You are not logged in.
Well, let me add one thing before I start the message. This system of existance is, in my opinion, completely inferior to anarchy. Yet I am developing it as a compromise system to contend with existing realities, not because I think it is the best system.
Conditions on Mars will obviously face a whole new set of problems, ex. running out of air because your power cables just snapped, or dying because somebody just went psyco and cut a large hole in the dome.
Of course if a mining company were to start up on Mars, the extra hands would be welcomed, because it would be more beneficial to the colony to have the extra people there than not. However, what really makes no sense is to allow some people to own much more of a company than other people, because then you get some people just sitting back, wasting resources for the colony and others who are working their ass off, and all their labor is dumped into a big hole, which the other guy owns. Does that make sense? Is that beneficial? It really depends on the nature of the operation. Allowing limited amounts of nonsense in the beginning of the colony may be inevitable, but for everyone's benefit, it should be kept to a minimum and gotten rid of when the colony is more autarkic.
Interesting post on the terraforming issue there. So, the suggestion that your idea was pulled out a hat was wrong after all. Yes, I agree that PFCs are probably some of the best compounds for greenhousing, CFCs are just not enviornmentally friendly, you don't want them floating around later after you are done with ecopoesis and are thinking "Well, now that we are done with the absolute essentials, what about other stuff..." and realize "Oops".
HT I think your plan sounds outstanding, if you are prepared to sacrifice human contact [well, you know what I mean] for ten years or so (which is not at all infeasible, as many people have been trapped on islands or live alone in the mountains or tundra, or in similar situations, and they generally don't go insane or whatever, and they don't have the benefit of technological communication)
All I can say for Clark is: I advise you to relax. Lighten up. Its just a forum.
Being an anarchist, I propose that we dissolve hierarchy on Mars as much as possible. Whereas Rob here has asked many questions, I will attempt to answer a few of them from what I percieve as the most beneficial answer.
As far as the government goes early on, before the 'town' stage which you list, it will almost certianly fall under a limited amount of control from the government in charge. Therefore I think it is pointless to argue for any sort of Martian government before the 'town' is developed.
On Mars, conditions will be tough. While it possible that colonization could proceed with typical capitalist excesses for the rich, it will make life harder for everyone, many times over than the same excesses do on Earth. Therefore I propose that corporations, in the usual sense of the word, should not be allowed to own property, and that the only collective organizations which should be allowed to own property are ones where everyone has an equal say about how wages are divied out, etc. Of course, such a system would have to conform to obvious realities. Someone working part-time for an hour a day over the internet would obviously have less vote [or perhaps no vote, depending on how permanent the job was] than someone working full-time 8 hours a day at a job site. However, generally such organizations would be democratic in nature. Of course, you would not want the police running around looking at the organization's files trying to decide whether it was run democratically or not. So a simple way to gurantee that things work is to say that everyone working for the corporation necessarily owns a share of the corporation more or less proportional to their job skills and contribution. Then everything else will work out naturally.
Obviously this system is, while less hierarchial than our present system, much more so than true anarchy. But in the 'town' phase, assuming one has to compromise with more conservative minded individuals, it seems reasonable.
If this is done, the burdens on the colony of supporting both welfare and, therefore, crime will be substantionally lessened. You don't want robbers running around in Mars colony. It is not a recipe for success.
More later.
I might add that our discussion was on topic [although I did get a bit carried away... it is a very important issue to me], because I was trying to demonstrate the point that the US does not need the behemoth of a military that it currently supports, and the funds so freed up could be used for more constructive purposes, like Mars colonization.
http://www.espac.org/al_shifa_pages/al-shifa_1.html
Another US terrorist activity is listed in this report. The US destroyed a medicine factory. This action has cost thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of lives indirectly. The factory produced about half of certian kinds of essential medicine (vaccinations for easily preventable diseases) in the Sudan. But the mainstream news will not tell you this.
40% brighter? Are you sure? I thought it was more like 10%. Mabye 40% after the sun has almost reached red giant stage, but not in a mere billion years...
How do we insure this relatively lawless society the protection from others in it from mindlessly starting their own ?anti-socitey??
We can't. It is up to the people. The best we can do is try to show people the truth, but they have to accept it for themselves. Only they can do that.
. The hard part is ?enforcing? anti-propaganda because as you can see, it happens when people pool together and have similar ideas.
Ultimately the best way to avoid propaganda is to have people draw no alligences. When people ally themselves with a name or sometimes even a belief itself, they can become mindless followers, not questioning what is actually happening. In anarchy, such alligences must be, at least to a certian extent, nonexistant, or the system will quickly implode and fall in upon itself.
Thus, in many ways, the quest for the truth, synonymous an end to mindless belief in propaganda, is the quest for anarchy, because when people see the truth they will see the supreme terror which government often imposes on others.
I too think it is possible that a great revolution will happen in our lifetimes. Yet it is also quite possible that it will not, so we should not comfort ourselves with this.
Sorry I am not familiar with the unit 'suns' that you mention in your post. What exactly is a 'sun'? Furthermore, I was not aware of any solar panels currently operating at 40% efficiency. Are there such panels? Even if there aren't, that isn't to say they can't be designed, but I was just curious.
http://www.public-i.org/excerpts_01_091301.htm
I can get you more if you like. The information there is mostly a chronicle of Afghanistan's history since 1980, but it does contain some information in the beginning about specific US terrorist activities. There is an advisor in there whose name starts with Z (it is a wierd name) who I have seen been mentioned before in connection to it.
Am I sorry that innocent people died in Afghanistan, yes- as a human being we should all be saddened.
Yes, innocent life is a tragic thing... that is why we shouldn't commit actions which murder just as many people as were killed in the World Trade Center (and perhaps a good deal more).
Am I sorry that there were few (if any) alternatives other than military force to restore OUR security, yes.
There were alternatives. For example, I am fairly sure (if anyone can verify, that would be helpful) that Afghanistan was willing to negotiate for the trial of bin Laden in Saudi Arabia even with the lack of evidence by the USA. Furthermore, all the Taliban asked us for was some evidence to say bin Laden definitely was in on it, and then they probably would have handed him over to the US itself, provided the evidence was unquestionable (I've heard reports that the video "on someone's floor" we found was a fraud, but I can't confirm that). For an idea of how ridiculous this situation really is, what do you think would happen, if, say, Brazil's government decided that an important US official was a terrorist in a recent bombing there and asked to hand him over, with little or no evidence?
we can make ammends by supporting the Afghanistan people and help rebuild their shattered country- however, do not neglect the fact that the amount of innocent life lost was minimal and that the US went to great lengths to ensure that innocent people were not killed
How reassuring. Just like bin Laden can make amends by donating his fortune to help rebuild the World Trade Center, and everything will be fine. Of course. I forgot, silly me. Oh, by the way, why don't we send them a big apology card for bringing all those nice nutcases there to help destroy the USSR. Then everyone will say "Oh, we forgive you, we love America".
Which actions have backfired?
Bringing large numbers of Islamic radicals to one place is the most fundamental error in this particular case.
Do you know why we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place?
To "defend" it from the USSR. Which is ridiculous nonsense, of course, since by this wonderful "defense" we installed lovely murderous regimes there which have continued to this day, an example being the barbarians collectively known as the NA.
Are you aware of our actions prior, during, and after the Soviet occupation?
Yes. What actions did you want to talk about?
--------------
Anyway, in conclusion, the US has acted with supreme arrogance over the last few months with regard to this particular case, and although it would not be appropriate to have a discussion over it, I believe that US arrogance has been the norm for the past fifty to eighty five years (stepped up especially with the smaller number).
We can cut the military.
I'm sure the people liberated from Taliban rule would all agree with you.
Perhaps you mean the thousands of families that we have destroyed (their family members have been killed) from both direct and indirect (in the case where food has stopped) effects of the bombing. America respects human life... except when its not American.
Afghanistan has managed to mangle the British and the Soviet army so badly that they were both forced to retreat in defeat.
That was a completely different situation. In the war with the Soviets, Afghanistan had ample help from the West, which often took the form of installing the very kinds of terrorist organizations and their activities which have now attacked the USA in the form of Al-Queda. Now our actions have backfired horribly.
More later.
Hatred and prejudice wouldn't happen without class struggle.
Yes, but that goes vise versa as well (and I must say I think that the beliefs are somewhat more important, because with a bad system and an educated population you can change the system, but with a good system and a badly educated population things degenerate quickly). The system reinforces the beliefs which in tern reinforce the system which.... etc. If people were able to look on the poor and the middle class with open eyes, free from the subjective nonsense imposed by them from mindless propaganda, whether that propaganda be from government, the media, corporations, or their own family, they might try to change the system to help them, thus ending the class struggle you speak of.
Your neighbor, much more well off than you are, supported by an unjust system does tend to generate hatred and prejudice, but his own prejudice against you generates the unjust system which keeps you chained. In many ways this is a cycle.
Well I concede that my hypothesis does beg some modification. However with a bit of change it does actually come to lend some support to your own class difference theory.
Perhaps what I really should have addressed, instead of laws themselves, is the current prejudices and hatreds of people in the world, which often give rise to nonsensical systems of "law and order". These prejudices often take the form of psycological repression ; for example, when you hate a certian thing, you necessarily have this idea remaining in your mind, this thing is bad, but this is good. This necessarily generates fear, because you always have to be doing the good thing. Fear generates all sorts of emotions which generally create strife in society. This is nothing like having a healthy sense of what is beneficial and what is not, it is an irrational hatred that I am speaking of. Such hatreds often take form in equally irrational systems, like the kind of justice system in place in almost all (and to a reasonable extent, all) nations around the world today, including the United States.
Marajuana is bad, people who smoke it must be punished!
Communists are bad, communists must be punished severely!
Socialists are bad, socialists should be exiled!
Etc etc.
Your belief that laws are the cause of the vast majority of crimes: well, with all due respect, laws are about oppression. A law saying you cannot murder oppresses your murderous tendencies (ever-so-slight they may be), a law saying you cannot jaywalk oppresses your natural desire to take shortcuts, but you get my drift
But this is ridiculous! This means that laws necessarily fufill the very intentions they set out to undo! What does a murder do? Well, he oppresses the victim! How can you fix oppression with more oppression? The idea is nonsense! The reason societies are successful is not because of laws, but because of the inherent moral tendencies of individuals! In fact, laws in their current form, in my opinion, work against morality.
And that is the root of most crime.
The root has a root, Josh. The root of the root is hatred and prejudice. Class struggle wouldn't happen without that ; it necessary to portray certian groups as evil in order to justify the unjustifiable. So, of course, accepting your emotions in a mature way is not going to fill your stomach directly, but if people, especially in the middle class, did that, they might well change the system, and thereby help those who can't fill their stomachs do so.
That post was completely arbitrary. Do you have any actual evidence for how long each of those steps would take or did you just pull a rabbit out of a hat?
I generally agree that ecopoesis will take a matter of decades.
I'm creating this topic because I don't believe repression is the answer. Laws are a form of repression because, they create psycological complexes in people's minds which emulate values like "This is good, this bad, if I think this, I'm bad, so I have to think this" which inevitably leads to self denial of one's own emotions, instead of healthy acceptance. It seems to me that if people didn't repress their own emotions so much, those emotions would not build up inside them up finally, "pop", you have a disaster, like a murder, or rape, or something. It seems to me that if people stopped the repression, they would ultimately begin to accept their emotions in a mature way, and the vast majority of crime in the world would come to a halt as a result of this.
Therefore, to reinterate, I think that instead of laws solving crime, laws are actually the cause for the vast majority of crime that goes on in society: they are a manifestation of subconcious repression that takes effect in, sadly, the majority of human beings in this country. The subconcious aspects, of course, manifest in concious aspects which are much more obvious, like war and murder.
I have a question for Clark, I think it is very important. Who exactly do you feel we must convince to go to Mars?
The reason that this question is so vital is not hard to understand. It seems to me that Clark consistently talks about convincing people to go to Mars, and cites economic arguments why you wouldn't want to go, or political arguments why it is completely worthless, etc. And while these arguments do have their place, and they definitely apply to a large portion of human society, they are fundamentally flawed because, by using them, we are trying to convince people who simply will not pioneer Mars anyway. No, we aren't going to convince huge corporations to send humans to Mars for a tremendous profit, No, we aren't going to convince government if important people believe we are too far away or it is too expensive. But, that is just it. We are trapped here, trapped in a logical loop that never ends. But the solution is simple. We're going (and that applies to whoever is going, whether it be the Mars Society, the United States, or somebody else), and whatever we think is the truth because we made it so.
Don't me wrong, I think the balloon idea is wonderful, but if we could do a sample return, I really think we should go with that first (it would cause a major sensation). A sample return might not cost very much (as space missions go, anyway), really, assuming we launch the whole thing on the Delta II, which is perfectly possible.
If we announced that we were doing a sample return, I'm sure it would open up funding from a lot of places. Corporate sponsors would show up much more than they have so far, of course. We could sell the rocks to the government and private buyers for outrageous prices. We could get corporations to finance us in return for assocating them with the mission in some way-- send your logo to Mars! That is just a few ideas. We might even be able to grab some monetary help from some space or science related government organization, somehow. I don't think NASA would be real friendly to the idea, although it is possible, given that NASA wouldn't really have much of an excuse to feed the public like they did with the Tito thing.
What I really don't understand, is why go to Phobos when just about any other asteroid orbiting between Earth and Mars will do just fine, and you get the added plus of not having to enter the Martian gravity well at all? Of course, that only applies if your goal is exploration of destinations beyond Mars, because if your goal is Mars, Phobos has some pretty dam obvious advantages!
The gravity problem is a fairly simple one to solve: just rotate your colonies. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence which clearly states that asteroids do not have the material composition necessary for colonization. I would really appreciate it if someone would provide this evidence, because right now I am starting to suspect it is nonexistant. Furthermore, if asteroids do have the materials necessary for colonization, they are very valuable, as they can be colonized three dimensionally, whereas large bodies like the Earth present a major problem in colonizing the third dimension: gravity. So, structures which are far beyond the wildest dreams of any builder on Earth can be built using asteroidal material. Solar power is availible much better in space than anywhere else, additionally, and the large distances from the Sun involved can be easily compsenated for by using large, solar sail like reflecting devices, much like Zubrin advocates somewhat in his books. Furthermore, the possibility of bringing materials to Earth from asteroids is a much better prospect than that of bringing them from Mars, simply because asteroids have almost no gravity well to climb out of in bringing them. Of course, then again, asteroids face the fact that a greater impulse is necessary to get them to Earth than Martian material is, which is signifigant, but not nearly so disasterous as the Martian gravity well (in the case of the greater transfer impulse, ion engines can be used, while in the Martian case that is, of course, impossible).
So while it seems that asteroid mining is far off because of the sheer mass involved, it is by far the greatest natural import that the inner system has to offer because of its fundamental importance to the human economy.
I am sure that Mars has its advantages. For example, the Martian option of aerobraking makes a final engine burn unnecessary, which means that the cost of import is reduced signifigantly. Plus, Mars has the most raw materials, in the most easy to reach state, available of any body in the solar system besides Earth. Plus, Mars can be terraformed very easily compared to the process of generating an equivilant amount of land in space colony form. I mean, for a fleggling civilization in space, Mars is definitely a huge plus. But long term, when we want new frontiers in this solar system, eventually we are going to have to make them, not find them.
Well, I would just like the point out the fact that in terms of economic wealth the asteroid belt offers far more than Luna could hope to. I mean, there is no competition here. Luna's composition is very limited. It has almost no organic components, which means it all must be imported. Asteroids, by contrast, come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and some of them, the metallic types, have vast amounts of rich mineral ore ready for mining. What more economic incentive could one ask for? Bringing it to Earth is not a problem, either, as long as your ore is refined at the site. The industries of the asteroids are not principally based on science, or tourism, or further exploration-- they are based on something which is far more powerful, and although there are still many technical problems to be solved in bringing down the cost enough to make things worthwhile, once started, the gold mine will not run out for as far in the future as anyone cares to contemplate. Asteroids also have no gravity, which is something of a plus, as it makes rendevous and departure very easy. As far as asteroids supporting a civilization goes, one question cuts the cake-- what are they made of? That is, do asteroids have the material composition to support human colonization?
I have a semirelated question. What is your occupation?
I'm going to propose a sort of compromise viewpoint. I think your plans for going to the Moon are largely unreasonable. On the other hand, it has come to my attention that my plans for going to Mars are also, at the present time, similiar in their dreamy nature. You say we need economics-- well, I agree with that.
Economics, after all, drove the original expansion to America-- would Columbus have ever discovered the new world if he wasn't looking for India first? Would Spain have ever followed up the exploration if they didn't think they would get massive returns? Economics drove the British expansions-- British colonization was all about exploiting native populations. Even the Apollo program was designed around getting prestige, and hence money, for the United States. Greed is the key.
Mars takes a lot of dollars to get to, and the Moon does also. But frankly, I don't see people going to either one unless they get one thing-- money. Real estate is not viable in the near future, although it gradually does become an option after the first bases. Mining raw materials is also not viable as a plan for the first bases. The Economic Case for Mars seems pretty hopeless at this time. Yes, in this, you are right.
The Moon is similiar in this respect. What could you launch to the Moon that would hope to make a profit? A rover for operation by virtual tourists? Bah. Our best bet is space tourism from the economic viewpoint.
But there is one thing that causes governments to be farsighted: getting more power. A very strategic long-term economic move by any of the three major powers on Earth today would be to launch a program for utilizing space resources. Once the resources really started coming in, that power would be elevated to a status which was like Britian in the 1600s, with the other powers, France and Germany, lagging behind. In short, the power which first masters space will rule the world (unless two or more powers master it concurrently, which seems likely, considering that world powers generally do consider thier own survival when making descisions).
The Moon has resources, true. But they really aren't the kind of resources that make a government get excited. You advocate using lunar materials for a long term program of exploration-- but exploration of what? Naturally, if the Moon is just helping explore this "what", then the "what" is the real focus of space exploration. But as I said, this focus is not Mars, although Mars could come in later as a much better stepping stone (esp. with its two moons) to this "what".
The "what" is the asteroid belt.
I have yet to see a way for mars to become self-supporting
Yes, you have, but you are too stubborn to accept them.
all you need is one physician at one base and you then have all your bases covered
A better option is called "doing it here".
It would provide a great deal of immediate scientifc return- at a fraction of the cost of a martian mission
Yes, a fraction of the cost, but a fraction which happens to be above unity. Yes, a great deal of scientific return, but nothing like we would find on Mars.
So you're saying that it is cheaper to take 3AU's worth of fuel and launch it from earth versus taking enough fuel to launch into orbit and then refuel there (without the launch weight penalty)? Unless you have some figures to back you up, your assertion is childish and counter-intuitave.
#### it, Clark, I'm going to get you the exact point at which it becomes cheaper to refuel at Luna (assuming certian factors) if its the last thing I do (it is a good excercise for me), but unfortunately I don't have my equations on hand at the moment (I lost my book a few days ago). However, the point should be in the neighborhood of 2-3 AU, varying slightly with the eccentricity and inclination of the target orbit (most asteroids have fairly circular orbits).
NIFT = Nuclear Indigenous Fueled Transport
With the NIFTs and the cyclers, they won't come later, until after we have a fairly sizeable base on the Martian surface, and probably many bases at that. However, once we expand our transport methods, the cost will go down drastically. This is all remedial. Look in the Case for Mars if you have questions.
Actually, with the gold thing, I realize what you are saying, but I chose to turn your statement around and make my own counterpoint. However, Mars CAN support itself economically by exports, assuming a base is on the surface-- your estimates are probably based on the bring-it-all-from-Earth plan which is completely unworkable.
In any case I have to go. More later.
Wahoo! A crazy post! Now we can have a flame war!!!
The real issue though is that the cost of shipping FROM Mars is exceedingly high
NIFT + Cyclers
The planet could be made of gold, but it still wouldn't be economical to go there.
If the planet was made of gold, that would be a minus, not a plus, because you couldn't support a human population on the surface...
then more can still be done with machines until the point where our machines have improved to where we are no longer even relevant to space exploration
In the long run, a self supporting human base will always be able to launch cheaper missions than sending them from Earth.
The moon on the other hand is much closer and offers direct economic benefits to earth and LEO or GEO
How so?
the list goes on
And almost everything on it makes no sense.
With the Moons weak gravity
NEOs
Now for the list. Ok some things make sense. Lets put those in category A. Category A includes space telescopes and space based fuel production. Nothing else on this list makes much sense. For example, tele-medicine? When are you going to use that when your delay times are measured in minutes out beyond Earth-Luna? Earth-Moon science? Interesting, yes, but Mars & friends have many more things to learn about, in total. Superconductors? Um. Right. I could go through all these, but frankly I don't have time. Got specific questions, ask em. Now then, space based fuel production is not economically viable, even possibly, for heading anywhere inside about 3 AUs, so thats not a present option. Space telescopes are neat, but expensive, so I recommend going to Mars first. I suppose you could go and do space telescopes, and pull Earth-Moon science along for the ride. Yes, it might work, it might work. But it isn't necessary for Mars exploration or asteroid mining or Earth orbit ventures. Basically, I'm fine with the Moon, but it isn't our main focus.
Once, just once, I'd like to see us do The Right Thing, you know?
Sir I think this one statement is basically a summary of your entire argument. Therefore I must show you why it is fundamentally flawed. The truth is that what "the right thing" and the "the wrong thing" are is up to us to define. We, and not some absolute, define it. Therefore, by saying that killing bacteria is not worth billions of potential human lives, you have simply stated that you don't value human life enough to care. Sorry. That's the truth.
Updated by Moderator 2021/09/22
admin corrected 9-23-21