A Moral Compass for Martians

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-01 23:05:11

My essay on "The Problem of Owning Mars" contains a draft Martian constitution. I am considering adding an "Amendment I" to that draft. The amendment would consist of the following three paragraphs. The requirements in those paragraphs would provide the people of each Martian settlement with (1) a moral compass and (2) the capacity to control the evolution of their society and culture.

Amendment I. Directed Sociocultural Evolution. Each application for a Settlement Charter shall include a Sociocultural Development Plan. The plan shall contain an ethnographic description of the settlement that the applicants plan to establish. After the issuance of a Settlement Charter, the people who hold the charter shall annually review their Sociocultural Development Plan. During that review, they may amend the plan and, if they amend the plan, they shall deliver a copy of the amended plan to the Terrestrial Embassy of the Provisional Government of Mars.

When the people who hold a Settlement Charter establish a Martian settlement, their Sociocultural Development Plan shall automatically become a part of the ordinances of the settlement. The adult members of the settlement shall annually review their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan. During that review, the plan may be amended and, if the plan is amended, the amended plan shall be transmitted to the Terrestrial Embassy of the Provisional Government of Mars.

The children of every Martian settlement shall be taught that, when they become adults, it will be their duty to annually review their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan. Children shall also be taught to use behavior modification techniques to control their own and each others behaviors for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a society and culture that is consistent with their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-01 23:44:07

You know, physical masturbation is more enjoyable and productive then mental masturbation.

You should go look at gerbil porn or something.

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 03:44:14

My essay on "The Problem of Owning Mars" contains a draft Martian constitution. I am considering adding an "Amendment I" to that draft. The amendment would consist of the following three paragraphs. The requirements in those paragraphs would provide the people of each Martian settlement with (1) a moral compass and (2) the capacity to control the evolution of their society and culture.
Amendment I. Directed Sociocultural Evolution. Each application for a Settlement Charter shall include a Sociocultural Development Plan. The plan shall contain an ethnographic description of the settlement that the applicants plan to establish. After the issuance of a Settlement Charter, the people who hold the charter shall annually review their Sociocultural Development Plan. During that review, they may amend the plan and, if they amend the plan, they shall deliver a copy of the amended plan to the Terrestrial Embassy of the Provisional Government of Mars.
When the people who hold a Settlement Charter establish a Martian settlement, their Sociocultural Development Plan shall automatically become a part of the ordinances of the settlement. The adult members of the settlement shall annually review their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan. During that review, the plan may be amended and, if the plan is amended, the amended plan shall be transmitted to the Terrestrial Embassy of the Provisional Government of Mars.
The children of every Martian settlement shall be taught that, when they become adults, it will be their duty to annually review their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan. Children shall also be taught to use behavior modification techniques to control their own and each others behaviors for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a society and culture that is consistent with their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan.

"behavior modification techniques" ???!!!!??!?!?!!?!?!

State mandated Culture?

What in gods name are you thinking?

I would ge the first to revolt to such a constitution.

In my humble opinion, you should mandate the principles of what you hope to accomplish, and the structure of organization that will accomplish the execution of those priciples.

Leave the people in their own time to figure out the details.

but seriously, behavior modification techniques?

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 04:16:00

Culture space is a lot like an ecosystem. Culture is the reproduction and life of ideas and beliefs, just as an ecosystem is a means for reproduction and life of DNA.

Just as in an ecosystem, the more cultural diversity you have within your cultural space, the more robust and healty it is. The more likly it is that your culture will resist harmful intruders, and the more likely it is that it will survive a cultural disaster.

Diversity is strength.

State mandated culture produces weak culture. All it would take is one Playboy magazine and a Elvis Presly CD and poof! your culture has been permantly infected with new ideas.

Perhaps you might say your "behavior modification techniques" will remove all unwanted elements, but in reality all you are doing is weaking your culture's host. People without new ideas dont do new things.

I understand your desire to change things, the isolation of mars along with the chance to build a new society is a potentially wonderful fresh start if we do it right, it was afterall whatdrove americas founding fathers to their ideals.

But I believed you have not studied history enuff to understand that the attitude and ideas you present are sick, dimented, and totally aginst liberty, freedom, and the basic need for humans to create and individual, soverign identity and character for themselves.

Mars is a new land that can potentially be a fresh start, why do you propose we take the worst parts of us there?

clark · 2002-10-02 07:26:04

Just as in an ecosystem, the more cultural diversity you have within your cultural space, the more robust and healty it is.

How does cultural diversity equal "better"? Are those cultures without diversity less healthier than their diverse counterparts? More robust in what way?

The more likly it is that your culture will resist harmful intruders, and the more likely it is that it will survive a cultural disaster.

What is a "harmful intruder" to a culture? It would seem that having cultural diversity would preclude any possibility of a harmful intruder, whatever that might be.

Please define, or give an example of a what a "cultural disaster" is. I am at a complete loss as to figure out what you are reffering to.

Diversity is strength.

So is unity. How is diversity of culture stonger than unity of culture? It would seem diversity of culture can lead to greater schisms between members of the differing groups. Case in point, is a group better off with a unity of language, or a diversity of language?

State mandated culture produces weak culture.

Okay, but the State exsists as a common agreement between the members of the State- it serves to define what is acceptable and unacceptable within the group at large- it in effect is regulating culture, or at least the expression of culture- the members of the group relinquish the power to the State to do this. Isn't that in effect the State mandatiting culture?

But I believed you have not studied history enuff to understand that the attitude and ideas you present are sick, dimented, and totally aginst liberty, freedom, and the basic need for humans to create and individual, soverign identity and character for themselves.

I believe YOU have not studied enough history. I find it humours that you claim "diversity is strength" yet only allow for a western perspective on the development of the individual through the progression of history- you exclude the large volumes and cultures of many socieites that do not hold the "individual" as the end all be all.

Liberty is the freedom to choose for oneself- it is self-determination. If we all agree to a certain law that proscribes for "behavior modificatrion" then we are exercsising our freedoms and our liberty by making that agreement., not sacrificing it.

Alt, your claims are unfounded and without evidence- you present a western reaction to what is at the very least, a legitimate proposal. The suggestion of an annuly reviewed set of "social norms" (that is what Scott is talking about) reinforced with "behavior modification technoiques" (which can be as simple as a demerit system, or a reward system) to maintain social cohesion and stability in an environmentaly unfriendly, confined space seems sensible.

Mars will have very little room for the "individual" becuase to survive on Mars, the needs of the group (ie Society) must come first.

Palomar · 2002-10-02 07:56:33

The children of every Martian settlement shall be taught that, when they become adults, it will be their duty to annually review their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan. Children shall also be taught to use behavior modification techniques to control their own and each others behaviors for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a society and culture that is consistent with their settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan.

*I suppose you'll also recommend all children be taught how to GOOSE-STEP at an early age, and to learn to sing "Der Fuhrerland" by heart ::and:: acapella.

How will you handle the "deviants" and "rebels" who refuse to lick boot and submit to THE PROGRAM, Scott? No, don't bother -- history already provides the answer: Torture and murder. Human nature is very predictable in controlled, collectivist environments.

Scenarios like these have *never* worked on Earth [thankfully!]...and only a deluded misanthropic moron would think it could work on Mars. Only a deluded misanthropic moron would WANT it to work.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-10-02 08:13:11

Mars will have very little room for the "individual" becuase to survive on Mars, the needs of the group (ie Society) must come first.

*Says who? You?

Yes, apparently you and Scott have gazed into crystal balls and can foresee how human society on Mars "will be" and, in fact (according to you two), "must be."

Scott's "ideas" remind me of Big Brother's desire to "stomp a boot on a human face forever and ever..." in Orwell's _1984_.

There will always be people who dare to think for themselves. Collectivist cringing wimps -- those who are emotionally and mentally impoverished, always requiring direction from another [immaturity] -- will still have to deal with people who are mature, think for themselves, and can make beneficial decisions on their own, because there will always [thankfully!] be people who can think and decide of their own accord.

Only a fool would allow himself to be yoked like an ox to a cart, and someone [a wolf in the sheepfold] *will* step in to assume the position of master over him. So it goes for the weak. The morally strong accept no master and do not attempt to master others but the self.

Individualist = Strong
Collectivist = Weak

I'm surprised you've managed to stomach living in the U.S.A. for as long as you have, Clark.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-10-02 08:29:14

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others, or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind."

"Your SELF is your MIND; renounce it and you become a chunk of meat ready for any cannibal to swallow."

Quotes of Ayn Rand.

***

What is enlightenment? Enlightenment is man's release from his
self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of
his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is
this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason, but in lack
of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.
Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'--that is the
motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so
great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged
them from external direction, nevertheless remains under lifelong
tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as
their guardians...After the guardians have first made their domestic
cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not
dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they
are confined, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens
if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so
great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk
alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily
frightens them away from all further trials...But that the public
should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed, if only freedom is
granted, enlightenment is almost sure to follow...For this
enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed
the most harmless among all the things to which this term can properly
be applied. It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at
every point. But I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The officer
says, 'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector says, 'Do not argue
but pay!' The cleric says, 'Do not argue but believe!' Everywhere
there is restriction on freedom." -- Immanuel Kant, essay "What is
Enlightenment," 1784.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-02 09:40:37

Scenarios like these have *never* worked on Earth [thankfully!]...and only a deluded misanthropic moron would think it could work on Mars. Only a deluded misanthropic moron would WANT it to work.

Wow, nothing like a personal attack to degrade the messenger of the idea instead of actually dealing with the legitmacy, or illegitamcy of the idea itself. The only thing being demonstrated here is a weak mind, by you Cindy. Heaven forbid someone suggest something, to which you reply that "only a moron" would dain to entertain the thought. :0

I suppose you'll also recommend all children be taught how to GOOSE-STEP at an early age, and to learn to sing "Der Fuhrerland" by heart ::and:: acapella.

Scott has provided NO details as to what will be included, or excluded under the realm of sociocultural development. Scott has provided NO details as to what will be included or excluded in the realm of nehavior modification either. I might add that seat belt laws are a form of behavior modification- do you have a probelm with that?! The people that argue against this are doing this wrong- YOU are filling in the details and holding Scott responsible- which is immature and silly, since the guy ISN'T making an argument defined by YOU.

How will you handle the "deviants" and "rebels" who refuse to lick boot and submit to THE PROGRAM, Scott?

How do we deal with the "deviants" or "rebels" who ignore our laws? Oh wait, they are categorized as criminals. Scott is suggesting nothing different, at least not yet.

Scenarios like these have *never* worked on Earth [thankfully!]...and only a deluded misanthropic moron would think it could work on Mars

I'll bite, why wouldn't this work?

Says who? You?

Yes. And WHY I say that is defensible... do you want to discuss this?

Collectivist cringing wimps -- those who are emotionally and mentally impoverished, always requiring direction from another [immaturity] -- will still have to deal with people who are mature, think for themselves, and can make beneficial decisions on their own, because there will always [thankfully!] be people who can think and decide of their own accord.

Short sighted and unrealistic daydreamers with their heads so far up their arse they don't know up from down in their idealisstic fantasy often make this claim, but it misses the point of the majority of those who argue against the individualistic freedom you believe to be so paramount. Your error occurs in the assumption that all individuals will exercise their inherent power of self determination and choice. Your error is in assuming that all people will reach the same rationale and logical conclusions that you misguidingly believe are so apparent. Your Reason, that holllow shell of undefined bullshit, is predicated on a universal logic apparent to all- just like so many dead gods.

Scott is suggesting that Society have the right to determine the social norms that are acceptable and unacceptable. he further suggests that such norms be reviewed ANNUALY, so there is always opportunity for self-correction. He further reinforces the whole damn process by establishing that the responsibility to be involved in the social norm process (which can only be truly effective if it has mass participation) be taught at an early age- it is the same as agod damn Civics class- do you think teaching kids about how OUR government works is wrong? It's exactly what he is suggesting.

Only a fool would allow himself to be yoked like an ox to a cart, and someone [a wolf in the sheepfold] *will* step in to assume the position of master over him. So it goes for the weak. The morally strong accept no master and do not attempt to master others but the self.

Are you aware of the concept of "travesty of the commons"? Look it up if you are unfamiliar, if you are familiar, I would be interested in understanding how you can assert that collectivism is somehow weaker than indvidualism considering that it is the individual actions, acting in their own best interests that ultimetly undermines themselves and everyone else.

I like the USA, however, unlike many of my fellow patriots, I believe that highlighting what I feel is wrong with this country (as opposed to ignoring it, which seems to be what most people would prefer) will do more to improve us than simply waving a flag.

But hey, your free to be a sycophant. More power to you.

Palomar · 2002-10-02 10:01:51

But hey, your free to be a sycophant. More power to you.

*Individualists, like myself, who promote thinking for one's self, who encourage others to think/decide for themselves, and who oppose the attempts of others to do their thinking for them (Scott) are not "syncophants"; indeed, the concept is a contradiction.

The syncophants are the people who propose collectivism, agree with and encourage collectiveness, and seek to destroy/eradicate that which refuses to "fit in."

I thought you were intelligent enough to figure that out for yourself; apparently I underestimated.

I'm not the weak-minded person here: You and Scott are, and you'd prefer a Mars filled with human drones policing each other's thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes. A Society of Syncophants.

Scott can say whatever he likes here, and I reserve the right to shoot down his proposals.

If you honestly cannot see the implications of what he is proposing and peddling, more's the pity for you. You and he can endorse and support whatever ideas you like, but you'd better know there will be people voicing their disagreement.

I'm surprised Scott hasn't yet stated that The Collective will be able to force women to have abortions, if The Collective deems another birth unnecessary. Hey Scott, is that next on your agenda? Your being a fascist, I can't believe you won't try to control female reproduction.

Scott proposes forcing people's minds, so it logically follows he will also eventually propose forcing people's bodies. All other fascists have gone down that same road, why would he be an exception?

Some things are not subject for debate. No one has the right to force my body or my mind. I don't debate whether or not someone has the right to forbid me or others to think, because they do not have this right. No one has the right to force the minds or bodies of others.

-enough-

--Cindy

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 10:09:10

Just as in an ecosystem, the more cultural diversity you have within your cultural space, the more robust and healty it is.
How does cultural diversity equal "better"? Are those cultures without diversity less healthier than their diverse counterparts? More robust in what way?
The more likly it is that your culture will resist harmful intruders, and the more likely it is that it will survive a cultural disaster.
What is a "harmful intruder" to a culture? It would seem that having cultural diversity would preclude any possibility of a harmful intruder, whatever that might be.
Please define, or give an example of a what a "cultural disaster" is. I am at a complete loss as to figure out what you are reffering to.
Diversity is strength.
So is unity. How is diversity of culture stonger than unity of culture? It would seem diversity of culture can lead to greater schisms between members of the differing groups. Case in point, is a group better off with a unity of language, or a diversity of language?
State mandated culture produces weak culture.
Okay, but the State exsists as a common agreement between the members of the State- it serves to define what is acceptable and unacceptable within the group at large- it in effect is regulating culture, or at least the expression of culture- the members of the group relinquish the power to the State to do this. Isn't that in effect the State mandatiting culture?
But I believed you have not studied history enuff to understand that the attitude and ideas you present are sick, dimented, and totally aginst liberty, freedom, and the basic need for humans to create and individual, soverign identity and character for themselves.
I believe YOU have not studied enough history. I find it humours that you claim "diversity is strength" yet only allow for a western perspective on the development of the individual through the progression of history- you exclude the large volumes and cultures of many socieites that do not hold the "individual" as the end all be all.
Liberty is the freedom to choose for oneself- it is self-determination. If we all agree to a certain law that proscribes for "behavior modificatrion" then we are exercsising our freedoms and our liberty by making that agreement., not sacrificing it.
Alt, your claims are unfounded and without evidence- you present a western reaction to what is at the very least, a legitimate proposal. The suggestion of an annuly reviewed set of "social norms" (that is what Scott is talking about) reinforced with "behavior modification technoiques" (which can be as simple as a demerit system, or a reward system) to maintain social cohesion and stability in an environmentaly unfriendly, confined space seems sensible.
Mars will have very little room for the "individual" becuase to survive on Mars, the needs of the group (ie Society) must come first.

>"How does cultural diversity equal "better"? Are those cultures without diversity less healthier than their diverse counterparts? More robust in what way? "

Our culture is our pool of world views and ideas. As the world changes, our view of the world must change with it. If we do not change with it, Our culture will become irrelevant as it is no longer a valueable source for drawing information on how to interact with the world.

Having a large mass of ideas mixed together within one culture, incuding some deviant and contrary ones, means that should a cultural disaster take place, those peices of our culture that seem irrelevant can be replaced with ideas that have been stirring at the bottom of our cultural melting pot.

A culture with no basis of understanding or reasoning for a new change in the world will be at a loss for a proper reaction to that change.

When the world was hit by an asteroid, and large reptilian based species died, mammels flourished and filled the gap.

>"What is a "harmful intruder" to a culture? It would seem that having cultural diversity would preclude any possibility of a harmful intruder, whatever that might be.

Please define, or give an example of a what a "cultural disaster" is. I am at a complete loss as to figure out what you are reffering to."

A Harmful Intruder to a culture is a is a bit of knowlege, or another smaller culture that interacts with our culture and infects it like a disease or devours it like a carnivore.

Take India. Before the british came, the region of india was full of people who were content dispite their situation. It was not till after the british came that they realized they were poor.

A cultural Disaster is an occourance that points out to a certian culture that it's primary beliefs are irrelevant, and that it must adapt those beliefs or continue to poorly interact with the world.

September 11 is a good example. I live here in New York. For weeks people had an aimless, lost look on their faces. Nobody knew how to react because their impossible Juggernaught of a ciit, and the sysmbol of their success was destroyed. New York and all America has come to the realization that our old way of doing things in the world will not continue to bring us prosperity. I think this is a lessonwe are still sorting out at this very moment. Drastic changes in our foreign policy, AND the discrestion we give to our leaders when it comes to matters of war are currently in debate.

>"So is unity. How is diversity of culture stonger than unity of culture? It would seem diversity of culture can lead to greater schisms between members of the differing groups. Case in point, is a group better off with a unity of language, or a diversity of language?"

The united states is a very tolerant, very diverse culture, and had succeeded quite well not in spite, but Because of this tolerance.

Diversity of culture brings new ideas to the table, brings new ways of doing things and new approaches.

clark · 2002-10-02 10:42:45

*Individualists, like myself, who promote thinking for one's self, who encourage others to think/decide for themselves,...

And your desire to perpetuate this ideal is made all the more apparent by your petty and unproductive personal attacks directed at the intelligence of the person proposing an idea. :0

and who oppose the attempts of others to do their thinking for them (Scott) are
not "syncophants";

Are you this daft? Please point out where Scott, in his proposal, has suggested that anyone think for someone else, or allow someone to think for them. Once again you derail a legitimate discussion with this "chip on a shoulder" attitude towards discussing the roles of individual freedom and societal need. Instead of actually addressing the reason as to to why this is such a bad idea, you have effectively put your hands over your ears and cried "lalalalala" individual freedom is paramount "lalalala" musn't here anything else "lalalala".

Scott's proposal is a system similar to what we have here in the states, and what most democracies have as well. He is just putting in different terms. So while you get bent out of shape based on his chocies of nouns and adjectives, you never stop to actually assess what it is he is saying.

He says the PEOPLE of the COMMUNITY can get TOGETHER EVERY YEAR to decide what should be the ACCEPTABLE SOCIAL NORMS- IE, what are the appropriate and inappropriate ways of interacting with one another. He then makes another innocent suggestion, but in starker language, that all of this be reinforced through "behavior modification". o course you assume that to mean torture and what not, but nowhere has Scott suggested that this be allowed- behavior modification is as simple as a LAW that punishes you for doing something, say like jay-walking. Behavior modification is like a TAX CUT for donating money to a charity.

The syncophants are the people who propose collectivism, agree with and encourage collectiveness, and seek to destroy/eradicate that which refuses to "fit in."

No, you are being a syncophant becuase og your ardent belief without compelling evidence to base it on. You ignore the flaws within your own system of reason becuase the OVERALL viewpoint is what you are struck by. There can be no reasoned discussion with you sicne you will not evaluate evidence or even entertain an argument contrary to your own views.

I thought you were intelligent enough to figure that out for yourself; apparently I underestimated.

You have underestimated me, and you prove it repeatadly by your refusal to answer the many hard questions I pose to you that undermine your arguments.

I'm not the weak-minded person here: You and Scott are, and you'd prefer a Mars filled with human drones policing each other's thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to comprehend. I do not prefer drones on Mars, quite the contrary, however, my DESIRE does not make a thing so. The fact of the matter its that the evironment in space will lead to radical departures in behavior and the relationship between scoiety and the indivdual. Nothing I do or say will change that FACT. Becuase I theorize from this premise, you of course assume that I must be in support of slavery, totalitarinism, facism and countless other idociy. You want to live a damn fantasy, fine, but it ain''t gonna tell you what life on mars will be like. Looking at the damn facts of the situation will.

You and he can endorse and support whatever ideas you like, but you'd better know there will be people voicing their disagreement.

Which you are free to do, however I fail to see how you are free to insult others personaly. it is tacky and demonstates that adult conversation with you is probably a waste of time.

Some things are not subject for debate. No one has the right to force my body or my mind.

And where OH where did he suggest that someone would be able to do this?

No one has the right to force the minds or bodies of others.

And yet you are "undecided" on the death penalty? :0 You need to seriously reevaluate your value system.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-02 12:14:10

In a previous message, Clark wrote, "Scott has provided NO details as to what will be included, or excluded under the realm of sociocultural development. Scott has provided NO details as to what will be included or excluded in the realm of behavior modification either."

I did not provided "details" because I do not intend to prescribe any details. I anticipate that Mars will have many different types of societies. There will be settlements based on Libertarian philosophies, and Hutterite colonies (the Hutterites are Christian communists), and socialists of various shades. I do want the people of these diverse communities to (1) understand the process of sociocultural evolution and (2) be able to consciously direct that evolution. I do NOT want them to be governed by the dead-hand of tradition.

The people of a Mexican ecovillage named Comunidad de los Horcones (Community of the Decorated Wooden Pillars) use behavior modification techniques to control their behavior. (They even apply those techniques to a visiting anthropologist! ) They do this in a politically coordinated way and they thereby control the evolution of their culture. I hope that all of the people of Mars will be as enlightened and capable as the people of Los Horcones.

Scott

Byron · 2002-10-02 13:04:24

The people of a Mexican ecovillage named Comunidad de los Horcones (Community of the Decorated Wooden Pillars) use behavior modification techniques to control their behavior. (They even apply those techniques to a visiting anthropologist! ) They do this in a politically coordinated way and they thereby control the evolution of their culture. I hope that all of the people of Mars will be as enlightened and capable as the people of Los Horcones.
Scott

I'm just a bit curious to exactly what the "behavior modification techniques" that are used in the above example. Any links about this community?

You have mentioned that there will be different types of societies on Mars, ranging from religious communes to libertarian,free-market type of communities, but they would all share the same system of sociocultural development...can you give an explanation of how this might be carried out? By the use of a planetary government? Or all this simply a planet-wide system of education that would apply one cultural "standard" to the people living on Mars? How will the various "types" of communities agree on what's "correct" as opposed to "incorrect" ?

Just curious, that's all...

B

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 13:49:16

In a previous message, Clark wrote, "Scott has provided NO details as to what will be included, or excluded under the realm of sociocultural development. Scott has provided NO details as to what will be included or excluded in the realm of behavior modification either."
I did not provided "details" because I do not intend to prescribe any details. I anticipate that Mars will have many different types of societies. There will be settlements based on Libertarian philosophies, and Hutterite colonies (the Hutterites are Christian communists), and socialists of various shades. I do want the people of these diverse communities to (1) understand the process of sociocultural evolution and (2) be able to consciously direct that evolution. I do NOT want them to be governed by the dead-hand of tradition.
The people of a Mexican ecovillage named Comunidad de los Horcones (Community of the Decorated Wooden Pillars) use behavior modification techniques to control their behavior. (They even apply those techniques to a visiting anthropologist! ) They do this in a politically coordinated way and they thereby control the evolution of their culture. I hope that all of the people of Mars will be as enlightened and capable as the people of Los Horcones.
Scott

So.. What your saying is that everyone on mars is going to be a Mormon?

Bill White · 2002-10-02 14:03:59

So.. What your saying is that everyone on mars is going to be a Mormon?

Hmmm. . .

Interesting idea. Do you think Salt Lake City could raise $100 billion dollars for a colony?

Palomar · 2002-10-02 14:04:43

You need to seriously reevaluate your value system.

*And I think you need to GET a value system, Clark. Oh wait...you've already got a value system:

1. Promoting GroupThink on Mars.
2. Taking babies from parents in the event birth control is enforced on Mars and they've gotten pregnant again...even if the pregnancy was unintended, as no birth control method is 100% effective except for abstinence.
3. Switching off life-support systems as punishment for colonists/settlers who may be doing something The Bosses don't like (the implications of which are as broad as the Grand Canyon...there's no room for abuse of power there, noooooo).

That's also some nerve you got, complaining about my using insults when you then turn around and personally insult me. Is it okay when YOU do it? Let's see, you called me weak-minded (free-thinking individualists are "weak minded"...since when?) and said I had my head up my arse. You've also previously (without any provocation from me) -- and prior to any debate we'd ever had -- told me I'm "up on a high horse."

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's just plain hypocritical to criticize me for something you yourself have done; in fact, if I recall correctly, the first personal insult I received at this message board WAS FROM YOU.

Insecure weaklings who wish to hide among "the fold," doing what they're told and peddling GroupThink, will always despise individualists with enough self-esteem and backbone to think for him/herself. Tough.

Again: If you cannot see the implications of where Scott is going with his collectivist notions, or where his pet ideas would lead, then I would seriously encourage you to brush up on your Nazi history (particularly as regards the Hitler Youth Movement), and read _The True Believer_ by Eric Hoffer and _1984_ by George Orwell. History has proven his methods will FAIL, probably via bloody revolt.

Your greatest logical flaw in this thread has been expressing your belief that individualists are "syncophants" and collectivist groupthink nitwits are not. Wow, your "logic" is really skewed. I guess Thomas Paine was a "syncophant" and Stalin wasn't! Yeah, right...not.

I'm not interested in debating with you, Clark. You don't get it.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-02 14:30:54

1. Promoting GroupThink on Mars.

Do you even understand this term? Do you realize that any agreement made between a group can be consider the physical manifestation of "group-think"? Group think is a process whereby dissent is stifled and even censored to better facilitate group integration and goal achievment.

YOU cindy are an illustration IN group think by your very behavior in this particular thread. Telling people to "take it elsewhere cause we don't wanna talk about it here..." is another example of Group think. For gods sake, at least use the damn term appropriately.

2. Taking babies from parents in the event birth control is enforced on Mars and they've gotten pregnant again...even if the pregnancy was unintended, as no birth control method is 100% effective except for abstinence.

You once againn demonstrate your inability to listen or demonstrate you comprehend anything I have discussed. In that particular debate, which YOU abandoned, I allowed for this possibility by tying the whole system into a judicial process that could determine if there was true intent, or if it was a simple accident. You are the one that keeps trying to reduce it to a black and white issue, while I am allowing for the gray area of everyday living.

3. Switching off life-support systems as punishment for colonists/settlers who may be doing something The Bosses don't like (the implications of which are as broad as the Grand Canyon...there's no room for abuse of power there, noooooo).

Let's also be fair and put this into context- I suggested that the POWER be reserved by the State in order to maintain stability in an environment that is unfriendly to human life, and where open conflict can lead to the deaths of everyone. I also allowed for this power to be only used after judicial decree- the same as a death penalty. I never defined the details of when the USE of the power would be justified- you on the other hand continually tried to make me say things I never said by defining those details, whihc I flat out reject.

That's also some nerve you got, complaining about my using personal insults when you then turn around and personally insult me.

Your insults are base and vulgar, and I in turn responded in kind. You set the tone of this discussion, not I. However, I am pointing out your behavior and how it reflects upon you- do you feel the personal insults are appropriate? My intent was to simply get your attention. To tell the truth, I was surprised by your barage of personal insults at Scott.

Let's see, you called me weak-minded (free-thinking individualists are "weak minded"...since when?) and said I had my head up my arse.

I stand by the latter part of my quote, but feel free to ignore the first part if it makes you feel any better.

You've also previously (without any provocation from me) -- and prior to any debate
we'd ever had -- told me I'm "up on a high horse."

Well, maybe I have a different standard than you, I did not intend my accurate description of how you come across to be an insult, only a point of observation based on your posts and how you communicate your positions.

Insecure weaklings who wish to hide among "the fold," doing what they're told and peddling GroupThink, will always despise individualists with enough self-esteem and backbone to think for him/herself.

Becuase that's what you are doing isn't it Cindy, thinking for yourself? As you sit there and pour over Voltaire's ideas, you're really thinking for yourself. As you sit in your nice little controlled message board of people devoted to one subject, you're thinking for yourself. As you spout off about the ideals and neccessity of 18th century Reason, but offer no definitive definition of your own, you are thinking for yourself. When you berate others purely for bringing up an idea, without pointing out where the flaws are in those ideas, you are thinking for yourself. As you quote incessantly from one philospher to the next, without providing any personal insight as to what those quotes might mean, or what can be drawn from then, you are thinking for yourself.

Cindy, you are an exercise in someone who goes through a lot of trouble to NOT think for themselves- you then belittle others who do similar things with their devotion to religion.

Again: If you cannot see the implications of where Scott is going with his collectivist notions, or where his pet ideas would lead, then I would seriously encourage you to brush up on your Nazi history (particularly as regards the Hitler Youth Movement)

And I might suggest you look at programs like the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, PEace Corps, the american educational system, and democracy- they all fit Scott's description. Your "implications" are wholly imagined on your part since his intitial idea was to highlight the generalities of a PROCESS and let the actual martians figure out the details.

Your greatest logical flaw in this thread has been expressing your belief that individualists are "syncophants" and collectivist groupthink nitwits are not.

Individualists are not syncophants Cindy, you are.

I'm not interested in debating with you, Clark. You don't get it.

No, I do get it, I just reject most of your reasoning. You stand for some worthwhile ideals, but your reasons are flawed or unjustified.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-02 14:44:49

Byron:

The URL of the Los Horcones web site is http://www.loshorcones.org.mx. In general, the Los Horconans try to maximize the use of positive reinforcement and minimize the use of punishment. They are trying to establish and maintain a society that does not have laws and law enforcers (people who have the socially recognized right to use force against other people). When the State of Sonora offered to station a police officer in Los Horcones, the Los Horconans gasped and then politely declined the offer.

Byron, you wrote, "You have mentioned that there will be different types of societies on Mars, ranging from religious communes to libertarian, free-market type of communities, but they would all share the same system of sociocultural development...can you give an explanation of how this might be carried out? By the use of a planetary government? Or all this simply a planet-wide system of education that would apply one cultural 'standard' to the people living on Mars? How will the various 'types' of communities agree on what's 'correct' as opposed to 'incorrect' ?"

The U.S. Government has a Bureau of Ethnology (http://www.1st-hand-history.org/Boe/BOEindex.htm). If Martian settlements were filing amended Sociocultural Development Plans with the Terrestrial Embassy of the Provisional Government of Mars then I would propose that the Embassy establish a Martian Bureau of Ethnology. The Bureau would analyze the amended Plans and make their analyses available to all Martian settlements. The settlements could thereby learn from each other's failures and successes. I also think that it would be wonderful if children could form ethnographic teams that visit and study other settlements. This experience would give children the ability to look objectively at the cultural practices of their own societies and then, as adults, they would be better able to participate in the annual review and possible amendment of their own settlement's Sociocultural Development Plan (SDP).

I would not expect different communities to "agree on what's correct as opposed to incorrect." The SDP of each community would specify which behaviors should be encouraged and which behaviors should be discouraged in order to maintain a particular culture. I hope that the people of each community will view other communities as cultural laboratories that can provide them with valuable insights into sociocultural dynamics.

Scott

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-02 14:53:11

Hmmm. . .
Interesting idea. Do you think Salt Lake City could raise $100 billion dollars for a colony?

Bill:

The Mormons have lots of money. And their polygamous tendencies would produce lots of Martians in record time.

Scott

clark · 2002-10-02 15:33:04

Scott, to have a clear picture of what you propose, could you give an example of a "sociocultural development plan"?

In what ways would it be amended?

What precisely does and does not fall under the auspices of the sociocultural development plan?

Would there be a limit to what type of behavior modification would be allowed? Or would each community be allowed to determine what the possible extent or limit of behavior modification?

How do you forsee resolution of disputes resulting from disparate and/or clashing sociocultural development plans between two communities?

Here is a real world problem, how would it be resolved with your proposed system: A man and woman have a child in a legaly binding contract, or marriage. Due to differences between the individuals wishing to reside in a particular locale, they both choose to willingly disolve the contract. Who gets the child, and bywhich set of sociocultural development plan is it determined?

Your proposal isn't really anything new, but I am interested in how the relationships among the different communities are resolved without the use of force, or even the threat of force.

Thanks.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-02 16:23:46

I see clark is back to his favorite sophistries:

1. That no matter how undesirable something proposed is, no one is ever allowed to object if there are "details" left out. Normal people would regard vagueness as another strike against a proposal, but we're not dealing with normal people.

2. That any degree of totalitarian control is exactly the same as the American system because... wait for it... we have laws. Yep. We've got laws against drunk driving, he wants mandatory birth control; it's all the same, right?

Bill White · 2002-10-02 17:20:18

Hmmm. . .
Interesting idea. Do you think Salt Lake City could raise $100 billion dollars for a colony? Bill
The Mormons have lots of money. And their polygamous tendencies would produce lots of Martians in record time.
Scott

I also believe there are five or six Mormon Senators.

Seems like a tipping point if they decided to leverage US federal cooperation. Ask Senator James Jeffords - or ask Trent Lott about Jeffords, concerning the power of even one US Senator.

AltToWar · 2002-10-02 17:23:30

Yeah, this is one troll's straw man gone just a little too far.

Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. these are things any culture should hold sacred. If they are not, then we are taking a step backwards, not forward.

When you look at a new Idea, a good way to judge it's worth are two questions:

1: Does it releve human suffering?
2: Does it take away human dignity?

Would working under a statre mandated culture reduce human suffering? Doubtful, but perhaps.

Would a state mandated culture reduce human dignity? The assuption that humans are born flawed and must be constantly corrected I believe to be a cultural meme equivvilant of a plague. If a human, in it's natual state of being is not natually born to and does not natually flourish in a constructed culture, it is the culture that is at fault, not the individual.

It is absurd to reason that; because it is quite difficult and perhaps a task of many generations to build a culture that is suited to the people that make up the socielty, that we should give up and instead force people into fitting into a culture we create.

Scott G. Beach · 2002-10-02 17:40:00

Clark:

Here is an example of a cultural practice might be included in a SDP. Under the topic of "Marital Relations," there might be a specification for improving a person's relationship with his or her spouse.

For example, if a woman felt that her relationship with her husband was "strained and in need of improvement" then she could use the following procedures. First, she would, from day to day, record and chart (1) the number of positive verbal contacts (PVCs) that she initiates with her husband, (2) the number of negative verbal contacts (NVCs) that she initiates with him, (3) the number of PVCs that he initiates with her, and (4) the number of NVCs that he initiates with her. After recording and charting these "baseline" measurements, she undertakes to increase the number of PVCs that she initiates and to decrease the number of NVCs that she initiates. She records her efforts and she continues to record the number of PVCs and NVCs that her husband initiates. As the number of PVCs that she initiates go up, and as the number of NVCs that she initiates go down, she will probably start to see a corresponding change in her husband's behavior. And then they will live happily ever after.

This is an example of a behavior modification program that is actually used at Comunidad de los Horcones. The members of the community all expect to be involved in these kinds of programs. Conducting these sorts of behavior modification programs is an integral part of their culture. However, a visiting anthropologist can find this a bit unnerving at first.

Scott

P.S. The Los Horconans use up lots of chart paper.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-01 23:05:11

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#2 2002-10-01 23:44:07

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#3 2002-10-02 03:44:14

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#4 2002-10-02 04:16:00

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#5 2002-10-02 07:26:04

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#6 2002-10-02 07:56:33

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#7 2002-10-02 08:13:11

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#8 2002-10-02 08:29:14

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#9 2002-10-02 09:40:37

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#10 2002-10-02 10:01:51

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#11 2002-10-02 10:09:10

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#12 2002-10-02 10:42:45

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#13 2002-10-02 12:14:10

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#14 2002-10-02 13:04:24

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#15 2002-10-02 13:49:16

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#16 2002-10-02 14:03:59

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#17 2002-10-02 14:04:43

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#18 2002-10-02 14:30:54

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#19 2002-10-02 14:44:49

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#20 2002-10-02 14:53:11

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#21 2002-10-02 15:33:04

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#22 2002-10-02 16:23:46

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#23 2002-10-02 17:20:18

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#24 2002-10-02 17:23:30

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

#25 2002-10-02 17:40:00

Re: A Moral Compass for Martians

Board footer