the Mars Society and related organizations.

As regards Mars, I say "go for broke." 

Mars is our best "proving ground" to the next stepping stone in crossing the cosmic creek -- let's go all-out, try and terraform as best we can, do as much as we can in every respect, etc.  This will, IMO, create a more confident humanity, which can then better able reach out further. 

We don't run before we learn to walk.

--Cindy

*I see your point, and understand where you are coming from.  However, the mindset of the public [in the USA] after Apollo 15 was pretty much, "How many more times are they going to send astronauts to the moon?  Just to putt another golf ball or something?"

I have highlights from Apollo 11, 13, and 17 on videotape.  The first time I watched it, a few years ago, I got an eerie, sinking feeling in my stomach as I watched the astronaut in the moon buggy waving for the camera; it seemed like a wave goodbye. 

Shame on me for not remembering the name of the last astronaut on the moon [I can see his face from that time, but can't remember his name]; he said something to the effect of, "I don't like being referred to as 'the last man on the moon;' I hope I'm NOT the last man on the moon."

The public had grown tired of the Apollo gigs, and felt going back a redundant waste of taxpayer money.  I remember, as a kid, the little debates people in my hometown had about it.  This was also the era, in the USA, of the Watergate scandal and the ongoing Vietnam war.  As an adult, I've become amazed that the USA put men on the moon during Vietnam; however, Watergate definitely had an impact on the American psyche, and I think probably was the coup de grace in finishing off further interest in Apollo...unfortunately.

--Cindy

*Asimov's _Nightfall_ can't be beat.  An independent film company [with an apparently small budget] made it into a movie in 2000, starring David Carradine.  Perhaps it was made into a movie prior to this one, and I missed it somehow.  It's a low-budget film, as mentioned, but very worthwhile.

As for Star Trek:  I used to be a fan.  I still am in a way; I watch maybe half a dozen episodes of the original series in a year. 

--Cindy