Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-04 11:10:34

I agree with Deimos that this indeed a very interesting concept which should be looked into. However first of all, one change seems to be in order: not just Mars, but all space. Mars, after all, is merely one part of a vast universe. Asteroid mining, perhaps even settlement, is also a highly worthwhile venture, one with great potential. I think that ultimately life must escape planetary surfaces ; mabye sooner than many of us here think, mabye not.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-04 20:14:23

In fact, let's broaden this some more. Think about what we could accomplish if we took, say, 80% of the military budget, which would still leave us well in excess of any other nation in military spending, and used to it to fund a broad range of programs to better humanity--science, health care, giving money to the poor of the world. The current US military budget is approximately $400 b/year. What could we do with an extra $320 b/year? A lot. You can think about the possibilities.

soph · 2003-02-04 20:44:23

well, first of all, europe would be out of a military. they would have to actually fund their own.

second, we couldnt ensure our own security. the american military is so big for a reason. with the middle east so hostile, and china increasing its budget by 15% a year, could we afford it?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-04 21:38:00

Hmm, sure we could. The economic benefits of space are arguably much greater than the economic benefits from blowing other countries up.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-05 18:41:58

Well, I think we should ask, why is the Middle East so hostile? Are they just insane, as the American corporate media would, apparently, lead us to believe? It has been a rationale throughout history (notably, the history of Western relations with poorer countries since about 1500) for enslavement and imperialism that the victims, who are fighting back to defend their liberty, are "just crazy" or "savages", their anger being used as a further argument for imperialism. The real reasons why the victimized people are upset are largely or even completely suppressed by the media. This has been demonstrated time and time again, both in totalitarian societies, where the methods of control are obvious, and in more democratic societies similiar the US, where the methods of control are less straightfoward but still easily shown to exist by various studies. www.fair.org is a good resource on the subject, see their booklist.

Considering the real world, it is doubtless true that ending our support for despotic military regimes, which serve our economic interests, will decrease disfavor among the common people in the Mid East. We continually support repressive governments ; support in Turkey, for example, is about 90% opposed to the American war with Iraq, although the government there may well let America use the country as a base for an invasion. Even in America, the public is opposed to a a war not backed by the UN, and it won't be.

soph · 2003-02-05 18:57:10

except in the US we have lawsuits for wrongs that have occured 15 generations ago, and 90% of americans had no involvement in. in tyrannical countries, the wrongs are never recognized in the countries, which is not so here.

www.fair.org is too biased for me to accept their view as a credible source, just as i wouldnt take the NRA on the other end. But to an extend, i dont think society should know everything that goes on. For example, public dissent at cold war methods of interrogation and counter-terrorism severely hampered our ability to deal with terrorists for the past 2 decades.

There is an extent to which we have a right to know, and a certain extent to which we dont.

But yes, that "they fought back, so we have to conquer them" is a terrible reason for imperialism, used by everyone from France before the 19th century to the original Americans. But those people never showed an intent to use weapons of mass destruction, which im not saying saddam does or does not have. he has expressed this desire, however.

if we could develop fuel cells, we would be able to end our support of despotic regimes. we wouldnt need the oil these regimes control, and we wouldnt need their political "support." See how much they hate us then.

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-02-06 23:14:21

If you want to stop terrorism, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. There are countless examples in past history, still going on virtually as large as they have ever been, where the US has supported, or directly engaged in, state terrorism (for a particularly direct--and, as far as I know, almost completely unknown case, research Operation MONGOOSE in some detail). The US media consistently refuses to convey the facts to the American people ; state propaganda consistently reigns supreme over critical analysis and careful reporting. That this is true at least to some degree is beyond question, as even an superficial examination of reality and past history points out. More detailed analysis tends, in the studies I have seen, to point out stunning incongruencies in the way stories are reporting that serve state interests and those that do not.

You say www.fair.org is too biased, but I do not understand why you say this. Is it because you think FAIR's conclusions are unacceptable?

Supporting despotic regimes is not a matter of need--we don't need to support such regimes. America is much more wealthy than any of these societies. The least we can do is agree to trade fairly with them, rather than supporting brutality against a defenseless population in ways designed to keep the price of oil acceptable to us. Rather, it is simply a matter of greed, and willingness to support even most ruthless violence against those who cannot defend themselves, to extract what we desire.

It should be noted, as an example, that we supported Hussien, and gave him chemical and other weapons throughout the 1980s, as he was committing his worst atrocities. It has now been determined by Washington that Hussien is detrimental to elite interests and should be removed. The atrocities are suddenly significant.

People who want to explore space and bring life to the universe need to understand that we can't do that if we continually employ systems of exploitation and domination. As human technological progress proceeds we can only find ourselves with more and more awesome societal responsibilities, and similiarly scaled consequences for failing in them. We already are in a highly precarious position, with many possible routes already open for the destruction of civilization. It is point not generally understood among space advocates can you cannot hope to spread civilization among the stars if it is destroyed here at home.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-06 23:45:06

FAIR is biased towards who or what, actually? I can't see any examples where they are quick to print something, right after it's reported and unverified. Indymedia, on the other hand, has often reported things in a reactionary way, without posting verified information. I would say that FAIR is actually quite middle of the road, they just chose to report what the American media neglects to report. (Practically anything with regard to foreign policy.)

See, American foreign policy is actually a valid, important, issue to the rest of the world. In fact, the rest of the world is more afraid of the US than they are Hussain, which says a lot about the US, don't you think?

And hey, we don't have to stop being warmongers, I say. Just cut back our programs somewhat. Put that money into the space program. I predict that 10 years from now we'll need to, anyway, when China has shown that they are actively pursuing a strong, long term, manned space program.

I believe our WW2 Relic spending is in the billions. Why not cut back the programs which use unnecessary equipment? I believe Bush campainged about that particular issue in the 2000 elections.

soph · 2003-02-07 05:29:29

When you accept Fox as being unbiased, I'll take that as unbiased. Most of what I saw is bashing Bush, bashing American policy, and bashing the rest of the media.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 06:39:31

I switched to FOX during the Security Council comments from the different members (it's always a game for me to see how they are treating different information with regard to C-SPAN- a totally unedited channel with very little journalistic dialoug). FOX explicitly cut away, and started rambling on with their silly crap, when France and China were speaking. At this point I simply burst out laughing, and had to go about my business.

This is what we call media bias. They switched away, because the majority of their audience doesn't want to hear China tell the US that they need to chill. The people who watch FOX News don't want to hear France, quite convincingly, tell us how it ought to be. Nope, those who watch FOX News want to see what they want to see. Otherwise they'll cut the channel and look some place else for media which is biased to their beliefs.

FAIR exists to report on the things which aren't reported.
FOX News exists to not report on the things which are reported (while laughingly having slogans like ?The No-Spin Zone? and ?We Report, You Decide?).

FAIR is a non-profit.
FOX News is for profit.

FAIR doesn't deny people the right to have an opposing opinion.
FOX News cuts people off whenever they desire.

FAIR makes it a point to say that they are representatives for minorities, and for news that isn't reported in the media.
FOX News presents themselves as a legitimate source for news (sure, they do report a majority of the news, but when it comes down to politics, they're sleasy).

I could go on and on if you want, but FAIR is in no way comparable to FOX News. Indymedia might be, but certainly not FAIR. When I say that FAIR is middle of the road, I mean that what they report isn't really, well, controversial at all...

soph · 2003-02-07 06:44:51

Non-profit doesnt mean unbiased. Look, I'm no conservative republican. I'm no bleeding heart either. I usually go straight down the middle. My choice for news: New York Times. And BBC.

I tend to be a little wary of these "independent" online sites, in either direction.

The whole fox thing was the point: in my view, theyre foils. One shows whats wrong with the government, one shows only the "good."

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 06:58:16

Right, and one lies and the other doesn't.

soph · 2003-02-07 07:18:50

...ok josh, ok.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 07:38:57

?We Report, You Decide.?

Did they report? Nope. Could any reasonable person decide? How? They didn't have all the available information. Their whole slogan is a lie every time they pull that sleasy journalistic crap.

So dang right, ?Okay Josh.? :laugh:

There was a cute fiasco on O'Reilly the other night, where he bashed this guy as being un-American for boycotting Rush Limbaugh after he (O'Reilly) had personally boycotted Pepsi a little while ago. When confronted with the fact, he shruged it off quite laughably. No Spin Zone, my ass.

soph · 2003-02-07 10:20:33

Yes, but I don't see any semblance of a balance on "fair.org" Therefore, it shows a bias. There are certainly good things to report on our government, and there are valid points in the argument for war on iraq. Do we see them? No.

Of course, you'll just say that it is all just hogwash, which shows a bias against it. It is all opinions, and to have an opinion in either direction is bias. They may very well report the facts, but presentation means everything.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 12:03:33

Well, I didn't say FAIR wasn't biased.

Everyone shows bias, it's part of how we are... the point is, FAIR doesn't report things in a reactionary sort of way, their reporting is middle of the road, making sure to verify their sources before reporting.

FAIR does share the other sides view, though. They explicitly do it when the other side is clearly spinning the truth, or oughtright lying.

Just because FAIR doesn't report on something doesn't make them wrong, because they don't pretend to be a news outlett. FOX News does, and even has all those fancy slogans which just show their hypocrasy.

Heh, Jon Stewart (from the Daily Show) has a theory that FOX News has those slogans just to piss off real journalists.

soph · 2003-02-07 12:07:30

So they only show it when it suits them. Ah, I see, that makes them more credible! Wait, but isnt that what Fox does? With a name like fair, you'd think that they held themselves above those types of practices.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 12:11:53

Nope, FOX says that they report unbiased news basically...

...duh?

What do you think about O'Reilly calling that one guy a Mexican Wetback?

soph · 2003-02-09 18:12:08

What do you think about O'Reilly calling that one guy a Mexican Wetback?

Well, I finally saw the transcript. Now, this is a case of people looking for something to slam O'Reilly for. He didn't call "that one guy" a Mexican wetback, he was referring to the people who bring drugs and narcotics over the border. And he's right, they deserve to be called wetbacks-they bring nothing but narcotics and corruption.

He wasn't calling all Mexicans wetbacks, its quite apparent in the transcript, without even seeing the show, who he was referring to!

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 18:44:01

How is that any different from me interviewing a black guy, and calling black guys who are violent and rob stores and so on niggers?

How is that any different at all?

soph · 2003-02-09 18:48:50

Um, because a robber doesn't send a few million dollars worth of narcotics illegaly over the border?

And besides, wetbacks to me is no different than a hoodlum. And if he had said niggers in referring to the blacks who go out and murder people, I don't know if i'd have a problem with it. O'Reilly doesn't claim to be politcally correct. I certainly wouldn't interpret it as him calling all blacks niggers, and trust me, I'm no racist, I have an African aunt (yes, and a chinese aunt, don't even bother figuring out my faimily tree). If someone fits a stereotype, I see no problem using it. Those people give Mexicans a bad name, not O'Reilly.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-09 19:00:46

Oh, so it's okay to say racist shit if it's about narcotics, but it's not if it's about theft. Makes perfect sense! Then again, you seem to think it's okay to say racist shit any time someone does something criminal.

soph · 2003-02-09 21:15:50

And how often do we say things about Germans-"You damn Nazi" or Jews, "Cheap Jew." It happens all the time, it's not about being racist-O'Reilly was specifically referring to a group of people that create a stereotype for the rest of the innocent population.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 08:58:01

That's what racism is. You have Africian American bloodlines, right? What if I called all stupid people with those bloodlines something similar? Perhaps, say, um, albino nigger?

I mean, I've read plenty of garbage about this sort of crap, like the Bell Curve, which tries to ?show? that Africian Americans are stupid, and it's due to their genetics (which a lot of people fell for, even though the studies were complete garbage). It was one of the biggest arguments against interracal breeding, ?If you have a black partner, your kid is going to be stupid!?

I'm sure some people would believe that all stupid people with those bloodlines ?deserve? to be called albino niggers. Sorry. That's racism.

soph · 2003-02-10 13:39:07

That has no bearing. Have you ever seen "Glory"? Remember the part where Morgan Freeman calls Denzel Washington a nigger? And in context, he was obviously not calling all blacks niggers-he is black! I view this in the same way, he was pointing out the people who adhere to a stereotype, not all people of that race!

And I don't believe that blacks are inherently dumb. I think that environment means more than heredity. Family included.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-02-04 11:10:34

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#52 2003-02-04 20:14:23

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#53 2003-02-04 20:44:23

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#54 2003-02-04 21:38:00

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#55 2003-02-05 18:41:58

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#56 2003-02-05 18:57:10

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#57 2003-02-06 23:14:21

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#58 2003-02-06 23:45:06

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#59 2003-02-07 05:29:29

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#60 2003-02-07 06:39:31

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#61 2003-02-07 06:44:51

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#62 2003-02-07 06:58:16

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#63 2003-02-07 07:18:50

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#64 2003-02-07 07:38:57

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#65 2003-02-07 10:20:33

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#66 2003-02-07 12:03:33

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#67 2003-02-07 12:07:30

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#68 2003-02-07 12:11:53

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#69 2003-02-09 18:12:08

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#70 2003-02-09 18:44:01

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#71 2003-02-09 18:48:50

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#72 2003-02-09 19:00:46

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#73 2003-02-09 21:15:50

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#74 2003-02-10 08:58:01

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

#75 2003-02-10 13:39:07

Re: Mars as an alternative to War. - Can space exploration replace War?

Board footer