New Mars Forums

Clark wrote:  "I would like to point out that you are replacing an old prejudice with a new one- ie, a predjuice against the old ways of earth."

*No.  "Prejudice" means to "pre-judge."  I haven't pre-judged the old ways of Earth in regards to genocide, inquisitions, slavery, superstition, etc.  There is no pre-judgment on my part; these things have happened, are documented, and continue to happen.  If ::part of:: the point of colonizing Mars does not include trying to break away and leave behind these old habits, what's the point?  If persons from Earth will only go to re-establish and continue destructive and irrational patterns of behavior so ingrained here on Earth, why bother going to Mars?   

I wrote:  "I'd like to see the settlers/colonists/whatever drop   as many of the old, worn-out prejudices and labels as possible, and create a very new world for themselves, in every manner possible."

Clark wrote:  Deconstruction Cindy, you can have no center.

*Explain, please.  I don't know what you intend with this statement.

I wrote:  "It seems you are suggesting that Marsian colonists can never be totally independent from Earth?  If so, why can't they?

Clark wrote:  They can- it is a matter of time and resources. I guess I am assuming certain time-lines that you do not neccessarily see or agree with. If this is an issue that resolves itself in several generations, then how can we discuss it intelligently? Any assumptiions beyond 50 years (and that's pushing it) is bound to be exceedingly inaccurate.

Look at the predictions of 2000 made in 1950 for a better understanding.

*I understand your point, and agree.  I didn't set a time limit, btw.

I wrote:  "Mmm-hmmmm.  No offense to any Canadians or Australians who might be present, but it's a fact that the USA out-distanced them in terms of productivity, inventiveness, etc.  The USA has been, for quite a long time, much more successful and wealthy than either of these other two  nations."

Clark wrote:  "This is a matter or resources, livable land, and a host of other reasons NOT related to being or not being subjects of England.

*Yes, that's some of it -- ::some:: of it.

Clark:  "C'mon Cindy, you should know better."

*Are you making this "canned statement" only because I disagree with you?  Condescension is the best defense? 

I wrote:  "Are you promoting dependency, by the way?"

Clark wrote:  "I'm supporting honesty. Sorry to burst yours and others bubble, but its hard to be independant in a wasteland of vacum."

*It may be hard to be independent in a "wasteland of a vacuum," but I notice you didn't use the word "impossible" here.  It is something Marsian colonists should always have at the forefront of their consciousness, and they should always strive for independence, or as much of it as possible.

I wrote:  "Not really; not in the sense I'm using that phrase, anyhow.  They changed things -- they didn't make the world anew."

Clark wrote:  "How do you imagine that Humans going to Mars, taking all of their glory and all of their problems, will NOT repeat human folly on mars? If humans are fundamentaly the same, but now they live on "mars", won't they just fight over something else, instead of the old terran disputes?"

*Chances are good that they will repeat the human follies on Mars.  I'm hoping they will not.  There are so many lessons from history, the writings of great philosophers, etc., that people can try to learn from and take with them.  What I'm saying is that they have a ::very real opportunity:: to ::not:: repeat the centuries-old (and tired) mistakes here on Earth.

I wrote:  "Look at how long the Israelis and Palestinians have been "going at it;" that's probably not going to stop anytime soon." 

Clark wrote:  "Isn't it possible you may be over-simplifying the problems between humans? ALL conflicts have been the result of resource control and distribution. ALL. Religion and other concepts are used as an exscuse to mobilize more people to get control of the resources."

*Even the "Holy Inquisition" of the 14th and 15th centuries?  While that wasn't technically "a war," it may as well have been.  I don't think bin Laden (if he's still alive) gives a hoot about resource control and distribution -- I think there are people, like him, who do want to kill and destroy simply because others disagree with them.  Period.  Bin Laden is (or was...whichever) wealthy.  Why is he bothering with "killing infidels"?  Because he's a murderous religious fanatic who wants to kill and destroy only because "infidels" stepped foot on Saudi soil.  I agree that most wars are over resource control and distribution...but not all of them.

I wrote:  "There's too much ingrained, conditioned irrationality on Earth, that a "world anew" here -- especially with no new frontiers on Earth to discover and explore (as Dr. Zubrin stated) anymore -- is nearly impossible at this point in time."

Clark wrote:  "If you are unable to see the fronteirs that still exsist, and continue to be created here on Earth, you are blinded by your desire of Mars. A fronteir is subjective and artifical and is no more distant than your own mind. It's a pity that so many on this board are unable to realize what is available in their own backyard."

*Do you feel this way about Dr. Zubrin as well?  Would you make this statement to him personally, as you have to me? 

And what is ::your:: reason for wanting to see Mars exploration and colonization?  I'm curious.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

First of all...please note (again) that I entitled this topic "What If --?"  These were thoughts which came to mind, and I didn't mean to imply I think the course of events I outlined WILL happen (but just might)...

Josh wrote:  "I'm not trying to be picky here, ecrasez_l_infame. But if they're dependant, they're not a colony. I've discussed this same thing with clark before."

*Please call me by my first name -- Cindy.  I agree -- semantics got in the way of my post, apparently.

I agree, however, that if the first missions were corporate sponsered, it would be in the sponsers best interest to create a dependency.

*Oh yes.  And the sponsors will do their utmost to maintain a dependency.

I wrote:  "The absence of armies, coupled with politicians being hundreds of thousands of miles away, probably ensures further goodwill and cooperation between settlers operating under different govt's."

Josh wrote:  "I agree that Martian colonists will cooperate. But there is still the possiblity of ?Space Property Appropriation.? Where a government sends their thugs to make sure things go the way they want. Just like Britian wanted to control America."

*Yes, there's a possibility -- but a remote one, IMO.  It's going to be difficult enough getting explorers, then settlers there to begin with.  This isn't a matter of simply crossing an ocean or walking across an invisible boundary on the ground.

I wrote:  "[...] the fact that they are all getting pretty sick and tired of obeying their respective governments and the corporate sponsors [...] they unite to form their own government, a situation very similar to what occurred in the American colonies in 1776... sans muskets and war ships, of course [...] their own declaration of independence will combine the best qualities of their original respective governments."

Josh wrote:  "Ah, good summation.

But how do you know it will take place sans muskets and war ships?"

*Practicality.  There may be weapons on Mars, if taken by the first group(s) of persons there.  But war ships -- ?  Considering the cost and energy expenditure to get even a crew of 4 there, time allottment, etc.,...I don't think war ships from Earth will be a threat to Marsians for a very long time, if ever.

--Cindy

I wrote:  "If a religious group, or persons within that group, are doing something which harms others or threatens society, they should face consequences for it."

Clark wrote:  So then there can be no true "freedom of religion". You are in effect stating that you are free to practice any religion that Society dosen't have a problem with. So, real world application of this would lead me to believe that China's treatment of Fualn Gong members is acceptable.

*There's a difference between bigoted oppression and persecution of religious people simply because their views are considered contrary or threatening to society, i.e. targeting them because they are different or because they are perceived as threatening to the established order of things (whether they are or are not an actual threat) and extremist terrorists like Islamic radical fundamentalists in the Taliban and al-Qaeda.  I'm presuming Marsians will draw up and implement a legal system of some sort; hopefully, this will be as fair and impartial to all members as possible.  However, even if a legal system is never established on Mars, any abusive/intrusive/threatening/hostile group of persons will be reacted to by other settlers; that is simply how humans operate.  The level of freedom of religion on Mars will depend on the actions and reactions of the colonists, and any laws which may be written up and enacted upon.

I wrote:  "I'm speaking of religion.  No one should be forced/coerced/intimidated   to "have to" believe in God, heaven, ####, an afterlife, etc."

Clark wrote:  "I tried to clarify a little, let me try again- a religion is a belief system- a philosphical belief would fall under the protection of "religious belief" so it is all the same in my mind- is this straying to far from your interpertation?"

*No.  Religion is based on faith (things not seen, beliefs not verified by objective observation, etc.).  When I use the term "philosophy," I am referring to love of knowledge, requiring evidence/proof of this-or-that existing or not (empiricism), and being intellectually honest and humble enough to admit "I don't know," when it's warranted. 

Clark wrote:  "So if I have a belief system that does not recognize any other "law" other than the ones given to me by my belief system, i.e- Ten Comandments, Dietary restrictions, etc- it places my freedom of religioon in direct conflict with the State and society. Once again we are establishing that the secular government would superceed the belief system. Your statement really should say that there is freedom of religion as long as it is acceptable by Society."

*No, actually I think that is what -you- are saying.  I'm all for "live and let live."  I don't like the word "Society" capitalized; it smacks of Group Think.  I'm a huge proponent of Live and Let Live.  However, it's unavoidable, given that humans are social creatures, to have a level of society.  There will indeed be a majority consensus (either official or not -- hopefully not), and the actions of others will result in reactions from the majority consensus.  It's human nature, and seems unavoidable.  It doesn't matter if I don't like Society and you are in favor of Society -- human nature is human nature, and it'll come into play on Mars as well.

I wrote:  "Religion is a belief system based on faith and irrationality."

Clark wrote:  "So is Science. Science is a belief system predicated on a faith in measurment- irrationaility is subjective- it's irrational to believe in anything other than "facts"- so tell me, is everything in science based on "fact"  or is there a great deal of conjecture based on assumptions derived from faith in a system of laws that we assume are correct?"

*How are you defining the word "faith"?  My definition of it is placing implicit trust in -- and not questioning or entertaining doubt about-- something not proven to exist.  Science is -not- based on faith -- it is based on fact and the seeking out of facts.  It's been proven the earth rotates around the sun; it's been proven the moon is not made of green cheese; it's been proven that there are billions of other galaxies in outerspace; etc.  Sure, there is speculation and conjecture in science -- but speculation and conjecture is -not- "faith". 

I wrote:  "What I meant by my statement was that you will not have the right to try and force/intimidate me into converting to your religion...and I don't have the right to try and force/coerce you into dropping your religious beliefs.   

Clark wrote:  "Then how can you justify the State regulating beliefs or the expression of those beliefs in any way? You've alraedy demonstrated that the State does have the opportunity to regulate certain expressions of belief by punishing individuals, so how do you resolve this disparity?

*I feel you are misreading me.  I don't want the State (capitalized) to regulate beliefs or expressions.  I don't want a State, in the way that you and Rousseau define it.  However, people within any society/group will -- as I've mentioned previously -- interact, act, and react to one another.  Again, you don't have the right to try and coerce me into believing something I don't, and I don't have the right to coerce you into dropping your beliefs.  However, should either of us try it, other people will step in and try to resolve (or inflame) the situation.  This has nothing to do with the State; rather, it has to do with human nature.

I wrote:  "I'm speaking of ::Reason, the concept:: -- not the phrase ("a reason") used so loosely and subjectively by others to justify their actions -- as it has been defined and discussed by thinkers such as Ayn Rand, Voltaire, etc."

Clark wrote:  "I understand what you are getting at, but what I am trying to point out is that Reason, like Religion, is subjective- it can be used to justify any course of action. The examples I cited was thje application of modern Reason at the time which only history itself has proven to be false. Even the Reason that Voltaire is trying to achieve is subjective- it places certain values on concepts, and devalues other concepts- when you place values on ideas you inherently have a limited and subjective situation whereby you exclude the things you deem "wrong".

Maybe you could explain your take on Reason to me to help me understand your point view better."

*Reason is not subjective.  It is reasonable to boil water in order to cook an egg, if you're hungry.  It is not reasonable to boil water in order to scald a baby in it.  If you truly want to understand Reason better as I am using it, read Voltaire and Ayn Rand.

I wrote:  "A society based upon Reason -- as defined and discussed by these two philosophers -- would result in a much better, healthier, more sane and rational, progressive and beneficient society than humanity has yet known."

Clark wrote:  This "reason" is a belief system, so you might not be that far off in agreeing with Rosseau about a "one state religion". 

*I am totally "far off" in agreeing with Rousseau.  Read Voltaire and Rand, do your own homework.    Read in their own words what we mean by Reason.

--Cindy

Byron wrote:  "Anyone out there who might've thought of what sports might be like on the Red Planet, I'd love to hear from you."

I'm a rather un-athletically inclined person, but considering how cold it is on Mars I don't see how an outdoor ice-skating rink would be too difficult.  Put on some traction-less boots or rig a pair of blades to the undersides of your boots, weight your space-suit down, and start doing those figure-8s.  As for indoors, volleyball doesn't require a lot of space...and apparently you'll have extra time to see the ball coming your way!

I'm not sure any of this is feasible, however; just some ideas that popped into my head.

*lol*  Ice skating on Mars...I'd fall and break my neck even in the low gravity! 

--Cindy

Shaun wrote:  "For instance, isn't this a great opportunity for some people to live as communists, others as Amish, some as nudists,"

Now that is an interesting idea; nudist camps/colonies on Mars.  I prefer to keep my clothes on, but what the hey.

"others as a free-loving hippies, or .... whatever?! Individuals from one colony couldn't easily interfere in the life-style of another colony several kilometres away across a barren, freezing, airless, wilderness, could they?!  Might this not be a golden opportunity for a substantial fraction of humanity to finally live the life they really want? Or am I only dreaming?"

No, I don't think you're dreaming.  I think the colonists would do themselves well to 1) become as quickly self-dependent as possible, 2) cast off as many old Earth prejudices and stupidities as possible, 3) to maintain level of social conscience, respect, and considerateness toward others, and 4) to have "life, liberty, and the pursuit on happiness" framed in every habitat.

Of course, maybe I'm dreaming...

--Cindy
                                         
MS member since 6/01

CME wrote:  Returning to the specific topic of crime and insanity, I should note that we have to avoid falling into the trap of allowing urban legends to make our decisions for us.

Your example of rice thrown at weddings was excellent.  When living in the Midwest (where I was born and raised), I recall the rice versus birdseed controversy.  I'd forgotten it until you mentioned it, having lived now in the desert SW of the USA for the past 10 years, in a strongly Latino culture.  There's no rice versus birdseed debate here, for weddings.

Obviously urban legends can become powerful and persuasive.  While I think the chances of someone "going bonkers" en route to Mars, or while on Mars, are somewhat good, how can one explain all the episodes of craziness and whackos in the natural enviroment of home -- Earth?  Lots of loonies are running around shooting at people or blowing themselves up here.  <shrug>

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

I'm thinking most edibles will initially be in powdered, even concentrated, form.  Milk, for one.  Apparently Dr. Zubrin and other brains have figured out relatively simple ways of making more water on Mars.  Powdered substances weigh less.  Dehydrated fruits and vegetables, of course, weight less without all the added water -- and besides, regular fruit and veggies would spoil quickly.

What about freeze-dried products?  It seems to me they have less weight than regular foods?

--Cindy

Phobos wrote:  "I can see how having ponds full of fish would be psychologically beneficial, but co-inhabiting with a herd of cows?  Can you imagine trying to keep a herd of cows alive on a six month voyage to Mars?  You'd probably need the death star just to hold all of the hay and what happens if they all stampede and run through the walls of the dome?"

Well, one thing is for certain:  Cows attracting hordes of flies wouldn't be a problem on Mars

--Cindy

I recall in one of Dr. Zubrin's books the possibility of taking a certain type of small hen (a Japanese variety of foul?) and a certain type of fish to Mars.

However, I'm thinking the earliest colonists will be mostly vegetarian, and that not by choice. 

What are the options for food for those early colonists?  Or the first explorers/settlers themselves?  Yes, vegetables and fruits...

I presume the first explorers will eat food from packets similar to what astronauts eat. 

?

--Cindy

**Addendum**

Clark wrote:  There is not enough "Reason" for going to Mars- there is desire, wishes, dreams, and fantasy- but no reason.

*Again, you are using the word "reason" very differently than I am using it. 

Clark wrote:  "The problem with "reason" is that everyone can reason, and thus is becomes subjective. Hitler used his "reason" to create a new society- America had their "manifest destiny" reason- and when the US dropped two A-Bombs, it was done based on "reason".

*The examples you cite were actions NOT based on Reason.  They were actions and justifications ::contrary:: to Reason.

Again, refer to Rand & Voltaire.  A society based upon Reason -- as defined and discussed by these two philosophers -- would result in a much better, healthier, more sane and rational, progressive and beneficient society than humanity has yet known.

--Cindy

Phobos wrote:  "...Anyways, would you be willing to be the first human to drink Martian water that was only run through a consumer model water purifier?"

Yes, though I can't say I'd be overly excited about it

--Cindy

Alrighty folks, here's a "little" science term I still do not understand.

What the heck is ::mass::?  Any replies in simple English, please!

About a year ago, I was subscribed to one of the MS mailing lists.  The topic of recreational activities for colonists came up...and I asked about the possibility of a swimming pool, given the lower Marsian gravity, etc.  One nice and polite fellow (I think a scientist or engineer) mentioned that ::mass:: would also have to be taken into consideration.

He gave an explanation of how mass comes into play in this (and other) regard...no light went on inside my cranium.

Here's your chance to try and explain what mass is.  I want to understand what it is, at least on a "beginner's" level.  Physics were never my thing (yuck).  The winner may receive a year's supply of Turtle Wax! 

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01